View Full Version : Rumor Control- SCAR? 416? 6.8mm?
Ok gang, here is the latest from Rumor Control:
The SCAR is on life support - cost overruns, modifications, and failing to be vastly better than the M4. Not likely to be fielded.
HK416 - People who have them can keep them if they can keep it quiet. The 10.5" uppers are less political than completely new rifles. The AWG was too high profile on their procurement of HK416's. 'The Army' told them to turn them all in because too many people were asking "Why do they have them?"
6.8mm - all good ideas are dead. Hornady TAP in 75gr 5.56mm may be the new ammo.
Can anyone confirm or deign?
That is all....
Jay Cunningham
06-22-08, 12:08
Please cite your source for this information.
All dead wrong.
SCAR now CAR going stronger then ever. Name changer for political reasons(a good thing)
Any debate about 416 is long dead
6.8 dead in water.
Tap will never be aprroved for wide use it will not pass legal review.
New ammo will come out with CAR program that will problably remain a SOCOM ammo-(oh and this ammo is performing GREAT and will soon kill any 6.8 debate)
Jay Cunningham
06-22-08, 12:48
All dead wrong.
SCAR now CAR going stronger then ever. Name changer for political reasons(a good thing)
Any debate about 416 is long dead
6.8 dead in water.
Tap will never be aprroved for wide use it will not pass legal review.
New ammo will come out with CAR program that will problably remain a SOCOM ammo-(oh and this ammo is performing GREAT and will soon kill any 6.8 debate)
Thank you.
:cool:
All dead wrong.
SCAR now CAR going stronger then ever. Name changer for political reasons(a good thing)
Any debate about 416 is long dead
6.8 dead in water.
Tap will never be aprroved for wide use it will not pass legal review.
New ammo will come out with CAR program that will problably remain a SOCOM ammo-(oh and this ammo is performing GREAT and will soon kill any 6.8 debate)
Monty,
We just had SOPMOD Block II issued. When is the expected date for push down on the CAR to Army/Navy units?
Will weapons commity conduct the NETT at the unit or is it a "Train the Trainer"?
How long is the NETT?
Oh yeah.... Sorry if my phone calls you repeatedly. I noticed that on the past few weeks when we were on the range. REALLY REALLY sorry.
Cheers
In addition to the Army, the Navy and AF have both conducted reviews of the CAR. Not going to comment on their comments. Those that think 6.8 is dead are not talking to the right people. It's alive, not thriving but alive. There are still a lot of 416's in use by the Army and Navy. They seem to think the 416 is there to stay. Not sure on the Hornady but I would not count it out as legal review requirments can and will change if the need/want is there.
Jay Cunningham
06-22-08, 13:11
Please shoot me a PM, Drake.
New ammo will come out with CAR program that will problably remain a SOCOM ammo-(oh and this ammo is performing GREAT and will soon kill any 6.8 debate)
Ill be glad when we can learn more about that...
I am curious as to why the TAP won't pass and yet the Mk 262, MOD 0,1 are in use. It appears to me that both bullets are very similar.
I have talked with some end users of the SCAR and although it is being hyped by the heirarchy, not all of them really care for it.
Robb Jensen
06-22-08, 14:41
I am curious as to why the TAP won't pass and yet the Mk 262, MOD 0,1 are in use. It appears to me that both bullets are very similar.
I have talked with some end users of the SCAR and although it is being hyped by the heirarchy, not all of them really care for it.
TAP is meant to expand/fragment. Mk262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 only have a open tip to better balance the bullet during flight, it's a 77gr Sierra MatchKing..........the PC name is Open Tip MATCH or OTM.
Robb,
I know that the name was changed for PC reasons, but am I not correct that they both essentially do the same thing. I have seen both rounds and wouldn't it be possible to change the name to Hornady TAP OTM?
TAP is meant to expand/fragment. Mk262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 only have a open tip to better balance the bullet during flight, it's a 77gr Sierra MatchKing..........the PC name is Open Tip MATCH or OTM.
To the best of my knowledge, the only (and few) units issuing the 416 are all SOCOM. AWG fell afoul of Big Army.
I continue to hear unhappy (or mediocre at best) rumblings about SCAR, but haven't spoken to anyone at Crane about it in months in all fairness. For what it's worth, I don't see any of the current 416 users switching to SCAR down the road.
