# Guess SCAR is a done deal.



## P. Beck (Nov 17, 2007)

We're supposed to start getting these starting around the beginning of Jan.


----------



## Ravage (Nov 17, 2007)

You don't seem too happy ?


----------



## pardus (Nov 17, 2007)

I'm really ignorant to this situation.

Did they test the HK416?

What were the testing results with the HK and SCAR?

Is there a report out on the testing?

IS the SCAR going to all of SOCOM?


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 17, 2007)

You guys ever hear of Google?


----------



## pardus (Nov 17, 2007)

All I came up with was this




Polar Bear said:


> You guys ever hear of Google?


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 17, 2007)

If all anyone used was google, there would be no point in having this site ;)


----------



## P. Beck (Nov 17, 2007)

"You don't seem too happy ?"

Well, Rav, it's like this.  I'm old.  That makes me persnickety.  I bet on horse races after they've been run.  That's why on this last deployment I carried a regular old, rack-grade, solid plastic stock, M14 that had been made by Winchester in 1958. Stoked it with AP exclusively.  Used iron sights out to and including 700M.  It ain't a "death-ray" but it'll do till one gets here.  Total failures of any kind: 0.0 

I require two things of my weapons: 1) Reliable as sunrise.  This is first and foremost. Non-negotiable.  2) As accurate as possible without violating requirement #1. Must shoot Minute-Of-Hajji, day or night, rain or shine, world without end, amen. 3) The round has got to be able to do the job when it gets there. Is there anyone who retains any lasting doubts about 7.62x51mm in this regard?

Truth is, I have seen enough aluminum gim-cracks, plastic goo-gaws and carbon-fiber whizz-bangs for one life-time.  Enough to know that the summbitches asking me to bet my life on it won't be anywhere to be found when it gets upgefucht. I'd rather carry a few extra pounds and have the fuquer work when I need it, than go light with something that fails at random intervals.

Also, even though I have been in SF for fifteen of my eighteen years of AD, I am still a grunt at heart.  You never quite lose the "Spirit of The Bayonet".  The aggressive drive to close with and destroy the enemy still stirs within my loins.  The thought of executing a horizontal butt-stroke or the smash to Mr. Hajji's noggin with an M4 or SCAR does not fill me with happiness.

As Boris "The Blade" says, "Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work, you can always hit him with it."


----------



## Crusader74 (Nov 17, 2007)

P. Beck said:


> "You don't seem too happy ?"
> 
> Well, Rav, it's like this.  I'm old.  That makes me persnickety.  I bet on horse races after they've been run.  That's why on this last deployment I carried a regular old, rack-grade, solid plastic stock, M14 that had been made by Winchester in 1958. Stoked it with AP exclusively.  Used iron sights out to and including 700M.  It ain't a "death-ray" but it'll do till one gets here.  Total failures of any kind: 0.0
> 
> ...



Mr Hajj!!  LMAO!!

So I guess you won't be getting a SCAR so..lol


----------



## P. Beck (Nov 17, 2007)

Does this answer yer question?
View attachment 2975
"Yeah. Alright you primitive screw-heads, listen up.  This. Is. My. BOOMSTICK!"


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 17, 2007)

lol, you even have boomstick written on it


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 17, 2007)

It's a beautiful BOOMSTICK. ;)


----------



## pardus (Nov 17, 2007)

P. Beck said:


> Is there anyone who retains any lasting doubts about 7.62x51mm in this regard?



I love that round, I'd take it as my round of choice. However there were some reports from the Falklands war about the round not doing what was expected of it.


----------



## Crusader74 (Nov 17, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> I love that round, I'd take it as my round of choice. However there were some reports from the Falklands war about the round not doing what was expected of it.




Are you Sure?  Compared to what?


----------



## pardus (Nov 17, 2007)

Irish_Army01 said:


> Are you Sure?  Compared to what?



Yes.

Who was comparing?

Wanker! 

Now that you brought it up, the 7.62 was compared to the .303 and came up unfavourably.
There were several instances where the 7.62 simply wasn't knocking people down.
If I had my choice I wouldnt use an AP round as it doesnt deform as well as a standard round for that very reason, if is doesnt hit anything hard or vital it will pop straight through with minimal damage.


----------



## JBS (Nov 18, 2007)

That's what I'M talking about!

Something that is capable of knocking the fillings out of molars.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/showpost.php?p=102202&postcount=9


----------



## Ravage (Nov 18, 2007)

It will be funny (or not) when the SCAR will not be as "high speed" as every gun freak "know-it-all" (some one like that asshat Remov) wants it to be, and SOF dudes will just go back to the SOPMOD system.


----------



## P. Beck (Nov 18, 2007)

> "There were several instances where the 7.62 simply wasn't knocking people down."
> "If I had my choice I wouldnt use an AP round as it doesnt deform as well as a standard round for that very reason, if is doesnt hit anything hard or vital it will pop straight through with minimal damage."



1) "Knockdown" is a myth.  Action = reaction remember?  If the bullet was capable of knocking someone down the recoil would knock down the shooter.

2) Bullets poke holes.  Period.  Big holes are better than small holes. 7.62mm > 5.56mm.  Two holes (entrance and exit) are better, and bleed more, than one hole (entrance).

3) The single biggest deciding factor in dropping the bad guy is shot placement.  Most accounts of rounds failing to stop involve peripheral hits.  You gotta hit 'em in the boiler room. Preferably through a major blood-bearing organ.

3)  I used M993 AP exclusively for two reasons: a) because it re-defined cover.  It consistently penetrated whatever Mr. Hajji got behind with sufficiently energy remaining to poke one or more holes in him.  Vehicle bodies, mud walls, etc. didn't matter. No place to hide.  b) with a bullet weight of 126 grains, the M993 has a lighter recoil than either M80 ball or M118 Special Ball and a muzzle velocity of 2,950 fps.  At close distances the round would go side ways in soft tissue and then come apart.

In my experience, everybody I hit with it was DRT.


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 18, 2007)

P. Beck said:


> We're supposed to start getting these starting around the beginning of Jan.



Well as least we know FN is capable of producing a very fine gun, so that’s hopeful I would think. For you 7.62 fans, there is a SCAR heavy and a SCAR light, 7.62 and 5.56 respectively. Some discussion on testing and such:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/scar-cdr.htm


----------



## pardus (Nov 19, 2007)

P. Beck said:


> 1) "Knockdown" is a myth.  Action = reaction remember?  If the bullet was capable of knocking someone down the recoil would knock down the shooter.
> 
> 2) Bullets poke holes.  Period.  Big holes are better than small holes. 7.62mm > 5.56mm.  Two holes (entrance and exit) are better, and bleed more, than one hole (entrance).
> 
> ...



As for "Knockdown" you are of course quite correct, the "knockdown" factor  is simply the bodies reaction to being shot.



> 2) Bullets poke holes.  Period.  Big holes are better than small holes. 7.62mm > 5.56mm.  Two holes (entrance and exit) are better, and bleed more, than one hole (entrance).



The size of the hole is a minimal factor, it's what the bullet does inside the body that makes the difference.
A 5.56 that yaws/tumbles etc... does a lot more damage than a undeformed 7.62 that goes straight through (providing it does'nt hit anything hard).

As for the two hole vs one hole thing, remember if the bullet leaves the body it looses all that energy as opposed to a bullet that remains inside, again, if is has stopped its because it has tumbled and fucked up shit inside inherantly causing more damage than two clean holes.



> 3) The single biggest deciding factor in dropping the bad guy is shot placement.  Most accounts of rounds failing to stop involve peripheral hits.  You gotta hit 'em in the boiler room. Preferably through a major blood-bearing organ.



The best place to be hit providing it doesnt take out a lung is the chest cavity, lots of room for expansion and a lack of tissue damage as one would find in a bullet to a muscle.

Interesting about the AP round...

