Breaking news... Russians think the M16 sucks

[Vlad G 345]

DA, yes I would very much want to modify the SCAR, the handguard is way to friking short, and I know a number of people who have the same opinion. Yes, you can hack on an extension, but it still a hack.

 

Also I'm not really sure what you think I said was a lie so I can't even take that personally, because you then go ahead and agree with me so .. I dunno what to say about that.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

DA, the SCAR does in fact have a number of accessories. Extended front rails, Giessle triggers, stocks, different charging handles.... In my opinion the SCAR is far more complete than you give it credit for. And I completely disagree with your statement about FN being like HK. I think FN has gone out of its way to bring each of its military versions to the civy market. That approach has done well for FN as they have moved a ton of SCAR's, PS90's and FS2000's. As such you ave not seen the prices of these rifles really drop hardly at all.

 

I'm not saying they don't... but let's face it: all their guns carry the SOCOM premium. Because I'll be damned if either a SCAR, PS90, FS2000, cost $2,000 to build. Or take so long to build that they can't keep up with 'demand'. The only reason they do it is because they can, and that ultimately, the civilian market is not a moneymaker. MIL/LEO is.

 

I mean shit, is a SCAR really that much more difficult to build than an M-4? Because Colt can build a full-auto M-4 at about $750 a pop.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I mean shit, is a SCAR really that much more difficult to build than an M-4?

 

NO! It's all plastic junk.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

DA, yes I would very much want to modify the SCAR, the handguard is way to friking short, and I know a number of people who have the same opinion. Yes, you can hack on an extension, but it still a hack.

 

Also I'm not really sure what you think I said was a lie so I can't even take that personally, because you then go ahead and agree with me so .. I dunno what to say about that.

 

They do make those for the SCAR...

 

As for the lie, it's what the industry tells us regarding production costs. It's a giant lie to fugg over the consumer, and then they wonder why no one is buying their pretty rifles.

[usnmars 136]

I am just hoping one day the Govt wakes up and realizes the downfalls of the .556 and upgrades to a "big boy caliber." We arent fighting zombie chipmunks......... we are fighting things that actually shoot back.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I am just hoping one day the Govt wakes up and realizes the downfalls of the .556 and upgrades to a "big boy caliber." We arent fighting zombie chipmunks......... we are fighting things that actually shoot back.

 

The only problem with 'big boy' calibers is weight. The bigger the round, the more it weighs, the less you can carry. This is why in testing involving a squad of M-16 equipped soldiers versus one with M-14s, the guys with the smaller round and lighter weapons were able to overcome their opponents. They win the firepower equation, more rounds, more accurately, for more time. That doesn't mean 7.62 doesn't have a place, it's just not for everyone.

[usnmars 136]

the .556 is severly lacking in stopping power and should not be on the battlefield. There's a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and sending them to Afghan. The .556 isn't cutting it and and the .308 stops it dead. The .556 was designed to wound not kill. It was designed for fighting a European adversary, that respects and treats its wounded casualties. The thought was by wounding 1 with the .556 you take 3 out of action as the other 2 are stretcher bearers. The problem we arent fighting an adversary like this anymore. We are fighting a culture that doesn't respect life, and therefore doesn't give a shiat about its wounded. The purpose of the round is not for todays battlefield. On todays battlefield we need to kill, not wound. Now I know I am going to get a bunch of responses about how there are a lot of bad guys arent around because of the 16's but when you see in person the amount of ammo it takes center mass to take one down you realize why you are carrying more ammo. I saw 1 with 12 center mass hits and still coming, a guy with a 14 finished it up. Every one I saw go down due to lead poisining from a 14 went down 1 for 1 or maybe 2 for 1, not 12. There is a huge mass difference of 55gr and 140gr, and it shows.

 

As for the more accurately statement...... The military actually had to loosen it's marksmanship standards when they switched to the 16's because they couldn't qualify at long distances as accurately as the 14.

