SOCOM Ditches the SCAR Program

[Lanny Ansar]

http://www.defensereview.com/socom-cancels-fn-mk-16-scar-l-scar-light-riflecarbinesbr-program-will-the-fn-mk-17-scar-h-scar-heavy-survive/

I actually read about the director of SOCOM cancelling the production and distribution of all SCAR-based AR's back a month or two ago, but this site here gives a little insight about the situation that was reported.

Overall, the model was canned for a few reasons.

- Short-stroking (When you don't shoulder your weapon tight enough to your body or hold it the right way, the recoil doesn't get spread properly and the bolt doesn't slide back forward all the way)

- Teething issues (Teething, as in the teeth that hold all of the modular parts of the rifle together, I.E, the Upper Reciever to the Lower Reciever, the Stock, etc...all in all, it can fall apart in your hands if it's used enough.)

(The big issue here)

- Does not show much of an improvement on the field to the older SOPMOD M4A1 Carbine.

Now, this goes for the SCAR-H model as well.

Although the weapon has been tested to be relatively more accurate in its Sniper Support Variant than the older M21 of the same caliber, it's still built with the exact same issues as the SCAR L.

Also, due to the weapon's lighter weight (8.8 lbs while dry and empty) it is relatively hard to control while firing in Full Auto.

SOCOM's pretty set on ditching the product altogether, but FN-Herstal is trying to come up with a Modular system for the upper reciever, so that the Reciever types can be changed from L to H on the field in a short amount of time, as an attempt to try to sell their idea back to the Military.

Now, i already know that Tsume might see this thread and come back with some Textbook statistics about the model that has absolutely nothing to do with using the weapon on the field, especially in the way that the Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, or Special Forces operatives do. Since he gives the thumbs-up to weapons like the US Army did for the original design for the M16. (Yeah, it worked, but only in a controlled situation. They tested that rifle at ranges and fields that were the equivalent of pharmecutical-grade clean.) And i really won't give an arguement about what rifle or design i would reccomend for military use, because Tsume would come back trying to convince me that Plastics and Carbon-fiber products are awesome because they're light, and that rifles with 600+ yard ranges are the way to go, when the realization is that that crap breaks the easiest in combat, and 600-yard shots with an Infantry rifle nearly never happen. Seriously, you don't even learn that in Basic Training. The farthest shot you take with an M16 is 300 yards, and even that is stretching it. Standard Infantry combat has been known to only take place at around a 200-300 yard max, and CQB combat has a range of 15-140 feet.

Also, one of the deciding factors...It's too damn expensive. SOCOM realized how much money they were wasting on buying shiny new guns that performed only marginally better than the refurbished M4 Carbines they had and went "Wtf?"

[Cyphre Iredell]

Well one of the primary purposes to the Mk-16 program was cost. However complaints of lacking additional lethality are unfounded because they were limited to a NATO caliber to begin with amongst trials, at a loss for employing newer, better munitions (6.8SPC, or 6.5 Grendel for instance). In general, the cause for adopting a newer system, such as the SCAR or HK416 types was cost because in general, outfitting the M4A1 SOPMOD was ridiculously expensive and made no improvement upon the guns firing action at the core. It was one of the reasons behind the OICW program in that an entire rifle could be built for cheaper than an adapted pre-existing M4 variant (original M4A1 has stationary carry handle and no rails, and basic retractable stock for instance). Granted, 90% of weapon adoption programs fail because there is that necessary percentage of improvement they require which doesn't necessarily revolve around user-friendliness.

Cyclic charging handle is somewhat understandable, but barely even a user preference at that rate. Short-stroking just means better spring adaptation (usually due to temperature changes, combined with occasionally awkward recoil-acceptance from varied wielding positions). Spring differences are temperamental because if it doesn't provide an equal enough force against the action of the gun itself, the recoil will be a lot harder and cause more stress on the action, while any stiffer and you enter territory where variances in weather effect the expanding gases of a cartridge that may cause the action not to cycle completely or simply jam. This, however, is true for all weapon systems. The lightweight 'plastic' nature of the SCAR is another of those balancing acts as would be pointed out about controllability under fully-automatic fire. As with all weapons, the lighter it is, the more felt recoil results. This effect goes equally for polymer framed handguns with higher felt recoil versus heavier types (including magnum revolvers). All of that is fairly relative, however, as spraying is a big fat no-no for basic infrantry armaments that aren't squad support weapons (belt-fed light machine guns). Suppose it all depends on your preference as to whether or not you'd rather have a heavier weapon, or a lighter one with slightly higher felt recoil, as no one is claiming the M4 is particular better at the function in itself. XD

Either way, no single gun is going to operate at some amazingly greater capacity than pre-existing weapons because the benefits are spread throughout in a given weapon system. Also it seems in this article that it is more rumored since an entire pullout of a program isn't that feasible in the short term, let alone 'abrupt'.