Like I said with my earlier post, I love the 7.62 round, its the only round I want to go to war with, but it aint perfect.

I think a lot more rounds down an active 'range' are needed as part of this study 

Haji # 3 please step forward


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 19, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> A 5.56 that yaws/tumbles etc... does a lot more damage than a undeformed 7.62 that goes straight through (providing it does'nt hit anything hard).



If  I can add a thought with possible side track to this thread; The terminal ballistics of the 5.56 with its impressive yaw and fragmentation and resulting wound channel was developed from the very high velocities achieved from the M16. However, the M4 configuration brings into question some issues worth noting and at distance, tend to poke nice little holes but fail to yah and fragment:

“Shorter barreled assault rifles have a muzzle velocity below the critical level so rounds fired from these will not fragment and will produce reduced wounding and incapacitation. There is some evidence that these bullets will not tumble either, and behave like small calibre FMJ pistol rounds. Minimum barrel length for use with FMJ rounds seems to be 14.5". Tests show a 55gr M193 fired from a M4 with a 14.5" barrel has a muzzle velocity 2,850fps and fragments. The same round fired from a G36K with a 12.5" barrel has a muzzle velocity of 2,650fps and very little fragmentation. Note that the current issue M855 62gr round has a lower muzzle velocity than a M193. Range at which fragmentation will occur with either round from 14.5" barrels is probably less than 100m”

Cont:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html

Just some food for thought on the issue….


----------



## P. Beck (Nov 19, 2007)

Will"s right.  Between the M4's 14.5" barrel and 1/7 twist, and the M855 round, you've got about 150 meters worth of gun, wound ballistics wise.  Past that the M855 settles down into a nice stable trajectory through both air and tissue.  I've seen failures to stop with M855 torso hits at >150 meters.  I've never had that problem doing it my way.

7.62x51mm, 126 grains @ MV of 2950 fps vs. 5.56x45mm, 62 grains @ MV of 2750 fps.  Do the math.

I treat Hajji like any other dangerous game.  Big holes, all the way through, are better. Someone once asked a big game hunter in Africa why he used a .600 Nitro Express. "Because they don't make a .700 Nitro Express.", he answered.

I've been doing this for a while now and I'm still here. Either it works or I've been inordinately lucky.


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 19, 2007)

P. Beck said:


> Will"s right.



Well it had to happen some time! Reminds me on and old Buddhist riddle:

If a man is walking through the forest talking to himself, and there is no women to hear him talking, is he still wrong?



P. Beck said:


> Between the M4's 14.5" barrel and 1/7 twist, and the M855 round, you've got about 150 meters worth of gun, wound ballistics wise.  Past that the M855 settles down into a nice stable trajectory through both air and tissue.  I've seen failures to stop with M855 torso hits at >150 meters.  I've never had that problem doing it my way.



Did they ever change the twist rate? Most manufacturers offer 1/9 which is better for heavier bullets like m855 and you have companies like Black Hills etc making bullets that get the most out of the m4 1/9 configuration. My understanding is a few units were given "special" 1/8 models.



P. Beck said:


> 7.62x51mm, 126 grains @ MV of 2950 fps vs. 5.56x45mm, 62 grains @ MV of 2750 fps.  Do the math.
> 
> I treat Hajji like any other dangerous game.  Big holes, all the way through, are better. Someone once asked a big game hunter in Africa why he used a .600 Nitro Express. "Because they don't make a .700 Nitro Express.", he answered.



Or this story:

This was some time ago when a reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the 1911 the Ranger was carrying anda asked him "Why do you carry a 45". The Ranger responded with, "They don't make a 46".




P. Beck said:


> I've been doing this for a while now and I'm still here. Either it works or I've been inordinately lucky.



Or perhaps both. It's better to be lucky than good... ;)


----------



## pardus (Nov 19, 2007)

WillBrink said:


> “Shorter barreled assault rifles have a muzzle velocity below the critical level so rounds fired from these will not fragment and will produce reduced wounding and incapacitation. There is some evidence that these bullets will not tumble either, and behave like small calibre FMJ pistol rounds. Minimum barrel length for use with FMJ rounds seems to be 14.5". Tests show a 55gr M193 fired from a M4 with a 14.5" barrel has a muzzle velocity 2,850fps and fragments. The same round fired from a G36K with a 12.5" barrel has a muzzle velocity of 2,650fps and very little fragmentation. Note that the current issue M855 62gr round has a lower muzzle velocity than a M193. Range at which fragmentation will occur with either round from 14.5" barrels is probably less than 100m”



Very interesting, I did not know that, thank you.


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 19, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> Very interesting, I did not know that, thank you.



No problems. It's not a well known and talked about issue, though it probably should be. The M4 gives up a  lot of its "stopping power" with that short barrel but changes in twist rate and bullet design can make up for it, but that's more in the LEO and civi stuff as the military has stuck with the 1/7 twist and standard ammo. Pehaps the SCAR design addresses that? Don't know. 

The 5.56 doing approx 3000fps or better out of the old m16 is a nasty little bullet due to its fragmenting, which makes a big wound channel, but by design, it's very dependent on the velocity to do it's thing, where as the 7.62 is effective over a wider range of velocities and has real crsuhing power the 5.56 lacks.


----------



## pardus (Nov 19, 2007)

Yeah, like I say I love the 7.62, Thats all I want to use.


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 19, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> Yeah, like I say I love the 7.62, Thats all I want to use.



Well there's having a head full of facts and figures (like yours truly) and there's actually going out into harms way and doing it, so use what you love ;)


----------



## pardus (Nov 20, 2007)

OK Will and anyone else...

I'm currently looking at building a metric FN rifle, I have four barrel options, 21" (standard) 18", 17" & 16", I would like to know what difference the barrel length is going to make particularly with accuracy and ballistics (as noted with the M4).

Thanks.



WillBrink said:


> No problems. It's not a well known and talked about issue, though it probably should be. The M4 gives up a  lot of its "stopping power" with that short barrel but changes in twist rate and bullet design can make up for it, but that's more in the LEO and civi stuff as the military has stuck with the 1/7 twist and standard ammo. Perhaps the SCAR design addresses that? Don't know.
> 
> The 5.56 doing approx 3000fps or better out of the old m16 is a nasty little bullet due to its fragmenting, which makes a big wound channel, but by design, it's very dependent on the velocity to do it's thing, where as the 7.62 is effective over a wider range of velocities and has real crsuhing power the 5.56 lacks.


----------



## rangerpsych (Nov 20, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> The best place to be hit providing it doesnt take out a lung is the chest cavity, lots of room for expansion and a lack of tissue damage as one would find in a bullet to a muscle.



I would totally disagree.. regardless of the round, you stand a larger chance of impacting a bone and causing significant trauma due to the secondary fragmentation induced into the wound channel and surrounding tissue. Not to mention the fact that there's alot of significant organs there that are rather important for everything in your body to function... l 

A extremity wound is easier to care for and deal with, and significantly more survivable than a round taken to the chest cavity (navel to neck, basically)


----------



## WillBrink (Nov 20, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> OK Will and anyone else...
> 
> I'm currently looking at building a metric FN rifle, I have four barrel options, 21" (standard) 18", 17" & 16", I would like to know what difference the barrel length is going to make particularly with accuracy and ballistics (as noted with the M4).
> 
> Thanks.



The question is a bit above my pay grade to be honest with you. The general rule of course is the longer barrels will give greater accuracy and velocity, but of course there are a zillion other variables to that, and of course the choice of barrel length depends very much on what you plan to use it for, eg, it’s mission specific.

I’m sure you can find the velocity charts for those different barrel lengths and make some choices from there. Actually, that link I put up above might have some of that info as it did for the 5.56. 

Wish I had better info for you, but my interest/knowledge is more in the area of terminal ballistics vs gun designs. As mentioned however, the 7.62 terminal performance (which of course is not the same thing as accuracy) suffers less from shorter barrel lengths than the 5.56.

