Been outa touch latly ,,so how's the SCAR program proceeding?
SEMPER FI






NO SKY TOO HIGH NO SEA TOO DEEP
                      LFTC PAC

Nothing new until the SHOT show it seems.

Here's a 9 page thread that you  can get your fill on until then.

HERE

There's a little info HERE too.

After the SHOT show, there should be eye candy and new info out the ass.

WIZZO

I think they discovered gas piston and QD barrels for the M16 system- I would really be suprised if they don't implement the newer technology for the M16 over going to a totally new system. Cheaper to upgrade what they have.  

Quoted: I think they discovered gas piston and QD barrels for the M16 system- I would really be suprised if they don't implement the newer technology for the M16 over going to a totally new system. Cheaper to upgrade what they have.

I highly doubt it. Go buy an LMT MRP upper, an MGI modular lower, then send it off to Leitner Wise for a piston conversion. Then come back and post pictures of your AR15 that costs as much as a new KIA.

Quoted: I think they discovered gas piston and QD barrels for the M16 system- I would really be suprised if they don't implement the newer technology for the M16 over going to a totally new system. Cheaper to upgrade what they have.

Do the math. I doubt it

Well of course in developmental stages individually, yes we do pay more for RD as end consumers, but not military when retrofitting. And in mass production the MRP upper,  with  MGI lower, and LW piston system built from the ground up as a production weapon would be cheaper over the long haul.

Personally I think the FN SCAR or whatever systems look like Richard Systems Tossed Salad with 70% more Gay! I just think the SCAR looks fucked.  

Function before fashion.

Remember, we're all shooting "Space Guns" according to all the naysayers 45 or 50 years ago

WIZZO

Quoted: Well of course in developmental stages individually, yes we do pay more for RD as end consumers, but not military when retrofitting. And in mass production the MRP upper,  with  MGI lower, and LW piston system built from the ground up as a production weapon would be cheaper over the long haul. Personally I think the FN SCAR or whatever systems look like Richard Systems Tossed Salad with 70% more Gay! I just think the SCAR looks fucked.

Do you honestly think MGI will let their lowers go for the same price as a standard lower? Do you honestly think a piston converted MRP upper will be even near the same price as a standard M4 upper?

If either of those options came about in that manner, the people who make them would surely go out of business for practically giving their products away for free.

We won't even go into what a problem it would be to rely on three different companies to make one rifle.

Then again if you do all that, the only thing Stoner about the rifle will be the looks, the buffer system, and the fire control group. Like I said in that other thread, if you're going to build a completely new weapon, why not start from scratch to get rid of all of the shortcomings of the M16.

Quoted: Quoted: Well of course in developmental stages individually, yes we do pay more for RD as end consumers, but not military when retrofitting. And in mass production the MRP upper,  with  MGI lower, and LW piston system built from the ground up as a production weapon would be cheaper over the long haul. Personally I think the FN SCAR or whatever systems look like Richard Systems Tossed Salad with 70% more Gay! I just think the SCAR looks fucked.   Do you honestly think MGI will let their lowers go for the same price as a standard lower? Do you honestly think a piston converted MRP upper will be even near the same price as a standard M4 upper? If either of those options came about in that manner, the people who make them would surely go out of business for practically giving their products away for free. We won't even go into what a problem it would be to rely on three different companies to make one rifle. Then again if you do all that, the only thing Stoner about the rifle will be the looks, the buffer system, and the fire control group. Like I said in that other thread, if you're going to build a completely new weapon, why not start from scratch to get rid of all of the shortcomings of the M16.

People dont get that though. They think just adding a piston makes an AR15 SCAR spec, when it isnt quite that simple once you understand the SCAR concept. There is no way or intelligent reason to retrofit an AR15 to be SCAR spec. Too expensive, and you're still hampered by limitations of a design that is 50 years old. SCAR offers features the AR15 cannot match unless you basically butcher and AR15 to the point that it is a whole new gun which in the end would cost more than SCAR. Think I am wrong, try and explain how you are going to have a folding stock on an AR15 without a massive redesign?

Fanboy site or not, that saying of "if it aint broke, dont fix it," does not change the fact that SCAR is a more advanced weapon. Now what those advancements mean in combat can be debated all day.  

I concur with VB and Olds...

The SCAR is a rifle that takes advantage of some developments in the last 50 years... while it's not revolutionary, it is a step forward.  

I've been working on comparing the last fifty years of rifles - centric to the AR vs the last fifty years of power tools for hobbyists - centric to the ubiquitous "skilsaw"...

I think I'll ask and see if I can't publish it here... when I'm done.

Quoted: People dont get that though. They think just adding a piston makes an AR15 SCAR spec, when it isnt quite that simple once you understand the SCAR concept. There is no way or intelligent reason to retrofit an AR15 to be SCAR spec. Too expensive, and you're still hampered by limitations of a design that is 50 years old. SCAR offers features the AR15 cannot match unless you basically butcher and AR15 to the point that it is a whole new gun which in the end would cost more than SCAR. Think I am wrong, try and explain how you are going to have a folding stock on an AR15 without a massive redesign? Fanboy site or not, that saying of "if it aint broke, dont fix it," does not change the fact that SCAR is a more advanced weapon. Now what those advancements mean in combat can be debated all day.

