So...is SCAR16 done for?

[Dano5326]

UL testing is the gold standard in all industries. A vested interest in impartiality.

My experience with DOD small arms testing has been... less than inspiring. Sgt Silly & Major Malfunction with little familiarity with the topic at hand, standardized protocols, or the scientific method.. add in personal bias, no professional oversight, and wily industry reps... Skewed results. Add an interest by the institution to show "progress" in some new widget ala xm-8.. and one can imagine the "corporate climate" and chicanery.

My experience with the Army is an M4 is an M4 is an M4... of whatever generation or upgrade. They change out parts when one breaks. Not when one should have preventative maintenance or when specs get changed.

A pic of carbines above would indicate they have not been updated to current m4 spec for a test:
- Furniture not current
- Internally an H2 buffer, updated extractor spring likely not changed
- likely older non enhanced magazine. With less spring rate and older followers.



Veering a bit off topic.. MK16 aka SCAR-L

A couple decent sized DOD user groups are looking at these. I'm personally interested in the spin off accessories/mods for further competes; stocks, charging handles, etc.

[KG_mauserman]

The first rule of military dust test 2 (where the M4 outperformed the SCAR-L & HK416 and nearly equaled the XM8) is that you do not talk about dust test 2.

If anything dust test 2 proved that rack grade M4's were as reliable as new M4's and more reliable than both the HK416 and SCAR-L. Not to mention it confirmed Colt's own contracted testing.

Dust test III... very retro. Someone needs to tell the army that people will pay good coin for them fiberlites.

How did the SCAR L perform in dust test number 2?
I don't see that info listed on the slides.

[JoshNC]

Veering a bit off topic.. MK16 aka SCAR-L

A couple decent sized DOD user groups are looking at these. I'm personally interested in the spin off accessories/mods for further competes; stocks, charging handles, etc.

That is good to hear. I really want the SCAR series to succeed. I hope the platform is picked up by other end users (foreign friendly gov, LE, others within DOD).

[Ed L.]

The first rule of military dust test 2 (where the M4 outperformed the SCAR-L & HK416 and nearly equaled the XM8) is that you do not talk about dust test 2.

No, it did not outperform the SCAR & HK416 in the second dust test.

First, the SCAR & 416 were not in this dust test, so it could not have outperformed them. In order to outperform them they would have had to be tested at the exact same time under the exact same conditions.

Second, the M4 encountered 678 malfunctions/stoppages in the second dust test.

If we were comparing it to the numbers in the third dust test which was a comparative test, the number of malfunctions were as followed:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.

So you see, not even the incorrect & doctored numbers being circulated for the second test does the M4 outperform the other guns.

[Slater]

Not to veer too far off topic, but I wonder how an AK would handle the DoD dust testing?

[sinlessorrow]

No, it did not outperform the SCAR & HK416 in the second dust test.

First, the SCAR & 416 were not in this dust test, so it could not have outperformed them. In order to outperform them they would have had to be tested at the exact same time under the exact same conditions.

Second, the M4 encountered 678 malfunctions/stoppages in the second dust test.

If we were comparing it to the numbers in the third dust test which was a comparative test, the number of malfunctions were as followed:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.

So you see, not even the incorrect & doctored numbers being circulated for the second test does the M4 outperform the other guns.

You have to wonder why the M4 performed so poorly in the dust test vs. the one run by Stork.

I'm willing to bet the other manuf, in dust test III gamed it with slighlty modified rifles built for the test while the M4's chosen were older. I am also willing to bet that Colt gamed the test done by Stork by submitting rifles built for a dust test.

I do not think Stork rigged the test though. They did it in accordance to the millitary dust test.

[Jaws]

I am also willing to bet that Colt gamed the test done by Stork by submitting rifles built for a dust test.

I do not think Stork rigged the test though. They did it in accordance to the millitary dust test.

Or they did the test enough times, until they got the results Colt paid for.

[Vintovka]

Not to veer too far off topic, but I wonder how an AK would handle the DoD dust testing?

I'm interested in this as well. Surely it has been done? They evaluate all types of weapons.

[sinlessorrow]

Or they did the test enough times, until they got the results Colt paid for.

I doubt it, a 60,000 round test takes alot of time and money. I doubt it was repeated till they got good results, more than likely Colt submitted rifles overgassed and oversprung for a dust test.

[RyanB]

The Army counted a failure to fire three rounds on burst as a failure. Those of you who have fired burst weapons know how often that happens.

If you want to pick on a dust sensitive weapon, go after the M2.