imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-20-2010, 09:56 AM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303
Default FNH changes story...

So NOW FNH is saying SOCOM isn't buying the Mark 16 after previously refuting said rumor and stating that SOCOM IS buying the Mark 16.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...he-scar-mk-16/

I wonder when they'll issue a statement refuting the statement that refuted the rumor that SOCOM wasn't buying Mark 16s...
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:02 PM
Markost Markost is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Soviet Republic of Argentina
Posts: 620
Send a message via AIM to Markost Send a message via Yahoo to Markost Send a message via Skype™ to Markost
Default

Marketing strategy?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:16 PM
BurtReynoldsMoustache BurtReynoldsMoustache is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Maybe they thought if they just said SOCOM was buying it even if they weren't that would force them to buy it to save face and not look like dicks but then it didn't work because you can't fool with SOCOM like that and they threatened to send some people over if they didn't redact the statement.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-20-2010, 08:21 PM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

Please tell me you're not being serious.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-20-2010, 09:02 PM
BurtReynoldsMoustache BurtReynoldsMoustache is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyles View Post
Please tell me you're not being serious.
What do you think.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-20-2010, 10:29 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303
Default

It doesn't really surprise me, TBH. The market has been flooded with AR piston systems that perform just as well as the SCAR-L all while being much cheaper to buy. I'm not a member of SOCOM and so won't pretend to know their needs, but the Mark 16 just seemed redundant.
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2010, 04:28 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,612
Default

And the lesson is: Never get excited about a new weapon just because its manufacturer's marketing department over-hypes it, or even because it wins some DoD competition for a less-than-essential military requirement. A weapon needs to prove itself, usually through combat experience, before it can truly be considered an "improvement" over its predecessor. Until then, it really doesn't matter how rarely the weapon jams in tests, or how many times you can dunk it in water, etc.

Getting excited every time a major gun manufacturer puts out a new weapon is almost like getting stoked about a new movie from an acclaimed director, or a new album being released by a famous band: It may look/sound good the first time you experience it, but only time will determine whether or not it has longevity. This is something I think that teenagers (in particular) have trouble appreciating.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 08-21-2010 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2010, 07:37 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

+1 on Matt's post. Field time is the only real prover of reliability. Gimmicks you've seen done by manufacturers like the sand mud water test don't really prove anything, except that the dust cover and drainage holes work. It's smoke and mirrors. Military contracts aren't that big of a deal either, since they will buy what's most economical and meets their standards, not what is necessarily best. SCAR's aren't economical in the least since they cost more per unit, and they don't offer that much more performance over existing systems, which any number of us could have told before the announcement was made if we weren't so stupidly starstruck over it. A piston design with a rail and flip up irons and whatever bells and whistles is still a 5.56 or 7.62 with an 18 or 20 inch barrel which may or may not be a fraction of a percent more reliable.

All this applies to the 416, ACR, piston ARs and pretty much anything new and wow we can think of in the last 10 years. It's fun to dream but sadly these weapon systems have no real place in todays world or economy, except in movies and videogames, which are just parts that further their idiotic hype. These guns are the reality TV stars and celebutantes of the firearms world, and we need to realize that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2010, 08:31 PM
BurtReynoldsMoustache BurtReynoldsMoustache is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
And the lesson is...
XM29: the Duke Nukem Forever of firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2010, 09:26 PM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

About 10 years ago, Ian Hogg (now deceased) wrote that military rifles had essentially reached a plateau where the current systems in service were good enough that there was nothing on the horizon that would offer an improvement in performance great enough to justify the expense of change, and that's just as true today.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.