In this latest episode of KAC-TV, they cover the SOF Combat Assault Rifle as well as KAC’s two submissions for that program. The first, the SCAR SLICK or SOF Lightweight Individual Carbine Kalashnikov is not well known and integrated several interesting features including a monolithic upper receiver, modular lower receiver and a Kalashnikov-style bolt.
In the video, Trey Knight also takes us through their more conventional submission that more closely resembles a Stoner AR-style weapon. They did this in order to capitalize on the muscle memory SOF personnel have with the ergonomics of the AR. Interestingly, both weapons offered the option of using the Stoner 63 magazine which presents a more pronounced curve that the standard AR magazine.
The video is definitely worth a look.
This episode also has the distinction of introducing Jack Leuba as he joins KAC TV as the primary host, replacing Trey Knight.
Jack Leuba joined the United States Marine Corps in 1997 as a Rifleman, beginning his secondary military occupational specialty of Marksmanship Coach in 1999, and Combat Marksmanship Instructor in 2002. In 2005, following two combat deployments to Iraq he was assigned to Weapons Training Battalion Quantico with the task of assisting in the creation and implementation of the USMC Combat Marksmanship Program, as well as the Foreign Weapons Instructor and Trainer Courses. During his time in Quantico he became involved in competitive practical shooting to bolster and validate the concepts and techniques taught in the programs and classes under his charge. His experience and knowledge of small arms were frequently referred to by internal and external agencies for weapons testing, product development, acquisitions, training, and training curriculum development. In 2007, Jack was selected to be the USMC’s Marksmanship Liaison to the British Royal Marines. While working for the MoD, he assisted in the creation and implementation of three separate official programs of instruction, and provided individual instruction and training to numerous MoD units and agencies. Upon return from the UK he was again deployed for combat operations in Afghanistan with the USMC.
Jack has successfully completed numerous courses and military occupational specialty schools, to include: Marksmanship Coaches Course, Combat Marksmanship Instructor Course, Small Arms Weapons Instructor Course, Formal School Instructor Course, Close Quarters Battle School, Foreign Weapon Instructor Trainer Course, and the USMC High Risk Personnel Course. Personal awards include the Bronze Star with Combat “V” and the Meritorious Service Medal.
Following his departure from the DoD, Jack formed a tactics and firearms training and consulting company with another Marine Corps veteran. Jack brings his enthusiasm for imparting knowledge, technical skill, experience in the military and civilian firearms training, and expertise in the contemporary employment of small arms in a military context to KAC.
www.knightarmco.com
www.kacgear.com
Hat tip to our friends at Predator Blog. Good catch bro!
The KAC SLICK is what the Primary Weapons Systems MK1 and MK2 platforms could have been had they fully developed their idea of an AR type platform with a Kalishnokov style operating system. Intriguing.
Is it me or dose the SLICK look a lot like the RoArms XCR?
^ Yeah I caught that too. But to understand the whole SCAR debacle one needs to go back to the original SCAR program circa 2003. The original concept was a single multi-caliber platform that could at a minimum transition from 5.56x45mm NATO to 7.62x39mm and use the associated magazines. I believe that ROBARM submitted a rifle called the “Raven” and KAC submitted something akin to the SR-47 affectionately known as the “Franken-Gun” but the evaluation participants. Disclaimer: I wasn’t there, but I know some ‘fellers. From my understanding, the “Franken-Gun” was not functioning very well resulting in so many stoppages that the piles of ammo from clearing them were referred to as “Knight Turds” by the participants. Know if you’ll recall, during this time KAC and NCWC Crane were so in bed with each other they should have been married.
The MK12 SPR program is a perfect example of this. The original MK-12 MOD 0 had a PRI Forend, PRI Front Sight/Gas Block, ARMS Swan Sleeve, ARMS #22 rings and OPS Inc. 12th Model MBS. Then, all of a sudden, the MOD 1 appeared with the PRI Forend and Swan sleeve being replaced by the KAC rail and the BUIS’s being replaced with KAC items. It’s interesting to note that this change was implemented by NSWC Crane due to “Quality issues” with the PRI Forend and Swan sleeve. In regards to this, I can tell you that after some “discussions” with Crane, a number of these “defective parts” were delivered to a certain unit who assembled MOD-0 uppers out of them with no issues. Also, surprisingly, the OPS Inc. MBS remained (I’m sure this was attributed to accuracy and durability over the KAC equivalent).
