g lock
Colaborador
Si, pero es una denominación que no se reconoce en las FFAA o FFSS. Lo mismo ocurre con el .45 (11,25 Colt o Ballester Molina) o con el .50 (12,7 Browning)¿Es correcto decir que el FAL es calibre .30?
Si, pero es una denominación que no se reconoce en las FFAA o FFSS. Lo mismo ocurre con el .45 (11,25 Colt o Ballester Molina) o con el .50 (12,7 Browning)¿Es correcto decir que el FAL es calibre .30?
Por lo que cuentan, inaceptable...
OK, pero lo inaceptable son tantas interrupciones, con eso alcanza para descartarlo, nuestros FAL bien regilados son muy confiables, los AK son muy confiables siempre, y las M4 no tanto, sin embargo parece que estos SCAR son mucho menos confiables que las M4...Son formas de uso. Ellos piensan sus movimientos con el M4 en la cabeza, los rusos con los AK, y nosotros con el FAL.
Y si sacas notas, te das cuenta que la actualizacion de nuestro FAL fue mas que acertada.
¿Es correcto decir que el FAL es calibre .30?
Si, pero es una denominación que no se reconoce en las FFAA o FFSS. Lo mismo ocurre con el .45 (11,25 Colt o Ballester Molina) o con el .50 (12,7 Browning)
Por lo que cuentan, inaceptable...
OK, pero lo inaceptable son tantas interrupciones, con eso alcanza para descartarlo, nuestros FAL bien regilados son muy confiables, los AK son muy confiables siempre, y las M4 no tanto, sin embargo parece que estos SCAR son mucho menos confiables que las M4...
Saludos.
Flavio.
Los comentarios sobre el vídeo no son muy buenos que digamos, incluyendo militares de EE.UU
With all due respect, there is a lot wrong with this review. For your viewers and for you I'm going to try to address some of the deficiencies.
What is my background? Why does my opinion matter? I am a former SOF guy that has carried this weapon system throughout three separate deployments to AFG. I also want to note I have no affiliation with FN or any SCAR sales group. I'm just a guy who has used the weapon system a ton.
1. Multiple Malfunctions - As you should well know, ammo type and quality matter. I don't know what ammo you were shooting during the demo, but it appeared to be cheaper steel cased ammo such as Wolf. Why does this matter? Chamber pressures dictate how the weapon cycles. If the gun was designed for the NATO round you should have tested it with that ammo. I've shot literally 1000s of rounds out of this gun without a single malfunction. A better test would be the standard M80 round or even its LR version. The PRIMARY reason this gun malfunctions in most cases is because "operators" don't realize the gas regulator is set in the suppressed setting while trying to shoot unsuppressed or vice versa.
2. The reciprocating charging handle is a user error issue. It literally takes 30 seconds to switch to the other side of the weapon. Additionally, someone proficient with the SCAR would never shoulder the weapon utilizing the mag well. Again this is a user error issue. The fact that he implied it was a recurrent issue tells me he had bad weapon handling habits.
3. Several comments concerned with overall weight and bulkiness. If you choose to carry a 7.62 weapon system there is no getting around the additional weight. 7.62 components and ammo are bigger and heavier by nature. These comments are irrelevant to the function of the gun. You even mentioned that the SCAR-H isn't suitable to CQB/CQC. No shit? It is meant to be a long range weapon, literally by definition.
4. You also mention due to the weight and "unreliability" of the SCAR that you would be more comfortable carrying a SAW. I was a SAW gunner for 2 years of my career, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that my SAW kit was at least twice the weight of my SCAR kit. The other hilarious thing is the SAW is well known to be one of the most unreliable weapon systems in our arms room. The SAW is necessary on the battlefield, but so are light weight assaulters. These two weapons have completely different roles on the battle field, and are not replacements for each other.
5. You mentioned optics. You claimed that the EOTech/x3 power combination commonly found on the M4 platform is superior to the ELCAN. Again it depends on the mission. The ELCAN is an excellent long range optic and not as ideal as an EOTech in close quarters. However, this weapon isn't meant for close quarters so you would be hamstringing yourself by running an EOTech on it. Most people that want the best of both worlds run an MRDS (Doctor) optic mounted to the ELCAN. That fact that you don't mention this makes me question how much experience you actually have.