If I had to guess, I bet a nice balance between everything would be the 18", but that's really a guess on my part. Beyond that, you will have to take it to a pro. The two places I would check/post to on that would be the Terminal Ballistics section of the tactical Forums:

http://www.tacticalforums.com

Or, look at the 8-10 forums:

http://www.10-8forums.com

Those forums have some real smart people and wanna be types, BS artists, net gun experts, etc are not tolerated there.

Hope that helps.


----------



## pardus (Nov 20, 2007)

rangerpsych said:


> I would totally disagree.. regardless of the round, you stand a larger chance of impacting a bone and causing significant trauma due to the secondary fragmentation induced into the wound channel and surrounding tissue. Not to mention the fact that there's alot of significant organs there that are rather important for everything in your body to function... l
> 
> A extremity wound is easier to care for and deal with, and significantly more survivable than a round taken to the chest cavity (navel to neck, basically)



Thats what I originally thought too, maybe the medics were bullshitting me.


----------



## P. Beck (Jan 16, 2008)

Update:

Well, looks like our unit issue of the SCAR is on hold. Something about manufacturing delays. Best guess is that we'll get them next fall.

That's ok. I'll be over here in the corner. Cleaning my M14. Again.:)


----------



## phridum (Jan 17, 2008)

I feel a little stupid now, having reposted basically all this information in my post in Will B.'s other thread...shrug...and I'm not changing it 

I also think I might have misunderstood the question in that thread because why would he ask about something being covered in this thread? Hrmm...I'm'a go figure out.


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 17, 2008)

phridum said:


> I feel a little stupid now, having reposted basically all this information in my post in Will B.'s other thread...shrug...and I'm not changing it
> 
> I also think I might have misunderstood the question in that thread because why would he ask about something being covered in this thread? Hrmm...I'm'a go figure out.



I am not sure I am following what you are not following! ;)


----------



## Pete031 (Jan 30, 2008)

Overseas, we used 77 grain. It worked a lot better then the standard, however, I would not go any shorter then 14.5 inches for the Carbine.


----------



## 8'Duece (Jan 30, 2008)

Pete031 said:


> Overseas, we used 77 grain. It worked a lot better then the standard, however, I would not go any shorter then 14.5 inches for the Carbine.



Actually the SEALs use the Mk262 77 grain from Black Hills in their CQBR rifle/Mk18 which is 10.5" barrels. (LMT UPPERS/Crane Lowers)

I don't know what kind of performance they get out of it, but they use it for their own reasons.


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 30, 2008)

Pete031 said:


> Overseas, we used 77 grain. It worked a lot better then the standard, however, I would not go any shorter then 14.5 inches for the Carbine.



What was the twist rate of the gun? My understanding is the 1:9 twist works best with the heavier bullets and manufacturers are making the m4 with 1:9 twist, at least for the civi markets. I have heard good things about the 77g out of the M4 length guns, but I don't have any data on it. Will have look around.


----------



## pardus (Jan 30, 2008)

Pete031 said:


> I would not go any shorter then 14.5 inches for the Carbine.



I think 16" is short enough due the the lack of velocity but WTF would I know? :uhh:


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 30, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Actually the SEALs use the Mk262 77 grain from Black Hills in their CQBR rifle/Mk18 which is 10.5" barrels. (LMT UPPERS/Crane Lowers)
> 
> I don't know what kind of performance they get out of it, but they use it for their own reasons.



Here is a Colt Commando I was playing with via my buds at the regional tactical team and they use the Black Hills rnd also. Man I wub that evil little machine...The Colt is  11" or 10.5, I forget, but what's a half inch between friends? :eek:


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 30, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> I think 16" is short enough due the the lack of velocity but WTF would I know? :uhh:



Well there are the people who think about the shit, and the people who go and do the shit. You are in the latter group, and that's OK by me, as it allows me to keep thinking while you are doing, and there is balance in the universe...


----------



## pardus (Jan 30, 2008)

I don't want to use a submachine gun I want a rifle, 10.5 inches just doesnt give me confidence.

Also I like bayonets and I want the prick on the other end as far away from me as possible if I were ever to get the chance to stick him.


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 30, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> 10.5 inches just doesnt give me confidence.



Would give me plenty of confidence for working in porn...:cool:


----------



## 8'Duece (Jan 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> What was the twist rate of the gun? My understanding is the 1:9 twist works best with the heavier bullets and manufacturers are making the m4 with 1:9 twist, at least for the civi markets. I have heard good things about the 77g out of the M4 length guns, but I don't have any data on it. Will have look around.



I know that the Mk18 shorty is an LMT with a 1:7 twist. In fact I don't think LMT manufactures anything but a 1:7 in anything 16" and under.


----------



## 8'Duece (Jan 30, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> I don't want to use a submachine gun I want a rifle, 10.5 inches just doesnt give me confidence.
> 
> Also I like bayonets and I want the prick on the other end as far away from me as possible if I were ever to get the chance to stick him.



The SEALs are using the CQBR Mk18 rifle with the 10.5" barrel for VBSS employment. Tight qtr's on ships hulls and door way's.


----------



## pardus (Jan 30, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> The SEALs are using the CQBR Mk18 rifle with the 10.5" barrel for VBSS employment. Tight qtr's on ships hulls and door way's.



Ah right, totally different story, short barrel totally appropriate and necessary.

I'm thinking Inf fighting in urban/mountainous terrain, still need the reach and as has been shown the short barrels just don't allow the velocity to break the bullet up upon impact.


----------



## Pete031 (Jan 30, 2008)

Yeah, my C8 had a 1:7 twist, and it sent 77 grain out fine. We used them on the 11.5 inch barrels too. 
This is mine from A-Stan:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> What was the twist rate of the gun? My understanding is the 1:9 twist works best with the heavier bullets and manufacturers are making the m4 with 1:9 twist, at least for the civi markets. I have heard good things about the 77g out of the M4 length guns, but I don't have any data on it. Will have look around.



Trying to determine the twist ratio to ammo type is based of three things.

1. Barrel LANs and groove twist.

2. Bullet weight.

3. Speed of the bullet.

Fast twist = Heaver bullet. Slow twist = Lighter bullet.

The 1 in 9 twist was introduced for civilian market, due to it ability to handle multiple types of bullet weight and bullet punch. The 1 in 7 twist is used by Military market, due to the type of ammo used in the Military. M855(green tip) & M856(tracer) is the changes made in the mid 80’s due to the army wanting longer range and ability to punch thru light armor. The 1 in 7 twist was based on the M856 tracer round, due to a slower rate would not stabilize the bullet in flight. All though the M855 and MK262 Mod1 has better performance with a 1 in 8 twist ratio. The M856 can not stabilize in flight with a 1 in 8, or 1in 9 twist ratio. This is why the military uses a faster twist rate on military weapons. If you look at National Match rifles, you will see a 1 in 7 ¾” to 1 in 8” twist rate. Because the National Match loads, receive better accuracy from these twist rates. 77gr and 80gr…


----------



## WillBrink (Jan 31, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Trying to determine the twist ratio to ammo type is based of three things.
> 
> 1. Barrel LANs and groove twist.
> 
> ...



That's why I was wondering if they were using heavier bullets in some applications (eg, Seals using 77g Black Hills) did they also match them to a faster twist rate. Looks like the answer is no. Do we know if those shorty ARs the Seals have built also follow the standard 1:7?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 31, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> That's why I was wondering if they were using heavier bullets in some applications (eg, Seals using 77g Black Hills) did they also match them to a faster twist rate. Looks like the answer is no. Do we know if those shorty ARs the Seals have built also follow the standard 1:7?



If it's shooting a 77gr bullet and it's a military rifle. It will have a twist of 1 in 7. Some custom rifles like the SDMR will have a 1 in 8 twist.


