Reference the article of "Custom-Designed Rifle Aims to Fit Commandos’ Special Needs" From the onset of the OIWC there details as to why this direction was another boondoggle, did anyone listen no, not until after millions of dollars and a long time they final saw the reality of this ridiculous pursuit. Now again the pursuit is with a small arm that is being considered by FN and H&K and the of course ATK. Were they not the leads in the OIWC and the PD90 fiasco? Now what is the plan of pursuit the 5.56x22mm again a caliber that has proven to be ineffective for the combat soldier? Ergo the illusion of the 6.8 SPC., the 50 Beowulf, the 5.7 FN; all failures.

What our soldiers equire is thinking outside the box, thinking of a valid improvement in the weapon they carry, their life depends on it, the above only make the money off their blood and sweat. We had a better weapon in the M14 that was scaped in favor of the toy called the M16, look what is now being proposed another ineffective toy.

ROFL, I thought the M14-backers died out in the 60s. The FN SCAR is a great weapon that SOCOM can't wait to get its hands on, get used to seeing it in the future.

its in use by everyone in USASOC, its a very nice weapon system,input has been given by many operators, the MK.17 is the favorite and a far better weapon than the M14.

What will be the largest mag available. 100 rd, 200 rd? Belt?

Mk.17 SCAR-H will use proprietary 20-round magazines in 7.62x51 NATO chambering, or standard AK-type magazines in proposed 7.62x39 M43 chambering ??????????

Mk.17 SCAR-H will use proprietary 20-round magazines in 7.62x51 NATO chambering, or standard AK-type magazines in proposed 7.62x39 M43 chambering ??????????

Mk.17 SCAR-H will use proprietary 20-round magazines in 7.62x51 NATO chambering, or standard AK-type magazines in proposed 7.62x39 M43 chambering ??????????

Mk-17 is a great rifle and will definetely help our soldiers in the war on terror.

A line of weapons as well-proven as the Stoner family rifles should be the launching point for future weapon development. As the article above stated, putting more rounds into the target is the ultimate goal rather than simply putting more rounds into the air. Accuracy is the absolute key to victory in a gun-fight. Larger, more powerful munitions are useful only in the sense that striking a target in a non-lethal area can still be devastating if the wound itself is incapacitating to the point where the target is rendered "combat ineffective".

HOWEVER - when the increased power comes at a cost of accuracy, the larger munitions should be discarded in favor of the smaller munitions. When a soldier's life is on the line, is it better for that same soldier to put one single .22 into the heart of his opponent? Or is it better to put five rounds 9mm/.45 ACP/7.62 into the legs and arms of his enemy? The answer, of course, is that the greater accuracy is the greater advantage. Given a choice between less power and more power while freezing accuracy - any professional would opt for the greater power. Unfortunately, the relationship is often such that one must choose between the two. Note that this tirade is aimed at the fully-automatic fire of a 7.62 x 28 and its inability to be accurate (has anyone seen an AK47 with a scope?) The M4/M16 has greater accuracy with lacing fire, yet still falls short of the absolute marksmen requirement.

THE POINT.

Going with smaller rounds often serves the master of increasing accuracy. Greater accuracy often favors victory. We should expect to see smaller and smaller rounds (within some limit) until some threshold of precision is reached; beyond which additional gains in accuracy are ofset by the loss of killing power.

I would like to add two points.

First - this discussion is keyed directly to assault rifles. The "See-Saw" of accuracy VS. power with regards to sub-machine guns has a different fulcrum - one which favors dramatically improved power. It is assumed that sub-machine guns are meant primarily for close-quartered combat, with any scope being of very low magnification, or even just a simple 'red-dot' target acquistion device. In instances such as these, striking center of mass is far less difficult as the ranges tend to be far shorter. When this is the case, a great increase in power often does not cost the user much in the way of accuracy.

Point two. The OICW (I've seen it incorrectly spelled up above) was not a failed project. What is being called a 'boondoggle' is in fact a mere lack of timing. The OICW (and the subsequent XM29) did not fail on the merits of its lack of accuracy OR its fire-power (the air-bursting rounds boasted astonishing lethality). The weight of the unit was prohibitive because of its on-board electronics. I am mystified as to why the project was scrapped in the manner that it was. It is a fore-gone conclusion that electronic devices, just like your average desktop CPU, will simultaneously double its computing power and half its physical size every 18 months. With this in mind, the on-board electronics for this gun would have eventually fit into the specifications demanded by DARPA/DOD. The project should have been paused while technology caught up with the demand, not abandoned.

