Comments on: The BTDTs on the SCAR http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 25 May 2012 22:17:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Vinc http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-191888 Vinc Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:26:49 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-191888 In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 Carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. During the testing, 60,000 rounds apiece were fired from each of the 40 carbines in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[7] During the test, the SCAR suffered 226 stoppages ranking second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but less compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233. This test was based on two previous systems assessments that were conducted using the M4 Carbine and M16 rifle at Aberdeen in 2006 and the summer of 2007 before the third limited competition in the fall of 2007. The 2006 test focused only on the M4 and M16. In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 Carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. During the testing, 60,000 rounds apiece were fired from each of the 40 carbines in an “extreme dust environment.” The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[7]

During the test, the SCAR suffered 226 stoppages ranking second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but less compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233. This test was based on two previous systems assessments that were conducted using the M4 Carbine and M16 rifle at Aberdeen in 2006 and the summer of 2007 before the third limited competition in the fall of 2007. The 2006 test focused only on the M4 and M16.

]]> By: dookie http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183452 dookie Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:26:04 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183452 I've gotten my hands on a number of these scars (both light and heavy) and have shot them off and on for the past three years. They suck. Hands down. Of all the things I carry into combat, my rifle is the last thing I want made out of plastic. The 417/416 blows this thing out of the water. Both in durability and accuracy. The 417 can compete with the SR-25 accuracy wise. The SCAR heavy has the accuracy of a stock M4. I’ve gotten my hands on a number of these scars (both light and heavy) and have shot them off and on for the past three years. They suck. Hands down. Of all the things I carry into combat, my rifle is the last thing I want made out of plastic. The 417/416 blows this thing out of the water. Both in durability and accuracy. The 417 can compete with the SR-25 accuracy wise. The SCAR heavy has the accuracy of a stock M4.

]]> By: Bill http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183451 Bill Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:39:01 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183451 Give the soldiers what they need, a weapon that has real stopping power and a round that everyone uses(7.62mm). Sure the M-4 is good, but in urban warfare I want something that takes the bad guy out with one hit, not 3. There are plenty of designs out there and COLT doesn't have to be the only one. Give the soldiers what they need, a weapon that has real stopping power and a round that everyone uses(7.62mm). Sure the M-4 is good, but in urban warfare I want something that takes the bad guy out with one hit, not 3. There are plenty of designs out there and COLT doesn’t have to be the only one.

]]> By: P.J. Busche http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-74586 P.J. Busche Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:02:43 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-74586 Start replacing our M4 and other M16 series rifles NOW with the SCAR. Enough of the beaurocratic delays while our troops are getting killed in the middle east. Start replacing our M4 and other M16 series rifles NOW with the SCAR. Enough of the beaurocratic delays while our troops are getting killed in the middle east.

]]> By: Rhyno327/lrsd http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183450 Rhyno327/lrsd Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:44:47 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183450 The only way to really find out is to use it in combat. Give a limited number out to Spec. Ops. units in the field and see wat they say. I do remember the SF group that swapped thier M-4 uppers for Hk's 416, and maybe that should be looked at more closely. There are so many companies producing assault rifles now its hard to keep count. The Marine Corps had LWRC produce a new assault rifle. It's called the IAR. Barrett makes the 468, and you can put a suppressor on it. There are so many. The only way to really find out is to use it in combat. Give a limited number out to Spec. Ops. units in the field and see wat they say. I do remember the SF group that swapped thier M-4 uppers for Hk’s 416, and maybe that should be looked at more closely. There are so many companies producing assault rifles now its hard to keep count. The Marine Corps had LWRC produce a new assault rifle. It’s called the IAR. Barrett makes the 468, and you can put a suppressor on it. There are so many.

