• SOCOM cancels MK.16 SCAR
    159 replies, posted
What bout bushmaster and magpul masada?
Well the MK.16 wasnt so great anyway it was just a pimped out FNC. The HK 416 will be a more likely option as the forces are familar with the AR-15 design.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22888942]A military-grade rifle can cost several thousand dollars.[/QUOTE] Once you get rid of all the taxes and regulations on them, they're fairly cheap. If a military-issue could legally be sold, and there were no taxes or regulations on it, the price would be just under $1000. [editline]04:15AM[/editline] Also, glad to see we're moving towards 7.62 NATO over 5.56x45mm
[QUOTE=kirderf;22892017]That's simply because it's easier to get ammunition for AKs in those areas.[/QUOTE] Lol what, you think the SAS procure locally? Using the same shitty grade ripoff ammunition the locals use that were made in country? That shits more likely to explode when firing than hitting the target, or just not fire at all because some Iraqi dropped the box into a puddle and thought nothing of it. Britain buys it's AKs and ammo from, funnily enough, Russia and Romania. The number 1 reason for using an AK is that it works, and there's no need for anything else when you're put into the situations the SAS are.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;22888745]Good, we don't need more pansy .223 rifles. We need more .308s up in the hood.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a .223, it was a 5.56. They AREN'T THE SAME THING. [editline]05:13AM[/editline] [QUOTE=LordLoss;22896040]Lol what, you think the SAS porcure locally? Using the same shitty grade ripoff ammunition the locals use that were made in country? That shits more likely to explode when firing than hitting the target, or just not fire at all because some Iraqi dropped the box into a puddle and thought nothing of it. Britain buys it's AKs and ammo from, funnily enough, Russia and Romania. The number 1 reason for using an AK is that it works, and there's no need for anything else when you're put into the situations the SAS are.[/QUOTE] If special operations are using kalashnikov type rifles it is because they either A) need to procure more ammunition in the field. or B) Are maintaining deniability about being in the region.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;22888744]Make the troops buy their own fucking guns.[/QUOTE] this guy right here. he's got the brains. [/sarcasm]
I've never confirmed it, so it's entirely possible it's simply a rumor, but I've heard that several special forces (U.S.) units are given an allowance to purchase their own sidearm. Totally wouldn't work for rifles or whatever, but I think for sidearms it is pretty neat.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22891311]Shitloads? Not really depending on your definition of "shitloads" (10 thousand?), during the Cold War the US mostly supplied Soviet-style weapons like AKs and Type 56s to Afghanistan and Iraq, but they did supply a few thousand M16s to client states like Ethiopia and Somalia.[/QUOTE] I was refering to how it was similar to how the Soviets acted in the cold war, not that the trucking happened then. Afghanistan, Iraq, Oman, UAE, Morrocco*, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, Tunisia*, Lebanon and probably more. *I know it's not the same desert, but conditions are similar. [editline]10:27AM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;22896099]It wasn't a .223, it was a 5.56. They AREN'T THE SAME THING. [editline]05:13AM[/editline] If special operations are using kalashnikov type rifles it is because they either A) need to procure more ammunition in the field. or B) Are maintaining deniability about being in the region.[/QUOTE] This is true for Afghanistan, but in Iraq, apparently you could get hold of any weapon or ammo type without any trouble at all, albiet shitty knockoffs. I understand this is about buying, and an SF can't just waltz off to the shop and buy some more 4.47475 rimfoil uber penetrating tracer ammo in the middle of a firefight, but if it's there someone has to be using it. However being as they are AK types are still the most numerous weapons there, and it would be best for many reasons just to use one, there's almost no reason not to, if you're fighting at under 300m. [editline]10:29AM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;22896214]I've never confirmed it, so it's entirely possible it's simply a rumor, but I've heard that several special forces (U.S.) units are given an allowance to purchase their own sidearm. Totally wouldn't work for rifles or whatever, but I think for sidearms it is pretty neat.[/QUOTE] I hear Close protection units in the Royal Military Police can get pretty much any weapon they ask for, I've seen them walking around with all sorts of crap.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;22896227]I was refering to how it was similar to how the Soviets acted in the cold war, not that the trucking happened then. Afghanistan, Iraq, Oman, UAE, Morrocco*, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, Tunisia*, Lebanon and probably more.[QUOTE] Hmm, yeah but adding to what you said the US military too did have ample experience using AR-15 rifles in desert conditions before Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bright Star exercises in the 1980s, the Lebanon War, Somalia and peacekeeping in the Sinai come to mind.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22896393][QUOTE=LordLoss;22896227]I was refering to how it was similar to how the Soviets acted in the cold war, not that the trucking happened then. Afghanistan, Iraq, Oman, UAE, Morrocco*, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, Tunisia*, Lebanon and probably more.[QUOTE] Hmm, yeah but adding to what you said the US military too did have ample experience using AR-15 rifles in desert conditions before Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bright Star exercises in the 1980s, the Lebanon War, Somalia and peacekeeping in the Sinai come to mind.[/QUOTE] Yup, to be honest in my opinion there's no need to change. If a soldier isn't cleaning his rifle enough then he shouldnt wonder why he can't go all full auto on those raghead sandcritters. Take care of your 5.56 and it will take care of you*. That said I have a sweet spot of 7.62s, i'd love to see a bullpup 7.62 for the Brits. *Apart from the M16A1 and L85A1, they hate you and hope you die in a fire.
