Bushmaster ACR = Failure?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaws,

I own several AR's and even a Colt M16A2. I've been a life long fan of the AR/M16 platform and have served with it in the USMC as an 0311.

I love the rifle.

But I also now own a SCAR. While I haven't used the SCAR for 20+ years like I have the AR, it has impressed me significantly. It is, IMHO, a superior rifle in a number of areas. Ergonomically, it's superior... which is hard for even me to believe. But it is.

I can't speak to the long term reliability yet as I've not owned the SCAR long enough to properly test it and say with certainty that I know it's more reliable than the AR/M16.

As for SOCOM dumping it, even the cited article spells that decision out pretty clearly.

COST.

They have chosen to spend their money elsewhere given their limited budget. If the SCAR was vastly superior to the M4, they could justify the cost. But alas, I don't believe any 5.56mm rifle is vastly superior to the M4. The cost of maintaining the SCAR-L is simply too much for SOCOM to bare. It's totally understandable. I just wish they would have come to this conclusion before wasting millions of tax payers dollars opening trials, testing, buying, deploying, THEN deciding they can't afford it.

Typical government non-sense.
 
True.
Is one thing to say it is not "vastly" superior to M4 to justify the change and another thing to say "it does nothing M4 doesn't". This my only observation. :)

And i agree. SOCOM is to blame here. They pulled this companies trough all this mess and in the end said: "Hoops. We changed our mind. Hahaha." :barf:
Why waste all this money on this BS if you are not serious about it? First they say "M4 can't fulfil our requirenments anymore and we need a new rifle, then many years and millions later, when the new rifle is ready and tuned up into exactly what hey wanted, they go saying "well we changed our mind."
I guess it's ok. Is not their money they F*ck around with. Is just tax payer money and whaterver FN invested in this platform.:rolleyes:
Looks like the curent army "carabine competition" is setup the same way. To make sure nothing new survives out of it. :barf:
 
Last edited:
It is also worth keeping in mind that reportedly the Mk17 (SCAR-H) is only about 0.5lb heavier than the Mk16 (SCAR-L); but it can shoot 5.56mm and use AR mags with a conversion kit.

If you are buying a modular rifle and have a choice between the Mk16 and the Mk17, it seems like the Mk17 offers a lot more flexibility. I can't say whether that played into the SOCOM decision to lower the funding priority for the SCAR-L; but it would sure be a major factor in my own acquisitions process ;)
 
The price was just one area where they messed up with the ACR. The list goes on. Weight, no-chrome lined barrel, 1/9 twist, barrels are not AR15 barrels, etc...
 
I handled an ACR, a Scar 16, and a Scar 17. I would love to have the Scar 17, but I'd rather have an LMT .308 over all, and a Noveske or LWRC Midlength over the others.
I don't dig the polymer on rifles..
 
Don't blame me for repeating what SOCOM said. What it boils down to is that the SCAR-L has to come out of SOCOM's operating budget, and the M4 is free. The fact that both launch a 5.56 bullet from an M16 magazine equally well is missed by SCAR fanboys.

The SCAR doesn't substantially do anything better than the M4. It isn't more accurate, they use the same optics, and the 2 MOA military specification means it better be cheaper to make a more accurate barrel, or why bother with the expense? About all the SCAR has standard are ambi controls, even the Marines add those to the M16A4, SOCOM has no problem doing the same. That leaves the charging handle, and when you get right down to it, either will do. You only chamber the first round anyway, that's back in the wire. The bolt hold open does the rest for you. Stoppages don't happen that often, we're talking SOCOM here, their guns work right, period. So do the soldiers.

Kit out an M4 with piston and all the extra parts, you get a heavy 8 pound gun, too. The ACR cannot defy physical laws in that regard. And fielding a SCAR - H with adaptor won't help it, either.

Whatever the Improved Carbine process comes up with, SOCOM will still get free guns with the soldiers who are part of their command. Whatever that gun is will be the DOD standard, SOCOM doesn't get much advantage having something different and spending extra money on it. However the budget was first set up, cutting expenses NOW in THIS administration is something they may have no control over, regardless of how it may make things look.

Anybody who thought the Masada was going to be cheap and better than the AR drank their own flavor-aid. Magpul was not a whole gun maker, their estimates had nothing to do with putting together and monitoring a TDP and milspec inspection standard, setting up production for hundreds of thousands of guns, and getting them into government hands. They sold to Remington out of due regard to their own admitted lack of expertise in pulling it off. Blaming Remington for "inflating" the cost and weight is sheer ignorance of marketing and production reality. It's right there in print and in the gun. If there is a point to the ACR complaint, it's in trying to deflect what was really a gross case of naivete. They should have known better.

After that, it's been the typical dogpile of ignorance and lack of thought.
 
Tirod,

You obviously have an emotional attachment to the M4. I don't think anyone here is being a "fanboy" for the SCAR. It is a fine rifle, but one that isn't really worth the cost of switching over from the M4. If we had unlimited funds, perhaps... but we don't. While it's functionally not vastly superior to the M4 (SOCOM mentions no functional issues with the SCAR, only cost issues), it does away with the direct impingement gas system which means it's easier to clean and maintain, and likely runs longer between cleanings. It has improved ergonomics, but this is subjective. The M16 family was ahead of its time and to this day is still a standard by which other systems are measured. Plus, the M4 is a known quantity. We know where it excels and we know where it fails. The SCAR is totally new and much like the early teething pains of the M16, it would also have issues to be resolved... which costs even more money.

