So...is SCAR16 done for?

[Magic_Salad0892]

You cannot compare a plastic rifle to MRP's.

I don't mean to be hostile to you, but I'd appreciate if you could separate emotion from your argument.

In reality, looking at pure performance, these plastic rifles DO stand up to the MRP.

I would prefer to have the MRP issued to me over the SCAR, but not by much.

[Crow Hunter]

Crow,



Why do you say that they were off a rack? Are you suggesting they were used beater rifles while the other guns were new?

I was under the impression that was the reason that they did a "retest" because the M4s were off a rack and some of them were worn to the point that they failed or would have failed armorer's checks.

Again, I wasn't there. This is just information that I have gleaned off the internet. You know how that goes.

And other point that I thought of right after posting this, was that this is only one aspect of all the testing involved in the selection process, and one with a fairly defined limited application. i.e. Extreme Dust. There are lots of other things invloved in testing new designs, one of which is I would believe is overall effectiveness.

A Longbow would have solidly trounced all the other weapon in this tests related to malfunctions, but it wouldn't in overall effectiveness.

Remember there are lots more involved with using a weapon than how well it performs in a dust storm.

Just something to keep in mind.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

That's true. But it sure looks like a person has to make a lot of excuses for the M4. And a loser-sponsered retest that suddenly shows a massive improvement is suspicious to say the least.

[SRT-M4]

kchen986 wrote
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.


They do. Dont be swayed by the errornet.

Keep in mind the SCAR Heavy is all over with SOCOM units and it has the same stock and reciprocating charging handle as the SCAR L. These items cannot be that bad.
The SCAR sucks so bad that the Mk 20 is supposedly being fielded as well.

[scoutfsu99]

nevermind

[Crow Hunter]

Another thing to further derail the thread. I was thinking about this as I mowed the yard, (the things you come up with when going up and down hills for 2 hours.)

Even the best designed test can be played, if you know what you are doing and what the test is looking for.

Take for instance the wonderful CAFE standard. The mileage that your new car is "supposed" to get. Those tests are extrememly rigorous and the labs doing it have impeccable records. However....

The cars that are sent to the test are not fleet vehicles. They are CAFE vehicles. Vehicles that are specially assembled using components that give the lighest weight and the least possible rolling resistance. These cars are not just pulled off an assembly line at random and tested, they are built before production even gets started and while all the components are "in spec", the engineers building it know enough about the test to request components at the end of the manufacturing tolerance that will result in the best mileage. Does that mean the test is useless? No. But it means that it isn't representative, it is a show, to make government bureaucrats happy.

I bring this up because one of the "reports" I read on the internet about the dust tests also had some data about case ruptures. I don't remember where I saw it other than I read it and thought it odd that the M4 had a MRBF of 60,000 rnds (which means none, 10 rifles, 6000 each) while each of the others had some number less than that. Which means a case blew out on at least one or more of the rifles. Now if you think about it, if you know your rifles are going to be tested in a dusty environment, what if you ran your chambers right on the ragged edge of the upper spec? Would that give you more room for dust? A little more likely to go into battery when fouled? Would it also make a case failure more likely? You are just shooting in dirt, no reason to make it accurate, just get bullets to feed in and extract, that is it.

Are there things that were done on these rifles to make them more likely to pass the test? I don't know, but I bet a good reading through the data by someone who understood the test and how the guns work could tell.

I didn't keep up with it much since after seeing what little data there is and no access to the test documents it is really nothing more than a sound bite. Which can be interpreted several different ways. Just something that came to be when my brain was being jostled around in my skull.

Please keep in mind when you are looking at ANY test out there, that unless you see the whole report WITH the DATA, not just a single data table, you aren't getting the whole picture. Only the part of the pictures that someone wants you to know. I have been on both sides of that picture.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I am sure if there was a way to torture the data to make the M4 look good Colt would have told us by now. Apparantly it was bad enough that Colt ran out and paid somebody for a new test.

[R Moran]

That's true. But it sure looks like a person has to make a lot of excuses for the M4. And a loser-sponsered retest that suddenly shows a massive improvement is suspicious to say the least.

Not really, the gun has been in service for over 40 years.

Why is that the 1911 served for over 70, is a testament to JMB and how good the gun is, same for the M1, M2, 1903, etc.

But, the M16fow serving for over 40, is a testament to how F'ed up the Army is..

Bob

[QuietShootr]

I think it's useful to realize that there are really two different points being argued here;

1) the SCAR-L is not a HUGE improvement over an M4 - but it is a measurable improvement. Is it worth the money? Probably not.

2) the SCAR-H IS a huge leap forward over all the other 7.62mm "battle rifles" available. The SR25EMC and LMT MWS, as nice as they are, are evolutionary improvements. They're both very accurate, but only one has a quick-change barrel - and that one doesn't have a folding stock or fully ambidextrous controls (remember the charging handle). Not to mention its weight - a SCAR-H's curb weight with no scope is 7.8 pounds, an LMT is 10. Doesn't mean much on a bench, in fact there you WANT the extra weight - but I have never heard anyone in the infantry (or anywhere else for that matter) say "Gosh, I wish this weapon weighed more."

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Exactly. People need to realize that recognizing that there are better rifles out there (like the SCAR) is not the same thing as saying the military should blow scarce funds on them. As long as the military is wedded to .223 I suspect they will tough it out with the Ar-15 system, fleas and all.