The 3rd Generation FN SCAR-L, or Mk 16 Mod 0.
The 3rd Generation FN SCAR-H, or MK 17 MOD 0.
Posted on 05/21/2008 10:50:16 AM PDT by roaddog727
From time to time I write reports of interesting things I do where I work at SOCOM. One of the neat things I had the opportunity do in January/February of this year was go to Iraq (Baghdad, Falluja, and Balad) and Afghanistan (Baghram) to participate in a Knowledge Management assessment.
But that is not what I want to discuss today. Today I had the opportunity to fire the FN SOF Combat Assault Rifle (FN SCAR) {Low Rate Initial Production}.
See Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
The models in particular were the SCAR-L (Mk-16, 10 inch, 5.56x45mm, Close Quarters Combat variant) and SCAR-H (MK17, 13 inch, 7.62x51mm, Close Quarters Combat Variant). I was shooting at 25M silhouettes, standing, unsupported.
Course of fire:
20 rounds in the SCAR-L, semi auto – all 20 rounds in the 9 ring or better.
20 rounds in the SCAR-H, semi auto – all 20 rounds in the 9 ring or better.
40 rounds in the SCAR-H, full auto – 35 rounds in the black, 5 still on the target in the white (3 high-center, 1 low left, 1 low right)
20 rounds in the SCAR-L, full auto, silenced – all 20 rounds in the 8 ring or better.
What was most pleasing was the ease of firing and ease of target engagement. Particularly appealing was that when I fired both variants on full auto, instead of the barrel going high and to the right, the rifle pushed straight back. I’ll say that again – instead of going high and right on full auto, it pushed straight back. Savvy shooters will know what that means.
The above results speak for themselves. This is a great weapon and will have great results in combat.
HoooooAH!
As always,
Have at it.
Any news or feedback on the SF’s 6.8Rem caliber project?
Here is a working link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
It seems like a great weapon and they all have advantages and disadvantages, but in the TO, if given a choice I would choose the XM8.
nothing
Not to my knowledge, but I have no visibility on that program, sorry.
“...if given a choice I would choose the XM8.”
I would encourage you to fire the SCAR before you make that eval.
FN had better deliver on making the SCAR available to civilians.
I would love to see the US Military return to the 7.62. I never thought the .22 was a good military cartridge.
It won’t be cheap.......
Another good gun. But……..
We need a design challenge at DARPA. All these weapons are old potatoes re-warmed. AR18 repackaged as “XM8.” This is essentially an older design too........ There hasn’t been anything new that really brought anything new in capabilities or performance in a long time.
There were some inspiring ideas such as caseless ammunition on the G11 concept for example. What we need is a revolutionary break through, not some evolutionary development that brings modest performance gains over what we have now. -IMHO
It’s happening. A bit at a time, but happening.
Hit something (or some one) with the 7.62, it goes down and, (more importantly) STAYS down.
“What we need is a revolutionary break through, not some evolutionary development that brings modest performance gains over what we have now. -IMHO”
Agreed.
What we need is a man-portable (and useable), high energy pulse laser. No recoil, no windage. Point, click, ZZZzzzphths, clunk.
There are many ideas that are within the realm of feasibility we should explore. Things where like with the M16 43 years ago, or the M1 Garand when fielded, give us a significant performance advantage over other standard issued weapons.
Everything we are seeing proposed is more or less a reincarnation of some older concept. An improved M16. A new version of an AR18/180 or a new FN.......... The performance gains on these weapons is marginal over what we already have. While an AR18 surely is a slightly better design than the M16, it's not making me go in heat either.
I agree. The people who were advocating the 5.56 always talked about the potential for wounding and how it would take two more men out of the battle to carry the wounded away from the front lines. In my experience in the desert, the guy that was wounded continued fighting.
In close quarters battle you might hit the guy several times with a burst and stop the fight, but at ranges out around 300-400 meters using iron sights you were lucky to hit him once. If he found out about it he would get really angry.
I understand that they're starting to see a lot more guys wearing body armor, too. I don't know that the 5.56 can penetrate body armor at 300 meters when fired out of the M-4.
If improvement over current M16 series is possible, this represents most likely approach given comprehensive approach to developing the SCAR requirement.
Curious to watch Army/USMC reception to SCAR fielding within SOCOM...
556/762 platform commonality is cool, what will be TELLING is how much 762 really gets used....
Put it thisa way:
“The field” is clammoring for a return to the 7.62x51. Also of note, in the future, there will also be a 7.62x39 variant fielded for the SCAR.
“Any news or feedback on the SF’s 6.8Rem caliber project?”
I’d advise taking a look at the 6.5 Grendel before getting too worked up about the 6.8. It has far better ballistics, with similar knockdown power. The .308 (7.62 NATO) is too much recoil for an assault rifle.
www.65grendel.com
It’s also being evaluated by SOCOM.
A 22 will kill perfectly fine if placed right. A 50 cal won’t kill if it misses.
