New Rifle Options + Shortfalls of 5.56mm Gas Blowback in Afghanistan

[Barn Owl]

Why not adopt the 7.62 mm SCAR in A-Stan, even knowing its faults?

.... I've been shooting a couple different SCARs over the past few weeks, and I have to be honest, I really like the weapon.

Respectfully,

Barn Owl

EDIT for the benefit of anyone else wondering about this ... Even the people involved in the SCAR acquisition program prefer older 7.62mm weapons, like the FAL, to the SCAR. Answer sent via PM and I was also referred to a very old thread where 7.62mm rifle options were discussed.

Thanks all who answered.

[Hardluck77]

Originally Posted by Barn Owl

The Question: Why not adopt the 7.62 mm SCAR in A-Stan, even knowing its faults?

Money. Two teams in my company are currently using SCARs, both heavy and light, as well as the Mk13 EGLM. From what I understand the SCAR program has been halted, and what teams currently have is all they're getting.

[Justinmd]

For starters, your list of downsides to the SCAR is far from comprehensive. Also your opinion of its reliability appears to be misguided. Do you have any MRBF (mean rounds between failure) data to back it up?

I was intially excited about the SCAR, on AD. After, when we got one in at Magpul, I was quite disappointed. There is actually not too much to like on the SCAR, nowhere is it innovative. Except in marketing of course...anyone else see the SCAR ad parody which has every word as "Operator". Hilarious.

Furthermore, your use of the term "gas blowback" is incorrect. You were probably looking for "gas impingement".

Also, both your premises (1&2) are wrong. A nomex glove or AFG will not cure a burn problem, and the charging handle getting snagged on something and pulling the bolt out of battery is not the main problem with the charging handle. The problem is it will snag on something while you are firing it. The solution, however, alleviates both scenarios, being to make the charging handle non reciprocating. This was not done for a number of reasons, which FN fanboys say is because SOCOM specifically requested a reciprocating handle, but I have differing opinions.
J

[Barn Owl]

Justinmd,

In order:

1) MRBF

I could probably find the Army trials date online and link it. It's already here on this board somewhere. If I remember correctly, in order of reliability, the results were XM8, SCAR / HK416 tie, Other Piston Entries, and finally the stock M4.

I do remember the separation between the first three weapons and everything else got much bigger during the dust test, where the M4 had the most problems. EDIT Here's the winter dust test AKA AfPak conditions:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.

2) With respect, I hope I don't come across as an 'FN Fanboy.' I don't think the SCAR is innovative. I DO think the SCAR meets all the requirements set forth in the various 'our M4s don't cut it in AfPak' threads, including longer range, tolerable CQB handling in a 7.62 mm-capable weapon, and improved reliability in dust.

3) Charging Handle / Burns. I focused on these because they went beyond ergonomics. If you would like to list another significant functional problem with the weapon, please do. On the range, I ran the SCAR with a foregrip and a glove on each occasion that I fired it. Seemed to work well. Saw others burn themselves without gloves and foregrip.

So back to the original question: Knowing the faults of the SCAR, would you use it in mountainous desert?

[jatx]

Your questions about the SCAR were asked and answered authoritatively in other threads. The conclusions you draw would suggest that you ought to read them again.

[Tuukka]

The AR15.com post is the only public mention I have seen with regards to issues with the HK416, even in Norway. End users in several countries that I have talked to are quite confident in their HK416 rifles.

With regards to a DI operated M16/M4 failing after 12 mags in 15-30 minutes, I would suggest you to look at the following videos, Colt factory M4 and M4A1 testing;

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...ring-test.html

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...ring-test.html

[The Reaper]

BO:

Seeing a lot of claims of conclusions here but no real data to back it up.

I've handled the SCAR. We have them here in theater. Not particularly impressed.

Test a new M4 against it head to head. Not too sure about your MTBF numbers either.

TR

[Justinmd]

I would take those MRBF numbers with a large grain of salt. First I have not seen the test, only the media publicized part. Second, all failures are not equal, i.e. fail to eject is different than fail to extract, either of which may or may not be the gun's fault. Next, both the SCAR and XM-8 are decendants of the AR-18/180 operating system, which is a refinement of the...M16. While your numbers may appear to show that the XM-8 is 8 times more reliable than the M4 and twice so as the SCAR, is that really the case in the real world. I have never had a malfuntion with my M4, ever, nor have I seen any teammates have a malfunction that I can recall. I have never had to fire in the middle of an intense dust storm. You see what I'm getting at?

I'm all about piston driven rifles, for the cleaning aspect mostly.

When you start talking about 7.62, it's a whole new ballgame. Now you have 1/3 less rounds in a mag, a large amount of recoil, an an ungodly amount of noise in a shorter barrel, not to mention flash. Keep in mind, I'd be a very happy guy if 7.62 became the standard. Sure you can shoot a 16" barrelled gun out to 800 now, but I've shot a 10" LWRC 556 out to 600, as have plenty of other guys.

I will decline to list the SCAR's shortcomings, as it will take a bunch of time and I'm not a neutral party anyway.

Also, the 416 had 3 more stoppages in your numbers than the SCAR, yet a 416 is a refined M4 with a piston. Can you explain in what way the dust acted on the direct impingement system of the M4 to create 4 times more stoppages than the 416 which has a similar bolt, carrier, buffer, etc?