We should be using this godly contraption right here, the most reliable gun i've ever seen: [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsgstaO18jY[/MEDIA]
In truth they should just use the XCR and be done with it. Want 7.62x39? Barrel swap and you are done. Want 5.56? Barrel swap. Done. Want 6.8 SPC? barrel swap. Done. All the accuracy of the AR-15 platform and most of the reliability from the kalashnikov type rifles. (Just make sure you know what gas setting you want for what ammo you are putting down range BEFOREHAND.) I own one. Best goddamn rifle I've ever had. The only complaint I can possibly come up with is that it is a little heavy on the front end. And that is easy to fix.
I'd have to agree that there's no point continuing with the SCAR-L, the M16/M4 function fine as 5.56 weapons. But the SCAR-H could be useful seeing as the US' main 7.62 platform is the M14 which has a different layout to the weapons that US soldiers are trained with.
[QUOTE=Cortexmelon;22896572]We should be using this godly contraption right here, the most reliable gun i've ever seen: [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsgstaO18jY[/MEDIA][/QUOTE] It's just an AR-15 with a gas piston kit attached. You can do exactly the same thing yourself without paying the ten billion dollars H&K wants.
"might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory" This is the one thing that bothers me. By all means cease production if it's a problem but there's no need to get rid of perfectly working weapons. They use STANAG mags so the only real reason to get rid of them is if they degrade and need parts replacing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22896574]In truth they should just use the XCR and be done with it. Want 7.62x39? Barrel swap and you are done. Want 5.56? Barrel swap. Done. Want 6.8 SPC? barrel swap. Done. All the accuracy of the AR-15 platform and most of the reliability from the kalashnikov type rifles. (Just make sure you know what gas setting you want for what ammo you are putting down range BEFOREHAND.) I own one. Best goddamn rifle I've ever had. The only complaint I can possibly come up with is that it is a little heavy on the front end. And that is easy to fix.[/QUOTE] That sounds pretty nice, how much did that set you back? [editline]10:57AM[/editline] Man, fuck H und K, they're like the Acitvison of the firearms world.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;22896673]That sounds pretty nice, how much did that set you back? [editline]10:57AM[/editline] Man, fuck H und K, they're like the Acitvison of the firearms world.[/QUOTE] About 1500 for the 5.56 model. Each conversion kit clocks in at around 550. Expensive, but still way cheaper than buying an entirely different rifle of the same quality. EDIT: Oh snap, they finished their 6.5 Grendel conversion kit too. Fuck yeah.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22896574]In truth they should just use the XCR and be done with it. Want 7.62x39? Barrel swap and you are done. Want 5.56? Barrel swap. Done. Want 6.8 SPC? barrel swap. Done. All the accuracy of the AR-15 platform and most of the reliability from the kalashnikov type rifles. (Just make sure you know what gas setting you want for what ammo you are putting down range BEFOREHAND.) I own one. Best goddamn rifle I've ever had. The only complaint I can possibly come up with is that it is a little heavy on the front end. And that is easy to fix.[/QUOTE] 7.62x39 isn't a NATO round, nor is 6.8x43, so I doubt it'd be adopted by NATO member countries. And interchangeability being one of its main selling points, it's not gonna be much more useful than the AR15 platform.
