"As I understand it, this is SOCOMs way of saying “We’ll see what big Army picks for their new carbine so we don’t have to pay for it ourselves…”
Four of the SOCOM components bring their own weapon to the table, they aren’t familiarized with the SCAR. It leads to having half your operators working with unknown equipment. Not good.
But, prioritize the spending on what they think they need, and get theother free in a few years anyway, why not?
As unlikely as it may be, what happens if the SCAR isn’t chosen the Improved Carbine? What do you do with the orphan units already in stock?
Now that the Improved Carbine solicitation in released, SOCOM doesn’t need to go out of their way and create a problem for itself.
I thought this might happen. Look, at this point in the war, even the spendthrift SOCOM is starting to guard it’s budget.
Two things happened to the SCAR - less than stellar reviews from the Rangers, and the desire by SOCOM to do a ‘group buy’ with Big Army on whatever the new rifle is.
Now, the SCAR Heavy is another matter. NSW culturally is a believer in 7.62 and they will demand modernized replacement for the M14.
Hopefully, this will have a good effect in offering up more semi Mk-16 variants for civilian sale, drive prices down further. If that happens, the Shrubmaster ACR is history.
I might pick up a SCAR if the price comes down below $2k. At this point though, I’m perfectly happy with my DI AR15s. I’d be more inclined to buy a MR556(416) to have the fully ambidex M16 charging handle and HK quality.
I’ve held both the ACR and SCAR side by side and in many ways it’s a toss-up between the two. I like the ergonomics on the ACR better, but the SCAR is still good. I like the non-reciprocating charging handle on the ACR better. I haven’t shot either so I’m not sure if the SCAR would be a problem in that regard, just that I like non-reciprocating better. The ACR is front-heavy though, and the balance isn’t great.
The thing about the ACR is I hate the pointless M4 profile barrel which screams of “parts-bin” engineering. I like the quick change barrel system but I’m not sure I trust it.
And that’s the whole problem there, I just don’t trust Bushmaster/Remington to get it right from the beginning. I’m waiting to see what the reliability and durability is like after a year or two. I tend to trust the SCAR more, given the time and money FN and US miltary have put into its development.
But for half the price, I’m sticking with DI carbines for now…
Simply put most end users with significant trigger time behind an M4
and a SCAR Light are going to choose the M4 - myself included
The advantages the SCAR Light brings to the table (mainly side folding buttstock and easily changed barrel length) are not seen as enough to trump the extremely mature M4 platform with a host of excellent accessories available for it
However when you look at the SCAR Heavy everything changes
It is being directly compared to the M14 in various configurations and
the SR 25 - one rifle is rugged and reliable but not really adaptable to the needs of todays warfighters (not to mention the location of the safety) and the other has been reliability challenged from day one
Now a rifle like the SCAR Heavy is a real contender
No surprise here to me but a couple thoughts;
The primary goal of this program was to build a rock solid replacement for the M4 for SOCOM use with the 7.62 NATO variant
being just that - a variant (trust me i know of what I speak ; I heard essentially those words directly from a Crane employee involved in the SCAR project early on) - from that perspective it is a failure - plain and simple
Now that the 7.62mm rifle is the lead horse and it was never down selected against other battle rifles I wonder if companies like LMT and LWRC are gonna try to get in the game somehow - If that is even possible
Remember LMT has the adoption of their battle rifle by the Brits as a feather in their cap - that would seem to be a strong argument to get that gun considered by SOCOM
That’s exactly how I read it. Socom is just ponying up on the Mk17 for now, the Mk16 can wait. And I really don’t fault them for that choice. A modular, lightweight 5.56mm is a modular, lightweight 5.56mm but a Mk17 is a different beast than the other 7.62guns out there. If funding is tight, its no contest which one will get priority.
How much difference performance wise is the new LMT from other 7.62 AR variants llike the SR-25? If the SR-25 is as LAV put it “reliability challenged from day one”, why would the LMT be any different? I know next to nothing about these 7.62 rifles, so I am genuinely curious, but to me these all just seem to be repackaging of the same basic AR-10 rifle…
Why would one be a game changer, and the other not?
If the DI system on the LMT is engineered well, then I can see why it would be stiff competition for the MK17 and HK 417. Weight is a major problem with 7.62 rifles, and the DI system would be overall lighter as well as shifting weight more to the rear. The primary complaint of DI systems is the heat build-up in the receiver which burns off lube. However, a 7.62 in a designated marksman role would not go through the volume of fire of an M4…thus, less issues with lube burning off. Lastly, DI systems are generally easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Keep in mind how some units will use the new 7.62 rifle. It is quite like to see use in Afghanistan in the typical ‘battle rifle’ role as well as CQC. In fact, for some users the DMR uses of the new rifle will be more of an additional capability than a primary role.
Another example of what is broken with procurement. How many failed “new” rifle programs will we deal with?how much money will we waste? It has been going on since the 60’s . We need to change the ammo first and then producing a rifle with expanded features than the M-16 will be possible .
All kidding aside, I think it really will change the game. If it holds up under heavy use, and LMT doesn’t suddenly decide it’s worth $5000, I think you’ll start seeing it pop up in some unexpected places.
A lot of water has gone over the dam since the SR25 was new. I think Kevin will agree - it’s not the same gun that it was in 1994. And the LMT MWS is a lot more like the SR25EMC than it is the SR25.
Also, the other thing that makes it a game changer is that none of the other Stoner-type 7.62s were KAC/Colt grade weapons. The LMT makes two milspec guns available now.
Another example of what is broken with procurement. How many failed “new” rifle programs will we deal with?how much money will we waste? It has been going on since the 60’s . We need to change the ammo first and then producing a rifle with expanded features than the M-16 will be possible .
