Tf? Are you basing this on that Firearm Blog article from 2009? Norway has been buying a shit ton of these things since then after that issue was largely fixed.
Only ST6 is playing around with Noveske rifles and that feels more like a "we gotta be more special than anyone else" type of decision
The interesting question is wether SOCOM will end up fully fielding the FN LICC rifle and Evolys in .264 USA after the trial period
>SOCOM will end up fully fielding the FN LICC rifle
They will select it, then cancel the program, and go back to M4s. I want more FN tears, because they are huge assholes who won't make more SCARs to lower the price to what it was originally designed to be, a cheap to make, mass produced modern assault rifle. Fuck the waffles.
I always find it hard to believe how hard they have fallen as a company since the days of the FAL.
Look at that thing? WTF is FN's autism with the fucking charging handle? If you're going to do side-charger, then do it like sig, and have a t-handle up top, so you don't have to retrain a bunch of people who have had thousands of hours on M4s.
Plus, wtf is that, "HK Slap" ambi handles that will guarantee to snag on gear for high speed guys and put the rifle out of battery. Can you even drop the bolt via release if you got the handle locked back? More complexity.
Looks like they finally dropped the retarded plastic lower, which didn't even make the SCAR lighter than the M4.
SIG's QC and engineering are dogshit, but at least they got the features and layout right on the M5.
>Thinks it's called the M5
Clearly you are a learned individual
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM7_rifle >XM7 >formerly SNEED M5
Well, why the fuck did they change it?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>why
Colt and LWRC.
You're like 4 months out of the loop.
You clearly aren't capable of understanding how the LICC works from a distance, either. There is no "slap" available to it. The charging handle angles downwards slightly when all the way forward to all for the dust cover to shift down and cover the gap in the receiver. They did this contrary to what the XM7/XCR/FAL/others did specifically so it could be on both sides. >Give T handle so I don't have to learn a new control
Modern ergonomics called, it's time to move on from the T handle. You're a fool if you think a rifle designed 60 years ago is the pinnacle of rifle controls and the LICC already changes up the bolt release/hold open, so you're going to need to relearn things anyway.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You clearly aren't capable of understanding how the LICC works from a distance
There's clearly a notch to lock the handle back.
Oh, you're one of those side-charger autist. Nvm, carry on. I've got better things to do.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Look again before you make wild assumptions. That notch is for removal of the charging handle - you know, how many side charging rifles have an enlarged cutout at the back of their path of travel so you can pull them out? It doesn't curve upwards nearly enough to do what you think it does (in the same way that the front end of the channel curves downwards.) >Gets proven wrong after making blatantly false statements. >Name calls and leaves.
Very nice, find a corner to go sulk in.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I will talk to you only if you don't autistically shill side-chargers over t-handles.
You can say you prefer them, fine. I prefer t-handles. I had a SCAR.
How am I supposed to know all that shit based on some pictures lol. Of course, they were assumptions. Still doesn't change the fact that they are XBOX HEUG chs on the side of the receiver, making them snag-prone.
FN always makes a product's that's so close but no cigar, because they insist on their goofy-ass features to be special. SIG at least understands the American way of doing things is some of the old = some of the new.
They obviously didn't learn their lesson after the SCAR program. They deserve it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>*some of the old + some of the new
1 month ago
Anonymous
Look again before you make wild assumptions. That notch is for removal of the charging handle - you know, how many side charging rifles have an enlarged cutout at the back of their path of travel so you can pull them out? It doesn't curve upwards nearly enough to do what you think it does (in the same way that the front end of the channel curves downwards.) >Gets proven wrong after making blatantly false statements. >Name calls and leaves.
Very nice, find a corner to go sulk in.
This has become a very fun thread.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Happy to entertain. Beats attempting to have a rational discussion with the Polish gay that spams Grot threads.
My main gripe with side-chargers is the snagging issue. The complaints about t-handles are completely overblown. If you have a reliable, functioning rifle, the only time you need to use the CH is when you first charge the rifle. The subsequent times, you may use the bolt release.
Side chargers imho create more problems than it solves. So, training isn't the biggest issue for me, except I mentioned it as one of the reasons the SCAR program failed for wide adoption, even if just socom. There is simply too much institutional momentum behind the M4, not just in training, but maintenance.
M4 ergos have been solved. No need to reinvent the wheel. In short, I like t-handles. SIG's solution is actually a good middle ground. Not a sig shill, they are shit, but give credit where its due.