However, this is just some “backstory” regarding the “tone” at the time. As aforementioned, the KAC offering didn’t do very well. Now, I make no claim to the accuracy of the following, but from the way I understand it, NSWC Crane awarded the original SCAR proof of concept contract to KAC, that is until the news got out. Apparently, ROBARM was showing the Raven to a unit of which were members who had participated in the field trials. These individuals recounted the performance of both systems, citing the shortfalls of the KAC “Franken-Gun” versus the Raven and were floored to hear that KAC had been awarded. Like I said, I don’t know the specifics, but this led to some sort of inquiry into the test results and the original program was scrapped.
Now, this brings us back to this video. What is KAC trying to say here? They admit that the FN SCAR won the competition because it was the superior performer which is true, but they also cite some detractors of the system. I am no fan of the SCAR-L but I can’t see anything that their system does better. It is interesting that they point out that the SCAR-L has been disregarded by units who can get M4’s essentially free instead of using their MFP-11 funding. So in conclusion, with shrinking budgets, and penchant of local, state and federal law enforcement to use what is fielded to the military, what is KAC trying to do here? Is it just informational?
ROBARM being in the game at all should be considered of interest. The XCR conceptionally is great rifle, and well received by those involved in the field trials.
That said, my personal XCR suffered an out of battery detonation during a light range session. While firing a precision group, slow fire, from the prone, the rifle detonated, sending the 62 gr M855 out the ejection port while destroying the majority of the upper receiver and magazine.
I’d previously noted that the primer strike had a raised halo that might indicate excess pressure. After verifying excess pressures weren’t the issue I wrote the odd primer indentation off as a rifle specific fluke. Then is blew up on me.
Robinson Arms took the rifle back and rebuilt it after claiming I was shooting over pressurized reloads, which wasn’t the case. When I received the rebuilt rifle back (6 wks) it still demonstrated the same primer strike indicator. So I promptly sold the rifle to a gentlemen who owned several XCR’s and had had some success correcting the problem by beveling the firing pin hole.
At the end of the day I didn’t want the rifle in my stable, and replaced it with an Adams Arms upper mounted on an AERO lower.
To add one more point. I loved that XCR, it shot 1″ MOA all day long, and the ergonomics were great. The trigger guard bolt release and the support side charging handle were phenominal improvements over AR pattern rifles. At the end of the day I just didn’t trust the rifle wouldn’t blow up on me again, and lost all confidence in Robinson Arms’ ability to address the issue.
The XCR never made it to the SCAR Trials. I think the reason behind it was that they forgot to include a BFA in their bid samples with their solicitation response. Rules are Rules. What I was refering to in my first response was the Robinson Raven. As aformentioned, the original SCAR effort was back in 2003. At that time, Robinson only had the M96 and was ditributing VEPRs. I looked for some video’s of the Raven but I can’t find any. Maybe Alex Robinson will weigh in and provide some background from 2003.
My mistake, it was called the “RAV02”
From Wikipedia regarding the RAV02:
SOCOM SPR-V Trials: In recent years Robinson Armament has shifted focus toward military small arms development. Their RAV02 MC Carbine defeated entries from Knight’s Armament Company and Lewis Machine and Tool in the SOCOM SPR-V trials.
The RAV02 MC (Pronounced “RAVE”) can be chambered in 5.56 NATO; 7.62x39mm; and 5.45x39mm. It was developed and tested to current military specifications. Soldiers who have shot it preferred it over the M4 Carbine derived products. Even using the 7.62x39mm round, it is as accurate as an M4A1 carbine and can digest steel or brass cased ammunition fed through Kalashnikov type magazines and drums. The Rifle Features the S.I.R. (Swan Integrated Rail System) which give the rifle Accessory Rails (Picatinny Rails) at the 3, 6, 9, and 12 O’clock positions. Reliability is advertised as being superior the M4 Carbine.
This was followed by the advanced XCR Modular Weapon System which was a competitor in the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) SOF Combat Assault Rifle trials.
And regarding the SOF SCAR trials:
The Robinson Armament XCR is a multi-caliber, gas piston weapon system developed by Robinson Armament Co. for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to satisfy the requirements of the SOF Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR competition, but was disqualified on a technicality due to late delivery of blank firing adapters. Robinson Armament continued development and the XCR is now being offered to law enforcement, the military and general public. Deliveries of the rifle began in mid-2006.
I thought it was an April Fool’s joke. Just more subtle and elaborate than others.
Think not thought. I assume it is.