daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,988
- Points
- 1,160
SDMR
- Thread starter daftandbarmy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 27,315
- Points
- 1,090
Sometimes you hold back too much so it's hard to tell how you really feel.
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
This was a non competitive program.
Gen Milley as the FORSCOM issued a directed requirement that took the Hk CSASS gun, changed the barrel, changed the barrel twist, changed the optic and suppressor and became a program.
USASOC who is entitled to those for free, went out and bought KAC 14.5” 6.5CM guns for that role (oh and they competed the program first).
Gen Milley as the FORSCOM issued a directed requirement that took the Hk CSASS gun, changed the barrel, changed the barrel twist, changed the optic and suppressor and became a program.
USASOC who is entitled to those for free, went out and bought KAC 14.5” 6.5CM guns for that role (oh and they competed the program first).
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
So they had to change the barrel again as the weight requirement for the gun mandated a thin barrel which in piston guns doesn’t do great for accuracy/precision.
So they went to a heavier barrel (ignoring the weight requirement) to get accuracy back, but it’s definitely not a tack driver by any stretch. I haven’t seen any of the new heavier barrel guns shoot anywhere inside 2MOA, and most hover in the 4” area at 100m but that could be because the suppressors are seem to crack welds early on and the internals ‘float’.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,988
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Points
- 1,010
I can do better than 4 MOA with my 1942 Mosin-Nagant…
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
Other than manual of arms and the lack of rails to add clip on VAS and MFAL’s I’d prefer the FNSo, pretty much like an FNC1 then?
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly I’m super critical of the gun because of how it arrived.
Yes it’s a capability that the Squads didn’t have before, however it’s got a lot of warts still and Hk has been stuck trying to make it work inside a bunch of other constraints.
With a different optic and suppressor off, the gun is capable of sub 1.5” groups at 100m, which is still inside a 18” wide chest at 800m.
A friend of mine said that once you get a thousand or so rounds on the can it is carbon fouled enough the internals can’t move around - so accuracy improves.
The optic is scheduled for replacement eventually as well.
I’m just not a fan of the system, and as I have a 14.5” 6.5Creedmore M110, it really doesn’t matter to me as I have a 1km capable gas gun, that is lighter and more reliable.
Yes it’s a capability that the Squads didn’t have before, however it’s got a lot of warts still and Hk has been stuck trying to make it work inside a bunch of other constraints.
With a different optic and suppressor off, the gun is capable of sub 1.5” groups at 100m, which is still inside a 18” wide chest at 800m.
A friend of mine said that once you get a thousand or so rounds on the can it is carbon fouled enough the internals can’t move around - so accuracy improves.
The optic is scheduled for replacement eventually as well.
I’m just not a fan of the system, and as I have a 14.5” 6.5Creedmore M110, it really doesn’t matter to me
as I have a 1km capable gas gun, that is lighter and more reliable.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,988
- Points
- 1,160
Other than manual of arms and the lack of rails to add clip on VAS and MFAL’s I’d prefer the FN
Like the short lived SCAR?
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
Fuck that thing and the horse it rode in on.Like the short lived SCAR?
Navy Special Warfare has a lot to answer on that one.
- Reaction score
- 21,922
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 21,817
- Points
- 1,260
SCAR was a true disappointment to me, as it had so much potential, but got derailed by end user tug of war, and a major failure of the program office to look at integration.
1) Non Reciprocating Charging Handle: This was dreamed up by ideas on OTB (Over The Beach - but really means surf zone operations) where sand etc can get into firearms - and the theory that one can use the NRCH to force the round into the chamber (with the salt and sand etc). I’m not a SEAL, but I still think it was a stupid idea for multiple reasons.
A) Jamming a Cartridge into the chamber that doesn’t want to go is generally a bad idea - the potential for causing bullet setback or cartridge damage is high, which can lead to excessive chamber pressure.
B) The NRCH has a nasty habit of biting the user during the cycle of operations, so you need to ensure hands are clear of the area of the Charging Handle.
C) I’m a firm believer in putting one’s long gun in a dry bag for dive/swim operations, as while EO/IO VAS systems, Lights and MFAL’s are all designed to be somewhat water resistant, Salt Water is the enemy of everything.
2) Suppressors: The SCAR didn’t like being suppressed, partially because FN set the suppressed setting of the Adjustable Gas Block to run unsuppressed, so the carrier velocity is extremely high suppressed so reliability and longevity are significantly impacted when suppressed.
3) Integration/Recoil/Harmonic Wave Resonance: Partially due to being over gassed, with a much higher moving part weight than reasonable, the gun whips like spaghetti noodles during recoil. So it is massively damaging to VAS systems. If your $1,500 gun keeps destroying multi thousand dollar VAS systems, is it really operational? Stuff that does fine on a 7mm REM Mag for recoil was failing inside a few hundred rounds on a Mk17…
All of those issues were solvable, but unfortunately never got really resolved before everyone had had it with the SCAR.
I see a number of related issues that are going to bite the M110A1, and the XM7 because of the urge of some to ignore data and push ahead regardless.
1) Non Reciprocating Charging Handle: This was dreamed up by ideas on OTB (Over The Beach - but really means surf zone operations) where sand etc can get into firearms - and the theory that one can use the NRCH to force the round into the chamber (with the salt and sand etc). I’m not a SEAL, but I still think it was a stupid idea for multiple reasons.
A) Jamming a Cartridge into the chamber that doesn’t want to go is generally a bad idea - the potential for causing bullet setback or cartridge damage is high, which can lead to excessive chamber pressure.
B) The NRCH has a nasty habit of biting the user during the cycle of operations, so you need to ensure hands are clear of the area of the Charging Handle.
C) I’m a firm believer in putting one’s long gun in a dry bag for dive/swim operations, as while EO/IO VAS systems, Lights and MFAL’s are all designed to be somewhat water resistant, Salt Water is the enemy of everything.
2) Suppressors: The SCAR didn’t like being suppressed, partially because FN set the suppressed setting of the Adjustable Gas Block to run unsuppressed, so the carrier velocity is extremely high suppressed so reliability and longevity are significantly impacted when suppressed.
3) Integration/Recoil/Harmonic Wave Resonance: Partially due to being over gassed, with a much higher moving part weight than reasonable, the gun whips like spaghetti noodles during recoil. So it is massively damaging to VAS systems. If your $1,500 gun keeps destroying multi thousand dollar VAS systems, is it really operational? Stuff that does fine on a 7mm REM Mag for recoil was failing inside a few hundred rounds on a Mk17…
All of those issues were solvable, but unfortunately never got really resolved before everyone had had it with the SCAR.
I see a number of related issues that are going to bite the M110A1, and the XM7 because of the urge of some to ignore data and push ahead regardless.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,988
- Points
- 1,160
