PDA

View Full Version : The Prancing Stallion lives on!!!!!


Centurion_D
06-25-2010, 11:19 PM
Looks like SOCOM gave the SCAR 16 the thumbs down..:seeya:

http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rtz4kC99

SOCOM Cancels Mk-16 SCAR

by christian on June 25, 2010 · Comments (16)

In an exclusive report for Military.com we reveal that US Spec Ops Command has abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR and will use FY 2011 money to buy more 7.62 Mk-17s to fill a “capability gap” for a 7.62 battle rifle.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the “SCAR,” as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

“The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. “Currently, three of USSOCOM’s four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item.”

A couple things to note here, so far SOCOM has purchased 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s — way below their original requirement. The weird thing to consider here is that the requirement was for a 5.56 and that was what was competed. Now they’re buying a 7.62 that has no written requirement document attached to it.

Further, the SEALs are going to be particularly in the hurt locker on this one since the Navy doesn’t buy their guns, SOCOM does. I hear that it was Naval Special Warfare that really pushed this program and that it was the USASOC that basically killed it. More of the Mk-16s were fielded to SEALs than any other unit within SOCOM.

Also of note: I hear that the services who have them will have to hand back their Mk-16s when they’re back from deployment and pick up their old SOPMOD M4s or HK-416s. So so a final goodbye to your SCAR-16 when you’re back from The Box.

Two well-informed industry analysts tell me that SCAR-maker FNH-USA will try to sell SOCOM on the idea of a Mk-17 common receiver that can be turned into a 5.56 or other caliber by switching out part of the lower receiver. So FNH-USA is positioning itself to rescue the Mk-16 through the Mk-17. But there’s no indication that SOCOM is biting.

There will certainly be more on this story as it develops, but I wanted Kit Up! readers to be the first to know.

Have a great weekend!

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rwQ4zJh7

leelaw
06-25-2010, 11:24 PM
They acknowledged that the rifles are better than the M16, and then cut them and retired all currently issued SCARs.

Stupid, stupid decision and waste of your money.

Centurion_D
06-25-2010, 11:27 PM
They acknowledged that the rifles are better than the M16, and then cut them and retired all currently issued SCARs.

Stupid, stupid decision and waste of your money.

Yea I saw all the hype with the SCAR 16 but to be honest I really didn't see a vast improvement compared to M4/A4.

UserM4
06-25-2010, 11:30 PM
They acknowledged that the rifles are better than the M16, and then cut them and retired all currently issued SCARs.

Stupid, stupid decision and waste of your money.

It would've been a bigger waste of money to exchange all the M4's for SCAR's. And it will save money in the long run to have commonality of parts. Honestly, AR's are just plain good. Short barrel, long barrel, longer barrel, accessories up the ying yang. Reliability too, yes I said it, AR's are reliable! It'll take a change in caliber to retire an AR imho.

battleship
06-25-2010, 11:44 PM
Will this bring the price of the civilian SCAR 16 down now.

bjl333
06-25-2010, 11:48 PM
They acknowledged that the rifles are better than the M16, and then cut them and retired all currently issued SCARs.

Stupid, stupid decision and waste of your money.

Yea I saw all the hype with the SCAR 16 but to be honest I really didn't see a vast improvement compared to M4/A4.

It would've been a bigger waste of money to exchange all the M4's for SCAR's. And it will save money in the long run to have commonality of parts. Honestly, AR's are just plain good. Short barrel, long barrel, longer barrel, accessories up the ying yang. Reliability too, yes I said it, AR's are reliable! It'll take a change in caliber to retire an AR imho.



Yeap ... I agree the AR platforms are still very good, and it'll be a waste of our tax dollars to swap them out !!

leelaw
06-26-2010, 2:27 AM
It would've been a bigger waste of money to exchange all the M4's for SCAR's. And it will save money in the long run to have commonality of parts. Honestly, AR's are just plain good. Short barrel, long barrel, longer barrel, accessories up the ying yang. Reliability too, yes I said it, AR's are reliable! It'll take a change in caliber to retire an AR imho.

I never claimed that the M16 was a poor platform, but can you come up with any reasonable explanation for why the SCARs which were already bought and paid for were being retired, other than politics?

The whole deal stinks almost as bad as the CHP SW 4006 contract does.

MrPlink
06-26-2010, 2:36 AM
can you come up with any reasonable explanation for why the SCARs which were already bought and paid for were being retired, other than politics?



nope, that sums it up.

