DevsAdvocate

Yes, but the semi-auto AR-15? What of that? What I'm talking here won't interfere with FN's or Remington's MIL contracts as other companies would be making semi-auto clones.

Of course not. But they did it all wrong. Also, I understand the arguments re: AR-15s and 1911s, but that's simply unfair and easily handled. You can choose who you license to. Do you think if Spikes Tactical, Knights Armament, Bravo Company, or Palmetto State Armory were given the rights to manufacture the SCAR under license, that they would screw it up? Furthermore, what we have in the AR world is awesome, I can source my parts from different manufacturers based on reputation and cost. I don't have to buy all my stuff from Colt if I don't want to. This is why the AR-15 dominates the rifle market. This is how Remington/FN can dominate if they want to, and make a killing. The AR-15 isn't even licensed, it's an open TDP. But throw in licensing with profit sharing, and a company can corner the market and make a ton of money in the process. What's the difference between a Colt AR-15 and a BCM one? Or Noveske vs. BCM? Or even Colt vs. Stag? How about Springfield 1911s vs. RIAs? Kimbers vs. Colts? Etc. Ultimately: Cost and QC.

Well, the nice thing about licensing is that you can attach stipulations to it. Think of it from a technology perspective: Google gives away Android licenses for free, with certain strings. One of them being limitations on how much you can modify the OS, the quality of the modifications, etc. In order to retain the 'Android' label. Google wins by getting their product on many phones, as well as their software. Google search, maps, etc. Apple is also a bit similar as well, albeit more controlled. Also: with firearms, quality levels are quickly determined. With multiple manufacturers, you'll can see a Bravo Company ACR/SCAR, or a DPMS ACR/SCAR, a KAC ACR/SCAR, or even a Palmetto State Armory ACR/SCAR. You can pick quality manufacturers who can build uppers, barrels, etc. Even compatible stocks, forends, lowers... It takes all the pressure off of Remington and FN. They can sit there and get royalties on every upper sold under the license, and every compatible component. Meanwhile, they can produce their own version and charge a premium... kinda like how Colt does today. That's cool. If someone wants to pay $1,000 extra for a rollmark, more power to them. I just want an ACR as cheap as possible and as good as possible. It would be sweet if PSA, BCM, KAC, would sign on and make them. I'd be just as happy with one of theirs as I would be with one from Remington. Firstoff, it's not socialist, it's a licensing model. By licensing, you get profits off of other companies' investments, and you can likewise shield yourself if they produce a defective product. If a licensed manufacturer cranks out a few bad SCARs, FN can simply say: "Well, that sucks! If you want the absolute best quality, buy one directly from us!" That's a different story entirely. This one has a lot to do with their quality control and their labor. There is no reason why scaling up production should be a decline in product quality. Harley decided to put profits over their customers, and now they suck. Not to mention making bikes in India... hehehe But if a company like FN/Remington does it right, they don't need to worry too much about such things. They are insulated. If DPMS makes a bad AR-15, do you look at Colt and blame them? Nope. That's because they get greedy.

The biggest problem with all this is the general protection of IP. If Remington or FN were smart, they would license their designs for cheap and let other manufacturers build them with the caveat that they would be for civilian/non-contract sale only. This way more makers can crank out more rifles, more rifles mean lower prices and more accessories. FN or Remington would make money not on the production of rifles (they could still sell theirs at a premium), but the licensing fees for each unit sold. It's kinda like the difference between selling the handle and the razor. Sell the handle at a loss, make your money back from the razors. This can also be a back-door route to replacing the M-4/M-16. Something that can penetrate the civilian market deeply would carry over to the MIL. Let's face it: if the FN SCAR or ACR would probably be far more popular and widely-used if sold at a more reasonable price point. Right now, people ask: why buy a SCAR or ACR when I can get an AR-15 kitted out for the same amount. With lower prices, folks can ask: Why buy an AR-15 when I can get a superior SCAR or ACR for the same money?

Nice! So rumors of their demise in SOCOM are a bit over-stated?

Wanna front a few million dollars? Just kidding. In all fairness, there are a few promising designs out there already... the FN SCAR and Remington ACR both come to mind. I honestly think the biggest change you can make to either of those is to replace the STANAG magazine with something more robust. One of the main points of failure on the AR-15 pattern rifle is the magazine design. It's simply not robust when compared to other magazines. Improved springs, followers (like the Magpul ones), and reinforced feed lips. I would also move the mag catch from the side to spine of the mag as well. Similar to the G36 design. This aids in being ambidextrous while keeping some of the ergonomic benefits.

Checked mine, it's not so much crimped, but designed to not be extended: end of tube is shaped and welded so that you can't screw and extension on... Not quite sure where else to go on this...

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.

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...

I'll snap a pic when I'm home later.

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 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...

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's quite silly. If a stock is legal in the minimum position, then logically it must be legal in every extending position. Someone needs to find those court cases though... I tried looking, but to no avail.

It's all a friggin lie. Pound for pound, the ACR is less complex to produce than the AR-15... and in many instances, uses the same components. - Barrel - Trigger Group - Bolt The most complex part to produce is the extruded aluminum upper receiver, which by it's very nature is a lot easier to build than a stripped AR upper or lower. Everything simply snaps to that. Beyond that, the stock, foregrip, lower receiver is made from Magpul plastic with metal inserts... easy to produce, cheap too. All in all, the ACR probably costs less per rifle than an AR-15... the only reason it costs so much is simply marketing, and supply. This is why I hate Cerberus. They took what could be a 'sure thing' and messed it up. Think about this though: what are you actually gonna customize on a SCAR/ACR? Most people customize AR-15s to allow the following: rails for accessories, and new stocks. The ACR/SCAR already has that, and can play nice with your optics and other bolt-on crap. It's all MIL-STD-1913. Problem is: cost. Not enough market penetration to justify 3rd party production. They are better, the problem is: Fabrique Nationale and Remington/Bushmaster are like H&K. They hate you because you suck, and aren't .mil/LEO/high speed low drag. You're not the target customer, you never were. Building for the civilian market is a waste of money because the ROI simply isn't there. Winning a fat DoD contract is the way to go. Watch, should FN or Remington win the ICC, and their rifles become the new infantry fighting weapon, people will throw their money at them to buy one for themselves.

Disagree. The old adage remains true: drones/UAVs/fighter jets/bombers/helicopters, cannot capture and hold territory. The only thing that can do that is a man with a rifle.

Except the AK isn't better, it suffers due to a lack of ergonomics. The M1A is based on the M-14, and is a heavy, unwieldy beast. SCAR is good, but not there just yet Still needs some more time in the oven.

Question: My 930 has a crimped magazine tube, meaning I can't just screw and extension on... what would I need to have to remedy that?