Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html?wh=news


BMT

[The Reaper]

http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html?wh=news


BMT

The cancellation is for the 5.56 version, the 7.62 version will still be procured and fielded.

Too bad we could not find a reliable gas piston M-16 variant in 7.62 NATO that would meet requirements.

TR

[Richard]

Any comments on the SCAR-H commitment?

We used to use the selective-fire M-14A1 w/bipod - a damn good weapon - any A1s still around?

Richard :munchin

[The Reaper]

Any comments on the SCAR-H commitment?

Richard :munchin

I think that the guys are happy with it because they wanted a new 7.62 rifle.

My personal belief is that having a 5.56 and a 7.62 rifle in the arms room for every SF soldier on an ODA is not a huge cost or issue, given what we ask them to do across a spectrum of environments.

Just another tool in the kitbag.

TR

[Sinister]

With the proliferation of 7.62 AR carbines I'm surprised they don't firm up the 7.62 requirement specifying exactly what they want -- but then again the procurement side has to protect their fiefdoms and promotions.

[Nightfall]

I was under the impression that SF was going over to the HK416 for a variety of reasons. Not having any personal insight into SF, I wouldn't know, but that was the last thing I read concerning the weapons in use. I wish I could find the article again, all came across in reference to SF using them was the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416


Of course until reading this, I wasn't aware that it was potentially intended to replace the M249 as well... Perhaps what I read previously was refering to SF in general as opposed to specifically Delta Force. Of course, this is also a 5.56.

My readings into the subject of SF and weapons, I was also left with the impression that SF is allowed to choose the weapon they prefer? Is this the case or was that more of the uninformed reporting on something they know nothing about?

[The Reaper]

I was under the impression that SF was going over to the HK416 for a variety of reasons. Not having any personal insight into SF, I wouldn't know, but that was the last thing I read concerning the weapons in use. I wish I could find the article again, all came across in reference to SF using them was the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416


Of course until reading this, I wasn't aware that it was potentially intended to replace the M249 as well... Perhaps what I read previously was refering to SF in general as opposed to specifically Delta Force. Of course, this is also a 5.56.

My readings into the subject of SF and weapons, I was also left with the impression that SF is allowed to choose the weapon they prefer? Is this the case or was that more of the uninformed reporting on something they know nothing about?

More searching and reading, less posting.

TR

[the boy]

I was under the impression that SF was going over to the HK416 for a variety of reasons. Not having any personal insight into SF, I wouldn't know, but that was the last thing I read concerning the weapons in use. I wish I could find the article again, all came across in reference to SF using them was the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416


Of course until reading this, I wasn't aware that it was potentially intended to replace the M249 as well... Perhaps what I read previously was refering to SF in general as opposed to specifically Delta Force. Of course, this is also a 5.56.

My readings into the subject of SF and weapons, I was also left with the impression that SF is allowed to choose the weapon they prefer? Is this the case or was that more of the uninformed reporting on something they know nothing about?

We used the 416’s over there, there are issues with compatibility between materials, wear issues, etc.

The Batt boys had the SCAR's while I was over there, what I would say about the SCAR-L being discontinued for use by US forces is; having a foreign built system replacing a major US system (SCAR-L filling the slot of an AR-15 series system) in the inventory does not sit well with congress or their constituents. However, the SCAR-H has no similar US capability currently filling the need.

The key problem with the SCAR acquisition is that the logistics tail would be significant, with no cross compatibility of repair parts and other sustainment items, the SCAR system would still need to go through the full JCIDS development process, entering at Milestone C, and setting up all the other support structures for a major program of record.

I assume that it will end up being a small wartime special purchase, and never become institutionalized into the force.

[REVN556]

I think that they should give LWRC a shot....they have 5.56mm and the 7.62mm REPR versions. They're pretty solid firearms from what I hear....the DEA and FBI field them as well...they're supposed to last 20k rounds....

[Team Sergeant]

I think that they should give LWRC a shot....they have 5.56mm and the 7.62mm REPR versions. They're pretty solid firearms from what I hear....the DEA and FBI field them as well...they're supposed to last 20k rounds....

There's two of the best reasons I've heard not to use them......:rolleyes:

TS

[The Reaper]

I think that they should give LWRC a shot....they have 5.56mm and the 7.62mm REPR versions. They're pretty solid firearms from what I hear....the DEA and FBI field them as well...they're supposed to last 20k rounds....