You could probably write several books on the politics that surround colt and all the AR15 style rifles and our government. Fascinating stuff really.

Quiet
06-26-2010, 3:48 AM
The whole deal stinks almost as bad as the CHP SW 4006 contract does.

Quoted For the Truth.

evidens83
06-26-2010, 7:21 AM
Dont need to fix what aint broke :gunsmilie:

UserM4
06-26-2010, 8:43 AM
I never claimed that the M16 was a poor platform, but can you come up with any reasonable explanation for why the SCARs which were already bought and paid for were being retired, other than politics?

The whole deal stinks almost as bad as the CHP SW 4006 contract does.

I agree with you that it's most likely politics. What is government isn't right? But from my point of view, having a few special guns makes for a difficult upkeep.

Centurion_D
06-26-2010, 9:40 AM
I agree with you that it's most likely politics. What is government isn't right? But from my point of view, having a few special guns makes for a difficult upkeep.

Very true. Looks like SOCOM will keep some 7.62 SCAR's in stock but I doubt the regular Infantry will get any. More than likely the M14 will still be kept for DM role.

battleship
06-26-2010, 10:01 AM
I would take a REPR over the SCAR 17, perhaps they should look into that platform if they want to use 308.

brando
06-26-2010, 10:28 AM
I think Eric over at Soldier Systems Daily has the best analysis of the SCAR situation...

http://soldiersystems.net/2010/05/11/scar-reaches-milestone-c/

dieselpower
06-26-2010, 10:55 AM
cliff notes for those who are in a hurry...

...it took five-and-a-half years for SOCOM to work the bugs out of the weapon to the point where they could authorize production...


But a few examples of issues that continue to plague the weapon are.....

...reciprocating charging handle
...ergonomics issues
...pencil barrel to meet weight standards
...a butt stock that can be unlocked with a simple tap in the right place
...both variants of the SCAR are said to be battering the SOPMOD II accessories during firing despite a requirement that the SCAR is compatible with them.
...the guns are still being manufactured in Belgium and assembled here.

While the troops are happy with the enhanced capability of the Mk 17, it too has some special problems in addition to those already common with the Mk 16. For example,

...the current magazine is a modified FN FAL 20 round magazine which falls short of SOCOM’s desired 25 rounds.
... the Mk 13 EGLM fitted to the Mk 16, the current mag is completely enclosed in the weapon and can get stuck if it doesn’t fall free.
...The issue of the Mk 13 also makes it all but impossible to develop a polymer magazine for the Mk 17 without major engineering changes.

evidens83
06-26-2010, 10:56 AM
^^ Interesting read.

Ripper
06-26-2010, 4:16 PM
I am glad that they are Phasing out the SCAR 16s. Too much plastic for my tastes, M4's are battle proven. Feel more solid than the PLASTIC RIFLE (SCAR) Just my OPINION, I love the M4/M16 they never let me down ever:cool2:

Diabolus
06-28-2010, 5:07 AM
If I am reading this correctly, it seems they are using funds originally allotted for MK16s to purchase MK17s. Basically, they want a heavier round and will use limited funding for the MK17 instead of the MK16.

The MK17 makes more sense since our troops are engaging combatants from a much greater distance.

SMGLee
06-28-2010, 1:25 PM
Last year, a friend of mine heavily involved int he SCAR development said the Mk16 will die and the Mk17 will live on...I had my doubts.....then When I saw the common receiver Mk17 four months ago, I knew the end of Mk16 was near. the news came as no surprise.

But in the other end of the story, the Army's next gen carbine selection is fast approaching, if SCAR wins that contract, its going to be huge for FNH.

the truth in the SCAR-L with the NSW is not true, hearing from a lot of NSW evaluators, they also wanted the SCAR-L killed but insist the SCAR-H lives on. so this outcome basically run right into NSW desired result.

Fjold
06-28-2010, 1:55 PM
Will this bring the price of the civilian SCAR 16 down now.

Yes, all the posers will stop buying them so demand will go down.

brando
06-28-2010, 2:20 PM
I am glad that they are Phasing out the SCAR 16s. Too much plastic for my tastes, M4's are battle proven. Feel more solid than the PLASTIC RIFLE (SCAR) Just my OPINION, I love the M4/M16 they never let me down ever:cool2:

Have you shot one yet? I was pleasantly surprised how solid it feels, more so than the M4/16 actually. My main beef with it was the short fore end, causing me to grab the gas block too often.

