Archived Posts » 59,757,950
Navy Buying More Variants of the SCAR
12/15/2011 6:37:19 PM
The Navy is buying more quantities of the mk 13, 16, 17 and 20.
Notably, Mk16s (5.56) are being purchased to sustain inventory levels.
US Navy to Purchase More SCARs (All Variants)
Notably, Mk16s (5.56) are being purchased to sustain inventory levels.
US Navy to Purchase More SCARs (All Variants)
12/15/2011 7:07:42 PM
As long as this actually happens, it is a very good thing for us. The more SCARS in the wild, the more manufacturers will get on board with making aftermarket parts
12/15/2011 7:24:25 PM
Bu...but...Dave_A said the SCAR program was only going to result in the production of ~2000 units & that's it. Done. WTF?
12/15/2011 8:44:23 PM
Great news for the SCAR program. Wonder if this has anything to do with the rumors of the HK 416 getting dumped by certain units? Maybe the Mk 16s are replacing it?
12/15/2011 9:14:24 PM
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
12/16/2011 7:24:13 AM
But.... But.... all the 16's have been withdrawn from service because they suck and no one uses them...
Combat Jack will be along any moment to tell us about his buddy who says this is all bullshit.
Combat Jack will be along any moment to tell us about his buddy who says this is all bullshit.
12/16/2011 12:15:02 PM
I was hoping they would stop buying tan 17s, that way I could get one.
12/16/2011 12:33:56 PM
The SCAR system is so new that it may have taken some time for the troops to get acclimated to them. After using the SCAR MK17s now they are probably asking themselves why not use the Mk16s as well.
At least thats what Im hoping.
At least thats what Im hoping.
12/16/2011 12:42:06 PM
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
12/16/2011 4:08:11 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
Augee, you are probably correct. This is probably for spare parts etc .Although this solicitation does leave the door open to purchase all components of the SCAR platform including the Mk 16. Its always a possiblity that we may start seeing more Mk16's. Now that operators are seeing the benifits of the Mk17 and Mk20 they may be more inclined to use the 5.56 SCAR.
12/18/2011 1:32:21 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
If they were having to buy parts to keep existing guns running, they'd have a contract to buy parts. This is a contract to buy complete rifles. It's used to replace existing weapons that are either damaged beyond repair, or beyond their useful service life. It would suggest, I assert, that the weapon is being used enough to warrant at least maintaining existing inventory levels. That means they want to keep using it. If these were getting checked into armouries and never used, there'd be no need for this kind of thing.
In my experience in DoD acquisition (of which I have over 26 years), a contract for an item pretty much ALWAYS includes a provision to buy spare parts and engineering services for it. The provision to buy parts and services for the original rifles is almost assuredly covered by the original delivery order. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to confirm it. This solicitation is almost certain to be for purchasing new weapons.... either to replace unservicable ones, or to fulfill desired inventory levels not currently filled.
12/18/2011 2:47:48 PM
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
If the shoe fits, but the Germans have dropped their 417's in the DMR, to go back to G3's. Last I cheacked only a few teams were still using the 416, and that was 10.5" barrels, for suppressed work.
12/18/2011 4:04:28 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If they were having to buy parts to keep existing guns running, they'd have a contract to buy parts. This is a contract to buy complete rifles. It's used to replace existing weapons that are either damaged beyond repair, or beyond their useful service life. It would suggest, I assert, that the weapon is being used enough to warrant at least maintaining existing inventory levels. That means they want to keep using it. If these were getting checked into armouries and never used, there'd be no need for this kind of thing.
In my experience in DoD acquisition (of which I have over 26 years), a contract for an item pretty much ALWAYS includes a provision to buy spare parts and engineering services for it. The provision to buy parts and services for the original rifles is almost assuredly covered by the original delivery order. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to confirm it. This solicitation is almost certain to be for purchasing new weapons.... either to replace unservicable ones, or to fulfill desired inventory levels not currently filled.
Originally Posted By Augee:
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
If they were having to buy parts to keep existing guns running, they'd have a contract to buy parts. This is a contract to buy complete rifles. It's used to replace existing weapons that are either damaged beyond repair, or beyond their useful service life. It would suggest, I assert, that the weapon is being used enough to warrant at least maintaining existing inventory levels. That means they want to keep using it. If these were getting checked into armouries and never used, there'd be no need for this kind of thing.