[Shane45 807]

DA, most people miss a SIGNIFICANT key point in production costs. And that is the price of manufacturing under DOD rules. Bushmaster makes nothing for the Gov as far as I know so their production costs are not inhibited the same way a manufacturer who does DOD contracts is. I can tell you this is a very significant expense!

 

On the topic of ammo lethality, some current crops of mil ammo have been proving very effective like Mk318. With that being said I would love for the US to just tell the world piss off and use the same kinds of ammo available commercially!!!

[Dan 177]

just tell the world piss off and use the same kinds of ammo available commercially!!!

 

This. There are more effective 5.56/.223 ammo options available commercially for hunting that should do the trick over ball ammo.

 

Regarding the Mk318

 

Linky

It isn't a hollow point. It is an Open-Tip Match round much like the M118LR. The jacket is drawn from the base (instead of the cheaper method of jacket drawn from the nose and an exposed lead base) to the tip of the bullet. The tiny little hole there is just a remnant from jacketing the bullet that way. It isn't designed for expansion or calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, so it doesn't violate the Hague conventions

 

The open tip of the Mk318 isn't "designed for expansion", just a "remnant" from the jacketing process. Any expansion enhancement is just a coincidence.

[Gorilla800lbs 12]

The video says they're comparing AK to M16A1.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

the .556 is severly lacking in stopping power and should not be on the battlefield. There's a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and sending them to Afghan. The .556 isn't cutting it and and the .308 stops it dead. The .556 was designed to wound not kill. It was designed for fighting a European adversary, that respects and treats its wounded casualties. The thought was by wounding 1 with the .556 you take 3 out of action as the other 2 are stretcher bearers. The problem we arent fighting an adversary like this anymore. We are fighting a culture that doesn't respect life, and therefore doesn't give a shiat about its wounded. The purpose of the round is not for todays battlefield. On todays battlefield we need to kill, not wound. Now I know I am going to get a bunch of responses about how there are a lot of bad guys arent around because of the 16's but when you see in person the amount of ammo it takes center mass to take one down you realize why you are carrying more ammo. I saw 1 with 12 center mass hits and still coming, a guy with a 14 finished it up. Every one I saw go down due to lead poisining from a 14 went down 1 for 1 or maybe 2 for 1, not 12. There is a huge mass difference of 55gr and 140gr, and it shows.

 

As for the more accurately statement...... The military actually had to loosen it's marksmanship standards when they switched to the 16's because they couldn't qualify at long distances as accurately as the 14.

 

It's an urban legend that the 5.56mm was 'designed to wound, not to kill'. Fact is, it kills just fine, if you use the right bullet at the right barrel length at the right ranges. Anyways, a few points:

 

> 90% of combat takes place below 75 yards. The rest takes place above 75 yards. This has been a fact of life since WWII

 

> Winning a fight isn't just about marksmanship, it's about accurate fire and volume of fire. A Bolt-Action 1903 is powerful and accurate, but under 75 yards, is no match for someone pummeling you with a semi-auto/auto and a smaller caliber. I feel this is one of the reasons 'long range' marksmanship has fallen out of favor... we're not in trenches shooting at spiked helmets 800 yards away anymore.

 

> Ammunition has a weight factor, if a soldier can carry 70 lb of weight, the slice of the pie dedicated to ammo is pretty much a set amount. Because of that, you want ammunition to weigh less so you can carry more.

 

That being said: the reason the 5.56MM is doing poorly is because we're using a 62gr AP capable round out of progressively shorter barrels. As we all know, shooting a bullet out of a longer barrel means propellants burn more efficiently allowing higher pressures and muzzle velocities. When you cut barrel length, you cut velocity. The 62gr bullet already suffers because of it's weight, but it's deficiencies are compounded by it's steel tip. In essence it just goes through people. Hence why you see a guy take 12 rounds in the chest and keep moving. Most of the shots just go right through, and fail to wound properly. The simplest and cheapest solution is to go back to the 55gr XM193 cartridge. Because it's a simple FMJ, because it's lighter (and has a higher velocity), it's wounding ballistics is much improved over the M855, especially when shot out of the 14.5" M4 barrel. The military doesn't need fancy shmancy ammo, it just needs to get rid of shit designed to take on armored Soviet troopers crossing the Fulda Gap. Remember, the early M-16s in Vietnam produced AWESOME wounding results, SOCOM guys loved it. Then .mil proceeded to fugg it up by answering a question nobody asked with the M855.