Based on?

Hear from who?

This is not the place for opinions.

TR

[Justinmd]

The early REPR's had problems, there was a mass recall. I'm not sure if every single one was recalled or not, but a lot of them were having function issues. It sounds like they tried to blame the mags, based on what I have seen posted on other forums (I believe quotes from them). This, of course, would be a cop out because they were supposed to be built to use SR-25 spec mags which are already established (they blamed C products for switching mag specs on them). Sounds like they got things ironed out though.

[Iraqgunz]

There was a DEA team where I was in Afghanistan working with the ODA team. One of the guys had a REPR and he wasn't happy. He said that it was having feed issues.

I was alos told that when they return CONUS they turn the weapons in and they are then sent in to LWRC. LWRC then inspects and replaces stuff and sends it back. My question is what are they doing? What are they looking for and replacing? Is this info being put out?

It sounds like they are still doing "beta testing".

The early REPR's had problems, there was a mass recall. I'm not sure if every single one was recalled or not, but a lot of them were having function issues. It sounds like they tried to blame the mags, based on what I have seen posted on other forums (I believe quotes from them). This, of course, would be a cop out because they were supposed to be built to use SR-25 spec mags which are already established (they blamed C products for switching mag specs on them). Sounds like they got things ironed out though.

[Justinmd]

From what I have seen directly, they needed to alter the magazine catch height and maybe more. From what I have read on the 'nets, they are doing at least this. It would seem, based on other AR type mag catches, that they would have to modify the lower in order to raise the catch height, but I'm not familiar enough to really say. LWRC has a whole forum on their website, I think there's info posted there IIRC, but it used to be really hard to read because of the colors but maybe they changed it.

[Iraqgunz]

Would that be 20K rounds with no replacing of parts or 20K with stuff getting replaced? I have seen Colts that have had thousands of rounds through them as well. But, of course parts wear out.

There may be some merit to the whole piston fad, but DI is proven. If you take care of your weapon and keep it lubed it will run.

I think that they should give LWRC a shot....they have 5.56mm and the 7.62mm REPR versions. They're pretty solid firearms from what I hear....the DEA and FBI field them as well...they're supposed to last 20k rounds....

[REVN556]

Would that be 20K rounds with no repalcing of parts or 20K with stuff getting replaced? I have seen Colts that have had thousands of rounds through them as well. But, of course parts wear out.

There may be some merit to the whole piston fad, but DI is proven. If you take care of your weapon and keep it lubed it will run.

According to the LWRC website, "Our barrels can handle 20,000 rounds before replacement, as compared to 6,000-10,000 rounds on a standard M4." Other parts on the weapon wear as normal.

http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

LWRC has a whole list of "features" on their website. Many reliability tests have been done and many editors are impressed. As far as combat use, I haven't read a review thus far. Torture tests reveal heat remains in the piston, as in the HK416. As far as DI being proven, yes you are correct. However I may add that piston is proven as well, just on other weapon platforms (AK variants, M14, etc.). This is one review I found online: http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

[Iraqgunz]

Bushmaster also states that they build quality guns. In my experience Bushmaster is crap. Sorry I don't drink the Kool-Aid from manufacturers.

The Hk416 has a track record but I have also recently heard that they are having some bolt issues.

Comparing piston systems that were designed from the ground up a la AK47, FAL, etc... is much different from a weapon that is essentially being redesigned/ retrofitted.

A perfect example of that is carrier tilt. No one really thought about it until it started becoming an issue.

I also don't give a rats ass about editors at gun rags. Many times they are given the weapons to do an evaluation and they also pay to advertise their stuff in the magazines.

Everyone is looking for the "wunderwaffen" when in reality all they need to do is practice good maintenance, replace parts and properly lube the weapon. You'd be surprised how many people still don't know how to properly lubricat their weapon.

According to the LWRC website, "Our barrels can handle 20,000 rounds before replacement, as compared to 6,000-10,000 rounds on a standard M4." Other parts on the weapon wear as normal.

http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

LWRC has a whole list of "features" on their website. Many reliability tests have been done and many editors are impressed. As far as combat use, I haven't read a review thus far. Torture tests reveal heat remains in the piston, as in the HK416. As far as DI being proven, yes you are correct. However I may add that piston is proven as well, just on other weapon platforms (AK variants, M14, etc.). This is one review I found online: http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

[dr. mabuse]

Alhtough having no military background or LEO experience, I do understand advertising tricks.

