Our story on the official cacellation of the Mk-16 variant of the Socom Combat Assault Rifle rippled across the internet this past weekend and we’re still peeling the onion on this as we get more information about the program and where it stands.
But one thing I’ve been keeping an eye on is the impression of troopers in the war zone who use both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 (as well as the Mk-13 EGLM). On a BTDT board, one trooper who appears to be an Army SOF operator said his Mk-16 is fine, but the Mk-17 and its 7.62×51 ammo is confidence inspiring…
I will say that hands down, having 7.62 rounds (LR) flying out towards the enemy at significant range (600-800m) has been a big advantage. Most of our engagements have been at range.
The writer says that his team has 6 Mk-16s and 6 Mk-17s and that some of the crusty Green Berets refuse to carry the new toy. He said that on one occasion his team “went black” on ammo during an engagement (he’s in Afghanistan).
The SCAR-H works well with the GripPod forward pistol grip with internal bipod and the LCAN (what’s that?)…
I like the capability this weapon system brings to the team. With our SR25s, 240, SCAR-Hs, M-24s, and the sketchy M110s (no more sketchy then the SCAR I suppose), we have a team wide 7.62 capability which is pretty relevant for this AO.
The one interesting thing the writer says is that he was frustrated by the capacity of the SCAR-H magazine at 20 rounds. Now, our friends at Soldier Systems report that Socom is pushing a 25-round magazine for the Mk-17, but we haven’t been able to confirm it…though we agree that more is better.
At the end of the day, as most of us suspected, the Mk-17 with its 7.62 round is wildly popular and we’ll keep a close eye on which direction Socom goes with its buy.
I’ve also heard rumor the we (USASFC) will not receive more SCARs or parts, but this team has definitely enjoyed the 7.62 capability on this trip, regardless of platform. Who ever has the power, we’ve got to get the teams this 7.62 capability (besides belt feds and sniper systems) for this theater.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Elcan. The scope in the picture. I'm not a big fan of variable scopes, but the flip zoom feature is worth having. Being able to rapidly go back and forth between two set levels of magnification is a genuine advance in optics.
Elcan Spectre DR as mentioned. From what I've heard the early versions had some problems retaining the zero when flipped between magnifications but I believe that's since been fixed. Only talked to one operator about it that's used it, AF JTAC, he said it was alright, but most guys he knows of usually have an EOTECH or M68 on the SBR upper receiver and then an ACOG on the regular receiver. That way there's no issues losing the zero, and the optic matches the barrel length.
Man, I would love to see the LMT 308, HK 417 or some AR variant with the 7.62 round be the favorite. That makes more sense logistically, and in this war, logistics and cost will be a big factor in the decision making process.
Or if we really wanted to save money, go with one of the various weapons that currently shoot the 7.62 on the market. The FAL, G-3, etc. There are plenty of combat proven platforms to go with, but to me, the most ideal for the American military would be the AR style platform. It is familiar, it is ergonomic, and with a bigger round, that thing could help the guys to really reach out and touch some one–when they need to.
I would also like to see 7.62 deer hunting rounds being issued, or something similar. We want ammunition that will not only reach out and touch someone, but stuff that will tear apart the enemy when it hits them. Deer hunting ammo is great for that, as are tons of other similar tactical rounds. I will let the ballistics or law of land warfare legal experts hash that one out.
The point is, give the troops ammo that will actually do some damage at distance and give them a weapons platform they can depend upon when they most need it to work.
I would hope they'd go for HK417 instead of the G3 at least. That was my weapon when I was in the army, and it's one heavy cannon. Gotta love the 7.62 recoil tho :)
What did you do to get a 417??
No, I had the G3… I guess I could have worded myself better :P
I've been saying the same exact thing about the 417. As for the ammo, if I remember correctly, hollow point or similar flesh tearing rounds were deemed unlawful by the Geneva Conventions. The Army is fielding a new round though, M855A1 (5.56 mm) I believe. Supposed to be more accurate at range, don't know about lethality though.
Its the Hague Convention and expanding ammo, ie soft point etc, is a deffient No-No. You would have people bein tried as war criminals right and left.
That's what it was, thanks.
I think the Hague Convention only applies to a " uniformed enemy" . We shot Germans found in civilian clothes that conducted sabotage and shot them. Why are we not doing the same with these Afgans?
im surprised that the SF guys still use woodland over multicam, but hey whatever works…
Probably because then they will look like the ANA and wont get targeted by snipers, etc
Commenting as a guest.
Part of what Wake27 stated; "
hollow point or similar flesh tearing rounds were deemed unlawful by the Geneva Conventions.. . . . . "
Those type of rounds always perplexed me – meaning – war was never meant to be gentle. When you have one or more people shooting at you, they are doing so for one reason, that being to wound or kill you. The latter would seem to prevail. When I was pounding the ground in Nam and rounds started flying back and forth, I didn't care what I did to the enemy. If the politicians would have given me a "flesh tearing round" and I could put a guy down with it then better him than me. Of course that does apply both ways. I'd rather have a round go "through" me than rip me in pieces so I suppose it would come down to who was the best shot. These kind of politicial rules are almost as bad as waiting for permission to return fire, which after my first couple of firefights I simply ignored!
Good plan getting the SCAR-H instead of M14s. M14s are a PITA and take a lot of work to be accurate and seeing from the quote looks like the SCAR-H doesn't have that problem.
As an old OrdC officer, I always got a laugh out of the fact that the .50BMG cartridge is perfectly legal, whereas a .30-06, or 7.62mm, or 5.56mm with a hollow point is not. Which type would you rather take in the torso?