SOCOM Cancels SCAR Mk 16

[SC-Texas]

Fascinating . . . . seems like the prediciton thatthe SCAR wasn't that much of an improvement over the M4 turns out to be true:

linky to article

(http://www.military.com/news/a...ncels-new-rifle.html)

"In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military's Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the "SCAR," as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

"The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration," officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Mk-17 fills the existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle," officials said. "USSOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the Mk-17, Mk-13 and Mk-20 variants that will be purchased."

 

[IXLR8]

This should all but kill the civilian SCAR-16. They may become collector items. I was holding out for the SCAR-17 anyway.

The military probably made a good decision staying with the M4. Why try to stock parts for 2 weapons. Although I thought the SCAR 16 & 17 had interchangeable parts.

 

[Texas1911]

They should have just retrofitted gas systems on the current M4, IMHO.

 

[M. Sage]

They should have just retrofitted gas systems on the current M4, IMHO.

That's probably what will happen. I'd like to see a 6.5mm caseless developed for the platform, too...

 

[SC-Texas]

I woudl like to see an LWRC 6.8 retrofit . . .but it doesn't offer enough of an improvement.

Hell, even HK has been unable to mass produce the 416 effectively. I ahve heard of QC problems with the upper.

 

[M. Sage]

I woudl like to see an LWRC 6.8 retrofit . . .but it doesn't offer enough of an improvement.

Hell, even HK has been unable to mass produce the 416 effectively. I ahve heard of QC problems with the upper.

You know what I would prefer to a gas piston system? Just use a longer gas tube on the existing DI guns. Tap that gas further out by the muzzle and it gets a ton cleaner. Of course, SOCOM would still benefit from a piston gun because they sometimes use suppressors, but for the average troops? Just put a longer gas system on it.

I'm not sure about the 14.5" barrel the M4 uses, but I think that a 12" gas system (full-size rifle system) will fit on it. I know it will fit on a 16" barrel, and that will solve a lot of problems, including barrel wear.

 

[Spiff]

You know what I would prefer to a gas piston system? Just use a longer gas tube on the existing DI guns. Tap that gas further out by the muzzle and it gets a ton cleaner. Of course, SOCOM would still benefit from a piston gun because they sometimes use suppressors, but for the average troops? Just put a longer gas system on it.

I'm not sure about the 14.5" barrel the M4 uses, but I think that a 12" gas system (full-size rifle system) will fit on it. I know it will fit on a 16" barrel, and that will solve a lot of problems, including barrel wear.

It's not that simple. Midlength works really well on 14.5" and 16" barrels, but 16" rifle-length systems really don't have enough dwell time to be anything other than finnicky. I don't really buy the cleaner argument with a longer gas system - softer recoiling and more reliable, sure.

And I'm not really sure how that would help barrel wear?

 

[M. Sage]

It's not that simple. Midlength works really well on 14.5" and 16" barrels, but 16" rifle-length systems really don't have enough dwell time to be anything other than finnicky. I don't really buy the cleaner argument with a longer gas system - softer recoiling and more reliable, sure.

And I'm not really sure how that would help barrel wear?

One of the worst wear areas on a carbine system is in the gas port in the top of the barrel. The port erodes, which screws with function.

Cleaner? Yes, the longer systems are cleaner. You're getting less half-burnt and unburnt powder at lower pressures. Ever notice that most of the cleaning issues these days seem to revolve around the M4. "Replace the M4!" is the cry... Not "replace the M16!"

 

[Spiff]

One of the worst wear areas on a carbine system is in the gas port in the top of the barrel. The port erodes, which screws with function.

Cleaner? Yes, the longer systems are cleaner. You're getting less half-burnt and unburnt powder at lower pressures. Ever notice that most of the cleaning issues these days seem to revolve around the M4. "Replace the M4!" is the cry... Not "replace the M16!"

Here's a random pic I found after some time on Google and Lightfighter:



Consensus seems to be that the throat in a barrel will be completely gone by the time the port erodes enough to affect function. I'd tend to agree with that. If your port is eroded that badly, it's time for a new barrel anyway because either funny shaped holes or substantially larger groups should be showing up at the range.

I might buy that they're cleaner, but I don't think it's significant enough to be relevant. ARs their cousins will run forever while dirty - they just need to be lubed the whole time. I've personally run mine and seen many others well over 1k rounds issue-free with nothing but lubing. Sure, they may finally get dirty enough to quit, but that's user incompetence, not some fault of the rifle.

The problem with the M4 is that the combination of it and M855 absolutely suck at life. M855 is not a terribly good antipersonnel round anyway (seeing as how our typical enemy isn't wearing Soviet helmets and sitting in a foxhole) and it doesn't get enough velocity out of a 14.5" barrel to fragment reliably at range. The 20" M16 series spits it out just enough faster to go ahead and make that happen. That's the main reason why we hear complaints about the M4 and not the M16, although the M16 is overall more reliable than the M4 because of the gas system.

 

[AresV]

I'm not shedding a tear for the SCAR.

They could've nailed it had they 1) been willing to sell short barrels to anyone other than .gov/LE agencies, 2) found a way to engineer a non-reciprocating CH, 3) priced the rifle at a reasonable price point for what it is ($1,700-1,800).

IMO, those 3 things killed the civilian sales. Well, that and the hype surrounding the ACR - which appears it's going to flop too due to an exorbitant price as well.

edit: I'm eating crow - I picked up a used black basic ACR for $1,700.

And FN has responded to the claim that the 5.56 SCAR is being dropped by SOCOM - it appears to have been an interweb rumor:

http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=640