Task & Purpose | Why US Special Forces Switched to the SCAR (briefly) @Taskandpurpose | Uploaded September 2023 | Updated October 2024, 19 hours ago.
Get your own Goat Model Today! Shop here: bit.ly/3Eh1z6d
While the SCAR-Light and -Heavy were designed and built in tandem, their performance and service histories diverged in 2010. The weapons were mostly living up to the hype but there were some early teething issues holding them back. Every weapon runs into this teething problems but what makes the difference between success and failure is how easy it is to correct these early problems. In the case of the SCAR, the Light version named the MK 16 had the misfortune of having more issues and less capability advances than its heavier MK17 version.
Written by: Chris Cappy & Diego Aceituno
Edited by: Michael Michaelides
The MK 16 had the distinction of creating a brand new class of malfunction never seen before. It was particularly vulnerable to double and triple feed malfunctions from bad magazines. Bad or worn magazines were pretty common to most weapons around the 2000-2010 timeframe.All that extra space above the bolt and carrier assembly ironically could make the weapon less reliable as extra rounds from a multi feed malfunction went straight up into the enlarged recesses built for the operating rod. In barney style layman’s terms this means the weapon had just enough space for thin 5.56 rounds to get stuck in the attic, but not enough extra space for them to fall back out. US Army special forces veteran Jeff Gurwitch said he saw a squadmate with 4 empty casings stuck in his FN Scars chamber. What’s next an octopulet feed error?
Reportedly the only way to clear the jam was a time consuming field strip of the weapon.
Another problem was actually caused by SOCOM itself and quickly turned into the SCAR’s most controversial “feature.” In the requirements drawn up, someone involved in the drafting was convinced a reciprocating charging handle was key to a weapon’s reliability. That means that as each round is fired the charging handle moves forward and back with the bolt instead of staying fixed in place like on the M4. The thought process behind this was a soldier could use the charging handle like a forward assist, pushing a gummed-up bolt into battery with a quick slap.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
youtube.com/channel/UCSq3p5NKEtyp5Rjd4ctiEbg/join
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#ARMY #MILITARY #WEAPONS
Get your own Goat Model Today! Shop here: bit.ly/3Eh1z6d
While the SCAR-Light and -Heavy were designed and built in tandem, their performance and service histories diverged in 2010. The weapons were mostly living up to the hype but there were some early teething issues holding them back. Every weapon runs into this teething problems but what makes the difference between success and failure is how easy it is to correct these early problems. In the case of the SCAR, the Light version named the MK 16 had the misfortune of having more issues and less capability advances than its heavier MK17 version.
Written by: Chris Cappy & Diego Aceituno
Edited by: Michael Michaelides
The MK 16 had the distinction of creating a brand new class of malfunction never seen before. It was particularly vulnerable to double and triple feed malfunctions from bad magazines. Bad or worn magazines were pretty common to most weapons around the 2000-2010 timeframe.All that extra space above the bolt and carrier assembly ironically could make the weapon less reliable as extra rounds from a multi feed malfunction went straight up into the enlarged recesses built for the operating rod. In barney style layman’s terms this means the weapon had just enough space for thin 5.56 rounds to get stuck in the attic, but not enough extra space for them to fall back out. US Army special forces veteran Jeff Gurwitch said he saw a squadmate with 4 empty casings stuck in his FN Scars chamber. What’s next an octopulet feed error?
Reportedly the only way to clear the jam was a time consuming field strip of the weapon.
Another problem was actually caused by SOCOM itself and quickly turned into the SCAR’s most controversial “feature.” In the requirements drawn up, someone involved in the drafting was convinced a reciprocating charging handle was key to a weapon’s reliability. That means that as each round is fired the charging handle moves forward and back with the bolt instead of staying fixed in place like on the M4. The thought process behind this was a soldier could use the charging handle like a forward assist, pushing a gummed-up bolt into battery with a quick slap.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
youtube.com/channel/UCSq3p5NKEtyp5Rjd4ctiEbg/join
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#ARMY #MILITARY #WEAPONS
