imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:03 AM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

Ive seen Ars and m16s jam a lot too. Theyre a complicated system. But now you'll say those are only certain ARs. Now ill say this is only one SCAR rifle. The m16 is still around because of people saying that it gets the job done and we shouldn't get soemthing new, that it will cost a lot, that it takes new training.

Also, this is the early SCARs. Look at what a total POS the first SP1s were. Those were tuly awful weapons and it took years of redesighn to get them up to todays standard. A SCAR thats not even broken in and in its first model looks like a promising platform to build off of.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:17 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Every guns jams. That's just fact. The main selling point for the SCAR is ultra reliable, which it is not by many accounts. Two double feeds within 200 rounds from each other is unacceptable. Again double feeds take a lot longer to clear and you lose a magazine in the process.

AR15 is mechanically simpler then the SCAR, AK or any overhead piston rifle. It has at least one less part then piston rifles. In the AR15 DI the bolt is the piston.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:25 AM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

Ars are simpler than AKs? Wow, next youll say its simpler than the mosin. Im willing to bet if the military had been using SCARs for 50 years then tried to introdce a "new" m16 to replace it the exact opposite of this conversation would be happening. I bet after a little field testing and a few modifications the SCAR will really shine. Like I said, the m16 took this long to get good. And I think a test of one SCAR is inconclusive. Ive seen other tests too. The SCAR also performed WAY better than the m4 in the infamous dust test.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-01-2009, 03:21 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Do not argue with me on the mechanical actions of rifles. You will lose because you never took the time to understand how rifles and pistols work.

AR15 DI are mechanically simpler then AK and any overhang piston type rifle. It isn't my opinion it is a fact.

Last edited by jdun; 06-01-2009 at 03:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:01 AM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

Very few military people I know are impressed with the cartridge 556. I know people who stopped using mini14s or compact bolt guns for hunting yotes cause the 40 pound animal would suck up a round and run off. Now they use 22-250s or 12 ga. I dont want to think about what determined humans in the 150-200 lb range can take. An Iraq veteran once told me "dont bring an m16 to a gunfight." I neever liked the feel of them. My favorite part of the rifle is tricking people into slapping themselves with the charging handle. The SCAR runs cooler, like many piston guns. It outperformed the dust test. Its just as modular. One review there wont sway me. Besides, I bet FN will have it completely perfected soon and the military will still hold onto the current system due to costs. Well, replacin the m4 is step 1. Step 2, getting rid of the friggin beretta. Whos idea was it to use 9mm anyway?

And I still say the m16 took forever to work out the kinks, the sp-1 was a TRULY AWFUL RIFLE THAT DOES NOT DESERVE TO EXIST and now you have okay rifles. The Fact FNS start equals or exceeds 50 years of development on another platform is quite impressive.

And in the dust test the m4 jammed every 68 rounds, compared to the SCARs 265. Hm.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:04 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

WTF? This isn't a caliber discussion this is about the SCAR.

Oh about the dust test. The M4 that was used in the test was an old beat up one. While the SCAR and other rifles were brand new. Once that was realized they redid the test and the reliability was about the same as the rest.

Last edited by jdun; 06-01-2009 at 04:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:24 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

I love how you still keep dodging my point about other countries' SF units all carrying M16s and M4s, even though they have the option to choose anything they want, including the M14s that you worship. Even after I shot down your last excuse...

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870 View Post
If we refused to ever adopt a a new rifle to to training and costs well be using m4s when we are being ripped to shreds by lazer cannons.
Right, because we all know that the DoD is that far behind the curve...at a time when most of our country's enemies are still armed with the same old 7.62x39mm AKs that your dad and his dad encountered in combat decades ago.

It's not simply costs and training, it's whether the new platform provides sufficient advantages to justify the cost. Military procurement programs are inherently conservative by nature. Nobody denies that. But IMO, that's actually a healthy mindset. Running out and buying the newest weapons platform on the market, simply because this or that test shows that it jams a little less frequently than the current platform, is not sound policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870 View Post
And for the record, video gamers love m4s and there is no SCAR in call of duty.
(1.) Every video gamer I've ever met thinks that the newest H&K toys (like the 416) are the best firearms ever, and hates the M16 platform. There's even a group on Facebook urging the DoD to adopt the 416, and (not surprisingly), the members are all high school-age gamers who aren't even old enough to buy a semi AR-15.
(2.) Point taken that there's no SCAR in the game. I've only played the demo. That being said, it was a metaphor. You do know what a metaphor is, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870 View Post
And I still say the m16 took forever to work out the kinks, the sp-1 was a TRULY AWFUL RIFLE THAT DOES NOT DESERVE TO EXIST and now you have okay rifles.
Actually, it's debatable whether the early M16s (SP1) were really "awful" - the USAF (which was the only service that used them in large numbers) simply tried to make the rifles as cheap to manufacture as possible, the reason being that they didn't really place much of a priority (or funding) on small arms. Of course, the SP1 wasn't the version that saw the most service in 'Nam. That was the XM16E1, which is the version most people are referring to when they're thinking about the M16's controversial early history in Vietnam.

Also, how long is "forever"? Pretty much all of the M16's best-known faults were corrected by the time of the A1 model, in the late-60s. That's less than 10 years. Unless you think every M16 variant before the M4 and M16A4 were crap?

Last edited by MT2008; 06-01-2009 at 04:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:30 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

He keeps changing the subject and dodging valid points that are made in the thread.

Anyway for those of you that are interest on how the AR15 DI works and wonder why AR15 DI has a piston click on the link. It's a very simple system and all done in a nice compact package. If you still don't understand it I'll try to explain it as best as I can.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...f=130&t=165511

Last edited by jdun; 06-01-2009 at 04:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:42 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Also, discussing the (alleged) faults of the 5.56x45mm round seems irrelevant, since (1.) everyone, including the Russians and Chinese, use smaller calibers nowadays, and (2.) there are AR variants available in 7.62x51mm. If caliber is your biggest grievance with the AR platform, then you have no legitimate complaints.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-01-2009, 06:47 AM
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,297
Default

As much as I do like the SCAR, my stance on it remains the same. I still have my suspicions that this "Special Operations rifle" (the 5.56 version at least, I imagine the 7.62 version will see some use) might end up sharing the same fate as the Mark 23...

What I don't get is that if SOCOM wanted a gas piston so bad, why didn't they just buy an HK or LWRC upper, slap it on an M4 lower, and be done with it at a fraction of the cost?

Well, chances are HK would charge out the ass for theirs, but I'm sure you'll understand my point.

Or maybe I just answered my own question or something, I don't know. They deemed this civvy unfit for military service...
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 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.