Been given some real thought to getting rid of my AR

[Cerberus]

The 5.56 was procured for its ability to wound not kill. "very lethal" should be followed with YMMV.

Dude, please if you don't know what you are talking about, stop posting.

 

[Thor]

Dude, please if you don't know what you are talking about, stop posting.

Obviously, you disagree so you must be right. Dude.

 

[cgbills]

Obviously, you disagree so you must be right. Dude.

It’s not that it is a difference of opinion or a disagreement; it is that factually you have nothing to back up your statement. There is nothing in the development and procurement record from the military, Armalite, Remington or any of the other manufacturers that attempted to develop a similar round, such as Springfield, that shows the round was procured or designed for its ability to wound. The fact of the matter is your statement is incorrect and that it is myth

 

[nipprdog]

The 5.56 was procured for its ability to wound not kill. "very lethal" should be followed with YMMV.

 

[Thor]

It’s not that it is a difference of opinion or a disagreement; it is that factually you have nothing to back up your statement. There is nothing in the development and procurement record from the military, Armalite, Remington or any of the other manufacturers that attempted to develop a similar round, such as Springfield, that shows the round was procured or designed for its ability to wound. The fact of the matter is your statement is incorrect and that it is myth

It said it on the internet, it must be true. When they were issuing these things to us all they spent time talking about was how much better it was to wound an enemy so they'd have to carry him off the field and care for him. How we could carry so much more ammo, how logistics was going to be easier. If it was a myth it was pretty widely, and officially, spread at the time these things were being handed out. It also happens to be almost worthless in the jungle where it gets to meet twigs and such on it's way to its intended target.

I'm still amazed at how rabidly people support going to war with a round that would get you booted out of most deer camps. I know if you brought one to one of our bear camps you'd be dis-invited post haste unless you were planning on staying in camp to do the cooking.

As for logistics, when we went to Cuba for the Spanish American War we didn't seem to have trouble keeping our Gatlings fed with .45-70 cartridges using steam boats and feaking horses. If your soldiers are whining about the weight of their bullets they need to go to the gym.

 

[cgbills]

It said it on the internet, it must be true. When they were issuing these things to us all they spent time talking about was how much better it was to wound an enemy so they'd have to carry him off the field and care for him. How we could carry so much more ammo, how logistics was going to be easier. If it was a myth it was pretty widely, and officially, spread at the time these things were being handed out. It also happens to be almost worthless in the jungle where it gets to meet twigs and such on it's way to its intended target.

I'm still amazed at how rabidly people support going to war with a round that would get you booted out of most deer camps. I know if you brought one to one of our bear camps you'd be dis-invited post haste unless you were planning on staying in camp to do the cooking.

As for logistics, when we went to Cuba for the Spanish American War we didn't seem to have trouble keeping our Gatlings fed with .45-70 cartridges using steam boats and feaking horses. If your soldiers are whining about the weight of their bullets they need to go to the gym.

They perpetuated that same myth when I went through Infantry school in the early 2000s. Luckily we had DI who knew better and squashed that myth, because telling a soldier such a myth builds distrust in their equipment. An infantryman who distrusts his weapon is not good. Joe has a way of expounding mis-information and has a tendency to believe anything a senior individual says to them. Also look at how easily the smallest rumor spreads across the ranks.

The current service rifles with 1:7 twist barrels, shooting modern 62 grain and up ammunition are superior to the earliest iterations of the M16. Part of the issue you are describing in the jungle came from the twist rate of the barrel and the grain choice of the bullet. The M16A1 had a 1:12 twist barrel and used 55grain ammo. This match-up caused almost instant bullet yaw and tumbling in flesh and produced nasty wounds. If the bullet hit anything on the way to the target it could potentially yaw prior to the target, or at least that is the theory behind it. Truth is the jungle is just a rough environment to fight in and most assuredly Vietcong ran into similar issues using 7.62x39. Most any bullets flight path would be disrupted from striking hard vegetation.

It’s not a matter of reducing the weight of a standard combat load, it is a matter of how much ammunition can be carried. A soldier carrying the same load weight of 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 will be able to carry twice as much ammo with 5.56. That means a soldier carrying 5.56 can FIGHT for twice as long. Also in standard infantry tactics, almost all being based around battle drill 1A, a more sustained base of fire can be laid down with a 5.56. This in turn allows for easier maneuvering on the enemy by the assaulting element. Add this to the fact that most modern combat is conducted within 200 yards, and the 5.56 becomes a more logical choice. Also I venture to say logistics and resupply are a more daunting task in the mountains of Afghanistan than the plains and flat deserts of the Spanish American war.