]]> By: CTR1(SW) http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183449 CTR1(SW) Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:59:08 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183449 The information from FoxThree should not be a surprise. Some time ago someone posted that much of the specops folks had switched the uppers on their M4s to 416. Given the general unhappiness with the 5.56, and the apparent happiness with the 416 uppers, it would only be natural that they would desire the 417. Same great function, bigger bullet. The rest is also not a surprise. Politicians and paper-pushers assuming they know better than the shooters. The information from FoxThree should not be a surprise. Some time ago someone posted that much of the specops folks had switched the uppers on their M4s to 416. Given the general unhappiness with the 5.56, and the apparent happiness with the 416 uppers, it would only be natural that they would desire the 417. Same great function, bigger bullet.
The rest is also not a surprise. Politicians and paper-pushers assuming they know better than the shooters.

]]> By: blown_primer http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183448 blown_primer Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:05:52 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183448 One additional point: by the time the bolt unlocks and begins it's rearward travel, some percentage of the gas that is forced back into the reciever has already disipated before the ejection port is "opened" by the rear-travelling bolt/bolt carrier assembly. One additional point: by the time the bolt unlocks and begins it’s rearward travel, some percentage of the gas that is forced back into the reciever has already disipated before the ejection port is “opened” by the rear-travelling bolt/bolt carrier assembly.

]]> By: blown_primer http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183447 blown_primer Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:49:01 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183447 In reply to Mang; While true that the gas vents above the breach face on the M-4, only some of the gas blasts out the ejection port-- the gas escapes the upper reciever at all points around the reciever (over a larger area) than the small, high pressure release in front of a piston. Case in point: while shooting a suppressed M-4 on longer (5-6 rds. or more) bursts, my eyes begin to tear up due to gas jetting through the charging handle raceway and out the rear portions of the reciever (as well as around the reciever). Also, if I pull the mag with a few rounds still left in it (after shooting suppressed-- either full or semi), the unfired rounds in te top of the mag are almost always coated with carbon from all the back-pressure created by the suppressor (another indicator that gas is trying to escape in directions other than the ejection port). Finally, simply lisetening to a suppressed M-4 compared to a suppressed Sig 556 ( a gas piston gun with almost the same barrel length and same model of suppressor) exhibits a profound difference in perceived noise level-- the M-4 is noticeably quieter. In reply to Mang;
While true that the gas vents above the breach face on the M-4, only some of the gas blasts out the ejection port– the gas escapes the upper reciever at all points around the reciever (over a larger area) than the small, high pressure release in front of a piston. Case in point: while shooting a suppressed M-4 on longer (5–6 rds. or more) bursts, my eyes begin to tear up due to gas jetting through the charging handle raceway and out the rear portions of the reciever (as well as around the reciever). Also, if I pull the mag with a few rounds still left in it (after shooting suppressed– either full or semi), the unfired rounds in te top of the mag are almost always coated with carbon from all the back-pressure created by the suppressor (another indicator that gas is trying to escape in directions other than the ejection port). Finally, simply lisetening to a suppressed M-4 compared to a suppressed Sig 556 ( a gas piston gun with almost the same barrel length and same model of suppressor) exhibits a profound difference in perceived noise level– the M-4 is noticeably quieter.

]]> By: mangmang http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183446 mangmang Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:34:34 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183446 (damn, feel free to delete two of those.) (damn, feel free to delete two of those.)

]]> By: mang http://defensetech.org/2008/07/31/the-btdts-on-the-scar/#comment-183445 mang Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:31:17 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3980#comment-183445 Great point about the open gas system and silencers, blown_primer. But thinking a little more about it, why should the sound from the gas venting in the forearm of the SCAR, be any louder than the gas venting in the M-4? The gas in the M-16 system doesn't dissapear. Quite the opposite: it vents right above the breech face, next to a big, open ejection port. Yet apparently, the M-4 carbines can wear suppressors just fine. Great point about the open gas system and silencers, blown_primer. But thinking a little more about it, why should the sound from the gas venting in the forearm of the SCAR, be any louder than the gas venting in the M-4? The gas in the M-16 system doesn’t dissapear. Quite the opposite: it vents right above the breech face, next to a big, open ejection port. Yet apparently, the M-4 carbines can wear suppressors just fine.

]]>