PDA

View Full Version : SOCOM small arms



troung
06 Jul 05,, 02:57
...

Bluesman
06 Jul 05,, 03:42
HEY! They don't have my M-4 on the poster... :frown:

Next week, I'm going to see what it takes to check it out of the armory on my own, so I can practice some more.

I've only ever fired when it's time to qualify (except when I go out on somebody else's range day, and hang around until everybody's done, and I fire the excess ammo with the range guys). But I want to do more than that, and right now, we're flush with money, and the Command's been buying us more bullets than we can shoot.

Hopefully, it won't be too hard to talk somebody into extra range time.

leib10
06 Jul 05,, 03:54
Do we not use SMG's anymore?

Ricola-Ranger
06 Jul 05,, 09:01
interesting bipod/front grip-combination on pic 2...hope it doesn't wobble too much

sniperdude411
06 Jul 05,, 15:59
Do we not use SMG's anymore?

Sadly, no. All we use are 5.56s, a stupid thing IMO is CQB. Still too big and loud.

troung
07 Jul 05,, 07:34
July 2005

Custom-Designed Rifle Aims to Fit Commandos’ Special Needs

By Frank Colucci

U.S. special operations forces this summer will begin testing a new assault rifle, which is expected to be more accurate and less cumbersome than current weapons.



Known as the special operations combat assault rifle, or SCAR, the weapon comes in 5.56 mm light and 7.62 mm heavy versions that are designated the Mk 16 SCAR-L and Mk 17 SCAR-H. Variants include standard, close quarters combat and sniper.

The SCAR-L is intended for close combat while the SCAR-H is meant for longer ranges. The initial production plan also includes an Mk 18 enhanced grenade launcher. More variants are expected to evolve from the core design.

Troops will be able to fire a variety of ammunition from the same rifle, and the entire SCAR family will have interchangeable parts, said Army Lt. Col. Deac Heilig, systems acquisition manager at the U.S. Special Operations Command.

The manufacturer of the rifle, FN Herstal, is testing different interchangeable barrels, he said in an interview.

Commonality of parts between SCAR versions is meant to reduce the training, supply and maintenance burdens. “Currently our special operations folks have a golf bag filled with guns,” said Paul Evancoe, director of military operations at FN Manufacturing. “We’ve given them a truly modular weapon … That eliminates the requirement for all the other clubs in the bag.”

The SCAR-L will replace the M4A1 close-quarters battle rifle and Mk 12 weapons now used by special operators. The SCAR-H will replace the M14 and Mk 11. All six variants of the two main versions share the same control arrangement, handling and maintenance procedures. “Once you’re trained on the gun, it’s the same for any variant,” said Evancoe.

Common parts also help cut costs, Evancoe noted. “They engineered it with a concept of keeping the cost of manufacturing down for both heavy and light by using just about the same stuff for everything.” The one-piece rail and frame of the new rifle enables the operator to change and level barrels quickly, which permits tailoring the gun to different situations.

All SCAR versions also use the same accessories, including sights and scopes. They will accommodate the accessory kit known as “special operations peculiar modification,” now under development for the current M4 rifle. SCAR can also be fitted with M4-style grips and other aftermarket items. “Special ops guys love to customize their personal weapons,” said Evancoe.

SOCOM launched the program in September 2003, and touted SCAR as the first assault-rifle competition since 1941. Fourteen operators tested competing weapons at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Ind.

After it was selected to make the rifle, FN Herstal continued to modify the design based on input from users. Operators, for example, asked for a folding sight. FN engineers at the company’s rapid-prototyping facility in Belgium fabricated one overnight. A pushbutton lock for the sight was added in hours. “To duplicate that capability [in the United States] would require a heck of a capital investment,” said Evancoe.

A SOCOM team continues to visit the Herstal facility to review engineering changes to the weapon. “This is a very efficient way to do it because the contracting officer who has to approve the changes is sitting right there with the operators,” he added.

Relying on anthropometric analysis, SCAR designers sized the pistol grip to accommodate most hands. Ambidextrous safety mechanisms, magazine and bolt releases, and charging handles can be used by southpaws and even by operators wounded in combat. A telescoping, folding stock adjusts the length of the weapon to individual body size and firing positions, and makes the SCAR easier to hide under clothing or in small bags. The folding stock is also an advantage for operators parachuting from aircraft, fast-roping from helicopters or simply entering or leaving ground vehicles, explained Evancoe.