Thumbs up to a weapon that operates well in a controlled situation? lol *cough*M16*cough* XD

[Lanny Ansar]

A very valid arguement. To be honest, i was actually expecting one of those "LOLNO" responses, but this was actually a nice change of pace.

And yeah...the M16 handles well, as long as the area it's in has about the dirt consistency of a Bioweapons lab. Otherwise it's terrible. Personally i haven't had very many high hopes for quite a few of the weapons projects out there, except for the ones that take a current idea and enhance it to make it better. I had some hopes for the HK416, but then i started seeing that it was MORE expensive and kinda stood back. More often than not, i usually go by the Independant companies stationed in little places around the US. For example, the POF 308.

http://www.pof-usa.com/p308/p308.htm

(Now, given that Patriot Ordinance Factory also makes this brand of rifle in .223 and 6.8, which are actually less expensive than the common M4 Carbine that you can buy in a Gun Store.)

It's essentially an AR / M4 body, with an enhanced upper Reciever. Parts are built out of Steel and higher-quality carbon materials. The 5.56 models are actually much cheaper than the standard-issue M4's that the military hands out, (The P415 Rifle, bought fully-built and in a box is $1,975, while a military-grade M4 will go for $2,000 and up. I've seen other companies make M4 copies for cheaper, but they also don't hold up on quality as much either.)

The best part is that the POF Upper Reciever will fit on any of the M4 or AR-based Lower Recievers, so you can buy just the upper on the POF site, then go out and get a lower from somewhere else and go with that.

[Cyphre Iredell]

No, I personally am the worst enemy of the armalite system, so whether or not a new system is inherently better is irrelevant to the fact that direct gas inpingement is inherently WORSE than anything else on the table. Any factors of durability are relative only to the ones complaining about plastic in lieu of MUCH more expensive machined weapon receivers. The fact that the government already pays out the ass for the most basic of infantry weapons where the civilian can acquire better is all too telling of how it always has been (civilians acquiring the Thompson machinegun, for instance, during WW2, notably the M1928 updates to the overall design).

The current M4 is the perfect example of a bad weapon done worse when they slapped on a shorter foregrip and a barrel length that didn't meet the effective length necessary to apply the complete force of the M855 cartridge (or the other standard cartridge prior whose designation escapes me at the moment), therefore defeating the purpose in using the 5.56NATO altogether. It was bad enough the original rollout of the M16A1 was as horrible as it was because it was shiny, new, and fell in line with frontline requirements of 'more steel down range' and less reloading. It was one of the only shining moments where the military learned its lesson about adopting new weapon systems and the faults and adaptations that come with it at the price-point given.

Problem with the HK416 premise is of course the cost, but that is derived from the company itself I believe. Its a nice, fancy weapon that does everything everyone wants it to, in the same package as what is currently issued essentially, but H&K will never have a favorable price-point for ANY weapon market. I'm pretty sure thats why the USP is not really at all adopted in any U.S department wholly despite its good looks and fineries.

A metric ton of great companies out there offer amazing improvements over the given classic design, and even in varied calibers, such as LMT or Barrett, who originally only offered uppers to convert pre-existing Armalite rifles. Good example of the best bang for the buck being Rock River Arms, though they save in assembly, their parts have had some of the best reviews from what I've seen, in packages under a grand.

[Trinity Heckroth]

Just puttin this out there; I never missed any of my 300 meter shots. I did miss a 50m right though. Popped up and i didnt even see it. freaking green silhouettes.

[RazorFox]

Meanwhile Russia's been using various remarkably inexpensive rifles based on the Kalashnikov system for 63 years and counting.

[Ice Karsin]

Meanwhile Russia's been using various remarkably inexpensive rifles based on the Kalashnikov system for 63 years and counting.

QFT

[Lanny Ansar]

Yeah, Russia, and basically every other country that currently isn't a blatant ally with the US.

The US won't adopt the Kalashnikov design mainly for morale reasons. For those 63 years or so, the AK-47 has been distinctively seen as the symbol of many things, most of them being negative. (Communism, Rebellion, Revolution, etc...)

[Tsume Xiao]

Now, i already know that Tsume might see this thread and come back with some Textbook statistics about the model that has absolutely nothing to do with using the weapon on the field, especially in the way that the Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, or Special Forces operatives do.

Um.. Wow. Thats an uncalled for and unneeded statement. Its also untrue.

How about you go edit that out.

More importantly.

I don't like the Armalite system.

1) A new weapon should not have an Armalite gas system if we expect to see some improvements during active combat use.