Against human targets, 556 is bad news. I’m talking from experience. The bullet is unstable and after it hits begins to rotate after 7cm of penetration. At close range the slug virtually explodes inside a person with only the penetrator exiting. It can’t deal with the forces acting on it. At over 50 meters you get two exist wounds usually because as the slug rotates it separates into the penetrator and lead tail. A 308 on the other hand punches nice clean holes and doesn’t rotate until after 18cm. 556 is a nice all purpose round which because of its high velocity and instability creates a lot more damage on a human that the layperson thinks.
If you doubt me. Try this. Take some coffee cans and set them up and shoot at them with 556; small entrance and exit holes. Now take some more large coffee cans and fill them with water, shoot again. You’ll see a small entrance hole and the entire rear of the can is blown open. That’s because MOST the damage from a bullet like 556 is from its shock wave and instability, not the physical hole it punches!
You address some other myths. A very fast and flat shooting round 556 really needs no adjustment for distance and in 99% of the time windage. People shoot bullseye (with fixed iron sights 40/40) on the M16 qual range all the time, and that’s knocking over a smaller that life sized Ivan at 300 meters. A smaller round like 556 allows for less recoil, makes it less intimidating for the person learning, and generally is lighter and smaller. 556 is a good round against a “human” and for general purpose use in the military.
We’re not killing Kodiak bear. We’re shooting at humans. We’re not setting world records for distance; we’re shooting at ranges of less than 100 meters in most cases. Weight, volume, and ease of use (recoil etc) are will weigh in as well…………. 556 isn’t for everything, but as an all purpose round it does very well, and in fact all others have gone over to the concept of small high velocity rounds, even the Russians who adopted their 5.45 and FN which is experimenting with a 4.7mm.
Well, maybe in SOCOM-ville, but there is no validated requirement for a general issue 762 rifle to replace the M16/M4 from CENTCOM or any other combatant command.
Again, what will be interesting with SCAR is how much draw 762 really has amongst the rank and file when they have both options - and the M4 - available.
6.5G AWS
If you shoot a moose, bear, buck, I really don't care what; and place a bad shot, a 338 won't take him down. On the other hand, a 270 will drop a black bear perfectly fine if you hit him right. With “hand guns” and in the low velocity ranges you have an excellent point. The 45 has a lot more target effect than say a 9mm, but in the realm of high velocity, things change. -IMHO
Oh man, I want a job at USSOCOM.
Why wouldn’t the barrel, mag and bolt be interchangeable? If you’re firing a larger round, wouldn’t you need a larger bore barrel?
This is only relevant in warfare against First World countries. Against our likely enemies, they are more likely to just leave their wounded for US to care for, producing stress on OUR logistics and medical facilities
What they're saying is that if you want to switch from 5.56 to 7.62, you swap the barrel, mag, and bolt for the 7.62 versions, and leave the frame, trigger, etc alone.
Gotcha
A firefight is a lot different from hunting elk. Proper shot placement isn't always an option in a firefight at night at 300 meters with iron sights. Especially when the target is hiding behind rocks and shooting back. In that case I want the biggest, badest bullet traveling at the highest velocity to create a huge wound cavity and immediate incapacitation. When I hit someone I want them to stop shooting at me immediately, not ten minutes from now.
I agree, both 6.5 and 6.8 rounds have pros and cons but both are superior to 5.56, and fit in the 5.56 envelope.
You can carry 210 rounds 223 in the weight and volume of 120 rounds of 308. The weapon weighs less (by design you can make them lighter); you basically don’t need to compensate for range from 0-300 meters because the deviation from line of sight is 2 inches up and down. Ammo is cheap; training new people is easy on a weapon that isn’t that intimidating. Recoil is low and recovery times fast, and depending on design of the weapon easy to manage on auto. All this is packed into a weapon that essentially does more damage on a human than a much more stable and slower 762x51 round.
**** “In that case I want the biggest, badest bullet traveling at the highest velocity to create a huge wound cavity and immediate incapacitation.”
223 isn’t some magical caliber, nor is it perfect for everything, but it’s a caliber that in most situations offers good all around performance. The M4 “CAN” be operated from a vehicle. 15 minutes later you “CAN” be clearing rooms, and tomorrow you might be on a roof top where you “CAN” take a 200 yard shot. It’s a weapon you “CAN” carry for long times in hill country or jungles. How good would an MP5 work at 200 meters? How good does the M107 work at CQB? How nice and light is an M14 carrying it? 223 is simply a good standard caliber that works well in most scenarios, and you can’t pick and choose what you have that second like in a computer game switching between the nine different weapons one carries there. Those stating the obvious that caliber “X” can carry further or punch through more or whatever else, are playing the game of narrowing in the scope to a small band of variables they deem important that second to make their claim. The problem is that we’re talking about an “all purpose” caliber with mutually exclusive variables at work.
Yes,
I am speaking from the perspective of “Happy-COM”
And also correct, (for now) there is no “Validated requirement” in CENTCOM, “Sad-COM” for this weapon. However, once the word gets out and folks start firing it and engaging live targets, that may well change.
