Let the endless debates begin anew...
The U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has chosen a new family of rifles: the FN SCAR (ht:OPFOR).
Moving away from the uber-American Colt name is a big deal. I know one of the longstanding beefs with the M-16 family of rifles is the relatively small calibre of the round. The SCAR has both a 7.62mm and a 5.56mm option, as well as some other advantages over the competition, as laid out in this CNN article.
While I've fired both a 7.62 FN (the old C-1) and the 5.56 C-7, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with significant experience with the current CF-issue C-7/C-8 family of weapons in the field. Especially since Diemaco/Colt Canada apparently competed for this contract and lost.
Any desire from pointy-end types to move to something like the FN SCAR in the mainline CF (I know the SF already picks their own weapons to a large degree)? Feel free to e-mail me at damian dot brooks at gmail dot com if you can't post to comments for any reason.
Moving away from the uber-American Colt name is a big deal. I know one of the longstanding beefs with the M-16 family of rifles is the relatively small calibre of the round. The SCAR has both a 7.62mm and a 5.56mm option, as well as some other advantages over the competition, as laid out in this CNN article.
While I've fired both a 7.62 FN (the old C-1) and the 5.56 C-7, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with significant experience with the current CF-issue C-7/C-8 family of weapons in the field. Especially since Diemaco/Colt Canada apparently competed for this contract and lost.
Any desire from pointy-end types to move to something like the FN SCAR in the mainline CF (I know the SF already picks their own weapons to a large degree)? Feel free to e-mail me at damian dot brooks at gmail dot com if you can't post to comments for any reason.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 10:36 a.m.
5 Comments:
pretty slick looking piece of kit.
the simplicity of breakdown would be excellent for cleaning purposes.
Besides the fact that everyone else is fielding weapons chambered for it, what is the benefit of the 5.56 over the 7.62 (besides the obvious answer that it's lighter to carry more of)?
Cam, here's a 1986 paper that lays out some of the arguments for and against the two calibres we're discussing. It was written just subsequent to NATO moving to adopt the 5.56mm round as a new standard (along with the 7.62), and argues against the move.
Here are a couple of paragraphs that give your answer:
The 5.56 x 45mm cartridge and the M16 rifle was originally developed and unilaterally adopted by the United States in 1963 for initial employment in Southeast Asia. A resurgence of U. S. interest in intermediate power rifle cartridges developed soon after the 7.62 x 51mm NATO was adopted in 1953. A series of tests, commissioned by the U. S. Army and conducted by the Operations Research Organization (ORO), concluded that the rifle was seldom used effectively by U. S. troops at ranges in excess of 300 meters (330 yds). This conclusion was based on studies of actual battles involving U. S. soldiers. According to the ORO studies, the inability of U. S. soldiers to effectively engage targets beyond 300 meters was due to their inability, under battle conditions, to see and identify targets beyond that range.9 The ORO studies, however, failed to consider whether the enemy targets were behind heavy brush, or barriers such as sandbags, dirt berms, and coconut logs when fired on by U. S. soldiers. The study assumed that there was nothing between the firer and the target to impede the flight of the rifle projectile.
...
The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartidge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm
ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter, and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. This concept of more for less appears very convincing, however upon careful analysis, this idea loses its credibility.
bb thanks.. I will digest this...
Ok, so wtf was the rational behind the switch then?
The whole thing sounds like one of those cooked up competitions where basically everything is done to support a decision that's already been made..
One question remains in my mind, wouldn't the 5.56 make more sense in house to house/room to room where your background might be civilians? Or does it's penetration basically rule it out there as well
Post a Comment
<< Home