Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Slims · 10-19-2009, 06:40 PM

I don't think it is a problem. The m-4 is a bit long in the tooth, but it is a completely different weapon than it was during Vietnam and has benefited from 40 years of continuous evolution.

I think due to the nature of the Army procurement system, any "new" weapon will be chosen because it has the most bells and whistles, such has modularity, hot-swap barrels, cool folding stocks, etc. rather than a weapon which simply shoots better and with even less weight.

We are adding complexity size and weight to an already ridiculous overall load by adding the SCAR.

It may be the best thing since sliced bread, but I suspect it won the contract on it's "flair" rather than it's substance. Time will tell though.

For instance, one of the big selling points is it's modularity, but even in SOF, how many soldiers do you think are going to get the CQC upper for the SCAR Heavy in addition to the standard upper? Or do you think current logic will prevail and soldiers will be issued a weapon as-is and to hell with mission-dictated configurations? It is great to have a weapon that can be configured differently, but if the extra parts are not issued it is more or less a mute point.

Edit: For instance (from Wikipedia), SOCOM has requested more than 80,000 of the standard SCAR Lites, but less than 30,000 of the SCAR CQC configurations.....looks to me like you are going to be stuck with whatever you get.

If you have a group of guys who are stuck with a variety of weapons-styles they will do nothing well. If you issue them all one-type they will be equiped for one particular mission and poorly for others. If instead you coughed up a little extra money and gave them what they needed to modify their equipment based on mission they can be optimally prepared for any environment which they know they will be going into.

10-19-2009, 06:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I don't think it is a problem. The m-4 is a bit long in the tooth, but it is a completely different weapon than it was during Vietnam and has benefited from 40 years of continuous evolution. I think due to the nature of the Army procurement system, any "new" weapon will be chosen because it has the most bells and whistles, such has modularity, hot-swap barrels, cool folding stocks, etc. rather than a weapon which simply shoots better and with even less weight. We are adding complexity size and weight to an already ridiculous overall load by adding the SCAR. It may be the best thing since sliced bread, but I suspect it won the contract on it's "flair" rather than it's substance. Time will tell though. For instance, one of the big selling points is it's modularity, but even in SOF, how many soldiers do you think are going to get the CQC upper for the SCAR Heavy in addition to the standard upper? Or do you think current logic will prevail and soldiers will be issued a weapon as-is and to hell with mission-dictated configurations? It is great to have a weapon that can be configured differently, but if the extra parts are not issued it is more or less a mute point. Edit: For instance (from Wikipedia), SOCOM has requested more than 80,000 of the standard SCAR Lites, but less than 30,000 of the SCAR CQC configurations.....looks to me like you are going to be stuck with whatever you get. If you have a group of guys who are stuck with a variety of weapons-styles they will do nothing well. If you issue them all one-type they will be equiped for one particular mission and poorly for others. If instead you coughed up a little extra money and gave them what they needed to modify their equipment based on mission they can be optimally prepared for any environment which they know they will be going into. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 10-19-2009 at 06:48 PM..