6. You mentioned the loudness of the report (firing) of the SCAR. The SCAR is loud, but so are all 7.62 weapons systems. I don't know of any 7.62 weapon systems that are noticeably quieter than the SCAR. If you are trying to make comms while in a firefight there is a lot more going on than the just the SCAR, and peltors do a damn good job of making it possible to communicate in a TIC. You also couldn't name the suppressor. I find this funny because there is only one for the SCAR which is the FN 701. It was designed specifically for the SCAR and has decibel reduction commensurate to other suppressors.
7. You state you selected the SCAR to combat long range enemy. You specifically mentioned the AK and PKM. The AK max effective range is 400m, the M4 is 500m. The PKM is 1200m and the MK48 is 800m bipod, SCAR (long version 20" barrel) is 800m. The summary is the SCAR-H isn't necessary for AK fire, and ins't the right tool for PKM fire. If you are getting engaged at 1200m you call air or call SNOT. The summary of this whole thing, and I'm mean this with as much respect as I can, that the video came off as amateurish. To me it was easy to see there wasn't a whole lot of in depth knowledge of the SCAR or it's variants, and your conclusion doesn't reflect the reality of the weapon system. I have used the SCAR-L and SCAR-H with great results, and although I don't think it is a replacement for the M4 outright, it definitely does some things better. Hopefully I didn't ruffle too many feathers, I'd be happy to talk offline if you want further input.
Exactly correct on your review!! Carried a MK17 overseas on a number of occasions and I would choose it hands down over a SAW or MK14 EBR.
"This battle rifle with a giant optic and grip-pod shooting a full size rifle round is heavier than my m4 rifle with a red dot that shoots an intermediate round. It's louder too! It also jams when we use cheap steel cased ammo." Give me a break. These dudes are supposed to be professionals??
Some of our viewers are asking if you guys were fielding first gen SCARs 17's. We ran a SCAR heavy on our channel earlier this year and it's still performing well. I just asked Josh and we do not remember any jams at all. We shot 750+ rounds through this scar (250 on the range during review testing, 500 by josh individually), not a single hiccup. We have an ODA team leader who just left service in 2017 talking about his experiences as well, so he was serving with the SCAR significantly later when people worked out some kinks on them.
Entiendan que muchas de esas reviews son patrocinadas, por empresas de armas. No dudaría un segundo en pensar que les pagaron o dieron munición/armas gratis para hacer ésto.
Comentario en el video:
Otro:
Más:
Tenés razón, siempre me cuesta creer que mientan así en videos. Siembran la duda. Ya sería raro aue SOCOM aprobase algo tan "choto", y en las purebaz se morfó al M4..
NO!!!...., compramos nuevo, moderno(relativamente) y barato...., que son nuestras posibilidades.Acá en Uruguay no tenemos fabrica de armamento por eso compramos nuevo y moderno.
Nosotros siempre usamos el M-16A2 como patrón de lo que no queríamos de un fusil.De hecho entre los estadounidenses tuvo mas aceptación el H que el L, patrocinado por muchos como el fusil que iba a reemplazar a la M-4...
Felicitaciones estimado, ninguna alegría mayor que los hijos. Y coincido, para mí también el mejor calibre es el 7,62x39.A otra cosa..., mi segundo hijo nació el domingo pasado..., para el que sea padre sabrá que el dormir, el tiempo libre y otras cosas, son incompatibles en estos momentos.
Nosotros siempre usamos el M-16A2 como patrón de lo que no queríamos de un fusil.
Siempre resulto (en todas las pruebas) ser el "más" peor, principalmente en arena, seguido del Galil (toda una sorpresa) y luego el FAL. El Scar tuvo interrupciones, pero no fueron tan grabes como los otros 3.
No puedo darte el parte de las pruebas, es una de las pocas cosas que decidieron ponerlas en top secret. En sí el secretismo pasa más que nada porque algunas de las empresas exigieron tal cosa más que nada.Felicidades por el recién llegado.
¿Podrías dar el ranking completo de las pruebas? ¿O un resumen general de las mismas? Gracias.
Esto depende de las zonas.@LordPoisoN Felicitaciones; y muy agradecido por sus comentarios. La experiencia personal y de primera mano es invaluable.
Pregunta OT. Capturaban mucha munición 7,62X39 ?