FN engineers gave the SCAR-L and SCAR-H a relatively low rate of fire of 600 to 650 rounds per minute on automatic. Most weapons like the M16 and M14 fire around 800 rounds per minute but make it difficult to hold the weapon on target for the full burst. “A high cyclic rate doesn’t buy you anything,” said Evancoe. “If you’re more accurate with a lower rate of fire, you’ll use less ammunition because you can put your first, second and third rounds on target.”

SOCOM wants the rifle to fire both existing and yet-to-be-developed rounds, said Heilig. “The exact caliber and ammunition will be determined based on optimum accuracy and lethality in each of the intended operational scenarios as well as availability.” A gas port selector was engineered into the SCAR to accommodate new types of ammunition.

Another SOCOM priority was reliability in harsh operating environments. Special coatings make the rifle suitable for Navy SEALs, who may have to fire weapons that were submerged for long periods.

The manufacturer claims that the weapon will fire 90,000 rounds without overhauls. The intended barrel life is 35,000 to 40,000 rounds—twice that of M16-family weapons. Barrels can be changed in the field, which cuts back on depot maintenance, said Evancoe.

SCAR prototypes will be distributed to operators for testing on an undisclosed schedule. “What they’re going to do is tweak that gun and come back with engineering change proposals,” said Evancoe. FN Herstal will produce the rifles at its South Carolina manufacturing line. The company has made M16A-2s and A-4s for U.S. military for the last five years and will use the same production machinery and workers for SCAR.

The original SCAR solicitation specified production quantities of 84,000 SCAR-L standard, 28,000 SCAR-L for close-quarters combat, 12,000 SCAR-L sniper, 15,000 SCAR-H standard, 7,000 SCAR-H close-quarter combat and, 12,000 SCAR-H sniper variants.

sniperdude411
08 Jul 05,, 23:27
7.62 with a foot-long barrel? Insane.
The idea is nice, the only thing that makes the gun look bad is the stock. Other than that, it does look like a very fine weapon.

Beaugeste93
09 Jul 05,, 16:38
Sadly, no. All we use are 5.56s, a stupid thing IMO is CQB. Still too big and loud.


The trend in the last 10 years or so has been to replace SMGs with 5.56 carbines for CQB missions. This includes SWAT teams and military. While I don't claim any special SWAT or CQB training, it seems more practical based on what i have read and observed. If the operators actually out there DOING CQB prefer 5.56, I'll go with their judgement.

bonehead
09 Jul 05,, 17:56
HEY! They don't have my M-4 on the poster... :frown:

Next week, I'm going to see what it takes to check it out of the armory on my own, so I can practice some more.

I've only ever fired when it's time to qualify (except when I go out on somebody else's range day, and hang around until everybody's done, and I fire the excess ammo with the range guys). But I want to do more than that, and right now, we're flush with money, and the Command's been buying us more bullets than we can shoot.

Hopefully, it won't be too hard to talk somebody into extra range time.

Please do not take this the wrong way..but, who is the moron who thinks it is a good idea to limit range time. More range time should be encouraged. .223 ammo is cheap and I am willing to bet you are not the only one who wants to do more shooting. The military needs more crack shots and less crack pots.

sniperdude411
09 Jul 05,, 18:15
They need more poeple like me. Too many poeple think that they WILL get shot in the army, and they WILL die. Too many poeple think that the army is only for stupid people (take a look at the EOD, the unit that I wish to join someday).
Man, they're missing the experience of a lifetime; they're missing WAY too many benefits.

ak-dave
09 Jul 05,, 20:50
7.62 with a foot-long barrel? Insane.
Not really; if I’m pushing out a .30 cal bullet, I want some barrel to go with it. Most .30 cal MBR’s have barrel lengths from 16-21 inches.
C-O-N-T-R-O-L-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. ;)

Most people in the Army are not stupid, just not overly bright :rolleyes: And some of us did it over and over and over and over again. It's like any other job, you have your good days and bad days. Once and while you even get those WOW days. :biggrin:

sniperdude411
10 Jul 05,, 20:24
Well, a 14-inch barrel would be fine, but that would be minimum. 18-inch barrels would be best IMO, but I've never shot a 308 in semi-auto before, so I really can't say...

leib10
11 Jul 05,, 05:01
The G3 I have has very light recoil but is loud as hell.

troung
11 Jul 05,, 05:43
Sadly, no. All we use are 5.56s, a stupid thing IMO is CQB. Still too big and loud.

In 1979 President Amin's guard's MP-5s were unable to go through low quality 1979 vintage flak jackets at close range... the 9mm bullet is not all it is cracked up to be with the rise of modern body armor...

sniperdude411
11 Jul 05,, 16:35
Then use P90s. Those things are so awesome. I'd say the best SMG - better than the MP5.
Not to mention they peirce body armor.