In my experience in DoD acquisition (of which I have over 26 years), a contract for an item pretty much ALWAYS includes a provision to buy spare parts and engineering services for it. The provision to buy parts and services for the original rifles is almost assuredly covered by the original delivery order. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to confirm it. This solicitation is almost certain to be for purchasing new weapons.... either to replace unservicable ones, or to fulfill desired inventory levels not currently filled.
You're correct in all of that. The simple truth is we've got no way to determine what the contract is specifically for. It simply says they want to "sustain inventory" of the CAR/ (SCAR).
All I'm pointing out is that the contract - as written, is not necessarily the vindication of the MK 16 that some people are claiming that it is. Not without further information. It may be, I'm just saying we don't know from the presolicitation. Would you agree that as written, the contract could be potentially for purchasing as many MK 17s and MK 20s as Crane can get their hands on, plus enough spare parts and engineering services to keep the MK 16s they already have running (just because I don't like a gun, doesn't mean I wouldn't at least want the ones I had to be functional) - not necessarily the purchase of more MK 16s?
I'm not making a call on this one. Not enough information yet. Simply pointing out that the "told ya so's" may be hasty.
~Augee
12/18/2011 7:46:06 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
You're correct in all of that. The simple truth is we've got no way to determine what the contract is specifically for. It simply says they want to "sustain inventory" of the CAR/ (SCAR).
All I'm pointing out is that the contract - as written, is not necessarily the vindication of the MK 16 that some people are claiming that it is. Not without further information. It may be, I'm just saying we don't know from the presolicitation. Would you agree that as written, the contract could be potentially for purchasing as many MK 17s and MK 20s as Crane can get their hands on, plus enough spare parts and engineering services to keep the MK 16s they already have running (just because I don't like a gun, doesn't mean I wouldn't at least want the ones I had to be functional) - not necessarily the purchase of more MK 16s?
I'm not making a call on this one. Not enough information yet. Simply pointing out that the "told ya so's" may be hasty.
~Augee
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If they were having to buy parts to keep existing guns running, they'd have a contract to buy parts. This is a contract to buy complete rifles. It's used to replace existing weapons that are either damaged beyond repair, or beyond their useful service life. It would suggest, I assert, that the weapon is being used enough to warrant at least maintaining existing inventory levels. That means they want to keep using it. If these were getting checked into armouries and never used, there'd be no need for this kind of thing.
In my experience in DoD acquisition (of which I have over 26 years), a contract for an item pretty much ALWAYS includes a provision to buy spare parts and engineering services for it. The provision to buy parts and services for the original rifles is almost assuredly covered by the original delivery order. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to confirm it. This solicitation is almost certain to be for purchasing new weapons.... either to replace unservicable ones, or to fulfill desired inventory levels not currently filled.
Originally Posted By Augee:
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
NSWC-Crane may very well be intending to procure more MK 16 MOD 0s. But that's not what the contract says at all, I think you guys need a little more practice reading government contracts. This presolicitation doesn't say anything about buying more MK 16s.
The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
This presolicitation is asking for money to buy more Combat Assault Rifles (CAR - SCAR) and EGLMs.
It then goes on to specify what exactly the CAR and EGLM hypothetically encompasses - MK 16s, MK 17s, MK 20s, and MK 13s, as well as associated support servies.
The presolicitation doesn't specify whether they intend to purchase complete systems (the whole shebang) or components of the system, or how many of what they're wanting to buy (neverminding that it could, hypothetically, be rejected).
Considering that a big part of the presolicitation is "intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons," it could potentially actually mean - "we need more money to buy spare parts and to repair broken guns!"
Sustainment isn't usually a term for "adding more to the inventory," it's a euphemism for "keep the shit we have working." It might actually be proving Combat_Jack right that the sustainment costs for the SCAR (CAR) program have outstripped original expectations in order to maintain them to the point where NSWC-Crane is having to ask for more money to do it.
Again, it's hard to say what Crane's intent for this presolicitation is, but the verbiage of the contract thusfar is far from a "vindication" of the MK 16 MOD 0. It could be a purchase request wherein almost all the funds are going to be siphoned to the MK 17 and MK 20 components of the program, too. Furthermore, it is far from an indictment of Combat_Jack's claims about SCAR parts breakage. C_J can be abrasive and I don't always agree with him, but in this particular case - it's way too early from this contract to be going "nyah nyah, I told you so," only to eat crow if and when it ends up that this is a support package solicitation to support prematurely broken weapons.