If given a choice between considering the experience of a seasoned QP vs the marketing department for a firearms manufacturer, which would you bet your life on?

[Fiercely Loyal]

Well the SCAR-L has hit the civilian market and I finally got to check it out locally. I was astonished at how little it actually weighed. Had I not just purchased a Ruger SR 556 i would have seriously contemplated saving another thousand bucks to buy the SCAR. Hopefully they catch on and come down in price. I wouldn't mind owning one in 556 and one in 762. I better start buying lottery tickets until then.

[Justinmd]

The Scar-L is light because it uses a pencil thin barrel, and a stock made of something slighter stiffer than paper mache. Seriously though, the bolt carrier on the thing is massive, so the weight savings comes from the barrel, lower receiver and stock. Also, the railed handguard is pretty short.

There are many downsides to the above compromises, of course.

[The Reaper]

Hell, I saw a couple of the Bushmaster ACRs at some gun shows recently and they cost almost as much as the SCAR.

I thought they were supposed to be a lower cost alternative?

Unless you just think you are the shit for owning one, why anyone would pay that much for a carbine when there are good, solid M-4s out there for less than half as much is a mystery to me.

Hmm, I could score an LMT or Bravo Company M-4, kitted up with an EoTech or Aimpoint, a weapons light, all of the bells and whistles, cleaning gear, several dozen mags, and a thousand rounds of ammo for less than the cost of the stripped SCAR or ACR.

I guess for some people, looking good/cool is more important than actually being good.:rolleyes:

TR

[Justinmd]

The original projected cost on the ACR was 1400-1600. This was before Rem's involvement. I personally wouldn't spend 2k+ on a 5.56 carbine. They do, however, offer some advantages, i.e. folding stocks, greatly improved ergonomics and controls (user pref), switchable barrels/calibers, a piston system which was designed integral to the rifle, adjustable gas systems for suppressor use, claimed enhanced reliability (in the case of the SCAR), etc.

Justin

[dr. mabuse]

Unless you just think you are the shit for owning one, why anyone would pay that much for a carbine when there are good, solid M-4s out there for less than half as much is a mystery to me.

...
I guess for some people, looking good/cool is more important than actually being good.:rolleyes:

TR

TR, you mean the David Crane certified CDI rating? :rolleyes:

[REVN556]

Bushmaster also states that they build quality guns. In my experience Bushmaster is crap. Sorry I don't drink the Kool-Aid from manufacturers.

The Hk416 has a track record but I have also recently heard that they are having some bolt issues.

Comparing piston systems that were designed from the ground up a la AK47, FAL, etc... is much different from a weapon that is essentially being redesigned/ retrofitted.

A perfect example of that is carrier tilt. No one really thought about it until it started becoming an issue.

I also don't give a rats ass about editors at gun rags. Many times they are given the weapons to do an evaluation and they also pay to advertise their stuff in the magazines.


Bolt carrier tilt is the reason why the carrier slightly over-sized in LWRC rifles. It prevents it from happening. It is true that some editors may be payed to advertise, which may result in a biased review. However it is reasonable to say that if a majority is stating the same qualities about a product, there is a great chance this is true. How else would you gauge the quality of a product if not through reviews of consumers and editors alike? I know many consumers would not be willing to purchase a firearm initially and find out what they purchased was crap.

[Justinmd]

Do not believe anything you see in gun magazines. Much of it is true, but you don't know which parts. This is coming from someone who's rifles have been reviewed by gun mags.

For carrier tilt, there's several ways that companies try to deal with the off-axis force resulting from pistons on an AR. That took a lot of companies by surprise, I'm not sure if LWRC is included. Remember, LWRC used to be Leightner-Weis and was a small player. My buddy has an early one which broke some time ago, but I'll ask him if there's wear from carrier tilt. It's not the only issue in retrofitting a piston to an AR, and really a piston is a fix for a relative non-issue. Major improvents could have been made to the bolt, extractor, and recoil system, but that requires much more effort and R&D money.

[The Reaper]

The original projected cost on the ACR was 1400-1600. This was before Rem's involvement. I personally wouldn't spend 2k+ on a 5.56 carbine. They do, however, offer some advantages, i.e. folding stocks, greatly improved ergonomics and controls (user pref), switchable barrels/calibers, a piston system which was designed integral to the rifle, adjustable gas systems for suppressor use, claimed enhanced reliability (in the case of the SCAR), etc.