2) Another continuing trend the US needs to stop is shortening the barrels. Yes. We need short weapons for CQB and Urban combat, but when you shorten a barrel you reduce bullet stabilization, and reduce accuracy and effective range. (Geee... this sounds like the exact concept of a bullpup rifle. :D)

3) Stopping Power. Honestly I think the change from 7.62 battle rifles to 5.56 assault rifles for everyone was kinda dumb. I'd take an M14 over an M16 any day. Yes. its 4 lbs heavier. Yes, the magazine is "only" 20 rounds. Yes, those bullets will drop a target for sure with two rounds. Yes, those rounds can penetrate stuff and still be lethal. Yes, that M14 is accurate and lethal to about twice the range of the M16.

Problems:

Weight.

Price.

Reliability.

Stopping power.

Weight is something that, with a longer barrel and studier weapon, will increase. More material will do that. There isn't much avoiding that, and when the change is within 1 pound, you may have to bite the bullet and deal with it. Its worth it for a better weapon.

Reliability: This is easy. Don't use the Stoner system. And before anyone says anything, No, stay even further away from the Kalashnikov system if it is in an AK.. Your reliability comes in your weapons ability to preform in shitty environments. even more so in SOCOM. The M-16's system is trash. The Kalashnikov System in the AK's is inaccurate a s piss (though the bolt system in a weapon with better manufacturing (machine receivers with high precision), like the RK, and when modified such as in the Galil, it is a good valid system). Other, newer systems, such as roller delayed and lever delayed blow back (HK's G3's and related weapons, including MP5's, and the Nexter FAMAS) show higher reliability as well. The AUG's short-stroke is OK, and the Tavor's unique long-stroke system is preforming flawlessly in the deserts since its use in the IDF began (Tavor is also water proof, and can be fired immediately after being pulled out of water).

Basically: Short stroke or long stroke. None of this direct-pressure crap. Long stroke is great if the kick can be kept under control.

Stopping power: Well, if you don.t want to use a full out rifle round and want to stay with an intermediate cartridge, then you fall into some odd situations. NATO says 5.56x45. Warsaw says 7.62x39, or 5.45x39. Independents say 6.5, or 6.8. While the 6.8 has a very good idea from performance terms, I don't see the US changing from the NATO rounds anytime soon. So the one thing you can make do to keep the power of the round you have available. Keep a barrel long enough to power it forward and make sure it is stabilized. Long barrel lengthens rifle>? Well, not always. Bull-pups anyone?

Price: Well fuck. The new high-tech stuff is not always the cheapest. The cheapest is usually crap. Then there is the happy middle. However, in some cases the happy middle isnt as good as the top end. So its another balance.

Basically, If you are going with a 5.56 then your best bet is to look for a bull pup to save overall length without sacrificing barrel length. The problem comes then with training, because no bull pup will allow you to keep M4 training. Cost can be a bit offset by allowing all ammo and magazine to be re-used (Provided you didn't chose the AUG, which has proprietary magazine, or requires an adapter)

[Sylth Stormcrow]

I'm not a gun-nut, so I'm probably gunna get shot for postin this, but I thought most guns in the AK series performed extremely well in crappy situations. Is this wrong or what?

[Ron Bleac]

I'm not a gun-nut, so I'm probably gunna get shot for postin this, but I thought most guns in the AK series performed extremely well in crappy situations. Is this wrong or what?

EXTREMELY TRUE; DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS.

[Sylth Stormcrow]

EXTREMELY TRUE; DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS.

I think I have a fan. Or a sarcastic would-be assassin. Either way, I'm wanted :P

[Inoue Katsu]

Meanwhile Russia's been using various remarkably inexpensive rifles based on the Kalashnikov system for 63 years and counting.

Isn't that the same as the NASA ballpoint / Russian pencil thing ?

But anyways, I wish we could use weapons like that over here =p

the best you can do here without some insane licensing procedure with mandatory membership to a firearms club is an air pressure gun, anything that remotely looks like a real weapon is pretty much banned.

[Lanny Ansar]

Um.. Wow. Thats an uncalled for and unneeded statement. Its also untrue.

How about you go edit that out.

More importantly.

I don't like the Armalite system.

1) A new weapon should not have an Armalite gas system if we expect to see some improvements during active combat use.

2) Another continuing trend the US needs to stop is shortening the barrels. Yes. We need short weapons for CQB and Urban combat, but when you shorten a barrel you reduce bullet stabilization, and reduce accuracy and effective range. (Geee... this sounds like the exact concept of a bullpup rifle. :D)

3) Stopping Power. Honestly I think the change from 7.62 battle rifles to 5.56 assault rifles for everyone was kinda dumb. I'd take an M14 over an M16 any day. Yes. its 4 lbs heavier. Yes, the magazine is "only" 20 rounds. Yes, those bullets will drop a target for sure with two rounds. Yes, those rounds can penetrate stuff and still be lethal. Yes, that M14 is accurate and lethal to about twice the range of the M16.