Bluesman
12 Jul 05,, 03:41
Please do not take this the wrong way..but, who is the moron who thinks it is a good idea to limit range time. More range time should be encouraged. .223 ammo is cheap and I am willing to bet you are not the only one who wants to do more shooting. The military needs more crack shots and less crack pots.

The biggest issue is the 'checking the weapon out of the armory' part. Essentially, what I'd be asking them to do would be to let me sign for it, put it in my privately-owned vehicle, and drive over to the range, and then bring it right back.

I would SAY I was going to the range...but would I really take it to my house to kill the unfaithful Lt. Bluesman?

I would SAY I was going straight to the range and back with it, but would I REALLY just stop for a bite at Burger King before turning it back in, forget to lock my car, and lose it to God-knows-who?

See, what any commander has to consider is making a standard rule that EVERYbody would follow without exception, and that the threat of punishment would make certain there are no variations. If there ARE any variations, the contingencies should be worth the risk you're taking.

I'm a support guy, not an operator. I think I should be as proficient with my weapon as I can be, but its not normally vital that I be as good as the door-kickers. What IS vital, though, is that the command maintain perfect positive control over each of their weapons, and they wouldn't necessarily be doing that if I checked out my weapon. After all, if I need to fire my weapon in combat, something has gone very, very wrong. :eek:

Now, OF COURSE I would act responsibly with my weapon, but when making an across-the-board standard for a diverse group of people, commanders have to think in terms of the lowest common denominator. Ever heard the phrase, 'Fool-proof, but not DAM' fool-proof, and not at all SOLDIER-proof.'? :biggrin:

So, as devil's advocate, they may not want to let ME - the responsible and extra-conscientious senior NCO - establish a standard that would apply to everybody else, too, because SOME dumbass GI out there is just waiting for an opportunity to break his commander's heart by doing something stupid.

As an old company CO used to tell me about his guys, "Joe just won't do right." :frown: It ain't primarily a matter of money, but of liability for a mistake.

AutopilotOFF
12 Jul 05,, 18:11
Then use P90s. Those things are so awesome. I'd say the best SMG - better than the MP5.
Not to mention they peirce body armor.


What evidence do you have to back that statement :confused:

Terran empire
12 Jul 05,, 21:20
I am Wondering about that there Grenade launcher. It looks like a modified version of the one Fitted on the FN 2000. how does that bad boy Work I mean is it just a up date of the M203 or what?

leib10
12 Jul 05,, 21:25
The P90 is not necessarily a better gun than the MP5, but the round it uses is superior for enemies with body armor. In my opinion the MP5 is a superior weapon to the P90, especially with higher-powered chamberings such as the .40 S&W.

Ricola-Ranger
12 Jul 05,, 23:37
The G3 I have has very light recoil but is loud as hell.

then you should listen to my cousin's shortened SIG 510
I mean its Big Brother has its bang and flash and all but this one, PHEW....you sure as hell hear, see and feel the shitloado of powder that burns outside the barrel....the SCAR in 7.62 should be sorta the same...

BenRoethig
13 Jul 05,, 03:57
Then use P90s. Those things are so awesome. I'd say the best SMG - better than the MP5.
Not to mention they peirce body armor.

SOCOM knows what they're doing. We're not talking about ordinary infantry here or even Rangers. These weapons are designed to meet the exact needs of highly skilled operators.

BenRoethig
13 Jul 05,, 04:04
I am Wondering about that there Grenade launcher. It looks like a modified version of the one Fitted on the FN 2000. how does that bad boy Work I mean is it just a up date of the M203 or what?

Probably an update to the FN one. Looks like the SCAR uses a similar modular rail system to the FN2000.

Terran empire
13 Jul 05,, 06:21
Probably an update to the FN one. Looks like the SCAR uses a similar modular rail system to the FN2000.
Umm errrr...... What? I guess I have warped your fragile little mind.
I am asking If the FN one's Breach opens like the the M203 (pump forward) or some other way. Some of the New rounds are longer then the Breach of the 203 and can't load.
The Army just Approved the M320 ( A modified AG36 the same unit used by the Germans the Spanish, Canada? and Great Britain ) which opens to the side eliminating the problem. Now I am wondering If Socom is going to still have trouble loading longer 40mm shells.