~Augee
If they were having to buy parts to keep existing guns running, they'd have a contract to buy parts. This is a contract to buy complete rifles. It's used to replace existing weapons that are either damaged beyond repair, or beyond their useful service life. It would suggest, I assert, that the weapon is being used enough to warrant at least maintaining existing inventory levels. That means they want to keep using it. If these were getting checked into armouries and never used, there'd be no need for this kind of thing.
In my experience in DoD acquisition (of which I have over 26 years), a contract for an item pretty much ALWAYS includes a provision to buy spare parts and engineering services for it. The provision to buy parts and services for the original rifles is almost assuredly covered by the original delivery order. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to confirm it. This solicitation is almost certain to be for purchasing new weapons.... either to replace unservicable ones, or to fulfill desired inventory levels not currently filled.
You're correct in all of that. The simple truth is we've got no way to determine what the contract is specifically for. It simply says they want to "sustain inventory" of the CAR/ (SCAR).
All I'm pointing out is that the contract - as written, is not necessarily the vindication of the MK 16 that some people are claiming that it is. Not without further information. It may be, I'm just saying we don't know from the presolicitation. Would you agree that as written, the contract could be potentially for purchasing as many MK 17s and MK 20s as Crane can get their hands on, plus enough spare parts and engineering services to keep the MK 16s they already have running (just because I don't like a gun, doesn't mean I wouldn't at least want the ones I had to be functional) - not necessarily the purchase of more MK 16s?
I'm not making a call on this one. Not enough information yet. Simply pointing out that the "told ya so's" may be hasty.
~Augee
I agree, not enough information. I also am not a fan of the SCAR, and I own a 17! Thir not left hand user friendly, and for the cost you shouldnt need a packing peanut to quiet the butt stock. I also dont like how they destroy optics.
12/18/2011 9:17:37 PM
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
12/19/2011 6:56:53 AM
Originally Posted By Augee:
You're correct in all of that. The simple truth is we've got no way to determine what the contract is specifically for. It simply says they want to "sustain inventory" of the CAR/ (SCAR).
All I'm pointing out is that the contract - as written, is not necessarily the vindication of the MK 16 that some people are claiming that it is. Not without further information. It may be, I'm just saying we don't know from the presolicitation. Would you agree that as written, the contract could be potentially for purchasing as many MK 17s and MK 20s as Crane can get their hands on, plus enough spare parts and engineering services to keep the MK 16s they already have running (just because I don't like a gun, doesn't mean I wouldn't at least want the ones I had to be functional) - not necessarily the purchase of more MK 16s?
I'm not making a call on this one. Not enough information yet. Simply pointing out that the "told ya so's" may be hasty.
~Augee
You're correct in all of that. The simple truth is we've got no way to determine what the contract is specifically for. It simply says they want to "sustain inventory" of the CAR/ (SCAR).
All I'm pointing out is that the contract - as written, is not necessarily the vindication of the MK 16 that some people are claiming that it is. Not without further information. It may be, I'm just saying we don't know from the presolicitation. Would you agree that as written, the contract could be potentially for purchasing as many MK 17s and MK 20s as Crane can get their hands on, plus enough spare parts and engineering services to keep the MK 16s they already have running (just because I don't like a gun, doesn't mean I wouldn't at least want the ones I had to be functional) - not necessarily the purchase of more MK 16s?
I'm not making a call on this one. Not enough information yet. Simply pointing out that the "told ya so's" may be hasty.
~Augee
OK, we're mostly in agreement. We can;t really know what it means, other than they intend to keep using the weapons system. I agree that the contract does not necessarily mean they intend to buy more Mk16's. But it DOES mean they want to option to buy more, and that certainly puts the lie to the notion that SOCOM "cancelled" the Mk16. The Mk16 is still Milestone C approved, and Navy wants the contractural authority to buy more. At the least, I think the language suggests the Mk16 remains a fielded weapon, otherwise, why include in the solicitation at all?
SOCOM did not cancel orders for the Mk16 because of performance issues. They cancelled them because they wanted more Mk17's, and the M4's and Mk18's provided a good 5.56 platform, while the Mk17 provided a capability not really otherwise available. It may be that, as some of us thought might happen, as troops used the Mk17, they became acclimated to the SCAR platform in general, and when switching to the 5.56mm platform, began to see some advantage in using the platform in that caliber too, but that is pure speculation.