From what I heard the primary reason the 16 wasn't adopted by SOCOM was they didn't feel it offered enough of an advantage over their existing rifles to justify the cost of adopting a wholly new platform.
For something like the XCR or XM7 where the charging handle is on the receiver, it's shielded by your support arm while shooting, the chance of it snagging in a scenario where the AR wouldn't snag approaches zero, in my opinion. Granted, on rifles where the handle is further forward like the SCAR, ACR, Bren, or Grot the potential for it to snag when bracing the forend on cover is absolutely higher.
I do like the SCAR's ability to lock the gun back with a single hand (support hand pulling the handle back and the same thumb hitting the bolt release paddle) compared to the weird hand shift you have to do to lock the bolt back on a normal AR15. But if you have a decent ambi lower my complaint there is basically nullified.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I do like the SCAR's ability to lock the gun back with a single hand (support hand pulling the handle back and the same thumb hitting the bolt release paddle) compared to the weird hand shift you have to do to lock the bolt back on a normal AR15. But if you have a decent ambi lower my complaint there is basically nullified.
Ye, basically what I was saying. Hate for the t-handle is overblown.
People are imagining all these scenarios where their gun malfunctions and they need to do remedial action while standing up facing the enemy. In reality, a side charger isn't going to save you either. Probably take cover first or have teammate help you.
99% of the time, with a well functioning m4, you're only going to use the CH once, when you rack the first round.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I do absolutely prefer them and I acknowledge it's just a preference. My philosophy is if there's a better way to do things, it should be done that way. Familiarity or tradition is no reason to hold back progress. Whether or not what FN decided for the LICC *is* better is up for debate, but I'm not going to accept familiarity as the reason on why it's a bad design.
As I said, there's already a new bolt release on it - if it somehow manages to get adopted (massive doubt) people will be relearning things anyway.
1 month ago
Anonymous
My main gripe with side-chargers is the snagging issue. The complaints about t-handles are completely overblown. If you have a reliable, functioning rifle, the only time you need to use the CH is when you first charge the rifle. The subsequent times, you may use the bolt release.
Side chargers imho create more problems than it solves. So, training isn't the biggest issue for me, except I mentioned it as one of the reasons the SCAR program failed for wide adoption, even if just socom. There is simply too much institutional momentum behind the M4, not just in training, but maintenance.
M4 ergos have been solved. No need to reinvent the wheel. In short, I like t-handles. SIG's solution is actually a good middle ground. Not a sig shill, they are shit, but give credit where its due.
>Norway is having buyer’s remorse
Kek, the 416 is one of the best purchases Norway has made. Shit's highly reliable. I personally never had an issue with it, and neither did any of the people I know.
Its a direct derivative of the AR. It was literally a replacement upper for the M4 lower, going so far to be originally called "HK M4". Complete guns with their own proprietary lowers only came later, and even then they're fully interchangeable with regular AR uppers if you were so inclined. Its a piston AR, somebody was going to have to break this to you some time so it may as well be me.
>yeah just slap an oprod in there no big deal!
this is just a refined version of those thirdie AK/AR hybrids, and just as shit.
if you can't immediately understand why piston + buffer tube = bad, you don't really know how guns work.
HK made a fair few modifications to the BCG to prevent carrier tilt from being an issue. Curious as to what thirdie AR/AK hybrids you're talking about, though.
I was just using that picture from Wikipedia to troll the more observant lol, you got it. No country operating this gun does shit that stupid for standard issue.
HK is fucktarded. Want to know why LMT won the Estonian contract over HK? The Estonians explicitly stated it needed to handle the pressure of 77 OTM, so what does HK do? Send an unmodified HK416 which promptly exploded, and it was a miracle that it didn't kill or injure the tester. HK also forbid the release of photos as to not harm sales. Never trust G*rman """"""engineering""""""
Links dude? Sounds like you just really hate Germans. Which I don't have a problem with, but, still. I'd like some sauce.
Not gonna lie to you anons, I heard it from an Estonian friend in the EDF. I just took it at face value because I do indeed hate G*rmans. I messaged them for a source and I'll update you if I get it.
Is that a FAMAS?
Frogs are replacing the FAMAS with this and have been since 2017. They'll fully replace them by 2028 with these.
No, the piston system has proved to be completely unreliable. Norway is having buyer’s remorse and us socom has ditched them for noveskes
Source on the noveske switch?
