Kit-up has an excellent article on SOCOM dropping the MK16 and procuring only MK17's instead. This part of the article is what caught my eye...
“The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. “Currently, three of USSOCOM’s four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item.”Kit-up specializes in gear--hence the focus on the procurement part of the story, what caught my eye in that article is the performance factor of piston driven weapons...and the misplaced idea that they're more reliable than their gas impingement cousins.
SOCOM just put a controversy to rest (I don't think that was the intention but that's the result of the statement)...Gas Impingement is as reliable as Pistons...or to be more precise, they don't provide a performance advantage big enough to justify the additional cost.
Civilian shooters, survivalist and Police/Security agencies take notice.
From kit-up: "...to hand back their Mk-16s when they’re back from deployment and pick up their old SOPMOD M-4s or HK-416s."
ReplyDeleteThe HK system uses a short-stroke piston driving an operating rod to force the bolt carrier to the rear - so in a sense SOCOM still uses (chooses?) a piston (yes, in combination with standard 'gas' M-4s, but still).
I've had personal (range) experience with 'piston' G36s and HK416s, and I have to admit that I'm a believer. The cooler and cleaner bolt really is an advantage.
On a side note, if the USMC still chooses the HK416 as IAR (M27?) then they too choose a piston rifle.
you're being selective.
ReplyDeleteunits use SOPMOD M4's as their primary weapon. to say that everyone is using HK-416's is not true. the buy of HK-416's was limited.
additionally to say that the IAR is the HK-416 is also not quite true. its being used in a totally different role...its not replacing one M16A4 or M4 in Marine Corps service.
its also a limited buy for a limited role.
i stand by my statement. pistons were a marketing scheme to sell more rifles. we used pistons for a long time...the issue of reliablility had more to do with the barrel length than the operating system.
I guess it's not so much a question of gas vs piston, but one of MK16 vs M-4 Sopmod. The M4 is cheaper and already in the logistics chain, and buying the MK16 in relatively low numbers just isn't worth the extra money.
ReplyDeleteThe SCAR chassis itself is apparently good, as the 7.62mm MK17 variant will continue service as opposed to the SR-25/M-110 which would make more sense as it is being fielded by regular troops and is more akin the familiar M16.
edit: meant to say that new Mk17s will continue to be bought and not the more familiar SR-25/M-110.
ReplyDeletei have to disagree again.
ReplyDeleteit would make for easier training to have one platform that was inter-changable than it is to have two different weapons...and yes that even applies to special ops people.
additionally SOCOM can buy whatever it wants. if it wanted more MK-16's then they'd get more of them.
I have to say its high time someone stood up and pointed out the big if in this debate, that whatever the virtues of the new tech there just isnt enough funding. Instead of wasting time trying to upgrade their clearly outclassed 5.56 systems they should start paying closer attention to long term replacement with high caliber weapons. IMHO a case-telescopic / caseless 7mm or .280 round combined with the newly emerging quad-stack magazines should be a perfect replacement as a NATO standard. Lets face it something on this scale isnt going to happen for at least a decade if not more. Thats a huge window of opportunity to test and mature new technology at a restrained and cost conscious pace. All that being said my lack of faith in the Pentagon's planning Czars points to nothing being done. But a man can dream right? Maybe in the next big war we will see Marines riding into battle with CT weapons, synthetic-composite armor suits and network integrated comms.....whenever that may be
ReplyDeleteDoesn't provide enough of a performance advantage to justify spending with my limited budget either!
ReplyDeleteThe time it would be valuable is in a service where shooters do not propertly maintain their small arms (Air Force maybe?). No carbon build-up in the gas tube since it doesn't have one. Less chance of bolt lock-up.
I don't think SOCOM has that problem!
I would rather see special ops spending on the M110 and getting that platform into service given the current mission(s). If those could trickle down to the fleet and infantry units that would be a good thing too. As a taxpayer this is the kind of spending I fully suport!
I've never understood this SCAR (L) tangent when the M4/16 platform provides nearly identical performance.
i'd be good with that Resident Author but I think a more practical solution would be to adopt the Grendel round ...adapt the existing stock to fire it and then to be done with this debate.
ReplyDeleteOr we could follow your lead and just buy M110's fleet wide.
either way, problem solved and debate over...but these revamped 5.56 platforms are a waste of money....i'm glad to see that SOCOM might be getting the save money message too.
I don't follow your logic of saying the debate is over.
ReplyDeleteI'm not voting one way or the other in the DI vs Piston discussion (I own both) but I will say that just b/c some guys in Tampa decide their money can be better spent on 7.62 piston rifles instead of 5.56 pistons that are tested at something like less than 20% better reliability than an M4, I don't know how you come up with the idea that the discussion is over? You've got data about apples and data about oranges and b/c a guy in Florida decides he wants walnuts you're saying that oranges are no longer good. I don't follow.
SOCOM works closely with the US Marine Corps' Combat Development Command and the Schools of Infantry.
ReplyDeleteSOCOM works closely with the US Army's Development Center and their Schools of Infantry.
SOCOM has just stated that pistons don't give any appreciable improvement in reliablility....in the same platform (AR type) the piston just isn't worth the added cost.
Its an apples to apples comparison.
Alot of people got on the piston bandwagon when many were saying that it just didn't make sense. SOCOM just proved it.
I don't understand the confusion.
sooo, if they don't think pistons are the way to go, why are they taking money away from the MK16 and spending it on the MK17...another piston rifle?
ReplyDeleteWell, looks like the facts are a little different than I had orginally read, so I offer apologies to all. Looks like SOCOM is only buying the remaining MK17's that were orginally contracted, no "new" ones are being added to the contract. http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/socom-developing-caliber-conversion-for-scar.html
ReplyDelete