I HAVE heard that the shooters are coming to realize that the 7.62mm platform is not magic... you still need to hit the bad guy in the places that count for effective hits, and new 5.56 ammo is improving the terminal ballistics of that cartridge.
12/19/2011 7:00:47 AM
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
12/20/2011 1:03:04 AM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
12/20/2011 7:47:50 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Any details? I had heard that it might be the forward "Chunk" of the recoil that was killing sights, but then the rumors I had heard was these were specifically electronic sights from the SOPMOD kit that were dying. That pretty much narrows it to EOTechs and ELCANs, doesn't it?
I don't own a 17, but of the guys I do know, none of them have killed their scopes, so I don't have any data points.
12/20/2011 7:48:18 AM
Weren't the optic manuf.s working on correcting that problem? I've read bits and pieces about it but not enough to speak intelligently on it.
12/20/2011 9:12:46 AM
I dont see this as the fault of the Mk17. Its heavy bolt and carrier and powerful return spring are there to increase reliability and ensure that the bullet goes into battery clean or dirty. This means that there is a hard hit on the return stroke. It just seems that the scope manufactures had to adjust/reengineer their optics for the Mk17. And from what I have read this has been corrected.
I hope that inteligent minds at SOCOM are realizing that the Mk17 is the best 7.62 platform out there. Yes it has had some issues but Im certain that FN will get them sorted out if they already havent. The SR25/M110 are pig heavy and not known for great reliabilty. The M14 is truely a Dinosaur and needs to be retired.
And now with the possiblity that the Navy is purchasing more MK16s the platform may just be living up to the hype.
Time will tell.
I hope that inteligent minds at SOCOM are realizing that the Mk17 is the best 7.62 platform out there. Yes it has had some issues but Im certain that FN will get them sorted out if they already havent. The SR25/M110 are pig heavy and not known for great reliabilty. The M14 is truely a Dinosaur and needs to be retired.
And now with the possiblity that the Navy is purchasing more MK16s the platform may just be living up to the hype.
Time will tell.
12/20/2011 4:41:11 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Any details? I had heard that it might be the forward "Chunk" of the recoil that was killing sights, but then the rumors I had heard was these were specifically electronic sights from the SOPMOD kit that were dying. That pretty much narrows it to EOTechs and ELCANs, doesn't it?
I don't own a 17, but of the guys I do know, none of them have killed their scopes, so I don't have any data points.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Any details? I had heard that it might be the forward "Chunk" of the recoil that was killing sights, but then the rumors I had heard was these were specifically electronic sights from the SOPMOD kit that were dying. That pretty much narrows it to EOTechs and ELCANs, doesn't it?
I don't own a 17, but of the guys I do know, none of them have killed their scopes, so I don't have any data points.
A freind of mines Mark 8 had to be sent back, but he has at least 5000 rounds through his, but the reticle did fail. I also know of a ACOG failure to. Scopes can take a helluva rear movement, its that slight buck and forward movement that kills them.
ETA, They were still usable, but you could see how the reticle had moved in the corners, the ACOG also had the reticle shift a little, with what was described above what appeared to be the sealant become visable.
12/20/2011 4:42:29 PM
Originally Posted By SRTM4:
I dont see this as the fault of the Mk17. Its heavy bolt and carrier and powerful return spring are there to increase reliability and ensure that the bullet goes into battery clean or dirty. This means that there is a hard hit on the return stroke. It just seems that the scope manufactures had to adjust/reengineer their optics for the Mk17. And from what I have read this has been corrected.
I hope that inteligent minds at SOCOM are realizing that the Mk17 is the best 7.62 platform out there. Yes it has had some issues but Im certain that FN will get them sorted out if they already havent. The SR25/M110 are pig heavy and not known for great reliabilty. The M14 is truely a Dinosaur and needs to be retired.
And now with the possiblity that the Navy is purchasing more MK16s the platform may just be living up to the hype.
Time will tell.
I dont see this as the fault of the Mk17. Its heavy bolt and carrier and powerful return spring are there to increase reliability and ensure that the bullet goes into battery clean or dirty. This means that there is a hard hit on the return stroke. It just seems that the scope manufactures had to adjust/reengineer their optics for the Mk17. And from what I have read this has been corrected.
