Here is an AR after 15,000 rounds of Wolf without cleaning, just a shot of lube every 1000 rounds.
that's bad ass! reminds me of the legend of ol dirty over at the falfiles.
that's bad ass! reminds me of the legend of ol dirty over at the falfiles.
The Marines bought their new M27 IAR from HK. http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2012/05/16/m27-iar/
that Trijicon is nice. costs almost twice what my Noveske rifle did, lol.
I heard today Lee Matthews talking about an "ARK" rifle today; apparently an AK that uses AR stocks/trigger group, etc...
Shooter,
I think we are closer in opinion than it would appear. However, the failures of the M4 in the battles at Shah-i-kot, and more importantly, at Wanat, were not due to problems inherent with the DI system. They were failures to adhere to the firing schedule. Not that they had a choice under the circumstances.
Like I said before, the HK416 and M4 share the same max sustained rate of fire. The failure point is the barrel, not the gas system. Even the M27 only increases the Max Sustained ROF to 36 rounds per minute, which is about 1/3rd that of the weapon it is replacing; the M249 SAW. A decision I personally think is a mistake, but who am I?
Now, do we have a relatively close comparison of how the regular length barreled piston, 5.56 weapons have done? Kind of, check out some stories on the feedback for the HK G36 in theater. Once again, the barrel is the stumbling block.
As to the SCAR FOW...
It is my first choice for a sub 11.5 gun that will be suppressed. In that role it shines. If I were to use a rifle that had a longer barrel; in 5.56, I would have no problem with a quality DI system. It has everything to do with dwell and unlock time. I believe the 416's used by the Unit are 10.4 in barrels as well.
Yes, SOCOM uses the SCAR system. That program just received a 5 year extension. In the Mk17 configuration with conversion kits for 5.56. There are some Mk16's in inventory, but only at one location that I am aware of and all of them are CQC models. Currently there is one company working with SOCOM to field conversion kits in other calibers as well, including 7.62x39.
In short, I think the piston 5.56 platform has it's place, under certain circumstances,( I love me some SIG 552...) but outside of those the differences in reliability are minimal and come at the expense of other potential failure modes.
EDIT: to add underlined info.
I think we are closer in opinion than it would appear. However, the failures of the M4 in the battles at Shah-i-kot, and more importantly, at Wanat, were not due to problems inherent with the DI system. They were failures to adhere to the firing schedule. Not that they had a choice under the circumstances.
Like I said before, the HK416 and M4 share the same max sustained rate of fire. The failure point is the barrel, not the gas system. Even the M27 only increases the Max Sustained ROF to 36 rounds per minute, which is about 1/3rd that of the weapon it is replacing; the M249 SAW. A decision I personally think is a mistake, but who am I?
Now, do we have a relatively close comparison of how the regular length barreled piston, 5.56 weapons have done? Kind of, check out some stories on the feedback for the HK G36 in theater. Once again, the barrel is the stumbling block.
As to the SCAR FOW...
It is my first choice for a sub 11.5 gun that will be suppressed. In that role it shines. If I were to use a rifle that had a longer barrel; in 5.56, I would have no problem with a quality DI system. It has everything to do with dwell and unlock time. I believe the 416's used by the Unit are 10.4 in barrels as well.
Yes, SOCOM uses the SCAR system. That program just received a 5 year extension. In the Mk17 configuration with conversion kits for 5.56. There are some Mk16's in inventory, but only at one location that I am aware of and all of them are CQC models. Currently there is one company working with SOCOM to field conversion kits in other calibers as well, including 7.62x39.
In short, I think the piston 5.56 platform has it's place, under certain circumstances,( I love me some SIG 552...) but outside of those the differences in reliability are minimal and come at the expense of other potential failure modes.
EDIT: to add underlined info.
Last edited:
Gov't probably gets them in bulk for much, much more...
I need that bayonet lug. where to buy?
[/QUOTE]
I doubt HK would sell it to you. As you can see in the pic below, the bayonet mount is an added on part and is not part of the gas block.
SOCOM ditched the SCAR Light replacement for the M4 because it offered no measurable improvement over the M4 after operational testing. They kept the heavy but in a special augmenting role.
Comparing the AK's long piston design to AR variants that utilize a short piston is not an apples to apples comparison. The AK designer himself ditched a short piston design.
Most reports and hay making over M4's failing in combat have been overstated or misrepresented.
There is no big push from operational users in the U.S. military to ditch DI.
I'm not saying piston sucks, just that its not better enough in any measurable way to abandon a battle tested design.
AKs are cheaper and the ammo is widely available. Plus the reliability is unbeatable. Ak74 is a great choice. Got mine for only 500. That's just my preference though
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 550$
- Caliber: .40
