They are sorted alphabetically with no regard to the attachment point utilized. Main Page All Pages. DP M MG3. Deagle P P92 R45 More. Gloves Shirts Jackets. Helmets Backpacks Vests. Food Consumables Clothing skin crates Weapon skin crates Weapon charms. Explore Wikis Community Central. Register Don't have an account? View source. History Talk 1. Update 49 Season 10 - Update It is also commonly used by law enforcement and military organizations worldwide.
The AK 47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7. It is one of the most reliable weapons ever made and makes for a great choice when having to swim a weapon over the beach. Even after six decades the model and its variants remain the most popular and widely used assault rifles in the world because of their substantial reliability even under harsh conditions, low production costs compared to contemporary Western weapons, availability in virtually every geographic region and ease of use.
The M82 is a recoil-operated , semi-automatic anti-materiel rifle developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company.
It is also called the "Light Fifty" for its. The M82A2 is no longer manufactured, though the XM can be seen as its successor. Armed Forces. The weapon was introduced in after being judged the most effective of a number of candidate weapons to address the lack of automatic firepower in small units.
The M provides infantry squads with the heavy volume of fire of a machine gun combined with accuracy and portability approaching that of a rifle. Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and discounts for active duty, first responders and veterans…. Master of Military Content Since Menu 0. Sign in. Get Briefed! Disclaimer: This list is NOT all inclusive.
Many times when you try to make a gun do to many things it ends up not excelling in any one area. Don't make me bring up the Mk program. I do feel bad for FN and for our troops and all of us taxpayers.. I have seen this coming as many have but like a trainwreck I'm affraid there was no way to stop it. I think the IAR is traveling down the same track. It is the 'ol design by committee organizational groupthink.
The gave everybody everything they wanted, and in the end nobody was happy. Every time the Good Idea Fairie fluttered by, the design team had to change something. Check out the movie "The Pentagon Wars" for a not too inaccurate vision how this process works. Stop the design team madness! III, not to derail this thread, but I believe you should mention the Mk 23 program.
How much taxpayer money was wasted on that? What was the cost per pistol? How much taxpayer money is being wasted on programs like the F after the F seems to be a proven platform and USAF tankers?
I think this will hurt domestic sales of the SCAR 16s, unfortunately. Currently from what I understand the rifle is made in Belgium and then shipped to the US, where the necessary r modifications are made to the rifle which is one of the big drivers of the higher cost.
So there goes the potential for lower cost ie piggyback on. That means alot more cost, it just flat costs more to produce stuff in Europe and forget about FN Herstal barrels, verboten for civilian sales, so even if they are legal to own, no one will be importing them because you can't sell them.
If it isn't cool anymore and no one is buying it, there won't be demand to support a good aftermarket. Nothing is canceled, and full rate production is still on track. It may not being the numbers that were initially quoted BUT it will be built. During the field test and operational tests which I was directly involved with on range and down range the feeling that 7.
Needless to say, almost all components spent their entire budget on getting guns and one component decided not to. Much of that has to do with were money comes from. Put it this way, if you could go to mommy and get all of your toys for free, and if you had to go to daddy to get them you would have to pay for all of them, who would you ask for the toys? Not based on true feedback or even pure data, or a combination of both!
Now fast forward about 2. There was approximately 2, weapons fielded, not all of them were deployed. A lot of people who knew a guy, who knew a guy who shot the gun and they read on the internet that it was a piece of shit. One other thing, when SCAR L and SCAR H was deployed, especially in Afghanistan, the Taliban learned the hard way that the average engagement distance increased and the standoff for weapons such as the M4 was not holding true anymore With that said, there are surveys that had to be given out at money point of their training and operational cycles since this is a very high profile program.
They are given, pre, during and post training; and given out pre, during and post deployment. This is a very STRONG disconnect between what most of the trigger pulling operators are saying and what makes it to the decision makers. There is a bold and obvious movement against the SCAR program at many levels inside key positions all the way up the chain of command.