I hope that inteligent minds at SOCOM are realizing that the Mk17 is the best 7.62 platform out there. Yes it has had some issues but Im certain that FN will get them sorted out if they already havent. The SR25/M110 are pig heavy and not known for great reliabilty. The M14 is truely a Dinosaur and needs to be retired.
And now with the possiblity that the Navy is purchasing more MK16s the platform may just be living up to the hype.
Time will tell.
I think the 17 may end up being the best plaform out there, as for now it isnt. By the way I own one with quite a few rounds down the tube.
12/20/2011 5:47:41 PM
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
12/20/2011 9:55:22 PM
Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
HK fanboys are pretty annoying, still I wouldn't take any pleasure in the knowledge that someone may have their HK416 go down on them when they need it in the field.
12/20/2011 10:04:03 PM
It seems to me that if SCARs were killing optics because of their "recoil impulse" or some design flaw then it would be happening so much that reports would be coming in left and right - including from civilian 16S and 17S owners.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
12/20/2011 10:32:29 PM
Originally Posted By HKocher:
HK fanboys are pretty annoying, still I wouldn't take any pleasure in the knowledge that someone may have their HK416 go down on them when they need it in the field.
Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
HK fanboys are pretty annoying, still I wouldn't take any pleasure in the knowledge that someone may have their HK416 go down on them when they need it in the field.
luckily the .mil has realized the issues with the 416 and transitioning back to their MK18's
12/21/2011 12:53:13 AM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
I run an Eotech 553 on mine. No issues at all.
12/21/2011 6:23:51 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
A freind of mines Mark 8 had to be sent back, but he has at least 5000 rounds through his, but the reticle did fail. I also know of a ACOG failure to. Scopes can take a helluva rear movement, its that slight buck and forward movement that kills them.
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Any details? I had heard that it might be the forward "Chunk" of the recoil that was killing sights, but then the rumors I had heard was these were specifically electronic sights from the SOPMOD kit that were dying. That pretty much narrows it to EOTechs and ELCANs, doesn't it?
I don't own a 17, but of the guys I do know, none of them have killed their scopes, so I don't have any data points.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
Originally Posted By okent:
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Not to hijack but can someone elaborate on the optic damage issue? Is this related to problems with the old EOTech and linear battery position?
Nothing but third hand stories, with no specifics. I'm willing to bet we're talking about EOTechs crapping out (imagine that!), and crappy ARMS mounts. Nobody with a 17 I know has been able to kill a sturdy optic (like an Aimpoint, or an ACOG).
No its been ACOG's, and a few other high end scopes. I has to do with the SCAR17's recoil impulse, its not just back, but also has a lift, or kick.
Any details? I had heard that it might be the forward "Chunk" of the recoil that was killing sights, but then the rumors I had heard was these were specifically electronic sights from the SOPMOD kit that were dying. That pretty much narrows it to EOTechs and ELCANs, doesn't it?
I don't own a 17, but of the guys I do know, none of them have killed their scopes, so I don't have any data points.
A freind of mines Mark 8 had to be sent back, but he has at least 5000 rounds through his, but the reticle did fail. I also know of a ACOG failure to. Scopes can take a helluva rear movement, its that slight buck and forward movement that kills them.
I had heard that as well, was just hoping fro more than anecdotes. I'm sure as the weapon increases in popularity, the manufacturers will respond by tuning their specs to accommodate the SCAR 17.
12/21/2011 9:47:45 AM
Originally Posted By P229SAS:
It seems to me that if SCARs were killing optics because of their "recoil impulse" or some design flaw then it would be happening so much that reports would be coming in left and right - including from civilian 16S and 17S owners.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
It seems to me that if SCARs were killing optics because of their "recoil impulse" or some design flaw then it would be happening so much that reports would be coming in left and right - including from civilian 16S and 17S owners.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
Its the 17 only, and its not the light recoil its the slight buck, and forward motion, scopes are not happy with that. Scopes are set for a recoil motion, not repeated upwards or forward movements, red dots are exempt here pretty much, as its a reticle issue. You put a 1000.00 + scope on air rifle it will fail, its a different recoil impulse than the scope is built for.
12/21/2011 9:49:08 AM
Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
Originally Posted By Friendly_Crusader:
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Edited to avoid HK fan butthurt
Love how the HK416 is breaking in the field, makes me laugh at the fanboys.