USMC fucked up choosing the IAR m27 but then again HK is selling them for $1,000 a piece so they kinda bent the germans over so I give the USMC that
Why unreliable tho what area fails/jams/cruds up first typically on a piston setup?
I mean they were marketed as being cleaner shooters than a regular snuffleupagus ARs. What went wrong?
Tf? Are you basing this on that Firearm Blog article from 2009? Norway has been buying a shit ton of these things since then after that issue was largely fixed.
>Norway is having buyer’s remorse
Kek, no we dont. We just got done with extra purchases even
Only ST6 is playing around with Noveske rifles and that feels more like a "we gotta be more special than anyone else" type of decision
The interesting question is wether SOCOM will end up fully fielding the FN LICC rifle and Evolys in .264 USA after the trial period
>SOCOM will end up fully fielding the FN LICC rifle
They will select it, then cancel the program, and go back to M4s. I want more FN tears, because they are huge assholes who won't make more SCARs to lower the price to what it was originally designed to be, a cheap to make, mass produced modern assault rifle. Fuck the waffles.
Just think. If the LICC is adopted, they'll bring it to market, and then the SCAR will be devalued. Win-win.
Look at that thing? WTF is FN's autism with the fucking charging handle? If you're going to do side-charger, then do it like sig, and have a t-handle up top, so you don't have to retrain a bunch of people who have had thousands of hours on M4s.
Plus, wtf is that, "HK Slap" ambi handles that will guarantee to snag on gear for high speed guys and put the rifle out of battery. Can you even drop the bolt via release if you got the handle locked back? More complexity.
Looks like they finally dropped the retarded plastic lower, which didn't even make the SCAR lighter than the M4.
SIG's QC and engineering are dogshit, but at least they got the features and layout right on the M5.
>Thinks it's called the M5
Clearly you are a learned individual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM7_rifle
>XM7
>formerly SNEED M5
Well, why the fuck did they change it?
>why
Colt and LWRC.
You're like 4 months out of the loop.
You clearly aren't capable of understanding how the LICC works from a distance, either. There is no "slap" available to it. The charging handle angles downwards slightly when all the way forward to all for the dust cover to shift down and cover the gap in the receiver. They did this contrary to what the XM7/XCR/FAL/others did specifically so it could be on both sides.
>Give T handle so I don't have to learn a new control
Modern ergonomics called, it's time to move on from the T handle. You're a fool if you think a rifle designed 60 years ago is the pinnacle of rifle controls and the LICC already changes up the bolt release/hold open, so you're going to need to relearn things anyway.
>You clearly aren't capable of understanding how the LICC works from a distance
There's clearly a notch to lock the handle back.
Oh, you're one of those side-charger autist. Nvm, carry on. I've got better things to do.
Look again before you make wild assumptions. That notch is for removal of the charging handle - you know, how many side charging rifles have an enlarged cutout at the back of their path of travel so you can pull them out? It doesn't curve upwards nearly enough to do what you think it does (in the same way that the front end of the channel curves downwards.)
>Gets proven wrong after making blatantly false statements.
>Name calls and leaves.
Very nice, find a corner to go sulk in.
I will talk to you only if you don't autistically shill side-chargers over t-handles.
You can say you prefer them, fine. I prefer t-handles. I had a SCAR.
How am I supposed to know all that shit based on some pictures lol. Of course, they were assumptions. Still doesn't change the fact that they are XBOX HEUG chs on the side of the receiver, making them snag-prone.
FN always makes a product's that's so close but no cigar, because they insist on their goofy-ass features to be special. SIG at least understands the American way of doing things is some of the old = some of the new.
They obviously didn't learn their lesson after the SCAR program. They deserve it.
>*some of the old + some of the new
This has become a very fun thread.
Happy to entertain. Beats attempting to have a rational discussion with the Polish gay that spams Grot threads.
From what I heard the primary reason the 16 wasn't adopted by SOCOM was they didn't feel it offered enough of an advantage over their existing rifles to justify the cost of adopting a wholly new platform.
For something like the XCR or XM7 where the charging handle is on the receiver, it's shielded by your support arm while shooting, the chance of it snagging in a scenario where the AR wouldn't snag approaches zero, in my opinion. Granted, on rifles where the handle is further forward like the SCAR, ACR, Bren, or Grot the potential for it to snag when bracing the forend on cover is absolutely higher.