True. IF you're using Ball Ammo. We're dinking around with stuff that's truly “lethal”. To the effect that if you hit the guy in the supper arm, no more arm and part of the shoulder to boot.
That's all I'll say, except that it has undergone JAG review and survived.
please take note of each of the muzzles:
the 7.62 variant is longer than the 5.56 variant. This is to prevent inadvertent “Sound suppressor” installation over the wron caliber barrel. Although you COULD screw the 7.62 suppressor over the 5.56 muzzle. But that's OK - it won't blow up in your face.
also, if you look just above the serration to the rear of the flash suppressor you'll see threading. That's where the “Noise suppressor” screw's onto the muzzle. Very sweet. You DON'T have to remove the existing flash suppressor.
We don’t need a technology driver like the OICW, and we also shouldn’t settle for some re-warmed old potatoes in a new package. What we need at this point is something feasible that brings a real advantage to the table, and nothing so far proposed fits that description.
Think: first mini-ball, semi auto, first breech loader........
What we need is something that “significantly” enhances either the capabilities or performance of the weapon. The goal isn’t to make a fashion statement, change things just for the sake of changing, or to make some guys feel special by adopting a toy for them. We don’t need any more Army black-beret nonsense, and essentially that’s what a lot of this is.
Recoil was insignificant on the SCAR-L and light on the SCAR-H. I was waering a polo shirt and have only minor stippling on my shoulder. That’s after 40 rounds of the 5.56 and 60 rounds of 7.62. With a little padding, I could fire the 7.62 all day.
“We don’t need any more Army black-beret nonsense, and essentially that’s what a lot of this is.”
Until you fire the weapon, you have nothing further to add, other than uninformed opinion.
Personally, I’d like to see a DOD wide transition to the piston action 6.8 SPC M-4.
This newly designed action from the late 50s, a weapon made of all new materials, in all new calibers like 308 and 223, will offer earth shattering new performance in ballistics's while vastly reducing weight over present M4s. Feel better?
Different action, different ammo.
Again, until you fire it and have had the engineers discuss it with you, all you have is uninformed opinion.
IT is a rather “interesting”, “Fun” place...... :-)
Your argument strongly favors 556. The entire point of small caliber assault rifles is increased probability of hit. You are far more likely to score a COM hit under pressure with a light recoiling, flat shooting rifle.
And just for the record, there are almost no riflemen left in OIF/OEF shooting iron sights. Optics are everywhere, and intended to address precisely the issue you raise - increased hit probability under suboptimal conditions.
The Army isn't "looking" at 6.8 with any seriousness, and those M14's have largely been replaced by 762 and 556mm AR variant heavy barreled "designated marksmen" rifles.
762 NATO has a place, but not as a general issue rifle caliber.
There is no warfighter requirement for a larger caliber?? And believe me, they aren't shy about asking for more and better stuff.
If 556 wasn't working, we'd have already fielded AR10's army wide three years ago.
As I stated before, we'll know soon enough. The M16 series is a spectacularly successful weapons system, esp. in current SOPMOD/MWS configuration and USMC M16A4. SCAR is an incremental improvement, hardly a death ray.
Having them both in widespread combat use will be interesting - were it really a priority it would have been fielded already.
Time will tell if the operators in SOCOM are truly ready to abandon their AR pattern long guns.
It's hardly Red6's "assessment" - no major Army WORLDWIDE still uses a battle rifle caliber for general issue.
It's not a conspiracy to make war less dangerous, but recognition of the increased effectiveness of "small and lighter."
My experience is based on Desert Storm and I haven't really talked that much to guys over there now. I did see a recent photo taken in Iraq with a Marine with an M-14, so at least some are still using them.
All I can tell you is that based on my experience, I would prefer to carry a larger caliber than the 5.56. We didn't have to carry them for extended periods, so the weight of the ammo and the rifle didn't really make a lot of difference. I'm used to firing 12 guage shotguns and a 30-06, so the recoil on the 7.62 didn't bother me. Also, there's a lot of new technology on recoil reduction that could be applied to a new combat rifle.
It would happen overnight if combatant commanders demanded it. In peacetime, you have an argument, but if there was a legitimate, coordinated consensus for a "better" rifle from the field, the Army and Congress would be tripping over each other to get it done.
The Marine Corps just recently approved adoption of the M16A4 as standard issue, following a full analysis of requirements and competitive evaluation. Had they wanted an AR10 or SCAR, they could have bought it.
Your preference for a larger caliber is fine, but what works for you as an individual has little to do with what works as a general issue weapon for a large military force.
Even in the hands of trained riflemen, smaller calibers achieve better hits faster than larger calibers.
That's what wins gunfights, assuming the small caliber has adequate terminal performance.
Trading slightly better terminal performance for slower and less accurate has not been the preferred approach since the Sturmgewehr hit the battlefield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.