----------



## P. Beck (Jan 31, 2008)

Here's a couple pics of my "cave gun".


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Feb 1, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Also I like bayonets and I want the prick on the other end as far away from me as possible if I were ever to get the chance to stick him.



yep.  I think I'm the only medic in 3rd div asking MPs to issue bayonets when we go door-kicking.



rangerpsych said:


> I would totally disagree.. regardless of the round, you stand a larger chance of impacting a bone and causing significant trauma due to the secondary fragmentation induced into the wound channel and surrounding tissue. Not to mention the fact that there's a lot of significant organs there that are rather important for everything in your body to function... l
> 
> A extremity wound is easier to care for and deal with, and significantly more survivable than a round taken to the chest cavity (navel to neck, basically)



yessir.  and that's why we wear plates over our chest and not our heads.  that, and the torso is a bigger target and easier to hit than the head.    



pardus762 said:


> Thats what I originally thought too, maybe the medics were bullshitting me.



yes.  or they didn't know, which isn't good either.


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2008)

HeloMedic1171 said:


> yep.  I think I'm the only medic in 3rd div asking MPs to issue bayonets when we go door-kicking.




Bayonets are a must have IMO.
Stupid not to have them, time and time again they have proved their usefulness.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 1, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Bayonets are a must have IMO.
> Stupid not to have them, time and time again they have proved their usefulness.



We all get issued bayonets and keep the same one until you change units.  Carried on our chest, it's a useful tool. ;)


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2008)

The biggest problem with bayonets is often they've been shitty knives, they need to be a good quality knife.
e.g. a K Bar with a bayonet attachment, two weapons/tools in one.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 1, 2008)

Totally agree with you, ours is a shitty knife.  It's just a great poking stick. ;)


----------



## Pete031 (Feb 1, 2008)

The new one is pretty good, Made by Solingen.... Issued to all field units:
http://www.lbainternational.com/eickhorn/mk_bayonet2005.htm


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2008)

Pete031 said:


> The new one is pretty good, Made by Solingen.... Issued to all field units:
> http://www.lbainternational.com/eickhorn/mk_bayonet2005.htm



Thats cool.

As is this...

http://www.knifedealsplus.com/camillus/CAM1-A1.html


----------



## Ravage (Mar 9, 2008)

Question time: the official infos say that the SCAR is being delivered to SOF units since June 2007, that it's being tested bla bla bla.
True or marketing BS ?


----------



## Ravage (Mar 16, 2008)

*MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Florida (CNN)* -- No piece of equipment is more crucial to a soldier in the field than his rifle. And America's most elite troops are about to get a new series of rifles designed for their unique and dangerous missions.





CNN was given an exclusive look at two new rifles for an elite group of U.S. troops.








                                                                                           "The difference is, I'm gonna have a weapon that's gonna fit the situation," an Army Ranger staff sergeant said.
 Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is about to start training its SEALs, Green Berets and other Special Operations troops in the use of Mark 16 and Mark 17 rifles. 
 Within a year, the new rifles should be in action against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and hot spots the public may never hear about.
     The usually secretive SOCOM gave CNN an exclusive chance to see and even fire the new weapon recently at its headquarters near Tampa, Florida. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Watch a preview of the new weapons »
   The contractors working with SOCOM to develop the weapon say it is more versatile and more accurate, jams less and lasts longer than the current rifle used by many Special Operations troops, the M-4.
 The Mark 16 (Mk16) fires a 5.56 mm round, the same size used for decades in M-16s and M-4s. The Mk17 fires a larger 7.62 mm round that is used in some U.S. military machine guns, but it's not the same round as in the AK-47, the world's most widely used assault rifle. 
 Both of the new rifles are designed to kill regardless of the situation. 
 "Whether that's a soft target, a guy without body armor, or whether that's an enemy force within a vehicle that you need to shoot through a window or the side of the vehicle and you want to ensure that round is not deflected," said Tucker Campion, a retired Navy SEAL who now is a civilian contractor working on the new rifles. "We want a round that, when it hits the enemy soldier, provides the maximum amount of damage."
 Even though they fire different-size bullets, each rifle is largely interchangeable with the other. By changing only a few parts, including the bolt and the barrel, a soldier can switch from a gun that fires the lighter 5.56 mm round to one that shoots the heavier 7.62 mm round in a matter of minutes.
 That's just one example of the rifle's versatility. Each gun comes with three interchangeable barrels, and each gives the troops a specific advantage.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             "If you were going to clear an urban environment, buildings, rooms, you'd probably throw the short barrel on there," the staff sergeant said. 
                                                                                            CNN is honoring the Ranger's request not to identify him, because in battle, anonymity is crucial for Special Operations troops.
 "If you're in Afghanistan and you're walking in the mountains and the hills and all that, and your distance is going to be a lot greater to the enemy, and you're probably going to want to throw the longer barrel on there so you get that extra reach," the Ranger said.
 Even though the rifles fire the same bullets as existing weapons, they are designed to be much more accurate.
 "If you look at a current inventory assault rifle, you get 350 to 400 meters," Campion said of their range of accuracy. "Put a long barrel in (the new rifle), and now you're at 6 to 7 (hundred meters). So we're extending the standoff between us and the enemy." A longer standoff means an American can shoot an enemy soldier from farther away; thus, the American is safer.
 One of the main goals was to design a gun that lasts longer. Campion says the M-4 is designed to fire 6,000 rounds over five years. But the Mk16 and Mk17 were designed for Special Operations, who are likely to fire 6,000 rounds in less than one year. The new rifles are designed to handle the greater rate of use and last twice as long.
 The design changes that make the Mk16 and Mk17 last longer also make them more reliable. Nothing is worse for a GI in battle than for his rifle to jam at the wrong moment, but it happens with all kinds of guns. These new rifles are designed to reduce those jamming problems as much as possible. The new rifle also comes in a Mk13 model, which includes a grenade launcher mounted below the barrel.

To those who will use the rifles in the field, what they need first and foremost from the new weapons is success.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/assault.rifle/index.html 

Video of weapons being fired:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/assault.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCVideo


----------



## Ravage (May 9, 2008)

A promo vid:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcSk74qlZE"]YouTube - FN SCAR's in action[/ame]


----------



## skeeter (May 14, 2008)

I have a question about the bullet tumbling.  I shot comp small bore for a small period of time, and from what I understand and I could be wrong the bullet tumbling came from when the bullet went from above the speed of sound to below the speed of sound and the air around the bullet warabled and caused the bullet to tumble. Am I right?:confused:


----------



## P. Beck (May 15, 2008)

In January we were told we'd get the SCAR before SFAUC.  After SFAUC we were told we'd get them before PMT.  After PMT, we were told we'd get them before we deployed.  Before leaving, we were told we'd get them when we get back.

I heard things like, "production problems" and, "low-rate production phase" etc, etc.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

I have this:







And thusly am I then content.

Skeeter: What you are describing is trans-sonic yaw. And it does generally occur as the round drops from supersonic to subsonic.  It is dependent on a number of factors and can occur to greater or lesser degrees.  It is one reason that snipers like their bullets to hit the target at a speed above this threshold as substantial energy and some accuracy can be lost before the bullet settles back down into a nice stable subsonic trajectory.

This is a whole different animal than the sort of yaw that takes place after impact.  It's the difference between external ballistics and wound ballistics.


----------



## skeeter (May 16, 2008)

Thanks, thats cool.;)


----------



## DoctorDoom (May 18, 2008)

Let me echo from the trauma surgery end of the house what P. Beck said earlier; shot placement is key.  You guys would be amazed at the number of gunshot wounds I send home within 6 hours of ER evaluation, versus the number of stab wounds that arrive dead and stay dead.  It's not just the size of the round or the polymer of the weapon's stock.