I do like the SCAR's ability to lock the gun back with a single hand (support hand pulling the handle back and the same thumb hitting the bolt release paddle) compared to the weird hand shift you have to do to lock the bolt back on a normal AR15. But if you have a decent ambi lower my complaint there is basically nullified.
>I do like the SCAR's ability to lock the gun back with a single hand (support hand pulling the handle back and the same thumb hitting the bolt release paddle) compared to the weird hand shift you have to do to lock the bolt back on a normal AR15. But if you have a decent ambi lower my complaint there is basically nullified.
Ye, basically what I was saying. Hate for the t-handle is overblown.
People are imagining all these scenarios where their gun malfunctions and they need to do remedial action while standing up facing the enemy. In reality, a side charger isn't going to save you either. Probably take cover first or have teammate help you.
99% of the time, with a well functioning m4, you're only going to use the CH once, when you rack the first round.
I do absolutely prefer them and I acknowledge it's just a preference. My philosophy is if there's a better way to do things, it should be done that way. Familiarity or tradition is no reason to hold back progress. Whether or not what FN decided for the LICC *is* better is up for debate, but I'm not going to accept familiarity as the reason on why it's a bad design.
As I said, there's already a new bolt release on it - if it somehow manages to get adopted (massive doubt) people will be relearning things anyway.
My main gripe with side-chargers is the snagging issue. The complaints about t-handles are completely overblown. If you have a reliable, functioning rifle, the only time you need to use the CH is when you first charge the rifle. The subsequent times, you may use the bolt release.
Side chargers imho create more problems than it solves. So, training isn't the biggest issue for me, except I mentioned it as one of the reasons the SCAR program failed for wide adoption, even if just socom. There is simply too much institutional momentum behind the M4, not just in training, but maintenance.
M4 ergos have been solved. No need to reinvent the wheel. In short, I like t-handles. SIG's solution is actually a good middle ground. Not a sig shill, they are shit, but give credit where its due.
I always find it hard to believe how hard they have fallen as a company since the days of the FAL.
>Norway is having buyer’s remorse
Kek, the 416 is one of the best purchases Norway has made. Shit's highly reliable. I personally never had an issue with it, and neither did any of the people I know.
>piston system has proved to be completely unreliable
Hi Karl.
Insofar as the AR is, and the 416 is a derivative of the AR, then yes.
Its not a derivative of the AR though.
That's an even bigger cope than the polandgay that says the Grot isn't an ACR clone.
Glocks are high power derivatives then.
Its a direct derivative of the AR. It was literally a replacement upper for the M4 lower, going so far to be originally called "HK M4". Complete guns with their own proprietary lowers only came later, and even then they're fully interchangeable with regular AR uppers if you were so inclined. Its a piston AR, somebody was going to have to break this to you some time so it may as well be me.
Yes and no. It was based off of the AR(particularly the M4), but it uses the same operation as the G36.
>yeah just slap an oprod in there no big deal!
this is just a refined version of those thirdie AK/AR hybrids, and just as shit.
if you can't immediately understand why piston + buffer tube = bad, you don't really know how guns work.
HK made a fair few modifications to the BCG to prevent carrier tilt from being an issue. Curious as to what thirdie AR/AK hybrids you're talking about, though.
I was just using that picture from Wikipedia to troll the more observant lol, you got it. No country operating this gun does shit that stupid for standard issue.
HK is fucktarded. Want to know why LMT won the Estonian contract over HK? The Estonians explicitly stated it needed to handle the pressure of 77 OTM, so what does HK do? Send an unmodified HK416 which promptly exploded, and it was a miracle that it didn't kill or injure the tester. HK also forbid the release of photos as to not harm sales. Never trust G*rman """"""engineering""""""
>No photos
What's the source, then?
Not gonna lie to you anons, I heard it from an Estonian friend in the EDF. I just took it at face value because I do indeed hate G*rmans. I messaged them for a source and I'll update you if I get it.
It'd be great if you do. I've heard very good things about this gun and it has a very solid design that I like a lot.
>I do indeed hate G*rmans.
Fair enough
Links dude? Sounds like you just really hate Germans. Which I don't have a problem with, but, still. I'd like some sauce.
Thats a nice story, anon, truly.
lots of seething ITT
>Siggers in thread mad that HK saved the world once again
Are the siggers in the room with you right now?
>This is the best standard issue assault rifle currently.
You've tested them all, have you?
If it is, it's the best by such a tiny margin that nobody really gives a shit.
reminder
Beautiful.
For me it's the Colt Canada 7