Well I don't really care for the folding stock anyways, and LW is currently working on an upper called the MRS (i think that's what it's called) that has the monolithic rail of the MRP, the LW piston, and a quick change barrel system that uses standard, non-proprietary AR barrels. That allows caliber changes just as easily as the SCAR, if the military wanted those in bulk, i'm sure that they could have the new uppers for less than an entirely new rifle. But that is a little ways off yet and the SCAR is a very well designed rifle. I can't wait to see a head to head of the two though. That will be interesting.

Quoted: Quoted: People dont get that though. They think just adding a piston makes an AR15 SCAR spec, when it isnt quite that simple once you understand the SCAR concept. There is no way or intelligent reason to retrofit an AR15 to be SCAR spec. Too expensive, and you're still hampered by limitations of a design that is 50 years old. SCAR offers features the AR15 cannot match unless you basically butcher and AR15 to the point that it is a whole new gun which in the end would cost more than SCAR. Think I am wrong, try and explain how you are going to have a folding stock on an AR15 without a massive redesign? Fanboy site or not, that saying of "if it aint broke, dont fix it," does not change the fact that SCAR is a more advanced weapon. Now what those advancements mean in combat can be debated all day.   Well I don't really care for the folding stock anyways, and LW is currently working on an upper called the MRS (i think that's what it's called) that has the monolithic rail of the MRP, the LW piston, and a quick change barrel system that uses standard, non-proprietary AR barrels. That allows caliber changes just as easily as the SCAR, if the military wanted those in bulk, i'm sure that they could have the new uppers for less than an entirely new rifle. But that is a little ways off yet and the SCAR is a very well designed rifle. I can't wait to see a head to head of the two though. That will be interesting.

Once again your isolating a couple of features but not addressing the complete SCAR concept. There is more to SCAR than quick barrel changes and rails. Read the specs yourself and you'll see why just dressing up an AR15 will not work. No matter how you cut it the AR15 is still hampered by 50 years of improvements in fabrication, metal, polymer, process, technology and a host of other things, just in the same way a Garand can never be dressed up to equal an AR15.

All right found all the links read all the crapola,IT'S a FNGNG BANDAID SOLUTION ,,the real issue isn't just the weapons platform but the weak 5.56,,thus all the 6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel
So they got a weapons platform for SOCOM ,,NOT Army or other armed forces.

basically 30mil for the HK SNAFU thanks,,plus the fact ,, FN isn't a US manufacturer,,Pretty soon the US will wake up,,food from China ,,Arms from Europe,,Fuel from Brazil,not to mention beef
WHAT WILL WE MAKE?? HOW??

Quoted: plus the fact ,, FN isn't a US manufacturer,

Go to this link and read my post near the bottom of the page, get your facts straight !

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500&page=8

The guns are made in South Carolina ( US of A )  !!!!

What you fail to understand why the AR could never beat the SCAR is the physical dimenions of the AR.  The SCAR can be chambered for the 7.62 NATO.  I have fired several times the SCAR in 5.56mm and with a 10" bbl.  Yes, it is  a nice weapon and has some different operating quirks that will take some getting used to.  I didn't like the M9 when it was adopted untill I had some extensive range time and training for it to come second nature like the M1911.

CD

The base cause of the US Army's Small Arms Development problems is we no longer have firearms designers paid by the government to do development in-house.  Everything's contracted out (ever wonder why HK had the XM8 development contract? Why FN is doing the SCAR R&D?  Why the XM110 SASS project is a commercial off-the-shelf just to buy the first 30 to fix what industry submits, to un-screw before it goes into full production?

All Picatinny is doing is putting out poorly-written and poorly thought-out requirements lists, then doing shoot-offs of what industry brings them, without any original government thought.  

A huge amount of R&D is being sunk into plain conventional designs just to get a new-car smell.

Picatinny is welfare for engineers and Ph.Ds who have no combat arms experience.

How many millions sunk into the XM8 and OICW?  Do you know how many bullets and new weapons that would have bought?  How many brand new (not re-built) SAWs and M1911A1s would that have bought?

Quoted: Quoted: plus the fact ,, FN isn't a US manufacturer, Go to this link and read my post near the bottom of the page, get your facts straight ! www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500&page=8 The guns are made in South Carolina ( US of A )  !!!!

BUT SCAR isn't!  They are all imported from Belgium - one of the same countries that f**ks us every chance they can at the UN.
HFG

.

Quoted: Why FN is doing the SCAR R&D?  Why the XM110 SASS project is a commercial off-the-shelf just to buy the first 30 to fix what industry submits, to un-screw before it goes into full production?

Private industry "Army guns" isn't anything new is it?  Who was paying Garand to test and perfect his rifle before it was adopted?  Was he employed by DOD at the time?  He might have been, I can't remember.

The SASS is "off the shelf" because it is a modification of something already made by the same company.  Maybe I don't understand your point on that one.  Nothing was really "improved" in the SASS, it just has different features from the Navy version of the same rifle.  The Army wanted bells and whistles thrown in the box that the Navy did not require.  Besides a different color, muzzle brake and some bling thrown in the case it's essentially the same rifle that has been successful for 6 years.  

What really gets me is other companies contesting a winning company when the contesting company doesn't even offer a similar product.  If they don't have what it takes for the current demand (specific product like the SASS) then go "boo hoo" somewhere else.  Don't prolong our boys and girls from getting the equipment they need by protesting the test or bid results.  

Rereading the first comment I quoted from you.  Perhaps you mean to say that it is a conflict of interest for FN to be doing the R&D on the SCAR.  If that is the case, don't worry FN isn't the only element doing R&D on it.