With all due respect to those who love and proselytize the 6.8mm, I've yet to speak to anyone in a decision-making role within the military that thinks it's coming. It may very well be better, but not better enough to justify a switch even among smaller, more independent and logistically autonomous units.
To the best of my knowledge, the only (and few) units issuing the 416 are all SOCOM. AWG fell afoul of Big Army.
I continue to hear unhappy (or mediocre at best) rumblings about SCAR, but haven't spoken to anyone at Crane about it in months in all fairness. For what it's worth, I don't see any of the current 416 users switching to SCAR down the road.
With all due respect to those who love and proselytize the 6.8mm, I've yet to speak to anyone in a decision-making role within the military that thinks it's coming. It may very well be better, but not better enough to justify a switch even among smaller, more independent and logistically autonomous units.
There is value in the above comment.;)
LouDiamond
06-22-08, 15:10
Ok gang, here is the latest from Rumor Control:
The SCAR is on life support - cost overruns, modifications, and failing to be vastly better than the M4. Not likely to be fielded.
Don't know where you heard that but your source is incorrect. Myself and a few of my co-workers will be jumping with and writing the rigging procedures for all variants of the SCAR for MFF use in the coming weeks.
Don't know where you heard that but your source is incorrect. Myself and a few of my co-workers will be jumping with and writing the rigging procedures for all variants of the SCAR for MFF use in the coming weeks.
I would have thought that would have been done years ago (at least 3). What do I know?
Robb Jensen
06-22-08, 15:23
Robb,
I know that the name was changed for PC reasons, but am I not correct that they both essentially do the same thing. I have seen both rounds and wouldn't it be possible to change the name to Hornady TAP OTM?
I misunderstood you 75gr TAP is a OTM design, 50-55-60gr TAP are fragmenting ballistic tip type rounds. My bad.
Again, that is why I called this thread Rumor Control. I don't think any of this is in stone yet. I just wanted to get a read on what other people are hearing.
On the CAR....
I will believe it when I see a fielding plan for it. SOPMOD Bloc II is just about fully fielded and if everyone is looking at the same slides, the M4 will be with us for the foreseeable future.
If it does get fielded.... anyone care to speculate on a fielding date for the (S)CAR? Put me down for 5 years in Army units. Navy units may get what they want whenever they want.
In any event, with any project like this, various departments will continue to work in their lane right up to the point that the funding is pulled. Remember, the XM8(G36) was a 'done deal' right up to the day it died.
LouDiamond
06-22-08, 15:40
I would have thought that would have been done years ago (at least 3). What do I know?
We've flown it in the wind tunnel and have done some jumps with it about a year and half ago but there is no standardized documentation for rigging all the variants for MFF use...yet.
LouDiamond
06-22-08, 15:44
Again, that is why I called this thread Rumor Control. I don't think any of this is in stone yet.
Anyone care to speculate on a fielding date for the (S)CAR?
As early as August/Sept 2008 for some Army units. Not even worth speculating on when big Army will have it IMO.
Mike,
No worries on the calls I did try to call you back a time or two also you called about some range stuff @ CP but the phone never picked up.
I hate to give time lines everything is subject to change and the minute you say that this is the way it will go the next day it will change. I would look for LRIP in earley 09 and I know our side is doing a train the trainer seems the most realistic was to do it. I'll be doing a large part of it myself for our side once we get with the contracted agency and get the material.
GotM4- your dead on about the ammo TAP is meant to fragment the OTM is different the TAP I've dealt with has the polymer tip.
ToddG- yea the units in SOCOM with 416 are Tier 1 units that have annex C to title 10(acquisition code)= We can legally buy what the hell we want. The rest of SOCOM does not have this annex they have to follow the legal way to buy gear.
On the other issues I would only talk off line about but going ahead with the CAR rifle is the right thing to do.
Drake- 6.8 only lives with steve holland and his unit and will never migrate beyond that. Dont get me wrong its a good rounds but changing ammo for the military is much harder then changing a gun I learned that the ammo train drive the gun train in most cases.
So Drake you have an obvious bone to pick with the CAR why is that?
How is the MASADA coming?
decodeddiesel
06-22-08, 16:21
Just to throw a little fly in the ointment, Technical Support Working Group is looking into the 6.8 SPC...
http://www.tswg.gov/subgroups/tos/offensive-systems/products.html
grinch, this "SOCOM" ammo, are you speaking of the "Brown Tip" ammo? I have heard of the stuff from a few of my buddies still in, but I know nearly zero as to the specifications of it.