This news makes me want to get a scar 16
The fan boys are suddenly quiet, not only is their beloved 416 failing, but the 417 is being replaced by a scoped G3, by the Germans for their DMR's!
12/21/2011 3:28:14 PM
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
12/21/2011 5:26:35 PM
Originally Posted By G3k:
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
12/22/2011 3:45:30 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
12/22/2011 11:17:23 AM
Say again? An air rifle???
I have to forward this to a Manufacturer for input.....Done
His reply:
"This guy has no idea what he is talking about. 20yrs ago it had a little merit(very little), but it is just not so these days. We never see any scopes back in here that have been tore up by these air rifles or scar 17’s and I actually know of quite a few people running our scopes on both."
I have to forward this to a Manufacturer for input.....Done
His reply:
"This guy has no idea what he is talking about. 20yrs ago it had a little merit(very little), but it is just not so these days. We never see any scopes back in here that have been tore up by these air rifles or scar 17’s and I actually know of quite a few people running our scopes on both."
12/22/2011 1:59:16 PM
Originally Posted By G3k:
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
On fed biz ops this year there was a RFI and RFQ to address with an outside engineering firm; so idk if that means its true or not.
12/22/2011 4:22:31 PM
Originally Posted By DSArms_FAL:
On fed biz ops this year there was a RFI and RFQ to address with an outside engineering firm; so idk if that means its true or not.
Originally Posted By G3k:
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
On fed biz ops this year there was a RFI and RFQ to address with an outside engineering firm; so idk if that means its true or not.
Do you have a link to that?
12/23/2011 11:29:47 AM
Originally Posted By G3k:
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
My thoughts as well.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Having no real experience with the 17, I'm just not seeing it having more "forward buck" than something like the barrel returning to it's resting position after recoil on a Barrett M82/M107. It's just strange for all these optics to go down on the Mk. 17 but are A OK on other guns despite others having a heavy forward momentum in their operating cycle as well.
12/23/2011 11:41:43 AM
Interesting reading about the optics breaking issue. Shortly after reading about it on SOCNET (without many details), a friend had some issues with his ACOG mounted on his SCAR-H. He's sending it in to Trijicon, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say...
12/23/2011 12:07:29 PM
Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:
Interesting reading about the optics breaking issue. Shortly after reading about it on SOCNET (without many details), a friend had some issues with his ACOG mounted on his SCAR-H. He's sending it in to Trijicon, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say...
Interesting reading about the optics breaking issue. Shortly after reading about it on SOCNET (without many details), a friend had some issues with his ACOG mounted on his SCAR-H. He's sending it in to Trijicon, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say...
SR is referring to me. I had a TA11J-308 on my SCAR17 for around 5-600 rounds. Last time I shot with it I suddenly noticed a large vertical shadow to the right side of the reticle. Looking through the tube from the front I could see something floating in there near the reticle (deep in the scope, NOT on either of the lenses). It wasn't a hair, but it appeared to be some kind of sealant maybe that had shaken loose?
In any case, it had no effect on the ability of the scope to hold zero or function properly. And Trijicon's awesome customer service had me a Return Authorization within 24 hours, although being so close to the holidays I fear I might not have it back until late January.
I'll post any updates as I receive them.
12/23/2011 12:43:29 PM
Its funny how the rumor mill works...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
12/23/2011 2:42:04 PM
Originally Posted By LockingBlock:
Its funny how the rumor mill works...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
Its funny how the rumor mill works...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
Thanks for the info LockingBlock. This sounds more logical to me. I also like to hear the fact that the Navy is liking the SSR as well.
12/23/2011 4:40:45 PM
Originally Posted By et2041:
Say again? An air rifle???
I have to forward this to a Manufacturer for input.....Done
His reply:
"This guy has no idea what he is talking about. 20yrs ago it had a little merit(very little), but it is just not so these days. We never see any scopes back in here that have been tore up by these air rifles or scar 17’s and I actually know of quite a few people running our scopes on both."
Say again? An air rifle???
I have to forward this to a Manufacturer for input.....Done
His reply:
"This guy has no idea what he is talking about. 20yrs ago it had a little merit(very little), but it is just not so these days. We never see any scopes back in here that have been tore up by these air rifles or scar 17’s and I actually know of quite a few people running our scopes on both."