I love the M16/M4 and will always own them. The SCAR is interesting, but in 5.56mm it really isn't "all that" and certainly not worth the investment to switch everything over, IMHO. I just wish our government would have thought this through before wasting millions of dollars on this wild goose chase.

As for your final statement, I see no reason to be so insulting to the other members of the board. Perhaps you think you're the end-all in firearms knowledge, God only knows there's no shortage of such people posting on the internet. But let's not fling unnecessary insults just because someone makes unflattering comments about our pet rifle system.
 
The same SOCOM that said SCAR doesn't do much over M4 said this in 2001:

"In February 2001, USSOCOM published a study and analysis of alternatives focused on the M-4A1 carbine used by USSOCOM units. The study concludes that the M-4A1 design was fundamentally flawed—in part due to barrel and gas tube shortening—and that a variety of factors “led to alarming failures of the M-4A1 in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy
firing schedules common in SOF training and operations.”6 While USSOCOM concluded in 2001
that the M-4A1 carbine in its current configuration did not meet SOF requirements"
 
When it comes to money we forget the big picture.
Just because SOCOM don't have to pay from their own budget for the M4, it doesn't mean the taxpayes won't get the bill. The taxpayer still pays for the rifles wether it comes from SOCOM budget or army budget.
With the SCAR they at least had a chance to save on production costs, parts and maintenance.
In the end the taxpayer and FN got screwed after this nine years adventure. :(
 
Recently I picked up a Sig 556 patrol SWAT and I love it - was under 1200 NIB from Bud's. At this price it was worth it - at 1800 or so 6 mos ago, not as much even though I love it. The ACR, needs to be priced to compete with other piston AR platforms - sub 1500 and this rifle will sell, at 2600, there's no way.
 
"In February 2001, USSOCOM published a study and analysis of alternatives focused on the M-4A1 carbine used by USSOCOM units. The study concludes that the M-4A1 design was fundamentally flawed—in part due to barrel and gas tube shortening—and that a variety of factors “led to alarming failures of the M-4A1 in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy
firing schedules common in SOF training and operations.”6 While USSOCOM concluded in 2001
that the M-4A1 carbine in its current configuration did not meet SOF requirements"
Click to expand...
Funny, isn't it?

Even SOCOM is a bureaucracy that flip-flops in the wind. When they wanted a new toy, they claimed the current toy was flawed. Now that they can't afford their new toy and want to spend money elsewhere, they're saying "the new toy really isn't as good as we thought and the old toy isn't nearly as bad as we claimed".

Gotta love the government.
 
+1 -- they've managed to produce studies that said whatever they were trying to sell to Congress and other decision makers.

While it's functionally not vastly superior to the M4 (SOCOM mentions no functional issues with the SCAR, only cost issues), it does away with the direct impingement gas system which means it's easier to clean and maintain, and likely runs longer between cleanings.
Click to expand...

There was some significant grumbling among end users in different units that fall under the SOCOM umbrella that not only led to CAG going with the HK416 instead but also significantly delayed fielding (the last unit I was in was "about" to get them several times starting in 2005, if I remember right, and we were still waiting when I ETS'ed at the end of 2008). And the idea SCAR might fall through entirely was already floating around for some time -- I recall my Sergeant Major coming back from a conference at Bragg and saying that SCAR might be delayed or scrubbed with Big Army talking about a new long gun for the masses (not a whole lot different than Big Army's tanking of SOCOM's attempt to replace the M9).
 
The HK416, from the surface, seems to make more sense as it's so similar to the existing issued rifle(s). The SCAR is quite similar too, but the training and manual of arms for the 416 would be nearly identical to the M4.

But the HK416 isn't without its fleas.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/03/hk416-production-suspended/

There are rumors that the Norwegians have had issues with their rifles and even that the US military has had issues with them.

I know that short stroke piston systems have been the dream of many in the AR community for years. But it's been a bumpy road trying to adapt the AR to the new gas system. It's met with failure by a number of firms and has given fits to others that have gone on to field it. It would seem we're mostly there, but in the case of the 416 there seems to be some daemons lurking still.

In the end, I wonder how much time and money it will take to convert the M16 into a reliable short stroke gas piston rifle and is it really worth it? That money could have gone to the development of a new system that improves upon the weaknesses of the old and is designed from the ground up to use an improved gas system... like the SCAR.

Who knows...
 
Why are you posting 2 year old rumors that were proven to be false? There was no production halt of the 416.

Contrary to anonymous source reports on the Internet, the U.S. military HAS
NOT encountered significant problems with HK Model 416s in combat
conditions. HK416s are currently being used in combat operations by U.S.
and NATO special operations forces.

Furthermore, Heckler & Koch HAS NOT suspended production of the HK416. The
HK416 continues to be one of Heckler & Koch's most successful and sought
after products.

Steve Galloway
Communications Director
Heckler & Koch
Ashburn, Virginia
3 April 2009
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
$16,000+ acr
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Hatterasguy
H
S
  • Locked
Will the Bushmaster ACR Continue to drop in price?
Replies
7
Views
995
Bartholomew Roberts
B
F
  • Locked
what to get when Im back from boot/"a" school
Replies
1
Views
308
variablebinary
V
S
  • Locked
Bushmaster ACR ratchet barrel question
Replies
8
Views
2K
GunTech
G
S
  • Locked
Bushmaster bashing
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
4K
taliv
T
Back
Top