Mike,
No worries on the calls I did try to call you back a time or two also you called about some range stuff @ CP but the phone never picked up.
I hate to give time lines everything is subject to change and the minute you say that this is the way it will go the next day it will change. I would look for LRIP in earley 09 and I know our side is doing a train the trainer seems the most realistic was to do it. I'll be doing a large part of it myself for our side once we get with the contracted agency and get the material.
GotM4- your dead on about the ammo TAP is meant to fragment the OTM is different the TAP I've dealt with has the polymer tip.
ToddG- yea the units in SOCOM with 416 are Tier 1 units that have annex C to title 10(acquisition code)= We can legally buy what the hell we want. The rest of SOCOM does not have this annex they have to follow the legal way to buy gear.
On the other issues I would only talk off line about but going ahead with the CAR rifle is the right thing to do.
Drake- 6.8 only lives with steve holland and his unit and will never migrate beyond that. Dont get me wrong its a good rounds but changing ammo for the military is much harder then changing a gun I learned that the ammo train drive the gun train in most cases.
So Drake you have an obvious bone to pick with the CAR why is that?
How is the MASADA coming?
I'm not for or against 6.8. It's a risk vs. reward thing. For now the risk imo is more prevalent. I know Steve has been pushing hard.
No bone to pick with the SCAR (CAR) itself whatsoever. I've shot both the heavy and light now. I can say they did not malfunction and that’s all I know. I just wish someone would make a decision on a direction. The politics involved with this rifle and the procurement system for the Military are complex and unpleasant at best.
No beef here, I have always enjoyed the company of the US sales team and hope that the CAR program is a success for our Military. We (taxpayers) are paying for it. Now those Belgium FN Fellas, they just take our ideas and say we copied them. That’s a little annoying. One was M93A’s on the first FN SCAR years ago. We still have the original request from FN for the stocks. See any similarities between the M93A and the SCAR folder? And these guys say we’re stealing designs from them, ppptttff.
ACR is going great. It has been one hellava ride and we're comming up on two years since the first Masada drawings and will be in full production in the beginning of 2009. I excited to say the least. The rifle is just amazing.
Failure2Stop
06-22-08, 16:41
DD-
The "SOCOM" or "Crane" bullet is an interesting little piece of kit, with an interesting history. It's performance is not in the public domain right now though.
With that being said, the 6.8's better performing ammo significantly out-performs all 5.56 ammo. This has been brought up and reiterated by Dr Roberts numerous times, and all test results I have personally seen supports the statements. Even if a 5.56 bullet was created that performed as well as 6.8, it would still be subject to fleet yaw variation that is inherant to 5.56.
There are organizations that have tested and are interested in the 6.8. Testing is ongoing, or at least claimed to be necessary. I would not expect to see a caliber change except in conjunction with a new platform, which, while not too far from possible, is not close enough to hold your breath for.
The CAR will be beneficial to units even if it shows no great leap in perfomance to the individual user, if only due to ease of maintenance and repair. I am no great fan of it (and yes, I do have more than a little time behind it), but it does hold certain advances in true modularity that the M4A1 does not. How we got the Mk16/17 is irrelevant at this point. It is here, and there is more than enough brass behind it to push it through.
Delivery will be imminent when a full SOCOM unit is outfitted for testing and evaluation. I would not expect that to make the front page of Army Times though.
But that's just me.
DD-
The "SOCOM" or "Crane" bullet is an interesting little piece of kit, with an interesting history. It's performance is not in the public domain right now though.
With that being said, the 6.8's better performing ammo significantly out-performs all 5.56 ammo. This has been brought up and reiterated by Dr Roberts numerous times, and all test results I have personally seen supports the statements. Even if a 5.56 bullet was created that performed as well as 6.8, it would still be subject to fleet yaw variation that is inherant to 5.56.
There are organizations that have tested and are interested in the 6.8. Testing is ongoing, or at least claimed to be necessary. I would not expect to see a caliber change except in conjunction with a new platform, which, while not too far from possible, is not close enough to hold your breath for.
The CAR will be beneficial to units even if it shows no great leap in perfomance to the individual user, if only due to ease of maintenance and repair. I am no great fan of it (and yes, I do have more than a little time behind it), but it does hold certain advances in true modularity that the M4A1 does not. How we got the Mk16/17 is irrelevant at this point. It is here, and there is more than enough brass behind it to push it through.