I guess I should have been more clear with the air rifle part. a air rifle has a different impulse than a rifle, they might not have the issues with new modern better scopes but its a different impulse, not something a scope is designed for, and why should they whos going to put a 1000.00+ scope on a air rifle. That said the 17 produces a entirely different impulse than any other rifle, and for lack of a better description its a buck, if you shoot a 17 you would know what I'm talking about.
12/23/2011 4:46:50 PM
Originally Posted By LockingBlock:
Its funny how the rumor mill works...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
Its funny how the rumor mill works...
The optics issues are not as described in this thread.
First, the issue was largely with the 5.56 caliber weapons, not the 7.62. It was with lasers mounted on the rail. I have a bunch of slides from Crane on it if I can find them but the gist was the time duration that the recoil impulse occurs in. the scar was more like a sharp peak while the M-4 was more like a gradual climb...think of it as more of a shock than a push. It was killing IR lasers...not many but more than the m-4.
EO Techs fail...they fail on M-4s and they fail on SCARs. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise. They are disposable optics. We had a big cardboard box full of dead EO Techs last time I was in Iraq and the box got emptied regularly...
7.62 weapons are harder on everything...but it isn't magic and they won't do anything unexpected to optics. You will get a higher failure rate than a comparable 5.56 caliber weapon but that is to be expected. The SCAR is not causing failure at a rate any different than you would get with any other 7.62 battle rifle.
My understanding of this intended procurement is that they are moving forward with the precision version of the SCAR. The Navy is hot and heavy on it...
Not true, the 17's do break optics after you start getting a high round count, as I said above, for lack of a better description its more of a buck, its caused by its recoli eminination design. I own a 17, I like it, but it has some quirks, is it perfect no, is it the best right now, I think so. I just think for a rifle priced as it is, it could be a little better, like using packing peanuts in the butt stock cap to silence its rattle, a plastic hinge and lock. As your statement to failure rates, of any other 308, thats not true, a 17 doesnt kick or recoil like any other 308, and because of this it has a hard to describe buck in its recoil, that does shkae things loose.
12/23/2011 4:50:07 PM
Originally Posted By gospadin:
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
12/23/2011 4:59:26 PM
Originally Posted By P229SAS:
It seems to me that if SCARs were killing optics because of their "recoil impulse" or some design flaw then it would be happening so much that reports would be coming in left and right - including from civilian 16S and 17S owners.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
It seems to me that if SCARs were killing optics because of their "recoil impulse" or some design flaw then it would be happening so much that reports would be coming in left and right - including from civilian 16S and 17S owners.
In particular it seems like if that were the case, the military would have crates full of dead optics and we'd have all types of reports from the field etc.
But what we have is a tiny amount of third hand reports and even smaller first hand accounts of this happening.
One SME that reported this issue (to me) seemed to do a little backpeddling when asked more about specifics - shifting the topic to say that the optics manufacturers are all of a sudden fixing the problems with their products.
How can we be sure that the SCAR is at fault and it wasn't a bad/faulty optic or the owner broke it from hard use?
The SCAR 17 has pretty damn light recoil for the caliber and I don't see how you can run a given high end tough optic on say a FAL or HK91/PTR with pretty significant recoil but suddenly the SCAR is too much to handle.
Its the by product of how they acheived this recoil elimination, it created a buck.
12/23/2011 5:05:05 PM
Originally Posted By G3k:
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
I have a very hard time believing the optics thing with scars.
These same optics can stand up to baretts, mk46,m240s, and m2s but a scar kills them? Because of some magic Tesla wavelength that only the scar and not half a dozen other AK/ar180 style guns (g36,sig 550,l85 ect) produce? Really?
An open bolt machine gun doesn't have the foward recoil to kill an acog or eotech but a scar does? Really?
Those platforms you mentioned are also mounted waepons, your not firing them off hand, the mounts keep them more planted, and if they do have tha "SCAR 17 buck" its contained by the mount.
12/24/2011 1:45:00 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
Originally Posted By gospadin:
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
12/24/2011 10:25:40 AM
Originally Posted By gospadin:
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
Originally Posted By gospadin:
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
When you shoot it, you dont feel like a small buck/jump? Thats the buck I'm talking about.
Mine with a Mark 8
12/24/2011 11:21:44 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
When you shoot it, you dont feel like a small buck/jump? Thats the buck I'm talking about.