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

weight is an issue however ill hump extra weight to carry the 7.62 for the power, though i am not an expert on ballistics i am familiar with the damage both rounds do

 

[The Drifter]

Have 2 ar,s been shooting them for 20+ years , when something else interest me I save and buy it .Never get rid of your baby's, you will most likely regret it.

 

[Ruffnek]

Well I didn't read the entire thread but I read a few posts here and I think I have a solution.AR10 with a short barrel setup for short-intermediate range and a long barrel setup for longer ranges.That will give you the versatility of the AR with the punch of the SCAR.

There has to be a reason that the military is sticking with the M4 platform even for new weapons(M27).

 

[cgbills]

Another thing to think about with the SCAR 17 is that it is hard on optics. So much so that during the SCAR 17 development the ELCAN optic needed to he hardened. They hooked the 17 up to a bunch of gyroscopes and came to the conclusion it had to do with the weight of the bolt and operating system. The heavy mass reciprocating back and forth was busting optics. This is a problem that still exists with the civilian SCAR 17.

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

Another thing to think about with the SCAR 17 is that it is hardon optics. So much so that during the SCAR 17 development the ELCAN opticneeded to he hardened so as to not break. They hooked the 17 up to a bunch ofgyroscopes and came to the conclusion it had to do with the weight of the boltand operating system. The heavy mass reciprocating back and forth was bustingoptics. This is a problem that still exists with the civilian SCAR 17.

my plan is to run an eotech or iron sights thank you for that bit though i didnt hear about that

 

[Thor]

As a general primer on cartridge efficacy on various critters I would recommend "African Rifles and Cartridges" by John "Pondero" Taylor. It is entertaining as well as informative on the various damage done by different rounds and their respective killing effectiveness.

 

[JettaKnight]

Have 2 ar,s been shooting them for 20+ years , when something else interest me I save and buy it .Never get rid of your baby's, you will most likely regret it.

...or buy or build another one. Never give up the chance to buy or build up. Heck, some people around here do that and never shoot the gun before they sell it!

AR-15 are commonplace, but an M1A and a SCAR, well, that's cool.


20 years, and you only have two? No wonder you're so protective.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Another thing to think about with the SCAR 17 is that it is hardon optics. So much so that during the SCAR 17 development the ELCAN opticneeded to he hardened so as to not break. They hooked the 17 up to a bunch of gyroscopes and came to the conclusion it had to do with the weight of the boltand operating system. The heavy mass reciprocating back and forth was busting optics. This is a problem that still exists with the civilian SCAR 17.

Prove it. For someone so hard on new people you sure are slinging a lot of bull**** in this post. Please, no internet rumors either.

 

[geronimojoe85]

There's so much fail in this thread.
Made my Monday.

 

[Tombs]

Prove it. For someone so hard on new people you sure are slinging a lot of bull**** in this post. Please, no internet rumors either.

Pretty much all battle rifles are hard on optics. I don't know if I buy the story about an elcan needing hardened(LOL?) but it is a well known issue none the less.

Fixed power optics shouldn't have issues, but some mid-lowend red dots and variables can choke. The issue isn't the recoil, it's the impulse of the bolt closing causing a forward force most optics aren't designed to handle.

 

[Cerberus]

Prove it. For someone so hard on new people you sure are slinging a lot of bull**** in this post. Please, no internet rumors either.

You didn't know about this? Not exactly a secret. Even ARs CAN be hard on scopes.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Pretty much all battle rifles are hard on optics. I don't know if I buy the story about an elcan needing hardened(LOL?) but it is a well known issue none the less.

Fixed power optics shouldn't have issues, but some mid-lowend red dots and variables can choke. The issue isn't the recoil, it's the impulse of the bolt closing causing a forward force most optics aren't designed to handle.

If they are low end optics then usually it is the fact that the scopes and dots are poorly made, not that the rifle is hard(er) on them.

You didn't know about this? Not exactly a secret. Even ARs CAN be hard on scopes.