----------



## WillBrink (May 18, 2008)

DoctorDoom said:


> Let me echo from the trauma surgery end of the house what P. Beck said earlier; shot placement is key.  You guys would be amazed at the number of gunshot wounds I send home within 6 hours of ER evaluation, versus the number of stab wounds that arrive dead and stay dead.  It's not just the size of the round or the polymer of the weapon's stock.




That reminds me of a stat I read once, but can't find the cite for. I had read that although stabbings are rarer than shootings (in the US), stabbings have a higher % of being fatal. Not sure of the accuracy of that statement as I have been unable to find the source, so take it for what it's worth. It appears your experience mirrors that?


----------



## Onemoretime (May 18, 2008)

Will,

There is a video series done by one of the "dog brothers", a kali group out of California.  They got together with Gabe Suarez and made a series called "Die less often".  In that series they talk about knife attacks having a higher percentage of deaths related to them then shootings.

I would tend to agree with that statement.  It takes a different level of intensity and commitment to stabs someone rather then shoot them.  ALMOST like the difference between a pilot firing a missle at a blip on the screen versus a ground soldier shooting the enemy at 25 yards.

When the average person shoots someone they MAY NOT be committed the killing that person, they may just want to stop the threat.  One or two shots, they may not be dead but they may be out of the battle and now you can choose to run away or advance on them and capture or finish them.  When you decide to stab someone you are going to be close enough that your intensity is automatically going to be raised to a level where you will be in a race with the other guy to "solve the problem".  Knifings are characterized by multiple stab wounds because of the want to finish the fight.

There is an actual knife fighting tactic call the "sewing machine" where you take the knife in either an ice pick grip or fencing grip and repeatedly stab the opponent like a sewing maching.


----------



## WillBrink (May 18, 2008)

Onemoretime said:


> Will,
> 
> There is a video series done by one of the "dog brothers", a kali group out of California.  They got together with Gabe Suarez and made a series called "Die less often".  In that series they talk about knife attacks having a higher percentage of deaths related to them then shootings.
> 
> ...



All of the above makes sense, but my question was more regarding the nature of the wound of edged weapon vs handgun projectile. Would there be a strictly physical reason  the edged weapon is more often fatal (assuming that stat is correct) than common service rnds the doc can fill us in on, or is it as you mention, more an issue of intent and intensity of the knife attack vs gun?


----------



## pardus (May 18, 2008)

Two things come to mind for me, One, as stated the committment needed in order to stab someone is significantly more than to shoot, resulting in potentially               more lethal wounds and Two, the knife is slicing through flesh not ripping it as a bullet would tend to do more, slicing makes things bleed more. I know that from experience in an operating room, (as well as having been both sliced and ripped open myself) though I'm no expert and this is just my :2c:


----------



## Onemoretime (May 18, 2008)

I think it's either a matter of the number or perforations in an average knife attack versus the average shooting.  Knife = 3, 4, or 5 may be more?  vs. Gun = 1, 2, maybe 3?  Also, the range will guarantee the accuracy of the "perforations".

As P.Beck said earlier holes in the body bleed whether they are from a knife or a bullet.  More holes an/or better hole placement will make for better flow.

Also if the person knows how to use the knife they will most likely know how to use "wound enhancing" movements such as "churning the butter" or "twist and rip".

The intensity of a knife encounter will usually guarantee multiple stab wounds because of the range.  The closer you are to someone the more they tend to freak out.  Case in point, take someone who has never fought before and put them in with a seasoned BJJ practitioner and watch them freak out and poke you, grab you, rip your shirt, kick you in the balls, to get you off of them.  They don't mean to, most of the time, they're just in survival mode.  

In a gun battle you may be able to put a few rounds on target and then get away.  In a knife battle getting away is not so easy so you tend to try to "over-solve" the problem.  You stab until the enemy stops moving.  Gabe Suarez teaches the same technique in using the gun for self defense.  "Shoot them to the ground".


----------



## WillBrink (May 18, 2008)

Onemoretime said:


> I think it's either a matter of the number or perforations in an average knife attack versus the average shooting.  Knife = 3, 4, or 5 may be more?  vs. Gun = 1, 2, maybe 3?  Also, the range will guarantee the accuracy of the "perforations".
> 
> As P.Beck said earlier holes in the body bleed whether they are from a knife or a bullet.  More holes an/or better hole placement will make for better flow.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess to do it on a scientific level and reduce the number of variables, you could attempt to match up as many of the similarities as possible, then find the strength of the correlations, like similar number of holes, similar locations, similar depths, etc, etc and see if you can find if, based on your model, knife wounds have a higher fatality rate than handgun rnds when matched for controlled variable, but the number of variables you would have to (attempt) to control for would be many and or not possible. I wonder if anyone has done something lke that? Problem with correlational type research is you often end up with crap, like the "one shot stop" junk data and such, so it's a pitfall thing to try...

Interesting thoughts on the issue in the thread at least, which confirms my personal conclusions: don't get stabbed or shot if you can help it! :)


----------



## Onemoretime (May 18, 2008)

Let me clarify my position.  I do not believe that a single knife wound to the chest is more deadly then a single GS wound to the chest. 

I do believe that an average knife encounter is more deadly then an average gun encounter due the the factors mentioned in the above posts.

It would be very very difficult to research simular scenarios.  Most of the data at this point is most likely taken from ER's treating GS wounds and knife wounds on a regular basis.

I think the major difference in the encounters is the people involved in them.  Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem.  Where as if you stab someone, the range elevates your want the solve the problem which translates into more stab wounds.  Also, "average joe" and society in general doesn't view the knife as being as deadly as the gun so "AJ" thinks he needs more wounds which translates into a higher mortality rate.  

The major saving grace in most gun battles is the ability (of both combatants) to run away due to the range.

A knife battle at a range of 0-3 feet = someone will most likely die

A gun battle at a range of 0-3 feet = someone will most likely die

Like I said above, most of the data is likely collected from hospital ER's dealing with wounds not scenarios.  I'd imagine, drive by shootings, mall shootings, ambushes, college campus'.  Most of the deaths at our most recent incidents have been at close range (ie. bad guys walks up to cowering citizen and shoots them in the head).

Without doing the research I'd say that most bullet wounds treated are not from close range.  People use guns because they DON'T want to get close to the enemy.


----------



## P. Beck (Jun 5, 2008)

"Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem."

This is the primary reason why I train my guys to "shoot 'em all the way into the ground". Between the vertical and the hortizontal, you put as much lead into that sunnavabitch as you can.  Bullets are cheap.  We'll get more.  I promise.

"One shot, one kill" is all very well and good, in it's place.  Given a scalpel, proper placement and forces applied just so, it is theoretically possible to extract the meat from a walnut whole and intact in one move.  But a nine pound hammer works every single time. Period.

Fuque a bunch of subtle.


----------



## WillBrink (Jun 5, 2008)

P. Beck said:


> "Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem."
> 
> This is the primary reason why I train my guys to "shoot 'em all the way into the ground". Between the vertical and the hortizontal, you put as much lead into that sunnavabitch as you can.  Bullets are cheap.  We'll get more.  I promise.
> 
> ...



Who was it that said "until their head is at least 4 ft from their body, they should not be considered dead"?


----------



## P. Beck (Jun 5, 2008)

Me.

I guess it could have something to do with me carrying a 24 oz. framing hammer on my kit.

One of these, in point of fact: 

http://www.medfordtools.com/hammers/ds24.html

The Hajjis are scared to death that I'm just looking an excuse to bury the business end in somebody's forehead.  Fuque a bunch of tomahawks.

It doesn't matter if they think I'm crazy or not.  Just as long as I know.


----------



## Ravage (Jun 5, 2008)

P. Beck said:


> "One shot, one kill" is all very well and good, in it's place.  Given a scalpel, proper placement and forces applied just so, it is theoretically possible to extract the meat from a walnut whole and intact in one move.  But a nine pound hammer works every single time. Period.
> 
> Fuque a bunch of subtle.