The Mk17 fills an important niche that has been desired in SOF circles for some time. In the mid-90s the SR-25s were starting to supplant the M14 (which as much as it's reliable, it's just not an accurate platform) in USASOC circles. However, the SR-25 developed its own problems. By 1995 we started phasing out our odd-ball carbines such as the CAR-15 and some of the shortened variants (many of these were Vietnam era throwbacks) for the M4. Still, there was no 7.62 NATO battle rifle in the inventory with the adaptability of the M4 even by the start of this decade.

Sure, with OIF there was a growing need for a semi-auto 7.62mm rifle for urban snipers, but before the M110 was fielded (incidentally, just a subtle evolution from the USASOC SR-25s) units were again falling back on M14s. For folks on ODAs, especially in A'stan, the desire for a shorter 7.62mm rifle went unanswered. That was a big part of what drove the Mk17 development and if you ask around USASOC circles, in the last year and half that particular model, not the Mk16, has been filling the biggest unanswered need.

In other words the M4, while not perfect, was still a very mission capable carbine and available in high volume, but there was still no modern 7.62mm battle rifle. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that the rifle the guys on the ground really needed is the one that the funding is going towards.

Lagduf
06-28-2010, 4:04 PM
Yes, all the posers will stop buying them so demand will go down.

So that all the cheapskate posers can then buy them?

I'd love a 7.62 SCAR.

Noobert
06-28-2010, 4:44 PM
I thought this thread was going to be about Ferrari's

Quiet
07-03-2010, 1:27 AM
On 06-29-2010.
SOCOM Developing Caliber Conversion for SCAR (http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/socom-developing-caliber-conversion-for-scar.html#ixzz0sSiRVLLt)


Officials with the Tampa-based USSOCOM followed up on our Mk-16 cancellation story with some clarifications about some of the data presented in the piece posted on Military.com.

First off, the command took issue with my calling the program “cancelled.” Technically the SCAR program is still on, of course, but SOCOM has decided not to buy any more of the straight up 5.56 versions. OK…In my book that means the Mk-16 is cancelled, but I can see how they’d get some grief from some quarters about the legalistic terms.

Also, to be clear, SOCOM is not buying any additional Mk-17s than it was already planning to buy. If the article gave some folks that impression, that’s an incorrect read of the “buying more” bit. They’re buying more than they have now, and no more of the Mk-16s.

Another point. SOCOM said they are definitely having troopers turn in their Mk-16s when they redeploy and will not allow any Mk-16s in the inventory. What SOCOM is not clear on yet is what will happen to the roughly 850 SCAR-Ls once they’re back at the armory.

Now, there was confusion on the back and forth via email with SOCOM and FNH on this, but the command wanted to make sure we made this point clear. SOCOM will “complete development” of a kit that can convert the Mk-17 into a 5.56 if desired.

The original objective was to develop a single weapon capable of firing whatever caliber desired. That objective is met with the Mk 17 as the development of a conversion kit allows the operator to fire either 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition from the Mk 17.

I did get my numbers mixed up on the original acquisition objective. What SOCOM followed up to me was that the JORD showed a requirement for 38,000 Mk-16s and 5,600 Mk-17s.

FNH response on 07-01-2010.
Post on m4c.net from FNH Marketing Director (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56888&page=3)
I would like to direct everyone to our website below. We have posted a release. Before you read it, please understand that, as a professional, ethical organization doing business with a myriad of highly respected customers, we are bound to release facts...not conjecture, rumor, and/or hearsay. Our beliefs and opinions are rooted in discussion with officials, official test report results, and official decisions that some of the general public do not have access to.

Understand that the MK 16 has not been 'cancelled' and is not 'dead' as some overly sensationalistic journalists have reported. We have not received any official information from our customer that the SCAR contract has been changed or modified in any way, shape, or form. The MK 16 remains a part of the SCAR contract.

In regards to the performance advantage of the MK 16 and limited funds, I offer the following. The MK 16 has met all requirements. These requirements are well above and beyond that of the current system being employed. The entire suite of SCAR weapons (MK 16, MK 17, MK 13, and MK 20) must be procured with 'specific' funding. That funding is also alloted to buy other things like body armor, lasers, helicopters, etc. The customer has a right and rightfully does prioritize how to spend that funding. Equipment that is 'service common' (and the O&M funding to maintain it) is not procured with 'specific' funding; it is provided.