Delivery will be imminent when a full SOCOM unit is outfitted for testing and evaluation. I would not expect that to make the front page of Army Times though.
But that's just me.
I'm right with you on the 6.8 issue. I felt that Doc Roberts gave a great presentation at NDIA this year on barrier blind ammo. If you were there then you know about the 6.8 data he recovered. Auto glass is big consideration now.
I deal with guys every day that are using or have used the CAR. Opinions vary without a doubt.
AT comment cracked me up, no shit huh?
ToddG- yea the units in SOCOM with 416 are Tier 1 units that have annex C to title 10(acquisition code)= We can legally buy what the hell we want.
Yup, I spent about five years trying to convince those units that they wanted the SIG552. :cool:
6.8 only lives with steve holland and his unit and will never migrate beyond that.
At SHOT'02, Steve came up to Bill Vanderpool & me at SIG with a couple of 6.8 rounds and informed us in no uncertain terms that if we weren't producing a 6.8 variant of the 550-series by the end of the year, we'd have no way to compete for any military rifle procurement. Bill and I talked with the Swiss Arms engineers, came to the conclusion that it was doable if there was an actual demand, and decided to table the project until an actual 6.8mm weapon procurement appeared imminent. I'm pretty sure they still haven't begun development. Clue.
I would be rather surprised if the (S)CAR, 416, or other is widely adopted beyond SOCOM without a competition. The issue has become far too political for big Army to make a move unnoticed. All things considered (politics, logistics, training, etc.), an M4/M16 upgrade and/or upper receiver retrofit is far more likely than adopting an entirely new weapon system.
Regarding ammunition, the best thing we could do to help our warfighters is rid ourselves of the obligation to abide by the draconian restrictions imposed by the Hague Convention. It is absolutely asinine to forbid "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body," but allow fragmentation, not to mention grenades, missiles, mortars, artillery, and 20mm+ rounds.
If we still insist on adopting a new caliber, I think the biggest barrier to be overcome is that of logistics. For starters, we have millions or even billions of rounds of 5.56mm ammunition in U.S. inventory which need to be exhausted or immediately rendered worthless. On top of that, our 5.56mm supply chain is established and reasonably reliable. Existing ammunition manufacturers could adjust to load 6.8 as easily as they currently load 5.56, but there would be a learning curve of some kind, the scale of which is not entirely known. A brief interruption in ammunition supply would have been acceptable on September 10, 2001, but not today, and not for the foreseeable future. Additionally, if we were to retrofit existing M4 and M16 rifles with new bolts, barrels, and magazines to fire the cartridge, it would be almost impossible to accomplish in a timely manner considering the number of weapons currently deployed in theater. I think Failure2Stop is exactly right - we will probably not retire 5.56 until an entirely new weapon system is adopted.
As far as the actual caliber is concerned, the military's hesitation is understandable. 6.8 is good for our current conflict in our current weapon system, but is it the best for future conflicts and future weapon systems? Even after speaking with the cartridge designers, I think the answer is no. Although the 6.8 is far from "dead," even in military circles, I think the general consensus is that it would be another band-aid on the M16, and perhaps it would be best to push through a set of replacement calibers, weapons, and magazine specifications all at once rather than simply doing the best possible within a set of existing constraints.
I'll step off my soapbox now...
New ammo is coming that will do the job with no changes to existing weapons mags ect. and the tswg info is old that is how Steve is getting his if I remember correctly. Actually the CAR would be the perfect platform for the 6.8 but the powers that be will not let it happen in a bigger picture we were very hopeful in the beginning but no joy.
As far as making everyone happy with a new gun it will not happen some will like it some wont but is it operationally suitable and effective?? To many guys have been shooting M4's and are not willing to learn anything new or change what they do. Funny thing is if you hand them a new radio they don’t expect it to work like the last one and realize they have to learn how the new one works. If anything is really a problem with the program it’s that there has been too much operator input this has caused the biggest issues of any in the program.
New ammo is comming that will do the job with no changes to existing weapons mags ect. and the tswg info is old that is how Steve is getting his if I rember correctly. Actually the CAR would be the perfect platform for the 6.8 but the powers that be will not let it happen in a bigger picture we were very hopeful in the begining but no joy.