 

As for 7.62, the issue again is simply weight. That M-14 weighs a ton and isn't perfect. Most reports I've read dealt with a lot of complaints in keeping such a legacy platform going. Plus, there are ammo restrictions in terms of how much one can carry.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

DA, most people miss a SIGNIFICANT key point in production costs. And that is the price of manufacturing under DOD rules. Bushmaster makes nothing for the Gov as far as I know so their production costs are not inhibited the same way a manufacturer who does DOD contracts is. I can tell you this is a very significant expense!

 

On the topic of ammo lethality, some current crops of mil ammo have been proving very effective like Mk318. With that being said I would love for the US to just tell the world piss off and use the same kinds of ammo available commercially!!!

 

Except both Bushmaster and Remington produce ACRs in their Ilion, NY plant. They share the same tooling there. I would imagine the same is true for FN in Columbia, SC for their .mil and civie production.

 

Furthermore, this only proves my point, if the .mil rifle costs a certain amount because of an adherence to specs and QC, then the civie variant would be waaaay cheaper as it's not held to the same strict standards.

 

Regardless, there is no way an FN SCAR or ACR costs more than $1200 to produce each. Not with the amount of plastic or machining involved. Plus, you always have to beat Colt's "number". If it costs them $1,000 per unit for M-4 Carbine with KAC rail, then you need to sell your rifles for pretty much the same amount. Otherwise, Uncle Sugar isn't gonna give two craps about you.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Remember, the early M-16s in Vietnam produced AWESOME wounding results, SOCOM guys loved it.

 

I actually read a book that went over this and there is research to back it, the early awesome effects was actually just marketing/propoganda/BS hype from commanders that were buddy buddy with colt. A little less known, but similar to the "self cleaning rifle" idea.

 

Just a fun fact, I am otherwise staying out of this

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I actually read a book that went over this and there is research to back it, the early awesome effects was actually just marketing/propoganda/BS hype from commanders that were buddy buddy with colt. A little less known, but similar to the "self cleaning rifle" idea.

 

Just a fun fact, I am otherwise staying out of this

 

I dunno about that. There are published studies regarding this, and it appears that if the 55gr/62gr bullet hits between 2400/2700fps, you will have reliable fragmentation of the bullet. I mean, that's the desired goal right? A direct transfer of energy to the body, plus fantastic fragmentation results. Unfortunately... for a 14.5" M-4 to do this, you'd need to hit someone at closer range than you would with a 20" barrel.

[Shane45 807]

2 things

 

#1 It is not the same. DOD manufacturing requirements require segregated facilties, segregated inspection areas, minimum manufacturing output capabilities, meeting strict DOD security guidlines maintaining a secure facility etc etc. Its a long list adding many times multiple millions of dollars to production costs. Inspection is also a significantly greater expence that the civy world tends not to appreciate such as EVERY bolt being MPI tested as opposed to every 1 in 100 or not at all for example.

 

#2 is a simple precept of business. If sales outstrips production, charge more.... This is basic business economics. It does not matter one bit if at the end of the day if a honda and a mercedes cost the same to make, they will not be the same price! I have yet to see a glut of SCAR's on the market. Quite the contrary I get asked regulerly where one can be found, especially if its FDE! LOL

[DevsAdvocate 112]

2 things

 

#1 It is not the same. DOD manufacturing requirements require segregated facilties, segregated inspection areas, minimum manufacturing output capabilities, meeting strict DOD security guidlines maintaining a secure facility etc etc. Its a long list adding many times multiple millions of dollars to production costs. Inspection is also a significantly greater expence that the civy world tends not to appreciate such as EVERY bolt being MPI tested as opposed to every 1 in 100 or not at all for example.