We intend to release more as time permits and with approval. Thanks to those who take what they read on the internet with a grain of salt and to those who know and appreciate the value of this program.

FNH USA stands behind the SCAR program (http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=87)
FNH USA is cautious in releasing any information due to the nature of the pledge to our customers.

We can, however, reiterate that the MK 16 (5.56mm variant), MK 17 (7.62mm variant) and the MK 13 Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (40mm), which make up the SCAR family of weapons, have each met, and in our opinion exceeded, all of the USSOCOM program requirements. It is also a matter of record that the SCAR has been proven to be superior to existing legacy assault rifles after numerous Department of Defense tests in both lab and field environments.

FNH USA believes the fact that the SCAR program recently passed Milestone C and was determined to be operationally effective / operationally suitable (OE/OS) for fielding, highlights the tremendous capability the weapons system offers deployed special operators.

FNH USA believes the issue is not whether the SCAR, and specifically the MK 16 variant, is the superior weapon system available today ...it has already been proven to be just that. The issue is whether or not the requirement for a 5.56mm replacement outweighs the numerous other requirements competing for the customers’ limited budget. That is a question that will only be determined by the customer.

While we know that the MK 17, to include the "common receiver" and corresponding 5.56mm conversion kit is an option, other Services and SOF components will have the ability to procure the MK 16 stand-alone rifle under the contract if it better meets their mission requirements.

In conclusion, the management and employees of FN are proud to provide this generation of special operators their first, entirely new assault rifle that meets and, in our opinion, exceeds the demands of today's battlefield.

AirborneStranger
07-03-2010, 8:44 AM
Does you guys think the military would consider using piston uppers on the M4's? I don't keep up so for all I know they might already but I don't believe that they do.

Quiet
08-18-2010, 4:32 AM
Looks like the earlier internet rumors/speculations that US SOCOM cancelled the Mk 16 (FN SCAR-L) were premature.

http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=92

(note parts in bold)
The U.S. Special Operations Command notified FN that the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) family of weapons—the MK 16 (5.56mm) and MK 17 (7.62mm) combat assault rifles and MK 13 grenade launcher—was approved for full-rate production. The Full-Rate Production Decision Review by the Milestone Decision Authority occurred on July 30, 2010.

Legasat
08-18-2010, 7:29 AM
I would love to shoot a 7.62 SCAR someday.

deadcoyote
08-19-2010, 5:03 PM
Saw the company that sells us our weapons directly at my department started selling 5.56 SCAR's. Sometimes I"m amazed at how cheap the department prices are so i clicked and.... Holy $%^&!!! $2350 for the agenctyprice? How much does one of these do-hickeys cost normally?:confused:

nemisis1400
08-19-2010, 5:15 PM
I thought this thread was going to be about Ferrari's

I thought this thread was going to about a strip club

X-NewYawker
08-19-2010, 8:06 PM
Good riddance to reciprocating bolts!
How you can go from the FAL to the FNC to the SCAR -- a nice downhill slide...

Code7inOaktown
08-19-2010, 8:17 PM
Looks like the earlier internet rumors/speculations that US SOCOM cancelled the Mk 16 (FN SCAR-L) were premature.

http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=92

(note parts in bold)

Actually, Military.com is standing behind its story. And FN isn't really clear on the release. The military may be ordering Mk 17 models, not Mk 16's.

ar15barrels
08-20-2010, 9:06 PM
I heard FNH just hired this guy:

http://www.nationofbob.com/images/iraqinuke.jpg

Josh3239
08-20-2010, 9:38 PM
:rofl2:

Code7inOaktown
08-20-2010, 11:06 PM
It is confirmed. The Mk 16 is dead. the Mk 17 apparently still has a pulse though.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/

Flogger23m
08-21-2010, 12:26 PM
Very true. Looks like SOCOM will keep some 7.62 SCAR's in stock but I doubt the regular Infantry will get any. More than likely the M14 will still be kept for DM role.

Doubt it. I am pretty sure that is why the Army bought the M110 (SR-25).

Centurion_D
08-21-2010, 6:20 PM
Doubt it. I am pretty sure that is why the Army bought the M110 (SR-25).

Opps..I forgot about the M110. Maybe the M14's days are numbered? Maybe?