Back to the technical side of it, one of the reasons they could be stepping away for the MK16 is the common receiver. The common receiver, if on schedule, should be ready late year or early next. Why continue making the 5. Every reporter wants the edge to break a story, to have it hit first. This is a bit pre-mature. It was never put through the same parameters as the SCAR. Over 3 millions rounds. Frankly, watching the news is depressing. Regardless of how improved SCAR-L might be over the M4, it may just be coming along at a point in history where there won't be the budgetary support for it.
Not unless congress gets involved. I wouldn't count congress out. Why would they allow another comepition for a carbine, when millions were already spent on one? So what does this mean for the civilian side as far as the 16s is concerned? Now, if a SCAR advocate who sits on the appropriations panel were to emerge Thanks for chiming in on this. Thanks for weighing in on this.
It is good to hear your perspective. Up to this point no one would do it even though the story was all over the place. Several sources still would not go on record to discuss particular aspects of the program. This program is one huge poop sandwich and eventually someone is going to have to take a bite. Someone is going to want an explanation. I am by no means blaming FNH. They did what they were asked. Ultimately, they are going to sell some guns but probably not in the numbers they had anticipated nor the model they expected.
SCAR has not been canceled. SCAR is a budget line item, a program of record and money to pay for all aspects of the program can be used however the command sees fit. Instead, they are going to field a weapon Mk17 that did not compete against other 7. In the short term that is the story. Down the road? Someone is going to start to ask why they have to pay for new M4s. At some point, there will be an accounting for this program.
Just remember, the folks who were advocating for the SCAR are the same folks who were behind the Mk If there are no names involved and FNH is still going to get a full rate production contract, I would have to say that "source" is not valid until then let me say it again, I'm not saying its false or someone is a liar, I'm saying that until the PEO of SOF Weapons says no, its not Official. We all know how that works.
I would have to disagree with your last statement as well, the people that advocated for the MK23 were many years before SCAR was even thought of. It was not "just handed over to Crane". As I stated in my last post, even if the MK16 is not bought, it is a far way away from not having the 5.
There are still 2 weapon systems to come out of this, the MK17 and the MK The MK17 will have the 5. The blame for the success and failures of this program are at many levels Wait for the book!
Sorry, but that was an aweful movie, dumbed-down for the masses. Can you imagine if the nay-sayers like in that movie killed the Bradley, and we went through the last three conflicts with mech infantry mounted in Ms You'll get hosed most likely.
I have my doubts. The movie simply focused on Bradley boondoggle. And yes, it was not a very good movie but it illustrates the point. The original M2 was suppose to be a 'grunt bus' just like the M Imagine a Bradley without the turret. The fiasco began with wanting to up gun from a. So, it needed a turret, then the turret needed to be stabilized, then it need thermal sights, then a TOW system - no, make that two TOWs for a follow up shot!
Of course, the added weight of the turret meant it had to have an improved power plant in order to keep up with the M1 Abrams. Now that we have a larger powerplant we can add more armor. Oh wait, now it can't keep up with the M1 again.
Never mind. They also had to redesign the hull for the M firing port weapon so the grunts could engage Soviet infantry from inside the vehicle while operating in MOPP4. Dear God The SCAR suffered from the same sort of development process. For future reference, nothing should EVER be designed this way. Buy COTS, field it, improve it as required along the way. By the way, the M and it's variants are still soldiering on all over the world and it is still a very solid platform.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Go COTS or go home. A Bradly without a turret, TOW or a 25mm main gun? Do you think that would have performed as well as the Bradly as it was deployed in Gulf Wars 1 or 2?
We had Bradleys taking out Tanks and armored fighting vehicles as well as reinforced hardpoints. Could the Bradly being endorsed by the book have accomplished this? Pentagon Wars related the convoluted history of the Bradley development. The resulting M2 that we know today is a far cry from the original requirement, which was essentially a troop carrier a modernized M capable of carrying an entire infantry squad while maintaining formation with the faster M1. However, the design by committee and constantly revising requirements meant that the Bradley took much longer to field, at much higher costs.