Problems:

Weight.

Price.

Reliability.

Stopping power.

Weight is something that, with a longer barrel and studier weapon, will increase. More material will do that. There isn't much avoiding that, and when the change is within 1 pound, you may have to bite the bullet and deal with it. Its worth it for a better weapon.

Reliability: This is easy. Don't use the Stoner system. And before anyone says anything, No, stay even further away from the Kalashnikov system if it is in an AK.. Your reliability comes in your weapons ability to preform in shitty environments. even more so in SOCOM. The M-16's system is trash. The Kalashnikov System in the AK's is inaccurate a s piss (though the bolt system in a weapon with better manufacturing (machine receivers with high precision), like the RK, and when modified such as in the Galil, it is a good valid system). Other, newer systems, such as roller delayed and lever delayed blow back (HK's G3's and related weapons, including MP5's, and the Nexter FAMAS) show higher reliability as well. The AUG's short-stroke is OK, and the Tavor's unique long-stroke system is preforming flawlessly in the deserts since its use in the IDF began (Tavor is also water proof, and can be fired immediately after being pulled out of water).

Basically: Short stroke or long stroke. None of this direct-pressure crap. Long stroke is great if the kick can be kept under control.

Stopping power: Well, if you don.t want to use a full out rifle round and want to stay with an intermediate cartridge, then you fall into some odd situations. NATO says 5.56x45. Warsaw says 7.62x39, or 5.45x39. Independents say 6.5, or 6.8. While the 6.8 has a very good idea from performance terms, I don't see the US changing from the NATO rounds anytime soon. So the one thing you can make do to keep the power of the round you have available. Keep a barrel long enough to power it forward and make sure it is stabilized. Long barrel lengthens rifle>? Well, not always. Bull-pups anyone?

Price: Well fuck. The new high-tech stuff is not always the cheapest. The cheapest is usually crap. Then there is the happy middle. However, in some cases the happy middle isnt as good as the top end. So its another balance.

Basically, If you are going with a 5.56 then your best bet is to look for a bull pup to save overall length without sacrificing barrel length. The problem comes then with training, because no bull pup will allow you to keep M4 training. Cost can be a bit offset by allowing all ammo and magazine to be re-used (Provided you didn't chose the AUG, which has proprietary magazine, or requires an adapter)

For once i have to agree. The M14 in itself was a wonderful weapon. I actually had the chance to use one (Both Ironsights and Scoped) and it was pretty much spot-on accurate to long distances, even if it was just the basic Factory-model Springfield M1A. On the other hand, the Armalite Design, especially the lower reciever, is actually quite comfy to grip onto, and all of the essential stuff can be accessed with just a single finger. (Safety toggle, mag release, etc...). Besides that, it doesn't make up for its laundry list of issues. I also believe that moving to a mainly Fiber-based and reinforced light metal parts option was kinda silly, being that plastics ALWAYS have a higher tendency to break (Even if reinforced), along with the lighter metals, like Aluminum, etc...

Barrels: Again, i agree. Less range is bad, but it gets to a point to where TOO much is just rediculous. You don't see very many soldiers pegging dudes in the chest with an AR at 1200 yards with just Ironsights. Well, at least not frequently. It's possible, but unlikely. If i recall, there was once someone who said that most Infantry Combat (That isn't flat-out open field) occurs between the ranges of 50-300 yards. So, i would only assume that there would be barrels out there that were designed to only make shots accurate to about that distance. And CQB weapons being really small i can understand, because CQB is really what the acronym says: "Close-Quarter Battle". They're usually intended to be compact enough so you can still slink around crowded streets and alleys, but still be able to grab your weapon and point it somewhere, but also to be able to at least keep the enemies' head tucked down long enough so you can move close enough to peg 'em.

The Russians actually tried that with the AK-74U. The "Krinkov" AK. It was normally intended for Tank Crews. But the issue was that it had such a small barrel and a very thin folding stock, to where it was virtually inaccurate to any range past point-blank. (I personally enjoyed the M3 Grease Gun.)

If i were to make an assumption, i would kinda side with H&K and adopt the G36 models. I mean yeah, it's the same plastic spacegun look, but as of now, much of HK's weaponry seems to be incredibly reliable. I'm not gonna say to adopt the HK416, simply because it's just REALLY freakin' expensive. I'd say pick weapons that are circulationg already all over the place in Allied countries.