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.
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.