Furthermore, the PD90, or as it is more commonly known, the "P90", is FAR from a failure. Point in fact, the scaled down rifle rounds (5.7 x 28) actually paved the way for future munitions which the SCAR will incorporate. The decision of the US special forces to not use the P90 shouldn't reflect on the gun's ability to do what it does so well - accurately strike, penetrate, and tumble. The reason I believe that the US special forces have chosen to avoid this gun is because it IS a PD - a personal defense weapon. It isn't mean to be an assault rifle, and as such, it lacks the effective range which many of our standard weapons have today.

There are plenty of obscure guns which should have gotten more use than they have. The Spectre M4 hosted many, many innovative features and it has always remained inexplicably obscure. The Pancor Jackhammer should have written history in much the same way that the Thompson did. The Calico remains untouched by the law enforcement community it was designed for. And, of course, the P90, which is substantially better than an MP5 remains an untapped option for CQC by both special forces and police agencies. The point is, just because a weapon system isn't widely adopted, it does not equate to a failure on behalf of the system - often, it is a reluctance to give up something that works well in favor of something which COULD work better... or maybe it couldn't.

If you've read this far down - thank you.

As I re-read the article, several other points come to mind. First, FN (a very fine arms manufacturer) is working hand-in-hand with the soldiers who will unltimately wield the weapon. This by itself should negate fears and doubts about the practicality of the final product, regardless of how it turns out. Second, as full-auto spray-and-pray suppression fire fades out in favor of the more accurate three-round-burst (HK MP5's also boast 4 and 5 round burst (pre-set at the factory)) - greater magazine size becomes less of an issue. At three rounds per trigger activation, a 20 round clip produces 7 effective kills. If the standard thirty-round clip at 900 rpm spits out 5 and 6 uncontrolled shots per trigger activation - then the math supports the first system, regardless of how counter-intuitive it may seem. Ideally, a soldier who is carrying 800 rounds of ammunition on his person would rather magically have all of those rounds accessible to his weapon without any additional manual transition, but even simple logic should tell you that toting around an M249 isn't the right answer for every problem.

It is said in the business world that, "Big fish don't eat small fish; quick fish eat slow fish". That same saying applies just as accurately (maybe even more so) to the mechanics of a gun fight. This applies nicely to the discussion at hand since this line of thought supports a smaller weapon such as a SCAR effectively being utilized to combat an opponent armed with a larger, bulkier weapon. The addition of 10 rounds to a magazine may seem to be inconsequential, however, if this is true, then why don't soldier's utilize these 90 round spiral clips on all of their weapons? Why not an ammo box strapped underneath each of their weapons feeding a virtually endless supply of ammunition? Taken to that extreme, it is easy to see the folly of such thinking. We should be able to agree that at some point more is NOT better. Now the only step left is for us to agree at what point too little is too little. If that line lies between 20 and 30 rounds, then so be it. It was said once that, "The difference between victory and defeat, life and death (on the battlefield) is just an eyelash." With this spot of wisdom in hand it may become clearer why counting 'eyelashes' (of difference in weapon weight/length/accuracy) become so important.

Finally, "thinking outside the box" is a term which is often used to blanketly insult and dismiss current options - without openly denegrating them. However, if there is one thing which gun manufacturers know, its that thinking outside the box often leads to innovative guns with little market value. Again, refer to the Spectre M4, Calico, Jackhammer, P90, or even a Desert Eagle. Guns and systems which overcame specific performance obstacles and yet still fail to see effective duty. The Calico solved the issue of magazine drought, the Jackhammer combined the reliability of a revolver with the devestation of a shotgun and rate of fire of a machine-gun (all with very little weight thanks to innovative plastic/steel construction). The Desert Eagle was built specifically to chamber a .357 in an automatic - a feat which had not been accomplished until they came a long. This isn't so difficult to accomplish now, but nobody BESIDES Desert Eagle can boast an automatic .44, or a .50. Point in fact, so versatile is the gun system, that is can easily be tuned to handle the next biggest round that comes down the pipe.

Again, the point... if you stray too far outside the box you end up with anomolous weapons that are viewed as nothing more than curiousities - to be studied - not to be used.

Besides, why should the box be so quickly evacuated? The brilliance of Stoner inspired many similar systems. The lauded HK G36 utilizes a similiar gas-operated rotating bolt with great success. The FN 2000 (one more unsung hero in my opinion) utilizes a similar gas-operated rotating bolt. The new XM8, utilizes a similar gas-operated rotating bold. Heckfire - even the Desert Eagle, the world's most powerful Automatic Handgun, utilizes a gas-operated rotating bolt. The point is, why should such a system be abondoned?