Terran empire
13 Jul 05,, 21:26
never mind i found my answer. The unit opens like the M203.

dposcuro
14 Jul 05,, 04:21
The problem with adopting the P90, is that...well, what does it do better than a M4 or something similar? It's a long list of "less" but some "less" is good, and some isn't.
Sure, it's a lot smaller, you have 50 rounds stored in the mag, it recoils a hell of a lot less, and is a lot quieter and easier to suppress.
But it is also much less powerful, obviously. Not as accurate, nor does it have the range of the M4.
In CQB, the the 5.56 spitting out of the M4 has the modestly high chance or fragmenting within the target, doing some modest incapacition wounds. The P90, while it does use a same diameter projection (.224), it is much smaller, and weighs much less. It doesn't fragment, or deform in the slightest from everything that I have read. Forced to rely upon yawing to incapacitate the target.

If you compare it to a MP-5 in 9mm, .40 or the UMP in .45, the P90 has armour penetration, and a higher capacity magazine, and a good deal more "usefull" range.
However, if you're going against unarmoured foes.....

Of course, this is all speculation and very rough. I personally do like the P90, it's an effective tool for what it is designed for...especially for what it is designed for. It is in essence, a modern-day M1 Carbine; a weapon designed to improve upon the common light sidearm, the pistol.
Just don't be surprised that when or if it does get more heavily fielded as an offensive weapon, that people may begin to complain.

Terran empire
14 Jul 05,, 09:20
Of course one Arguments that has not been mentioned yet is logistics. MP5's use the same 9mm rounds used in the M9 and other service issue pistols so they can be supported in the field very easily. M4's, FN SCAR and even XM8 units Fire the same rounds as the standard issue M16. the P90 how ever uses a specialized round. Not in use by any other weapon in the arsenal there for it would become a burden as it's rounds would be more rare. besides on the overall picture it is easer to use a assault riffle as it cuts down on specialized training for Specialized weapons, Allows better Armor penetration and has pretty much the same or better range.

leib10
14 Jul 05,, 15:32
However, full-sized assault rifles and carbines are also more expensive than SMG's. Only about 1/3 of an army really needs assault rifles. The other 2/3 consisting of rear-echelon personnel such as cooks, drivers, clerks, ect. doesn't need something that has a range of 600 yards and can penetrate armor at that range. They need something that's small, portable, cheap, but effective- the PDW concept, which surprisingly hasn't caught on as well as everybody thought it would.

leib10
08 Aug 05,, 21:34
Looks like we're still using the MK. 23 pistol.

Terran empire
08 Aug 05,, 23:49
Still? they got them MK23's in 1996. the M9 is the trouble maker not MK23.

leib10
09 Aug 05,, 00:05
It's only a matter of time before the M9 goes. I don't think special forces even use them, and it won't be long before the regular forces won't either.

cottage cheese
09 Aug 05,, 07:16
I know one shouldn't go by looks, but that's one hell of an ugly piece. Looks like some one did a hurried cobble job at first glance.... eyuurgh!

Must be good though, for the SOCOM to be dancing circles around it.

sniperdude411
10 Aug 05,, 13:15
The problem with adopting the P90, is that...well, what does it do better than a M4 or something similar? It's a long list of "less" but some "less" is good, and some isn't.
Sure, it's a lot smaller, you have 50 rounds stored in the mag, it recoils a hell of a lot less, and is a lot quieter and easier to suppress.
But it is also much less powerful, obviously. Not as accurate, nor does it have the range of the M4.
In CQB, the the 5.56 spitting out of the M4 has the modestly high chance or fragmenting within the target, doing some modest incapacition wounds. The P90, while it does use a same diameter projection (.224), it is much smaller, and weighs much less. It doesn't fragment, or deform in the slightest from everything that I have read. Forced to rely upon yawing to incapacitate the target.

If you compare it to a MP-5 in 9mm, .40 or the UMP in .45, the P90 has armour penetration, and a higher capacity magazine, and a good deal more "usefull" range.
However, if you're going against unarmoured foes.....

Of course, this is all speculation and very rough. I personally do like the P90, it's an effective tool for what it is designed for...especially for what it is designed for. It is in essence, a modern-day M1 Carbine; a weapon designed to improve upon the common light sidearm, the pistol.
Just don't be surprised that when or if it does get more heavily fielded as an offensive weapon, that people may begin to complain.

The P90 is indeed a PDW (IMO much, much better than the mp7), and is not an offensive weapon. You are righ t in that it doesn't do **** against unarmored foes, but still... after extracting .22LR bullets from the ground after plinking, I still wouldn't want to get hit by one.
Also, I've heard through the M-4, the SS109 bullets don't fragment even at a short range.

I say, build something like the p90, but use a slightly bigger round (one that has similar recoil of a 9mm), and make the gun's frame a bit bigger.

Did that on one post, but made it an assault rifle form. Get you the link later.