Justin

I'm with you on that, brother.

TR

[Justinmd]

TR,
haha no doubt. You would think I'd have been able to get ahold of one for minimal cost, sadly no such luck. Oh well, I've got AR's and a Sig 556 to keep me from spiraling into depression:rolleyes:

[Barn Owl]

Remember, LWRC used to be Leightner-Weis and was a small player. My buddy has an early one which broke some time ago, but I'll ask him if there's wear from carrier tilt. It's not the only issue in retrofitting a piston to an AR, and really a piston is a fix for a relative non-issue. Major improvents could have been made to the bolt, extractor, and recoil system, but that requires much more effort and R&D money.

Justinmd,

I shoot an M6A2 in multigun. Last year LWRC fielded a new one-piece bolt/bolt carrier that improves the bolt and the extractor.

Running the old bolt, I shot 5000 rounds with zero failures to feed and one failure to extract (Wolf Ammo) which was the result of a primer ignition at 95% battery that jammed the steel casing in the chamber. The weapon did not show carrier tilt, but it did have some heavy cam pin wear. The weapon still functioned perfectly after this incident.

I swapped for the new one-piece bolt assembly in case of any microscopic cracks in the bolt head, and have since fired another 3000 rounds with no malfunctions of any kind. I have looked inside several piston guns, including POF, that exhibit carrier tilt marks inside the buffer spring tube on the bottom 180 degrees of the tube. My rifle does not show any wear from carrier tilt inside the buffer tube or inside the upper reciever. I have 3 friends that also shoot LWRC and their guns run equally well with both the old and new bolt designs.

In my opinion, my rifle and the other rifles I have handled live up to LWRC's marketing promises. In my very limited experience, my LWRC vastly outperforms the issued M4s that I have used, especially in terms of reliability.

Very Respectfully,

Barn Owl

[Justinmd]

I'm glad your rifle runs great, however, I'm not following your correlation with a one piece bolt assembly and cracks in the bolt. The bolt has always been one piece on every AR style rifle ever made, one piece plus the ejector and extractor and the gas rings. The bolt carrier, on the other hand, was two pieces and several companies have now made carriers with the gas key cut as integral to the carrier. I personally see this as a waste of material, but for some reason they went with it. Is it a marketing ploy or were they really having problems with the gas key coming loose on the piston guns? If they were really having problems with the gas key coming loose, that undermines your profession of LWRC reliability.

In either case, this has nothing to do with cracks in the bolt head, which I'm assuming you mean to be the bolt lugs. Bolt lug failure has been a problem in just about all the military tests (abusive type tests) I've seen of the AR style rifle. LMT and KAC both came up with a claimed "improved" design with features that prolonged bolt life but I have no first hand knowledge of the veracity of their claims, maybe LWRC also came up with an improved bolt to go along with their one piece bolt carrier. In any case, my M4 and those of my teammates never malfunctioned, so there's precious little room in our case for the LWRC to vastly outperform an M4.

Really, you should ponder for a moment how it could be the case that an M4 with a piston (LWRC) could outperform an M4 with DI with any significance. The bolt, carrier, extractor, ejector, buffer etc etc are all generally the same. Really the main change is what forces the carrier rearward, is it an off-axis push from a steel rod, or is it an on-axis push from expanding gases. Everything else is just tweaks to springs, clearances, chamfers, fillets etc. LWRC has undoubtedly done this, but so has the .mil, at least to SOF rifles. It sounds like you are comparing a relatively new LWRC to a worn out military M4. Be wary of calling an anecdote "proof", not that you are definitively doing so. I guess you would have to give a detailed account of the failings of your M4, which would give us all insight to the root cause of the problem.

As for your out-of-battery, the AR rifles (and others) are designed to not allow this to happen, i.e. the firing pin cannot reach the primer until the bolt is in battery. Just because the carrier wasn't fully forward doesn't mean the rifle was not in battery. An out of battery ignition will do many very bad things to what was once your rifle, not to mention body parts. If there was any significant rotation of the bolt, allowing the bolt lugs to engage the lug abutments, then things should hold for one regular pressure round. Keep in mind the cam rotation on the AR bolt is only 22.5 degrees, meaning even small amounts of rotation will result in at least partial lug engagement.

