Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Talk about your favorite longguns here.
Post Reply
User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10628
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by blueorison » 15 Dec 2011, 10:51

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services. ..."
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

sabotteur
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 07:39
custom title: Big Dog Outfitters
Location: A small farm in BFE Virginia
Contact:

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by sabotteur » 15 Dec 2011, 12:38

Cool. It probably took them a good two years to get that contract to this point. We are pretty much under a mortitorium on sole-source contracts and the necessary hurdles to jump through to get them take about two years now worth of approvals.

Bad thing though is depending on the delivery schedule, we may see an extention of the low civilian production of the SCARs and mags.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 15 Dec 2011, 14:46

If you read it, this is for a small initial order. This will give them weapons to test the waters fully. Outside of NSW, they haven't done so at this point yet. So does that fall under the current hold?

I deal oil to NG and AF up here, and we are the only source due to compliance constraints and we haven't encountered such holds due to size of contract being relatively small. This seems to be even less than that.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

FNtacticalNUT
Junior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10 Nov 2011, 13:47
custom title: GOOD ole VIRGINIA
Location: Charlottesville VA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by FNtacticalNUT » 15 Dec 2011, 20:13

Great news Blue
I knew it was coming down the pipe line as these have been very solid and duty proven platforms. My sources which I can never reveal were correct. This backs up the points I was making last week or so. I also heard today they were awarded more GOVT contracts but I have not been able to verify yet. I am very glad to see this proven platform excel as it has met everything that has been thrown at it . Great job FNH and keep on pumping out great products for us civi's as well. :p :clap:

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10628
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by blueorison » 15 Dec 2011, 20:25

:thumb:
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 15 Dec 2011, 20:53

Belay my last. Below means it could take a while. Seems pretty dumb but because the firearms are proprietary to FN, and even though they cannot be supplied elsewhere, there has to be a process to allow for challenges. Stupid bureaucracy :facepalm:


When using the sole source authority at 6.302-1, all responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal or quotation which shall be considered by the agency. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed contract based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. Information received will normally be considered solely for the purpose of determining whether to conduct a competitive procurement.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 15 Dec 2011, 21:32

I'd faint if I ever got to qualify on a full-auto SCAR ... sure would be a nice change from a POS M-16A2 with fixed carry handle and a beat-up metal box magazine. INterestingly enough, we always fly with Sig P228s, I guess the Navy finally got sick of buying Beretta 92s... doesn't make much difference even though I'd rather have the Sig, its still std pressure 9mm ball... only slightly more effective than Blue's Sub-MOA rocks.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 15 Dec 2011, 22:24

Yeah, the M11 is a nice shooting gun and isn't as big as the M9. I loved carrying the Mk24, but I always thought the M11 had a better trigger.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

sabotteur
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 07:39
custom title: Big Dog Outfitters
Location: A small farm in BFE Virginia
Contact:

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by sabotteur » 16 Dec 2011, 05:25

flyingirish04 wrote:Belay my last. Below means it could take a while. Seems pretty dumb but because the firearms are proprietary to FN, and even though they cannot be supplied elsewhere, there has to be a process to allow for challenges. Stupid bureaucracy :facepalm:


When using the sole source authority at 6.302-1, all responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal or quotation which shall be considered by the agency. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed contract based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. Information received will normally be considered solely for the purpose of determining whether to conduct a competitive procurement.
Irish, if NSWC Crane got the authority to push a sole source contract, then they already have their business case and aquisition plan approved by the Department of the Navy. There won't be a protest as it would be a waste of resources for any other company. This is why I said it takes us almost two years to push a sole source anymore. Trust me, I'm trying to get a contract out for a 40mm grenade that we do not own the data rights to and the only way to do it is sole source. Anyway, just from what I see, this is a LRIP contract (Low Rate Initial Production) and these are usually followed with Full Rate Production Procurement contracts, or there will be an optional CLIN in the contract that allows for a future buys.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 06:26

Yeah, I saw the LRIP designation too. Definitely a test the waters buy. Nothing big yet.