 

Must be for some items then, from my experience checking out load plants and the like, many produced ammunition/arms on the same line as they would for FMS and civilian sales. The only difference was QC. In short: when producing for DoD, that line was meeting DoD specs... when the production run was done, you can produce for whatever you want. Regardless, this only means the product cost for civilians is cheaper since the allowable defect rates are higher.

 

#2 is a simple precept of business. If sales outstrips production, charge more.... This is basic business economics. It does not matter one bit if at the end of the day if a honda and a mercedes cost the same to make, they will not be the same price! I have yet to see a glut of SCAR's on the market. Quite the contrary I get asked regulerly where one can be found, especially if its FDE! LOL

 

You won't ever see a glut of SCARs on the market because FN doesn't make much money producing for civilians. Their goal isn't to compete in the civilian marketplace, but the MIL/LEO one. It's a matter of targeting your customer. Governments tend to buy nice big contracts and follow-on support (spare parts, etc.)... individual owners don't. Like I said: you're not important to them.

 

Want to see a drop in FN SCAR prices? Then hope they win the ICC... if they get selected and become the new carbine, then their availability will increase and prices would drop. Even better: part of the ICC is that the winner's design has to be produced at other facilities, so you'd theoretically see Colt SCARs and Remington SCARs... all in the name of keeping production volumes high, QC high, and costs low.

 

I think that last bit is why the ICC will be successful... unlike previous efforts which would be sole-sourced and the TDP would be privately owned, the winner of the ICC will have to share the wealth.

[Shane45 807]

I dont know what DOD rules are regarding ammo but considering the massive copper theft that took place a few years back, I doubt it is anywhere near what is required for weapons manufacturing.

 

I will continue to diagree with your position on FN and civy sales. But hey, what do I know? I mean after all my PS90 was a personal favor to me from the VP of civy and LE sales at FN

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I dont know what DOD rules are regarding ammo but considering the massive copper theft that took place a few years back, I doubt it is anywhere near what is required for weapons manufacturing.

 

I will continue to diagree with your position on FN and civy sales. But hey, what do I know? I mean after all my PS90 was a personal favor to me from the VP of civy and LE sales at FN

 

I'm just saying that their focus isn't the civilian market, but LE/MIL. Same with Glock, same with S&W, etc. I'm sure they take care of their customers (because that counts for a lot in the firearms industry), but it's a strategic business decision. They could make the SCAR more affordable, they could make more of them, but they don't. It's not worth it to them. Same with Remington/Bushmaster.

 

An ACR is dirt cheap to build and really has no reason to cost more than $1500 to sell. I'd wager the same is true for the SCAR... and when you get to that price point, wow... will these things sell.

[Shane45 807]

I would agree its not their focus but not ignored or treated like HK customer who in my opinion have a valid complaint. On the topic of the could, no they cant. It would actually be a giant legal violation if they were to reduce prices below what is on the gov contract... and this is what gets companies like KAC in the cross hairs of the civy market. The civy market just doesnt understand or want to accept the expenses associated with selling to the govt. They cant dismiss or not take into account those expenses because its a civy sale vs mil sale.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I would agree its not their focus but not ignored or treated like HK customer who in my opinion have a valid complaint. On the topic of the could, no they cant. It would actually be a giant legal violation if they were to reduce prices below what is on the gov contract... and this is what gets companies like KAC in the cross hairs of the civy market. The civy market just doesnt understand or want to accept the expenses associated with selling to the govt. They cant dismiss or not take into account those expenses because its a civy sale vs mil sale.

 

I would say in the case of a civilian legal SCAR or ACR, those are distinctly different from the MIL/LEO ones, so why the legal hit if they sell those for cheaper? I can see KAC getting hit because their stuff is indistinguishable when comparing CIV/MIL...

[Shane45 807]

I believe it just doesnt matter. If essentially the diff is 1 hole in the side and a different trigger, someone is going to end up at a congressional review....

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I believe it just doesnt matter. If essentially the diff is 1 hole in the side and a different trigger, someone is going to end up at a congressional review....

 

Yeah. I'm curious though... maybe that's why Cerberus went the Remington/Bushmaster route... split the production over two name brands to avoid this? Also, is FN still building for MIL these days? Or no? I'm not sure if their still making SCAR-16s for SOCOM anymore...

 

Then again, it's a matter of cost/competition... we know that an M-4 costs about $1,050 to make based on FY2005 numbers... so FN and Remington will have to sell their rifles to the gov't at a similar cost, or show some drastically reduced lifecycle cost reduction down the road. I really hope FN or Remington wins... because the answer to the M-4 is not a heavier piston driven M-4.... *facepalm*

[Kaiser7 33]

Yeah. I'm curious though... maybe that's why Cerberus went the Remington/Bushmaster route... split the production over two name brands to avoid this? Also, is FN still building for MIL these days? Or no? I'm not sure if their still making SCAR-16s for SOCOM anymore...

 

Then again, it's a matter of cost/competition... we know that an M-4 costs about $1,050 to make based on FY2005 numbers... so FN and Remington will have to sell their rifles to the gov't at a similar cost, or show some drastically reduced lifecycle cost reduction down the road. I really hope FN or Remington wins... because the answer to the M-4 is not a heavier piston driven M-4.... *facepalm*

 

I don't know if that's a big enough improvement really, perhaps it would be more like the, "M4A3" or something. I mean switching to a piston M4 really isn't that big of a deal to really consider it the solution to all of the problems with the M4.

 

However, with that being said, since a true replacement seems far away, this might be a good weapon in the mean time. After all, I believe that these piston M4s (and I could be wrong) were developed in response to complaints such as these.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

 

I read another article two or three years ago about this same incident, the article was sent to me by military.com (on their mailing list), and it was an interesting read that seemed to harken issues with the M4 of today, to the initial M16s back in '67. I think it's a good weapons platform, but there is still a lot that it leaves to desire. Most people claim it's soley the design of the AK that leads to its great reliability, but in fact, a lot of it has to with the rounds they use. The 7.62x39, from what I have read/seen, supposedly provides more power to the action for cycling the gun. Therefore, even if the system is dirtied up, the force blowing it back is enough to overcome the friction, and other resistant forces caused by the dirty system. Not that I'm a true gun expert, but I'd be interested to see if ARs, and other guns in that family, that fire more powerful rounds (6.5mm, 6.8, etc.) would produce enough pressure to overcome a dirty system. I'd be interested to run a test and compare how many rounds it takes each rifle until it fails.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

No, the power of 7.62x39 has nothing to due to its reliability, IIRC their operating pressures are very similar actually.

 

The 7.62x39 & 5.45x39 do have a different advantage though, the more heavily tapered case (think: wedge) makes for much easier extraction in dirty chambers because once the bolt cams it out a hair its 100% free, versus sliding a (virtually) non tapered 5.56 out the entire way scraping the chamber wall the whole time.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I don't know if that's a big enough improvement really, perhaps it would be more like the, "M4A3" or something. I mean switching to a piston M4 really isn't that big of a deal to really consider it the solution to all of the problems with the M4.

 

However, with that being said, since a true replacement seems far away, this might be a good weapon in the mean time. After all, I believe that these piston M4s (and I could be wrong) were developed in response to complaints such as these.

http://www.usni.org/...-happened-wanat

http://www.defensein...troversy-03289/

 

I read another article two or three years ago about this same incident, the article was sent to me by military.com (on their mailing list), and it was an interesting read that seemed to harken issues with the M4 of today, to the initial M16s back in '67. I think it's a good weapons platform, but there is still a lot that it leaves to desire. Most people claim it's soley the design of the AK that leads to its great reliability, but in fact, a lot of it has to with the rounds they use. The 7.62x39, from what I have read/seen, supposedly provides more power to the action for cycling the gun. Therefore, even if the system is dirtied up, the force blowing it back is enough to overcome the friction, and other resistant forces caused by the dirty system. Not that I'm a true gun expert, but I'd be interested to see if ARs, and other guns in that family, that fire more powerful rounds (6.5mm, 6.8, etc.) would produce enough pressure to overcome a dirty system. I'd be interested to run a test and compare how many rounds it takes each rifle until it fails.

 

In all honesty, the biggest reason why I object to a piston driven AR is that it's the worst of both worlds. Instead of building from the ground up to be lightweight, you're simply adding weight. Furthermore, you're still stuck with a vestigial buffer tube which simply isn't needed, and reduces your options in regards to the stocks you can use. Seeing as most soldiers operate from vehicles, having a folding stock would be a major advantage. Or at least having the option for one...

[Kaiser7 33]

In all honesty, the biggest reason why I object to a piston driven AR is that it's the worst of both worlds. Instead of building from the ground up to be lightweight, you're simply adding weight. Furthermore, you're still stuck with a vestigial buffer tube which simply isn't needed, and reduces your options in regards to the stocks you can use. Seeing as most soldiers operate from vehicles, having a folding stock would be a major advantage. Or at least having the option for one...

 

That's what sort of confuses me about the whole situation. I know that we are switching to using more and more technology that requires fewer troops on the ground, but, as was pointed out before, we still need soldiers to hold ground. I'm still surprised that in 50 years, we still haven't come up with a better design. I think that we really need a new rifle for the troops. However, I would guess that the main reason that we haven't come up with a new rifle is mainly this, "Where do we go from here?" Though not fantastic, the AR family gets the job done, is accurate, and fulfills its role. Most importantly, the ease at which it can be modified, or changed to meet conditions (Switching uppers, allowing for people who train with the M16A4 to feel comfortable with the carbine) make it hard to beat. I've never fired it, but I've held a SCAR, it wasn't bad, but It felt bulky to me. I really don't know what our next gen rifle will look like. After the revolutions the AR brought in (aluminum and polymer parts, things like that) it's hard to predict what will be able to superceed it.

[SpacemanFry 51]

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-Rant%20about%20M16.html

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Just a fact here, The owner of Barrett has openly admitted that civilian sales keep their company rolling, not military contracts.

 

These companies focus on getting military contracts, but the bulk of money they do make comes from the private market.

 

Tell me why LWRC charges the same high price, or KAC or noveske.... When so many people are buying the cheaper variants? they would lower the prices if it made sense to them, clearly lower the price and increasing sales is not in there business plan for one reason or another.

 

The fact the people seem to negate is that your not going to be able to build the one all be all rifle, different conditions require different designs. would you want to fight with a rifle that was designed for desert warfare in the middle of the tundra? When you try and make it multi purpose you end up in the middle, something that will work OK in all conditions.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Just a fact here, The owner of Barrett has openly admitted that civilian sales keep their company rolling, not military contracts.

 

These companies focus on getting military contracts, but the bulk of money they do make comes from the private market.

 

Tell me why LWRC charges the same high price, or KAC or noveske.... When so many people are buying the cheaper variants? they would lower the prices if it made sense to them, clearly lower the price and increasing sales is not in there business plan for one reason or another.

 

The fact the people seem to negate is that your not going to be able to build the one all be all rifle, different conditions require different designs. would you want to fight with a rifle that was designed for desert warfare in the middle of the tundra? When you try and make it multi purpose you end up in the middle, something that will work OK in all conditions.

 

 

Disagree. With proper engineering, you can make a great all-around shooter without breaking the bank (development-wise). I mean, shit, the AK does it, and its only drawbacks are ergonomics and possibly accuracy.

[Vlad G 345]

Disagree. With proper engineering, you can make a great all-around shooter without breaking the bank (development-wise). I mean, shit, the AK does it, and its only drawbacks are ergonomics and possibly accuracy.

 

So if it is so easy I think you should go ahead and design, market, and sell such a thing. I'll buy the first perfect rifle, if you are willing to sell it.