Burns...a glove or AFG won't protect the other stuff that gets burned. Ever flex cuff someone? Where does the rifle go? Everywhere you don't want a hot rifle. FWIW I haven't seen a hot forend as a failing of the SCAR, cause as far as I know it will not get any hotter than any other rifle with an Al rail.

[Barn Owl]

Gentlemen, Thanks very much for your replies.

Reaper,

My idea was to sum up some of the conclusions made in other threads by people with much more knowledge than me. I suppose I did a poor job, or drew the wrong conclusions from the old SCAR threads. Apologies.

Tukka,

I have close friends in both the Wanat and Kamdesh outfits, and I have copies of the investigative reports. Some of the weapons went down. Perhaps the M4 wears worse than a gas piston design.

JustinMd,

I couldn't agree more on piston weapons. I run an LWRC M6A2 in multi-gun and it has never failed me. I prefer it to the SCAR, but now we're talking 5.56mm again. What model of LWRC do you shoot?

As far as the dust test ... the gas impingement weapon gets much hotter, and the heat+carbon fouling turns the whole oil/dust/lube/carbon mix into a very gritty paste. If dirty was the the only issue I don't think the M4 would jam like that; it's the heat that causes the high failure rate.

I've never had to fire my weapon in a dust storm either, but I've had the M4 jam for no apparent reason in Anbar. We'd clean and barrel cap our weps, but that really fine moon dust would still coat the internals a couple hours into a patrol.

Very Respectfully,

Barn Owl

[Tuukka]

Originally Posted by Barn Owl

Gentlemen, Thanks very much for your replies.

Reaper,

My idea was to sum up some of the conclusions made in other threads by people with much more knowledge than me. I suppose I did a poor job, or drew the wrong conclusions from the old SCAR threads. Apologies.

Tukka,

I have close friends in both the Wanat and Kamdesh outfits, and I have copies of the investigative reports. Some of the weapons went down. Perhaps the M4 wears worse than a gas piston design.

JustinMd,

I couldn't agree more on piston weapons. I run an LWRC M6A2 in multi-gun and it has never failed me. I prefer it to the SCAR, but now we're talking 5.56mm again. What model of LWRC do you shoot?

As far as the dust test ... the gas impingement weapon gets much hotter, and the heat+carbon fouling turns the whole oil/dust/lube/carbon mix into a very gritty paste. If dirty was the the only issue I don't think the M4 would jam like that; it's the heat that causes the high failure rate.

I've never had to fire my weapon in a dust storm either, but I've had the M4 jam for no apparent reason in Anbar. We'd clean and barrel cap our weps, but that really fine moon dust would still coat the internals a couple hours into a patrol.

Very Respectfully,

Barn Owl

Hi,

My regards to your friends, tough fights!

The links I gave show just ordinary M4 and M4A1 carbines, not piston operated.

Do those reports detail on what were the actual, exact reasons for the weapons failing? Not looking to get the info, as it may not be open source, but just thinking whether the reasons were found?

[arizonaguide]

I don't have a dog in this fight except I'd like to see you folks with the best bang possible.
In doing some reading I ran across this pretty interesting presentation.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armamen...nyWilliams.pdf
Some very valid ideas and points in there, and especially take a look at the energy comparisons on page 19. At 500-1000m the 6.5G is right with the 7.62 for energy numbers. Way better than the 6.8 at longer ranges.

How about the SCAR or 416 type in a 6.5G? (or just new 6.5G piston M4 uppers if that's possible?).
I am amazed at how well it holds energy out at 500-1000meters.

Probably unrealistic because of the logistics and political climate?
Because it'll never happen? Too much existing 5.56/7.62 already?
How about an "HK416.5"?

[fng13]

Originally Posted by arizonaguide

I don't have a dog in this fight except I'd like to see you folks with the best bang possible.
In doing some reading I ran across this pretty interesting presentation.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armamen...nyWilliams.pdf
Some very valid ideas and points in there, and especially take a look at the energy comparisons on page 19. At 500-1000m the 6.5G is right with the 7.62 for energy numbers. Way better than the 6.8 at longer ranges.

How about the SCAR or 416 type in a 6.5G? (or just new 6.5G piston M4 uppers if that's possible?).
I am amazed at how well it holds energy out at 500-1000meters.

Probably unrealistic because of the logistics and political climate?
Because it'll never happen? Too much existing 5.56/7.62 already?
How about an "HK416.5"?

If you search 6.8 Spc I believe there is a thread already about why big army will not switch rounds.

[arizonaguide]

Will do. Thanks FNG13. I thought that energy comparison/article was worth posting. Interesting stuff.

I was VERY surprised at the 6.5G at longer ranges...(due mostly to the bullet design itself, I understand).

[Arcticrat]

I´ve done two deployments with the 16" 416 and 20" 417, they both have lived up to the given expectations of a HK weapon. Have not experienced stoppages other than what one can expect (if at all) after sending alot of rounds downrange. Has been used from -35 to +50, in snow and dust.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Arcticrat

I´ve done two deployments with the 16" 416 and 20" 417, they both have lived up to the given expectations of a HK weapon. Have not experienced stoppages other than what one can expect (if at all) after sending alot of rounds downrange. Has been used from -35 to +50, in snow and dust.

And you are....?

TR