Your Boomstick again


----------



## Ravage (Jun 5, 2008)

P. Beck is the US Army SF still using the good old M-14 ?


----------



## DoctorDoom (Jun 5, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> That reminds me of a stat I read once, but can't find the cite for. I had read that although stabbings are rarer than shootings (in the US), stabbings have a higher % of being fatal. Not sure of the accuracy of that statement as I have been unable to find the source, so take it for what it's worth. It appears your experience mirrors that?



To a certain extent yes, but that is a very qualified yes.  Death rates from stab wounds that present to the ER are higher, though SW are far more rare, but usually we don't see lacerations or stab wounds since they are usually not enough to warrant trauma surgery evaluation.  Also, most GSW's to the chest which are fatal don't present to the ER; they die in the field.

In short, my experience is statistically unreliable.  I would say that lethality based on location of injury is a common theme: central chest or major vascular injury= usually dead.  So my very limited opinion is as I stated previously; whether with a sharp piece of metal moving at a few miles per hour, or a large projectile moving at several thousand feet per second, placement is key.

That being said, intent is a big part of stabbings.  When people choose a knife, and try to stab and not slash, they want to KILL.  They do not just pop some shots from a distance.  So I think that has a lot to do with the fatality rate.  Also, most of the jackasses we see think they can pop off shots, play tough.  A trained shooter knows to shoot to kill.  The same is likely true for knife users: someone who uses the knife is likely to have a better idea of how to use it assuming they choose it as a weapon, so intent and training make a difference also.

Wow, I didn't answer your question at all. :doh: :)  I don't have any good overall stats.

Addendum:  here's a little something I found, I'll try to track down the Annals of Surgery article and some other Trauma references.
http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/


----------



## P. Beck (Jun 6, 2008)

Rav,

Sure.  We've got a bunch on my team.  The "Boomstick" is primarily my "outside" piece.  I've got a M4 shorty with a can on it for "inside" work.


----------



## WillBrink (Jun 6, 2008)

DoctorDoom said:


> To a certain extent yes, but that is a very qualified yes.  Death rates from stab wounds that present to the ER are higher, though SW are far more rare, but usually we don't see lacerations or stab wounds since they are usually not enough to warrant trauma surgery evaluation.  Also, most GSW's to the chest which are fatal don't present to the ER; they die in the field.
> 
> In short, my experience is statistically unreliable.  I would say that lethality based on location of injury is a common theme: central chest or major vascular injury= usually dead.  So my very limited opinion is as I stated previously; whether with a sharp piece of metal moving at a few miles per hour, or a large projectile moving at several thousand feet per second, placement is key.
> 
> ...



Good info doc, thanx.


----------



## Ravage (Jul 30, 2008)

http://www.military.com/news/article/operators-test-new-commando-rifle.html

*Operators Test New Commando Rifle*

It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.

So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?

Well, let's ask them.

"This rifle is awesome," said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. "It's spot on."

Now you get an idea of how the men who'll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what's most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.

In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.

See the Military.com SCAR Demo Slideshow
http://images.military.com/slideshows/scar-demo.htm

The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase -- the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.

The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine's reported lack of "stopping power" and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.

But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you'll get a completely different response on the rifles' advantages over the venerable M4.

To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn't the new carbine's gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 -- they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.

"I like it a lot better than the M4," one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. "There's a lot less recoil."

One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon's controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon's handle.

"This works better with my stumpy hands," the stocky operator joked.

But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR's ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.

Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.

"That's the best part of this weapon," explained one Special Forces Soldier. "When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we're on an operation where we need an overwatch or we're observing at a distance, the M4 doesn't do us much good until it's too late."

With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle -- all in one.

Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.

"I'm not sure I'd ever want to fire it like this," one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. "But it'd sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something."

Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.

It's unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn't complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

Good news and a step in the right direction.

The M-16 series has had it's time in the sun, time for the next one to step up.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

And here we go again...  

Its amazing how they can always find a few guys that like it to quote, but never write the negativities found with that damn thing from the rest of the guys...


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

And It will continue to go again until the M series is replaced, simple as that.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

I am not arguing against the M-series needing to be replaced.  However I dont think the SCAR, as it is now, is "it."


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

I can't disagree with that.

THe SCAR seems like a great rifle, as does the HK 416 but I've never used them so I don't _know_. 
I had a mate deploy with a SCAR, said it was fine though he didn't fully trust it due to the modular component to it, nothing concrete though.

I loved the M16A1 I was issued, great rifle but like we all (mostly) know, it's time.

I just want someone in the Army to stand up and say yes we are looking for a replacement and start to seriously trial rifles, stop dragging their bloody feet.

Dreams are free right? :uhh: lol


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

Has anyone heard any negatives on the SCAR?


----------



## 8'Duece (Jul 30, 2008)

From an outsiders point of view I don't think any new weapon system is going to please every single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine within the Spec Ops community. 

One soldier has stubby fingers and short arms, another has long fingers and long arms. Weapon controls can be developed with both left and right hand shooters in the specs and meet those requirements, but there is alway's some soldiers that wont like where the charging handle is, won't like the safety/selector lever, or the stock may be too long, too short or too stubby etc. 

How do you design a weapons platform that meets every single soldiers desires ?  I don't know that you can, but one thing is for sure.  If you don't consult enough of the intended end users in mind, then your just developing a weapons systems with very limited design features, or very unlimited design features. 

Can't please everyone I guess. 

My .02.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

I have heard plenty of guys at Group voicing their displeasure with it. I have shot it and it isnt all that bad but for the money we (SOCOM) have put into it I would have expected a lil more...

Like 82nd points out, you will never please everyone however most of the complaints I have heard arent ergonomics but function, reliability, and interchangeability.  Last I checked there were still a couple issues the USASFC Commander had brought to FN's attention that hadnt received the attention deserved of the complaints.  I know a couple guys who went up to shoot it but havent been in touch with them the past couple days.  I will let you know what they had to say based on previous firings.

FWIW, the Schoolhouse offered to run the SCAR through the ringer but they declined because it wasn't ready for the demands they would put it through at Bragg...  They still havent taken them up on the offer.


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> I have heard plenty of guys at Group voicing their displeasure with it. I have shot it and it isnt all that bad but for the money we (SOCOM) have put into it I would have expected a lil more...
> 
> Like 82nd points out, you will never please everyone however most of the complaints I have heard arent ergonomics but function, reliability, and interchangeability.  Last I checked there were still a couple issues the USASFC Commander had brought to FN's attention that hadnt received the attention deserved of the complaints.
> 
> ...



....


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> ...i'd be calling H&K to look at the 416...



There are a couple of the NG SF units who have the 416 already.  They were bought by the state in which those units reside, not by USASFC.  ;)

Crip


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

Nice! :)

So is the feeling that the 416 would be a better choice?


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

I dont think the feeling inside USASFC is that at all. 

The decision about the 416 was that the SF Companies' uppers were in need of replacement and instead of buying the same ole thing their states did the smart thing and put the money into the 416, which was the right thing to do IYAM.  However, the 416 is a stop gap at best between what we have and what we need.  On that note, we need to actively look for a replacement for the M-series and not piggyback off what the SEALs wanted.  I don't believe the SEALs are happy with the way the SCAR turned out either or atleast thats what I heard from those I have talked to.

Part of the problem is non-shooters are making decisions for everyone (I am aware of how procurement works) and it needs to stop.  Those writing the checks should get their cues from those exchanging lead on the two-way range, not some REMF sitting in an office looking at cool shit on the 'net.  This is the trouble with alot of SOF equipment, which is a topic for another discussion.

Hope that answered your question brother...  Having a rather ADD day and cant seem to think and type together..  lol


----------



## Ravage (Jul 30, 2008)

GROM and some other SOF units chose the HK416s. But those are 'smaller' SOF units than US Army SF (JW2305 for instance is aprox 200 combat personell) so it's not as easy I'd guess ?


