Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

SOCOM Cancels SCAR

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Josh3239
    Calguns Addict
    • Dec 2006
    • 9191

    SOCOM Cancels SCAR

    AR FTW!

    Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.


    In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle,
    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.

    "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)

    SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

    News of the cancellation of the Mk-16 variant of the SCAR is a major reversal for a command that spent six years and millions of dollars fielding a rifle specifically made for use by special operators. It was the first rifle since the M-16 that was competed, tested, and built from the ground up for the military.

    This cancellation will certainly be poorly received by program advocates who touted the weapon's mission flexibility, better gas piston operating system, and performance in dusty environments as clear advantages over the current M-4.

    Elaine Golladay, spokeswoman for FNH-USA, the weapon's manufacturer, declined to comment on the cancellation for this report.

    Ironically, the company announced May 4 that it had passed the final hurdle from SOCOM's weapons buying office to go into full production and fielding of both the Mk-16 and Mk-17. It is unclear if SOCOM had made the decision to cancel their buy of the Mk-16 when FNH-USA issued that announcement.

    Additionally, sources tell Military.com that SOCOM is leaning toward requiring that all Mk-16s currently fielded be returned as retaining limited numbers of them would complicate training and logistics support.

    Officials with SOCOM said the services have so far fielded 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s throughout the SOF community, but did not specify which units got what rifle. As of last count, Military.com reported Army Rangers, most SEAL teams and Naval Special Warfare Combat-Craft Crewmen had received a mix of Mk-16s and 17s.

    Original program documents from SOCOM show a requirement of over 120,000 Mk-16s and nearly 40,000 Mk-17s.

    It is unclear how many Mk-17 rifles SOCOM will buy. The command budgeted $3 million in fiscal 2011 to purchase SCAR variants and had an additional "unfunded requirement" of $1.6 million for SCAR.

    "The Mk-17 fills the existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle," officials said. "USSOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the Mk-17, Mk-13 and Mk-20 variants that will be purchased."
  • #2
    lehn20
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2008
    • 2355

    Old news.

    Stocks are breaking and the maintenance cost on the program is to high for SOCOMs budget.

    They want it issued to all army or nothing, so SOCOM doesn't have to pick up the maintenance costs, so by canceling it, they made a smart choice.

    And as stated the SCAR does prove to be much of an upgrade to the M4. 556 will always be 556 regardless of how it is wrapped.
    Last edited by lehn20; 06-28-2010, 2:46 AM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Quiet
      retired Goon
      • Mar 2007
      • 30241



      From the earlier thread...
      Originally posted by leelaw
      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.
      Originally posted by leelaw
      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.
      sigpic

      "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

      Comment

      • #4
        Diabolus
        Veteran Member
        • Mar 2006
        • 4711

        Misleading title, they are using limited funds to purchase the MK17 instead of the MK16.

        Comment

        • #5
          Barabas
          Veteran Member
          • Oct 2009
          • 3370

          I'd rather they continue to buy m4's from FNH USA and use the money they were going to spend on the Mk-16 program buying Mk-17's from FNH USA. More bang for the buck. M4's are significantly cheaper than mk-16's and will continue to be brought into SOCOM via the parent branch. Let them spend their discretionary funds on a platform that "fills the gap" in their arsenal. FNH is going to get the money no matter what, they supply most of our small arms anyways.

          There's plenty of people out there who want mk-16 SCAR's. It'll sell well on the civilian market where spending 5x the baseline for a .5% improvement is commonplace.

          Comment

          • #6
            KracknCorn
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2006
            • 785

            They have to unload those babies somewhere else now... good ol civie market
            Hartzler v. City of San Jose.
            "The government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack."

            Comment

            • #7
              thmpr
              Veteran Member
              • Dec 2005
              • 3785

              so glad I did not jump the SCAR bandwagon.
              NRA Life Member

              Comment

              • #8
                patriot_man
                Veteran Member
                • Jun 2009
                • 2640

                Yes this was predictable. Dropping a weapon system that is no better then the M4A1 sounds reasonable to me. Keeping the SCAR-H also seems like a good decision.

                Comment

                Working...
                UA-8071174-1