…and leaves a LOT unsaid.
Well, we knew something like this would happen, we just didn’t know how.
On Monday, SCAR maker FNH-USA shouted from the rooftops in a vaguely-worded press release that SOCOM had approved full rate production of the SCAR “family of weapons.” The company said it was “ramping up production” to meet the “delivery orders placed by SOCOM.”
We sent a note to FNH-USA spokeswoman Elaine Golladay asking for clarification on what “ramped up” means and SOCOM’s “delivery orders” and got no response.
Kit Up! played it straight on our initial reporting of this announcement, but it looks as if the folks at FNH-USA tried to pull a fast one on us and tarnish Military.com’s reporting and Kit Up! as well. A company rep forwarded the press release to two popular forums, figuring (correctly) the SCAR fans on the board would read the announcement and assume the Mk-16 is being purchased by SOCOM.
I’m being called a “doofus” and that I “no [sic] more about such things than all others” and that I “jumped the gun” and “made assumptions” in order to “set a negative tone.”
I ask these keen analysts to prove that SOCOM is purchasing the Mk-16 in the numbers it had originally asked (about 38,000) or that the command is actually going to keep the 850 SCAR-Ls out in the field. Where in this latest FNH-USA release does it say that SOCOM is indeed going to purchase the Mk-16? You won’t be able to find it because it’s not there and you won’t be able to find any evidence that SOCOM is going to purchase the 38,000 Mk-16s it had originally said it would — because it’s not.
The FNH-USA press release proves nothing, zip, nada and it certainly does not belie (that means render untrue) our reporting that SOCOM shitcanned the Mk-16.
It’s a bummer that some are attacking my credibility and character on this story, but I’m not surprised. People basically will believe what they want to believe and if they hear anything to the contrary, they’ll just reflexively shoot the messenger.
Anyone who knows anything about this program (including the FNH-USA rep who chummed the waters with this made-up ‘news’) knew all along the worst kept secret was that SOCOM was going to ditch the Mk-16 for various reasons — just no one had reported it on the record. Until we did. So for SCAR watchers, this isn’t a surprise. People can pick at the margins of the language used in the Military.com story and quibble with the wording and I accept that.
But the bottom line has — again — not changed. SOCOM is not buying the Mk-16 and the FNH-USA press release of Monday August 16 changes nothing.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I am more confused now than before. Did FNH lie about it to the press or are they ramping up production on the heavier SCAR? Is anyone giving details?
I never trust a company on areas like this and rely right from the military because they want to sell there guns and a military rejection would hurt sales. But no I didn't think FNH would be honest on this there acting like 2 year olds in the toy section of the super market throwing a temper tantrum. Get over it they didn't want your 5.56 pop gun.
Hay they still want 7.62 versions.
5.56 is a worthless round anyway. Our faces will be sooo red when we actually fight an enemy that uses body armor…
Help me understand this problem? M855 was adopted to defeat body armor in the Cold War turned hot that never came. (the same can be said of 9mm that has better ability to penetrate body armor than .45 cal). Instead of fighting advanced Soviet troops with body armor and fielding AK-74's using 5.45, we are fighting soft targets where an AP round isn't quite as useful.
It's the use of M855 in M4's that's the problem isn't it? The M4's shorter barrel really lowers the effective range of 5.56 to breakup and, for the most part, will sometimes just poke .22 sized holes in and out.
Don't believe M855 can defeat soft body armor? Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6gHCNMSbqQ&fe… It's M855 vs. a 1/4 inch piece of welding plate.
Here's another article with an interview of a federal agent in A-stan who successfully dropped six insurgents fleeing a house being raided by US Troops. He is not using M855, he is using 55 grain Federal JHP rounds fired from his semi-auto Colt M4/6920.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_17…
Of course, the problem we have now is that the Army issues 14.5-inch M4's that are fantastic for urban fighting in A-stan where it is no longer an urban battle.
You use the right tool for the right job. Do you really want to be clearing a house in Basra with an M14 or an M4.
The Army needs to reconsider the range-limited M4 in favor of 20-inch M16A4's like the Marines.
And yes, FN's release is FUD. Something is up.
Well, I think this is just proof that we are clearly not in possession of all the facts! Namely, we dont know for sure why SOCOM is ditching the 5.56 version, we don't know for sure that they are, we don't know for sure why SOCOM is not clearing this up on their end, and we don't know for sure why FNH is sustaining with evidence (the info pertaining to the full production authorization can be verified, is verifiable data!) that the 5.56 system is still a go…
There is a lot we actually don't know…we don't even know what's behind the weird leaks from SOCOM!
There is a lot of emotional baggage in this whole affair, with SCAR detractors and SCAR apologists getting it on, and still the truth remains elusive!
From my end, I am still awaiting SOCOM's official press release about this whole affair (they should have done it by now, given the proportions this controversy has reached!)…
Until then, all we have is speculation… And speculation is not truth…
I am a SNCO (E8) and Grad of the Joint Special Operations Armorers Course, the SCAR is going to be a cluster. Changing out the barrel is a pain in the fourth point of contact, if the screws arent put in right, in a prediscribed order with torq then you can distroy the weapon.
The armorers kit that comes with the weapons, is compilcated for the average joe to understand.
Not to mention that the guys issued them, SEALs in this case, choose to leave them at their FOB rather then trust them out side the wire after having issues with them.
It is a great idea just too complicated.
Rememebr when the US military used good old American weapons? Funny how many M-14's are dusted off, put in a Sage EBR ,and sending the haji's to allah.
How many more does the Navy have? The M-14 is now "soldier friendly", yes, it kicks, but it has range. I was told the Navy had/has PLENTY in storage. Is this true?
At this point I don't know what to think. I'll just wait to this gets sorted out in a couple of months.
i can tell you as a matter of fact that marsoc is fielding and using the scar heavy mk17 and mk13 eglm right now in afghanistan. right now!!!! and we are not leaving them home. it holds a moa at 100m, and you can effectively engage targets with the 13.5 inch barrel at 800 yards with a 7.62 elcan 4x optic. the barrel is not hard to change. find a barrel you like, bolt it on and leave it. that is it. if you mess it up, then maybe you arent smart enough to be in the position of using one. also, someone on here was saying to get rid of the 14.5 inch barrel and go back to a 20 inch. are you f'n crazy??? i qualed with an m-4 expert. not a big deal, but it says that the m-4 can hold a body sized group at 500 meters. if you look or know, you will see ussof using either 14.5 inch or even a "10" inch barrel. daniel defense. using those with suppressors to keep the noise down but the overall length of the gun is comparible to a standard m-4. TRUST ME!! oh yea, many sof units have the mk-16 kit to retrofit the mk-17 in order to use them in shoot houses. as many are not built to use 7.62mm in them.
I was A gunners mate for years and fell in love with .308 caliber .45acp and 12gauge. I am of the opinion, if it aint broke dont fix it! large caliber has better range, better acuracy and better hitting power, If you dont like the recoil, the military has many admin and support positions available!.