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric, makes some good points.

That said, IMO the SCAR looks like a good weapon for Special Operations units.

It's been my experience thought that it's hard to please soldiers in Special Operation type units with any one weapons system. Special Ops., soldiers are usually VERY opinionated and not bashful about expressing their opinions. Get three SF guys talking about weapons and you'll get that many different opinions, in fact that is true of most things, to include beer's and whiskey. ;) 

The SEALs have always seemed to gravitate towards some of the more exotic weapons systems out there. Of course, their mission is also somewhat different than others in the Community too.

To me, the SCAR system seems to have enough room in the system to keep them all happy. Perhaps, some minor adjustments to the system (Which IMO will happen anyway.) will keep everybody sort of happy with it's selection and usage. Look at all the changes to the M-16/M-4 system, since the 60's. :uhh::2c:


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

*Well said Brother...*

Noone is ever happy with everything we are issued. 

While I am thinking about it, and we are on the SCAR subject, I really like the looks of the 40mm launcher for the SCAR, as well as the stock making it a stand alone weapon (m-79).  They actually put some thought into its design it seems and have made it a bit easier to attach/detach from the weapon as well.

I also like the location of the selector switch on the rifles and it being on both sides of the receiver.

Thats all...

Crip


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> Noone is ever happy with everything we are issued.
> 
> While I am thinking about it, and we are on the SCAR subject, I really like the looks of the 40mm launcher for the SCAR, as well as the stock making it a stand alone weapon (m-79).  They actually put some thought into its design it seems and have made it a bit easier to attach/detach from the weapon as well.
> 
> ...



Yes, all good features IMO. Talking about the M-79, I've had a few people in the community tell me that by request some people have had M-79's re-issued to them, because they thought that they were more accurate. In my own experience I thought they were more accurate to use than the M-203. 

I wonder if the OO Buck and Flechette (Bee hive) rounds are still available?  ;)


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> Hope that answered your question brother...  Having a rather ADD day and cant seem to think and type together..  lol



Thanks mate, I appreciate your time and effort with this.

I liked using the M-79 I just hated getting slammed in the back of the head with it when diving for cover every 3-5m during fire and movement :doh:


----------



## AWP (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> There are a couple of the NG SF units who have the 416 already.  They were bought by the state in which those units reside, not by USASFC.  ;)
> 
> Crip



The states dropped some coin on their SF unit? I can't get my head around that. Some of them used to siphon off our Federal dollars and allocate them to other units....now the cycle is reversed and they are buying things for the SF units? What next, you're going to say that you are getting training slots at schools too?

I never thought this day would come.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 30, 2008)

E:

The day hasnt come quite yet.  The states themselves are still siphoning off money intended for SF.  Being in Alabama has to be the worst though, not because of Alabama but because 20th Gp HQ, 1st Bn HQ along with Aco and Bco all have to divide the money up...  I swear if I see one more support guy with a 10.5" barrel I will lose a rocker to choke the shit out of the guys who decided support guys need the new shit over the teams...

As for schools, it is what it is, but I have been told it is 100% better than before 9.11.

Crip


----------



## 8'Duece (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> E:
> 
> The day hasnt come quite yet.  The states themselves are still siphoning off money intended for SF.  Being in Alabama has to be the worst though, not because of Alabama but because 20th Gp HQ, 1st Bn HQ along with Aco and Bco all have to divide the money up...  I swear if I see one more support guy with a 10.5" barrel I will lose a rocker to choke the shit out of the guys who decided support guys need the new shit over the teams...
> 
> ...



Do you really want a 10.5" barreled rifle ??


----------



## AWP (Jul 30, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> E:
> 
> The day hasnt come quite yet.  The states themselves are still siphoning off money intended for SF.  Being in Alabama has to be the worst though, not because of Alabama but because 20th Gp HQ, 1st Bn HQ along with Aco and Bco all have to divide the money up...  I swear if I see one more support guy with a 10.5" barrel I will lose a rocker to choke the shit out of the guys who decided support guys need the new shit over the teams...
> 
> ...



While I'm sad to see the practice still continue I was worried that it had ended. It would mean the earth falling off it's axis becuase no state will ever recognize their SF unit like they do their IN or AVN units.

I'm a huge fan of the support guy for obvious reasons and I don't think they get a fair shake from time-to-time, but a support solider with a 10.5 is beyond stupid. Spt Co received the first batch of M-4's in the BN and I thought then and still do that the decision was stupid and almost criminal.

There shouldn't be any friction between the line companies and the support slice, but there always will be.


----------



## pardus (Jul 31, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Do you really want a 10.5" barreled rifle ??



LOL, seriously!



Freefalling said:


> Spt Co received the first batch of M-4's in the BN and I thought then and still do that the decision was stupid and almost criminal.



The person/people who pushed/signed off on that should be permanently removed from the unit, demoted and disgraced publicly IMO. >:{


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jul 31, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> I swear if I see one more support guy with a 10.5" barrel I will lose a rocker to choke the shit out of the guys who decided support guys need the new shit over the teams...



LOL! Hey bro that shit doesn't just happen to you guys, we had our support guys running around with brand new EO techs, Surefires and 15s. While we are running around ragged.

What always got me going was seeing some staff Officer or NCO better equipped than my own guys.  Seriously, is the paper battle in the TOC that intense.


Back on target: Definitely time for the Military to start giving our guys the best rather than the lower bidders.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 31, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Do you really want a 10.5" barreled rifle ??



I would have taken a 7" barrel when I was in the Colombian jungle...  :)

Crip


----------



## car (Jul 31, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> I would have taken a 7" barrel when I was in the Colombian jungle...  :)
> 
> Crip



What you needed was bug spray! Jus' sayin'


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 31, 2008)

car said:


> What you needed was bug spray! Jus' sayin'



Ha fucking ha....  lol


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 31, 2008)

car said:


> What you needed was bug spray! Jus' sayin'



I'd say a rail mounted "bug" zapper would have done a better job.  ;)  It would only sound like a zipper any way....


----------



## pardus (Jul 31, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> I would have taken a 7" barrel when I was in the Colombian jungle...  :)
> 
> Crip



Were you in secondary Jungle?

I never had an issue with barrel lengths in the bush, though every area has it's own thickness etc... I have heard Jungles in South/Central America aren't particulary nice.


----------



## P. Beck (May 12, 2009)

Doin' the SCAR thing. Did the classroom stuff yesterday, range today and tonight.

We'll see.


----------



## Ravage (May 12, 2009)

Waiting for the input :)


----------



## arizonaguide (May 12, 2009)

P. Beck said:


> Doin' the SCAR thing. Did the classroom stuff yesterday, range today and tonight.


Not the 7.62 version, I'm sure.


----------



## P. Beck (May 12, 2009)

7.62 version? Why, you must mean the Mk17, Mod 0.
Comin' right up.

Standard barrel (16')


----------



## P. Beck (May 12, 2009)

and the shorty CQC barrel.


----------



## P. Beck (May 12, 2009)

First impressions.

Lighter than my M14. More compact. Quicker handling.

Very accurate. From the prone, even with the CQC barrel, I was stacking rounds on top of each other. But during the moving drills, recoil added to my split times.

Mechanically, it is similar enough to the M4 that I didn't see anybody have any problems just picking the rifle up and making it run. One big difference was the placement of the cocking handle. I haven't done any failure drills with it but it is going to take some minor re-programming. Good thing is, given the placement of the cocking handle and the bolt lock, you can lock the bolt back with one hand, without releasing the firing grip.

One big down-side (for me anyway), during zeroing and any time I fired from the prone, the sunnovabitch punched me in the mouth with almost every shot. In the prone, if you have anything approaching a decent stock-weld, the bulge on the left side of the stock, that protects the stock latch, smacks you in the right side of the mouth. This can get to be distracting. I didn't notice this in standing or moving drills but the body mechanics are a bit different then.