Tight times ahead, recession means that we'll all be feeling the squeeze of de-OH LOOK GUNS LET'S BUY THEM
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;22896844]7.62x39 isn't a NATO round, nor is 6.8x43, so I doubt it'd be adopted by NATO member countries. And interchangeability being one of its main selling points, it's not gonna be much more useful than the AR15 platform.[/QUOTE] It was originally going to be pitted against the SCAR. But parts didn't arrive on time. I've heard tell of one of the larger companies intentionally causing the delay, but so far no supporting evidence. Anyhow as a special operations rifle the ability to switch to 7.62x39 is a huge bonus. It means you can use the enemy ammunition without leaving evidence that western forces were there and without being forced to use a rifle you are less familiar with. The 6.8 and 6.5 came later for the civilian market.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22891754]because M14s are bigger, heavier, have more recoil, ammo is more expensive, have to carry less ammo, etc. most people can't handle a M14 on full auto due to the recoil overall, the M4 is a better choice for the soldiers in urban settings (Iraq)[/QUOTE] Take the M14 out, drop it into a Troy system chassis. Recoil problem largely solved. But overall yes, the M4 and the M16 are fine weapon systems. Nothing stopping soldiers from keeping the current trend of having one or two M14s per inf company. EDIT: As an aside for interested people, back in 2007 the Army agreed to a stress test that competed the M4, the HK416, the SCAR-L and the XM8. "In the fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.[9] The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233.[10][11] The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages—termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear—the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem. The Army said it planned to improve the M4 with a new cold-hammer-forged barrel to give longer life and more reliable magazines to reduce the stoppages. Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4's 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well.[12]" Before anyone pipes up, the difference between the HK416, SCAR and the XM8 is negligible. Also if you do the maths on the M4, in practice it's still a very low failure rate, and this is in conditions usually far worse and more stressful on the weapon than the average infantry man will put his weapon through during his service. Still, some would argue it's even still an unacceptable chance of failure for a combat weapon.
Hooray money wasting! Just contract fucking magpul for magazines. Everyone and their mother has figured out already that the things are damn near indestructible and will feed even with substantial physical damage done to them.
[QUOTE=Cortexmelon;22896572]We should be using this godly contraption right here, the most reliable gun i've ever seen: [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsgstaO18jY[/MEDIA][/QUOTE] Cept that it cost shitloads to get one for every soldier.
[QUOTE=Ganoric Mank;22891198]Not as pretty as the XM8. But the XM8 was a heap of shit. Proof incarnate that Looks=/=Lethality.[/QUOTE] XM8 wasn't a hunk of shit. It's pretty much a G36 in a new frame. Functionally, there's nothing wrong with it, aside from the overheating handguards, which was fixed early, much like the G36. The program was never going anywhere, because DoD had stonewalled it by saying they were aiming for a "100% improvement" over the M16, which is ridiculous, because that would take a leap in firearms technology.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;22897912] The program was never going anywhere, because DoD had stonewalled it by saying they were aiming for a "100% improvement" over the M16, which is ridiculous, because that would take a leap in firearms technology.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this, the US Gov won't be happy til they have a gun that you can fire in one direction, and every armed enemy within a hundred miles instantly has heart failure.
[QUOTE=beanhead;22889103]HK>FN :colbert:[/QUOTE] So you say they should get the 417? It seems like another m4 with RIS on it. [editline]12:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;22890923]People don't read, it seems like. Remember when Secretary of Defense Gates stopped all further procurement of the F-22? I swear that over 70% of people thought he was canceling the entire thing.[/QUOTE] but they canceled the cool airborne laser!
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;22898107] but they canceled the cool airborne laser![/QUOTE] Hardly. There was just an article about how they have increased its range three to four orders of magnitude above what it was previously.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;22898107]So you say they should get the 417? It seems like another m4 with RIS on it. [/QUOTE] It's not an M4. Yes, it's designed with maximum familiarity to those already trained on the M4/M16 system, but internally it's different. The M16/M4 family uses a direct impingement gas system, whereas the HK416 uses a short-stroke piston. Ideally this is a more reliable operation and decreases wear and tear on the rifle. The HK416 and 417 have some very cool features that make it an attractive prospect, but at the end of the day, it's virtually the same as any of the other piston AR designs out there, just more expensive. H&K while they do make very very good products, everyone over hypes them and they chuck ridiculous price tags on their products just because they managed to nail a niche in the military and police CQB teams with the MP5.
Damn it, if they keep cancelling stuff like this, there won't be any surplus for me to buy and take over the world with them.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22896214]I've never confirmed it, so it's entirely possible it's simply a rumor, but I've heard that several special forces (U.S.) units are given an allowance to purchase their own sidearm. Totally wouldn't work for rifles or whatever, but I think for sidearms it is pretty neat.[/QUOTE] That's done for quite a few special forces. Mainly used for snipers, but it's sometimes done for normal infantry. Including rifles. That's only for very elite units, though. It wouldn't work for mass procurement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.