Meanwhile, the resulting system was incapable of meeting the original requirement - the added armament and power plant meant the M2 could only carry six dismounts - half the original specification. The M2 design history is something of a cautionary tale in military procurement. A critique of the M2's troubled development is not a reflection of its performance in combat operations. It certainly would have saved everyone a lot of time and money. At the same time, the "SCAR specification" did inject a lot of life into small arms development.
The IAR is a perfect example. When have you seen any of those submissions on any shelfs I'm using that very loosely I know you would not find them at your local mom and pop range , anywhere? Usually that is a very loose term, and the "COTS" part of it, is simply a marketing ploy. Then making it a development item. With SCAR many, if not all submissions could have been called "COTS" even though they added new typed of technology or enhancements that were only tested in controlled environments with limited Operational Test environments.
Looking back at SCAR, the configuration lock should have taken place years ago, and by now SOCOM could have seen a MOD 1 with all of the cosmetic shit worked out and prb even a non-reciprocating charging handle version.
In this case, they tried pleasing all the people all the time and that caused delay after delay. Take this example: With SCAR you get a TangoDown rail kit of 7 pieces I believe I'm sure there is a photo somewhere online , well one operator said he did like the 2 inch panels to move his forward pistol grip back far enough, he wanted to see a1 inch panel.
Now, Im not a plastic guy, but that sounds pretty friggin expensive! So now you have all this time money and labor involved in trying to satisfy ONE operator out of the thousands who would receive it and keep in mind this was the only time this came up until this point and as far as I know, even until now!
And, once again In addition to the information SOCOM provided the author ALSO spoke with several folks who seem to value their careers over having their name associated with telling it like it is. Christian Lowe isn't going to make stuff up. He doesn't have to. This is just the first instance that they have admitted it to the public.
Another issue I have run across is that the components and the staff at MacDill will have an entirely different opinion of a program than folks in the program office. The program office can hope, and wish, and pray all day that their program will be fully funded.
But the ADs make or break a program and that is based on a balance of dollars available and requirements. I agree with everything you are saying. I hear that so so much! Needless to say, the Article is entirey correct. I changed my wording, I thought it was harsh and I'm dont want turn this into an online arguement, I hope I didnt come across as a dick..
Needless to say, the Article is incorrect. Lots of people will be waiting to read this. And the saga continues Please understand that there are many moving parts to this program I will share that we are not surprised or even shocked of recent developments. As you all know, there are many rumors abound.
This is the nature of our society and especially our industry. The only thing we can truly believe as fact is what happened yesterday, not what was said or written in an article.
When the rest of the information is divulged, I believe most of you will understand our position. Best regards, Gabe. Many items are SOF unique, and are not funded by mother Army, which leads to decisions that must be made on what is purchased on a priority list. This leads to another fact, 2 the M4 and MK 16 both use the same round 5.
The MK17 offers an increased capability, as well as it will be the platform which the multi caliber is based on. Also, as I understand it, the Full Rate production is going to be signed off soon, I think they are working on finals numbers and whatnot. The SOF community whether contractors or operators is filled with a lot of type A personalities and many different opinions, just because certain individuals express their opinion, does not mean they speak for the masses, but like tradition shows us, the naysayers and complainers are ALWAYS the ones heard the loudest and then get deemed the voice of the people, which most cases, is not the fact.
SOF took exception to this position. For parts life and sustainment, look at the gas system alone, the MK16 offer setting to keep the rate of fire the same suppressed and unsuppressed, and every barrel is hand tuned to a certain rate of fire.
This rate increases to as high as 1, rpm as the weapon becomes worn. And finally, over the beach OTB , MK16 can and does pass all OTB requirements, do the same test to the M4 or even the , the receivers will have a catastrophic failure and in some cases could cause severe injury to an operator. So taking that the above paragraph, think about this. They are buying and fielding MK17 because it fills a capability gap and it cost a little bit more than the MK The MK16 fills all the requirements and was unanimously chosen out of the competition.
If it is strictly a monetary decision, then the MK16 cost is much much less over the sustainment of the life of the rifle. Also, given its increased accuracy, durability, ease of maintenance and modularity there is no reason for this decision saying it offers no advantages.
The data speaks for itself, I have seen, read and been a part of it all, the MK16 does have many advantages over the M4.
0コメント