The jury is still out, as far as I am concerned.  I need at least a couple thousand rounds through it before I'm willing to bet the farm on it.

And, the "Boomstick" never punched me in the mouth.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (May 13, 2009)

I think I remember your boomstick comments....  are you a fan of aftermarket stocks for the boomstick?  like the Vltor modstock?  or are you more of a "gimme the wood any day" kinda guy?


----------



## P. Beck (May 13, 2009)

I use the regular, plain old issue, brown plastic stock tricked out with an after-market adjustable stock comb, a rail top cover, a couple sections of rail (bottom and sides) and a low scope mount. Cheap, simple, light, strong, maintainable, adaptable, supportable.


----------



## P. Beck (May 18, 2009)

Some things that stuck out for me sitting in on the the armorer class last Thursday.

Mechanically, it's as if they decided to take everything that was difficult about the M4, requiring complex and/or difficult procedures and requiring tools (sometimes very specific specialized tools) and make it simple on the SCAR.  Like barrel changes. They're now a snap.

Sounds good huh?  Wait for the other shoe to drop.

They then took everything that was simple about the M4, like detailed dis-assembly of the trigger assembly in the lower receiver or replacement of the extractor, and made them difficult, requiring tools, fixtures and, sometimes, a vise.

What does it all mean?  Simple.  Hell will freeze solid before Joe Regular Army ever gets his hands on one of these.  It is a "system" and therefore too complex for Joe.  Hell, the fuquin' thing is about two shades too complex for MY taste.

HK or LWRC piston upper receivers would have been faster, easier and cheaper. If I switch out a barrel on the SCAR, I still have to re-zero my optics. If I switch uppers on an M4 to change barrel lengths, my optics stay mounted for that barrel. Two pins and I'm in business.

The SCAR, as it is right now, is dumb. And, it's starting to look like we might be stuck with it.  If they're still looking to replace the M4, Big Army should keep looking elsewhere.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (May 18, 2009)

and there you have it......   glad to get some input back.  I think switching to HK416 uppers would be the best option - cost effective, and still easy for Joseph to adapt to.  all the functions and basic troubleshooting, as well as operator level maintenance and use remains nearly the same, and did I mention it's cheaper?  

Basically, I think it'd be easier to teach him the differences between gas piston and gas tube operation, than to teach him how to change a barrel on a weapon, that, let's face it - he probably won't have an extra barrel for.  As a Joe, I really hope Big Army goes to the HK416.  but, that's just my 2 cents.  thanks for the input and the thoughts, P.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 19, 2009)

I would have to play with one to give an honest opinion. I personally prefer the AR system, but just like anything else “there is always room for another tool in the tool box”.

I don’t like the folding stock idea and the cheek to stock weld looks like it would be difficult for me.

Good AAR P!


----------



## surgicalcric (May 19, 2009)

All the money spent on this rifle's R&D and production yet we still cannot get a pistol worth a damn...


----------



## 8'Duece (May 19, 2009)

surgicalcric said:


> All the money spent on this rifle's R&D and production yet we still cannot get a pistol worth a damn...



Caliber or platform ??

If the Beretta is maintained, as it should be, it's a darn good pistol.  Alway's has been, alway's will be.  


Just my :2c:


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (May 19, 2009)

"iz good weapon, good weight.... if it doesn't work, you can always hit him with it...."  - Boris the Blade


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 20, 2009)

82ndtrooper said:


> Caliber or platform ??
> 
> If the Beretta is maintained, as it should be, it's a darn good pistol.  Alway's has been, alway's will be.
> 
> Just my :2c:



I agree that the M9 is a very accurate pistol, one of the more accurate service pistols in use.

However the weight and reliability has been proven to be unpractical in combat. If the military is going to stay with a 9mm pistol, I think they should look at a much higher capacity and a much lighter pistol design.  A polymer frame with a capacity of 20 rounds and reliability in all environments would be ideal, if this could be accomplished while keeping it as accurate as the M9. I believe conventional and SOF would be much more content with a 9mm pistol vs. a .45 ACP.

The old-timers will always want a .45 ACP, the same way they will always want a 7.62mm rifle.:2c:


----------



## arizonaguide (May 20, 2009)

Privates they love their beer, 'most every day.
Corporals, they love their stripes, that's what they say.
Sergeants they love to drill. Guess them bastards always will
So we drill and drill until we fade away.

A must see:
http://www.archive.org/details/Rifle_Marksmanship_with_M1_Rifle_Part_1


----------



## P. Beck (May 20, 2009)

"iz good weapon, good weight.... if it doesn't work, you can always hit him with it...." - Boris the Blade

Dude. No. No. No.

"*Heavy* is good, *heavy* is reliable. If it doesn't work... you can always hit them with it."

Repeat after me, "Wikiquote is my friend."


----------



## arizonaguide (May 27, 2009)

Quick question about the SCAR (I see it with the EoTech), from an uneducated Air Force puke:

Are you guys finding that you get dirt/sand down into the small (exposed) projection hole on the EoTech, and lose the DOT? Is a sealed unit with two lenses (like the Aimpoint) to just wipe clean a better setup?


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 27, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> Is a sealed unit with two lenses to wipe clean a better setup?




Yeah.  There is a hologram in there so if the covering breaks, it should be still visible.


----------



## P. Beck (May 27, 2009)

I was using the Eotech because it was issued with the rifle at the time.
That said, given recent experiences with the latest model in training, I personally will not be using the Eotech sight for anything except maybe a paperweight.

This:  http://www.aimpoint.com/products/aimpoint_product_lines/aimpoint_compm4_and_compm4s

... is the new hotness.  It's what's currently mounted forward on my shorty (inside voice).


----------



## arizonaguide (May 27, 2009)

Exactly. A sealed unit seems better, as I was having trouble with my EoTech clone (knockoff) getting dust/sand in the small projection hole, and losing the DOT.
I scraped it, and got a sealed model similar to the aimpoint. Now, I just have to occasionally wipe the lenses. No dust/dirt issues.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 27, 2009)

P. Beck said:


> I was using the Eotech because it was issued with the rifle at the time.
> That said, given recent experiences with the latest model in training, I personally will not be using the Eotech sight for anything except maybe a paperweight.
> 
> This:  http://www.aimpoint.com/products/aimpoint_product_lines/aimpoint_compm4_and_compm4s
> ...



I was issued a COMPM4 on my last deployment, my EOTech replaced it in 3 weeks... But then again I have never had anything good to say about aimpoint, I wont trust my life to one ever again. I broke three in 04-05 and one in 08, ACOG TA31f is the way to go IMO (but EOtech is the best CQM sight I have used yet).


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 28, 2009)

Please open a different thread if you'd like to continue the optic convo gents.  Back to the SCAR...


----------



## WillBrink (May 28, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> The old-timers will always want a .45 ACP, the same way they will always want a 7.62mm rifle.:2c:



Can you blame them?!


----------



## P. Beck (May 28, 2009)

It may seem as if I have nothing good to say about the SCAR. On the contrary, I think it has potential. I just don't want me or my guys used for R&D when lives are depending on it. Ask the VN vets who got the early M-16's how that works out.

On the plus side, the EGLM seems well thought out. It's light, strong, accurate and  adaptable to the M-4. The sight system for it also seems good.

One of the tricks we use with the M203 is to use it in a "crew-served" mode, with one guy loading as the gunner concentrates on engaging the target and sliding the barrel.
Well, this little trick works even better with the EGLM.  With the "loader" standing on the right and, the barrel having the ability to kick out to the side, we were easily able to keep three rounds in the air and going downrange and could sustain this rate as long as there was ammo. It was sorta like a slow Mk-19.


----------



## 8'Duece (May 28, 2009)

Now everyone will want an semi-auto SCAR rifle.


----------