Mine with a Mark 8
http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww242/stennes/Scar17andMark8018.jpg
Originally Posted By gospadin:
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
Originally Posted By gospadin:
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
When you shoot it, you dont feel like a small buck/jump? Thats the buck I'm talking about.
Mine with a Mark 8
http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww242/stennes/Scar17andMark8018.jpg
mstennes, very nice setup you have. That is a damn near perfect combination.
The SCAR does have a unique recoil impulse. The peaks are higher/sharper than other weapons. ( Not that this means that the SCAR has a harder felt recoil ) I would agree that it may possibly wear optics out a bit quicker than a DI gun. Under harsh conditions and hard use most optics will eventually fail. And like it was previously stated, the issue was with the lasers more than the scopes. I might be wrong but I thought that most manufactures worked on resolving this.
Im still more concerned with how many SCARs the Navy is purchasing. If the numbers are high and SEALs will start using the MK16 then the future looks good for the platform.
12/24/2011 1:22:38 PM
Originally Posted By SRTM4:
mstennes, very nice setup you have. That is a damn near perfect combination.
The SCAR does have a unique recoil impulse. The peaks are higher/sharper than other weapons. ( Not that this means that the SCAR has a harder felt recoil ) I would agree that it may possibly wear optics out a bit quicker than a DI gun. Under harsh conditions and hard use most optics will eventually fail. And like it was previously stated, the issue was with the lasers more than the scopes. I might be wrong but I thought that most manufactures worked on resolving this.
Im still more concerned with how many SCARs the Navy is purchasing. If the numbers are high and SEALs will start using the MK16 then the future looks good for the platform.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
When you shoot it, you dont feel like a small buck/jump? Thats the buck I'm talking about.
Mine with a Mark 8
http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww242/stennes/Scar17andMark8018.jpg
Originally Posted By gospadin:
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
Originally Posted By gospadin:
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
Have you shot a 17? Its the forward buck, its hard to describe, but it has a slight upward buck, and a slight forward hit. Scopes are not designed for these extra hits.
You're saying the return spring expands with enough force to break a scope designed for the .308 round or more?
I'm skeptical too. I'd bet the scopes were defective at the beginning.
Its a combination of the bolt weight, and strength of the return spring. When it stops at the back it has a slight downward impulse of the rear of the rifle, followed by a downard hit as the bolt locks up, its weird to descibe other than a buck. This is most noticeable while shooting off hand, not prone or supported, where the body allows this movement which one would think would help absorb it, but in reality compounds the effect, where when rested or on a bipod seems to lesson it.
ETA, I know this makes no sense but when you take a 17 out and shoot it, it will make sense.
./shrug I do have a 17 and I do shoot it, but don't know what you're describing.
When you shoot it, you dont feel like a small buck/jump? Thats the buck I'm talking about.
Mine with a Mark 8
http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww242/stennes/Scar17andMark8018.jpg
mstennes, very nice setup you have. That is a damn near perfect combination.
The SCAR does have a unique recoil impulse. The peaks are higher/sharper than other weapons. ( Not that this means that the SCAR has a harder felt recoil ) I would agree that it may possibly wear optics out a bit quicker than a DI gun. Under harsh conditions and hard use most optics will eventually fail. And like it was previously stated, the issue was with the lasers more than the scopes. I might be wrong but I thought that most manufactures worked on resolving this.
Im still more concerned with how many SCARs the Navy is purchasing. If the numbers are high and SEALs will start using the MK16 then the future looks good for the platform.
The SCAR's recoil curves are interesting, when compared to M4-style platform. The SCAR has a much longer reload cycle (about 70% longer than the M4). This allows the magazine more time to present a round for loading. This also means that the total recoil impulse is easier fro a shooter to manage. The initial recoil impulse is lower than an M4's. The small impulse when picking up a new round is also smaller than the M4's. But the impulse from the bolt closing is about 10-20% larger. This is because of more mass slamming home. This is the forward impulse some folks talk about. If anything is killing optics or lasers, it's probably this. If there IS a problem, optics and lasers manufacturers should be able to deal with it.
FWIW, I have nearly 2000 rounds with my Aimpoint micro and an IR laser on my SCAR, and both still work just fine. Only about 500 rounds with an ACOG, but it works fine too.