Define "perfect platform for the 6.8." The 6.8 was designed around the constraint of the M16 magazine well, and therefore is imperfect by its very nature. As far as I'm concerned, the M4, 416, SCAR, ACR, XCR, and others are equals with regard to their ability to shoot a 6.8mm projectile...:confused:
Crane has seen premature parts breakage with high rounds counts in M4's with 6.8 they claim the platform was not meant for the "extra" power of the cartridge. The CAR shoots 5.56 and 7.62 basically from the same platform the parts engineering from the beginning took this into consideration that’s why the 5.56 version barely makes weight it’s over built for 5.56.
Not to mention cheap to switch barrel and bolt only and can be swapped by end user.
Crane has seen premature parts breakage with high rounds counts in M4's with 6.8 they claim the platform was not meant for the "extra" power of the cartridge. The CAR shoots 5.56 and 7.62 basically from the same platform the parts engineering from the beginning took this into consideration that’s why the 5.56 version barely makes weight it’s over built for 5.56.
Not to mention cheap to switch barrel and bolt only and can be swapped by end user.
Ah, I see where you're going. Very interesting - I wasn't aware of the Crane tests. If that is the case, I agree, although you're then left with a 5.56/6.8mm gun that is almost as bulky as its 7.62mm counterpart. I was impressed by the SCAR-L's recoil, but everything on the gun felt about 10% - 25% bigger/thicker/heavier than it should have been for a 5.56mm firearm. It's almost like most of the weapon was an afterthought. Shooting side by side with the M4 and 416, there was no comparison which weapons were easier and more natural to handle.
Failure2Stop
06-23-08, 13:43
I would be rather surprised if the (S)CAR, 416, or other is widely adopted beyond SOCOM without a competition.
From my interaction with the pertinent departments-
As of my last involvement, there was no intention to disseminate the (then) SCAR beyond SOCOM, as it would require a new contract, with all associated full and open competitions.
From my interaction with the pertinent departments-
As of my last involvement, there was no intention to disseminate the (then) SCAR beyond SOCOM, as it would require a new contract, with all associated full and open competitions.
Yeah, that's what I figured. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Military acquisition is a f*cking nightmare...
No bone to pick with the SCAR (CAR) itself whatsoever. I've shot both the heavy and light now. I can say they did not malfunction and that’s all I know. I just wish someone would make a decision on a direction. The politics involved with this rifle and the procurement system for the Military are complex and unpleasant at best.
No beef here, I have always enjoyed the company of the US sales team and hope that the CAR program is a success for our Military. We (taxpayers) are paying for it. Now those Belgium FN Fellas, they just take our ideas and say we copied them. That’s a little annoying. One was M93A’s on the first FN SCAR years ago. We still have the original request from FN for the stocks. See any similarities between the M93A and the SCAR folder? And these guys say we’re stealing designs from them, ppptttff.
I gave my contact info to Rich Fitzpatrick at this year's (2008) SHOT Show, and offered to investigate your / MagPul's claims that anyone from FN infringed on intellectual property. To the best of my knowledge, FN still has not received anything formal regarding the issue (neither have I).
As far as the M93A is concerned - again, I offered to Rich to "make this right", but despite my request no invoice has been produced (from either side), and the only two people from FN who endorsed the product no longer work here. I will add that since I joined the program three and a half years ago only one M93A was ever mounted to a SCAR, and only for internal testing, and using an adapter of FN's design. And frankly, NO - I don't see any similarities between the Mk16 / 17 stock and the MagPul M93A, except perhaps for the color.
Hope this helps,
Clint
I gave my contact info to Rich Fitzpatrick at this year's (2008) SHOT Show, and offered to investigate your / MagPul's claims that anyone from FN infringed on intellectual property. To the best of my knowledge, FN still has not received anything formal regarding the issue (neither have I).
As far as the M93A is concerned - again, I offered to Rich to "make this right", but despite my request no invoice has been produced (from either side), and the only two people from FN who endorsed the product no longer work here. I will add that since I joined the program three and a half years ago only one M93A was ever mounted to a SCAR, and only for internal testing, and using an adapter of FN's design. And frankly, NO - I don't see any similarities between the Mk16 / 17 stock and the MagPul M93A, except perhaps for the color.
Hope this helps,
Clint
I just sent an email to BW, ask him to forward it to you. No need to get into this on line.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.