I have heard this before but I can't find anything to back it up. I found example on the internet that said his Zeiss red dot cracked while mounted to the 17. Other than that all I can find are rumors. Don't get me wrong, anything CAN happen.

I have also heard (in gun shops) that a .22 won't go through a leather jacket and a .45 will blow someone's head off. The assertion that civilian SCARs are somehow manufactured to have less wear and tear on optics is crazy. That is along the same vein of the walmart ruger 10/22 vs gun shop version debate. I mean, it is "well known" that walmart buys the cheaper 10/22s and the gun shops get the higher quality stuff. The point is things that are "known" are being debunked every day.

Dude, please if you don't know what you are talking about, stop posting.

If you are going to post the above comment at least be able to prove the scope breaking issues. These are rumors, nothing else. But by all means, don't stop posting.

 

[cgbills]

Prove it. For someone so hard on new people you sure are slinging a lot of bull**** in this post. Please, no internet rumors either.

Prove it. For someone so hard on new people you sure are slinging a lot of bull**** in this post. Please, no internet rumors either.

Hmm not sure how any bull**** has been slung by me. Everything I have said has been factual. Please highlight and correct me on my supposed slung bull****. I don’t know why you would not have done this already…. Oh and I am not a new person, I have been a member for over four years.

Other than the fact that it is pretty widely know that the SCAR 17 is hard on optics, I heard it straight from one of the program managers at NSWC Crane. My Battalion Commander worked directly on the SCAR development at NSWC Crane. He said that some of the original bid samples of the ELCAN were having issues on the SCAR 17, so ELCAN made changes to harden the optic. This was during the initial testing and development of the SCAR 17 and ELCAN. It’s not that they had to harden the current production ELCAN; it was when it was being developed. But I guess you can take this testimony with a grain of salt if you want (I don’t care). I know the man and his impeccable integrity.

Here are a few presentations from NSWC Crane that overview of the SOPMOD program and optics. Lots of good knowledge in there.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/taylor.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_8_07/Tousignant_300pm.pdf

Here is a good thread at M4 carbine. Grinch is Monty LeClair
SCAR 17 and SEAL's?? - Page 2

With all that said the SCAR 17 and ELCAN Specter pretty awesome. I would own an ELCAN in a second if they were not so much money. I was never trying to say the SCAR was anything otherwise, just pointing out a known issue with the 17.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Hmm not sure how any bull**** has been slung by me. Everything I have said has been factual. Please highlight and correct me on my supposed slung bull****. I don’t know why you would not have done this already…. Oh and I am not a new person, I have been a member for over four years.

Other than the fact that it is pretty widely know that the SCAR 17 is hard on optics, I heard it straight from one of the program managers at NSWC Crane. My Battalion Commander worked directly on the SCAR development at NSWC Crane. He said that some of the original bid samples of the ELCAN were having issues on the SCAR 17, so ELCAN made changes to harden the optic. This was during the initial testing and development of the SCAR 17 and ELCAN. It’s not that they had to harden the current production ELCAN; it was when it was being developed. But I guess you can take this testimony with a grain of salt if you want (I don’t care). I know the man and his impeccable integrity.

Here are a few presentations from NSWC Crane that overview of the SOPMOD program and optics. Lots of good knowledge in there.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/taylor.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_8_07/Tousignant_300pm.pdf

Here is a good thread at M4 carbine. Grinch is Monty LeClair
SCAR 17 and SEAL's?? - Page 2

With all that said the SCAR 17 and ELCAN Specter pretty awesome. I would own an ELCAN in a second if they were not so much money. I was never trying to say the SCAR was anything otherwise, just pointing out a known issue with the 17.

1. Great find on those .pdf files! I read through them and couldn't find any issues with the 17 breaking optics. Please reference the page if I missed it.
2. If these rifles were breaking optics the owners would be crying all over the interwebz. If someone broke their $3k Schmidt then we would likely know about it.
3. I had a TON of problems with a 553 but that was poor design, not any rifles fault.


The issue I took was everyone getting on the new guy. Posters here are asking for them to "factually back up" their statement only to post that "SCARs eat optics" without being able to "factually able to back up" their own statements. An attempt at a joke got missed and Thor's assertion that he wouldn't use a .223 on a deer got blown out of proportion.

That is where I took issue. Good night to all and happy posting.