Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SOCOM officially cancels SCAR

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Military
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:07 pm    Post subject: SOCOM officially cancels SCAR Reply with quote

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

What a shocker, what, you mean that a new 5.56mm selective fire rifle doesn't make more sense than a 5.56mm selective fire rifle? Shocked
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently FN disagrees with this article - SOCOM is still buying the SCAR, so it can also sit in the armoury next to the Mk 23 pistols as well. Apparently individual elements can "choose" it if they want to, and I suspect they'll choose not to... Razz
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dooty



Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Location: Blackpool

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen several articles on research about adopting an intermediate cartridge between 5.56 and 7.62. They are looking at a 6.5mm cartridge based on an M16 chasis which will utilise M16 mags so instead of 30 Rds 5.56 or 20 rds of 7.62 you can av approx 25 Rds of 6.5mm.

Hang on, didnt Enfield do this with the EM2 in .280 (approx 7mm) in the early 1950's - nearly 60 years to realsie what Enfield originally came up with Sad
_________________
Never argue with an idiot, he will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you talking about 6.8mm SPC? There are tons and tons of weird and wonderful things that have been briefly used and then canned by special forces in the US, the SCAR is more important because it was adopted as an official standard weapon by SOCOM, they basically gave up on 6.8mm and had a version of the SCAR in 7.62mm instead, i.e. a bespoke rifle rather than crowbarring a bigger cartridge into the M16.

However everything I've heard from people who actually use them and sell them is that the 5.56mm version of the SCAR is basically dead and they will use the 7.62mm version but only in relatively small numbers compared to what they were talking about originally.

Having used a SCAR I have no idea what the purpose of the exercise was, I'm sure it's slightly more reliable than the SOCOM version of the M4A1 but only marginally. Eventually they came to their senses.

The H&K Mk 23 pistol is known as the "boat anchor" apparently.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dooty



Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Location: Blackpool

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there were several variations ranging between 6.5 to 7mm but as you say the 6.5mm seemed to have greater publicity.

I just find it interesting how the Nato forces ended up with a cartridge that is not deemed sufficient to shoot deer in the UK even with expanding ammunition. Although any information from Wikipedia needs to be regarded with caution it does state that the EM2 was adopted in 1951 by the British army then canned by Winston Churchill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle

I think the debate between 7.62 (308) & 5.56 (223) will continue for many years but the different theaters of war do require different solutions. 5.56 may be great for envisaged european engagements of 300 yards and less but Iraq and Afghanistan require the longer reach afforded by the 7.62
_________________
Never argue with an idiot, he will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dooty wrote:
I have seen several articles on research about adopting an intermediate cartridge between 5.56 and 7.62. They are looking at a 6.5mm cartridge based on an M16 chasis which will utilise M16 mags so instead of 30 Rds 5.56 or 20 rds of 7.62 you can av approx 25 Rds of 6.5mm.

Hang on, didnt Enfield do this with the EM2 in .280 (approx 7mm) in the early 1950's - nearly 60 years to realsie what Enfield originally came up with Sad


7.62x39mm is an intermediate round (in power if not actually in calibre) so why not just adopt that? It's perfectly reliable and powerful enough and the AK guns which use it are easy and cheap to make and have been around long enough to have had the bugs worked out of them - although they probably didn't have that many to begin with.

I get the impression that wealthy western governments keep trying to re-invent the wheel simply because they can rather than just buying a ready made, off-the-shelf product at a tiny fracrtion of the price. A brand new AK-47 is an almost insignificant amount of money when bought by the container load and if you are equiping an entire national armed force then you can get them even cheaper by setting up a factory to make them on an industrial estate somewhere. It's hardly cutting edge technology, after all, and your deisgn costs are pretty much zero.

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because you have to use a different calibre than the enemy, because then the enemy cannot use your ammunition, which has been a basic military doctrine for many years (and also the original thinking behind French gun laws - ban civilians from owning military calibres so they can't use captured ammunition if they try and overthrow the Govt). Which the US finally figured out in Afghanistan (again) when they discovered from imprisoned Taliban that their main source of ammunition was stuff they captured, so now the US has supplied Afghanistan a mountain of M16A2s through MAP.

Plus 7.62x39 is .311" not .308"
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dooty



Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Location: Blackpool

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you slug a .303 barrel you will find that its bore diameter is .311. The 7.62x51 round is virtually identical to the .308 Win. 7.62 ammo will feed and function in a .308 but due to slight case differences a .308 may not function in a 7.62. I think that it is the shoulder angle which is slightly different, also the military brass tends to be thicker therefore reducing internal powder capacity. Makes the round more hardwearing and less prone to distortion when stood on by an army boot Laughing
_________________
Never argue with an idiot, he will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oddbod



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally got my mitts on both the SCAR 16 & 17 on my latest US visit & despite my oft professed dislike for anything post FN FAL I have to admit I was impressed - especially with the 17.
Damn but that thing is quick to get back on target for a follow up shot, even out past 600yds using a scope.....
......unless you use the pogo stick "bipod" that doubles as a forward grip which bounces the rifle WAY high compared with shooting off the top of a range bag. Shocked
The 16 was even easier to shoot, though trying to hit a #5 target at 600yds in the windy conditions of northern NM was asking too much, hence my preference for the heavier round.

Now if FN decided to make a SCAR 16.8........ Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Military All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group