Keep in mind I'm not saying LWRC (or others) hasn't improved the rifle, as I mentioned before, there was room for improvement. Just don't think that their improvements have interdependency with their re-engineering of the gas system. In fact, the case could be made that their rifle would have been better if they made all their enhancements but kept the DI gas system. Certainly the concerns over localized heat buildup, op rod breakage (other brands), and weight/balance disruption would be nullified.
Justin

[Peregrino]

Justinmd - Our gunsmith would like you! :p Your last post summarized a significant portion of what he's been pounding into my head for years WRT pistons in ARs. That's why I'm with TR - still using M4geries w/DI gas systems (and will be for the foreseeable future).

[Barn Owl]

Justinmd,

First, I really appreciate you guys discussing this with me because I learn something new every time. I know you have quite a bit more trigger time than me, but I'll try to answer all the same.

I'm not following your correlation with a one piece bolt assembly and cracks in the bolt.Justin

Not what I was trying to correlate. I swapped the old bolt and carrier for the new model because I was worried the out-of-battery ignition cracked the old bolt carrier in a way I could not detect. The rear of the Wolf case ruptured around the primer and the case was wedged very tightly in the chamber. I am 99% sure the primer was improperly seated in the casing. Gunsmith agreed.


Is it a marketing ploy or were they really having problems with the gas key coming loose on the piston guns? If they were really having problems with the gas key coming loose, that undermines your profession of LWRC reliability.Justin

Once I swapped the old bolt for the new, the minimal buffer tube wear associated with carrier tilt went away completely. My old extractor used to shave a bit of brass off the cartridges ... the new one does not. The old bolt cam pin used to show a lot of polish. My replacement cam pin shows no polish, suggesting a smoother rotation. These are the only advantages I would associate with the new bolt. It summary, it just fits better. The minimal wear signs I experienced with the old carrier never caused any malfunctions ... I know cam pin gouge shows up in DI weapons too, I just like that the new bolt operates so smoothly.

My M4 failures were failures to feed or to extract. I had three failures within a period of several months. This M4 was relatively new (1-2000 round count) so I replaced the extractor to fix this issue without success. My M4 only malfuctioned when it was dirty from sustained fire, hot from sustained fire, or when sand got inside the chamber. My LWRC operates at a cooler temperature, the barrel gets hot quickly but the chamber does not, so it stays lubricated better, and since no carbon fouling gets in the chamber, I feel I can run it dirty, without lube, with a much larger margin of error. Hence no failures to feed or extract at 8000 rounds.

I believe you already mentioned LWRCs advantage over other piston ARs, which is the Op rod doesn't break, and the components are over-built. It is slightly front-heavy as a result.

Very Respectfully,

Barn Owl

[Justinmd]

Peregrino, you have a sharp armorer! haha. Seriously, the case could be made for any of the current 5.56 rifles over any of the others. It comes down to price for some, coolness for others, features for others yet, etc. It really is the case that there's not much new under the sun in small arms. Until we get new propellant technology or laser type stuff. Even the caseless stuff really isn't that big of a deal, you save 30percent on the weight of ammo, the cost theoretically goes down because of no more brass, but the gun basically the same, still a long metal barrel, a magazine you have to change, etc etc.

BO, a lot of guys here have a bunch of trigger time, many have much more than me. There is a wealth of knowledge here, from the professional end user aspect to the design/engineering aspect.
Justin

[jbour13]

Just for clarity sake. LWRCI does not make a 5.56 REPR variant.

They have a website, the search tool works there.

Anyone who wants to shoot one around May of next year, just let me know. You buy the ammo, you can judge for yourself. I'm local to Bragg and don't mind if you sling lead from mine.

I'm partial to the company. I have 3 uppers, and I've not experienced problems yet. I'm also good friends with some in the company.

They have addressed the REPR mag catch issue, and shitty thing is it happened in the first place.

The DEA has them on hand for missions abroad, and there are a number of the guys that are former trigger pullers from different walks of life that like the carbine. I asked one of them other day and he stated the REPR is not conducive to their mission, as the people they typically roll with have the precision role covered. Food for thought.

And again, Paul Leitner-Wise is not a part of the company, and hasn't been for sometime.

Facts, not assumptions gents.

JustinMD, thanks for all the knowledge.