So...is SCAR16 done for?

[Ed L.]

I understand what Ed is getting at, but if the tests were replicated exactly the same as they were the first time, then I'd consider it moot.

It wasn't the same people or same facility doing the test but rather an independent testing lab hired by Colt.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Magic,

Greg, I hope you don't think I was attacking you or getting defensive or anything, I understand where you're coming from.

Heck naw!

[YVK]

There is another aspect that I thought was a factor. I am in no position to discuss it so what I am typing here is not a statement but more of request for confirmation. My understanding was that "performance" improvement, however one measures that, and as design "improvements" (adjustable gas block, folding stock) were only a part of requirements. I thought that another requirement was a cost of maintenance over a lifetime of a weapon. I believe I heard that, despite initial higher cost of an individual SCAR unit, the projected lifetime cost was lower than for M4 due to better barrel and bolt/BCG longevity. Anybody can confirm or deny this?

[Kchen986]

It wasn't the same people or same facility doing the test but rather an independent testing lab hired by Colt.

In other words, there was not a control group in the second dust test, so it is hard to fully see how the 111 stoppages figure compares to the rest of the rifles.

There's a slew of criticisms on the Dust test, including the alleged fact that all other manufacturers had new guns, while the Colts were off the rack.

I know this thread's getting off topic, but it's interesting. I would have thought the heavier reciprocating mass, the longer cam pin channel and other improvements would add to the reliability of the SCAR-L.

[R Moran]

When I get in a gunfight in a "dust chamber", I'll worry about the test.

Bob

[Magic_Salad0892]

It wasn't the same people or same facility doing the test but rather an independent testing lab hired by Colt.

Then I fully understand your concern. I'd wager to bet that a fresh new M4, with new magazines WOULD have done better though.

''Upgraded'' AR variants such as LMT or KAC systems would have done even better. In different areas.

And as mentioned earlier, when regarding the systems as a whole, not .mil/.civ usage: LMT's quick change barrel system matches the capability of the SCAR's gas block.

[YVK]

And as mentioned earlier, when regarding the systems as a whole, not .mil/.civ usage: LMT's quick change barrel system matches the capability of the SCAR's gas block.

Functionally yes; practically, flipping gas selector with your thumb vs changing the barrel...I'd imagine every time one changes a barrel, the rifle needs to be re-zeroed too, no?

[scoutfsu99]

no, not with the MRP. Mine maintains zero through barrel changes.

[Magic_Salad0892]

no, not with the MRP. Mine maintains zero through barrel changes.

Kind of. From what I know. Less than a 6MOA shift, repeatable, much like a suppressor.

Change takes less than 2 minutes.

It would be cheaper than switching to a new gun.

I actually think the MRP makes more sense in a special operations enviornment than the current M4/Mk. 18 system.
IMHO, it would be cool if all MRP's had gas block mounted front sights that could could adjust windage, AND elevation on, so (much like the M249 SAW) each barrel would have it's own zero, and be zero'd upon installation.

Also... has everybody forgotten about the Switchblock?...

[ALCOAR]

........