I see what you are saying. Reminds me how much I hate my govt contract portion of my job. :wall:
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

FNtacticalNUT
Junior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10 Nov 2011, 13:47
custom title: GOOD ole VIRGINIA
Location: Charlottesville VA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by FNtacticalNUT » 16 Dec 2011, 14:01

None the less it is done

srt-4_jon
Senior Member
Posts: 868
Joined: 08 Jan 2010, 10:19

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by srt-4_jon » 16 Dec 2011, 17:13

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I'd faint if I ever got to qualify on a full-auto SCAR ... sure would be a nice change from a POS M-16A2 with fixed carry handle and a beat-up metal box magazine. INterestingly enough, we always fly with Sig P228s, I guess the Navy finally got sick of buying Beretta 92s... doesn't make much difference even though I'd rather have the Sig, its still std pressure 9mm ball... only slightly more effective than Blue's Sub-MOA rocks.
actually, 9mm nato is closer to 9mm +p

sabotteur
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 07:39
custom title: Big Dog Outfitters
Location: A small farm in BFE Virginia
Contact:

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by sabotteur » 16 Dec 2011, 17:24

Army just issued a contract for 15,000 new beretta 92s last month. I'll admit it's a good platform, and has alot of redudant features that most people don't realize, god knows I carried one enough when I was a tanker, but I'll never be a fan of any 9mm platform.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 19:23

FNtacticalNUT wrote:None the less it is done
It isn't. This is a limited buy. Read the document. It is a start though.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 19:24

srt-4_jon wrote:
SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I'd faint if I ever got to qualify on a full-auto SCAR ... sure would be a nice change from a POS M-16A2 with fixed carry handle and a beat-up metal box magazine. INterestingly enough, we always fly with Sig P228s, I guess the Navy finally got sick of buying Beretta 92s... doesn't make much difference even though I'd rather have the Sig, its still std pressure 9mm ball... only slightly more effective than Blue's Sub-MOA rocks.
actually, 9mm nato is closer to 9mm +p

Where did you get that? That is not the case at all. 9mm NATO is the same as 9mm Luger or Para. It is simple ball ammo, no better than FMJ ammo you can get as a civilian.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 19:27

sabotteur wrote:Army just issued a contract for 15,000 new beretta 92s last month. I'll admit it's a good platform, and has alot of redudant features that most people don't realize, god knows I carried one enough when I was a tanker, but I'll never be a fan of any 9mm platform.
It can't hold a candle to the Mk24 and M11. But it is a decent platform. I didn't like the feel of them, which is 90 percent of the issue for pistols. All of the main brands are reliable if taken care of properly.

9mm vs 45 is a pointless argument in combat. Both are sidearms, and both are the last firearm you want to use in a gunfight. 45 is better, but it is still a handgun. 9mm will kill at same range, just less powerful. Body Armor makes both weak options.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

srt-4_jon
Senior Member
Posts: 868
Joined: 08 Jan 2010, 10:19

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by srt-4_jon » 16 Dec 2011, 19:30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The service pressure Pmax of the 9 mm NATO is rated at 252 MPa (36,500 psi) where C.I.P. rates the 9 mm Luger PTmax somewhat lower at 235 MPa (34,100 psi).
The SAAMI pressure limit for the 9×19mm Parabellum is set at 241.32 MPa (35,001 psi) piezo pressure.[21]
The SAAMI pressure limit for the 9×19 mm Parabellum +P is set at 265.45 MPa (38,500 psi) piezo pressure.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 19:41

Yeah, I see what you are saying. But, its closer to ball ammo then to +P. We chronoed out Mk24 ammo, and it came out in the low 1100s in fps. The +P rounds I use for CC are 1300fps+. Either way, +P ball is pretty lame anyway. The bullet is more the concern rather than the powder load. FMJs just don't work very well as SD loads, which is what a pistol is for.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

srt-4_jon
Senior Member
Posts: 868
Joined: 08 Jan 2010, 10:19

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by srt-4_jon » 16 Dec 2011, 20:28

I agree FMJ ammo is garbage SD ammo. I was just saying that 9mm NATO isnt standard pressure 9mm

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4783
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Navy to buy SCAR 16, 17, 20.

Post by flyingirish04 » 16 Dec 2011, 20:31

It isn't speced as so, yes. But having actually procured it and tested it, it is pretty much the same. You can buy 9mm Nato Ball ammo as a civi pretty easy as well.

But yeah, the specs do differ, nice catch.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests