Army looking for new subgun

[John A.]

post voluntarily deleted

[3guneric]

I may stir up a hornets nest here but: Current Scorp is a No-Go from a military field-maintenance point of view.

I don't think the Army would ever go with the Scorpion because of the current design of the FCG.  There are too many small parts that don't intuitively go together!  I was a combat arms officer back in the day (arms room officer as well) and I have done the HBI spring deal but what a mess and how would GI's, who are all thumbs, deal with that mess: while tired, in the dark, in the rain...

I like the Scorp, but to me a guy w/ former Army experience, who now primarily shoots, and totally trusts, civilian copies of military guns (AK,AR, FAL, M1911, M92, Sig P226) I just do not get the same confidence level from the Scorp.  (I can't explain why, but it just does not have a "military" feel about it - more like a Ruger 10-22)  If CZ reworked the inner workings of the trigger - to make it soldier proof - it might have a chance.    I would rather them update the MP 40.  I am old enough to have used a Grease gun in 1984 in Germany.  They were simply bullet sprayers but simple to work and maintain.  (Am not recommending these!)

I know that you may have fired thousands of rounds through your Scorp, or that some military forces have adopted them, however my main point is that in a prolonged "field" environment I would not want to be responsible for repairing, maintaining, and training soldiers on this platform. 

This forum is replete with countless CZ Scorp "issues"  and we are not even talking about magazine reliability/durability which is HUGE in military arms.

[DDNC]

I may stir up a hornets nest here but: Current Scorp is a No-Go from a military field-maintenance point of view.

I don't think the Army would ever go with the Scorpion because of the current design of the FCG.  There are too many small parts that don't intuitively go together!  I was a combat arms officer back in the day (arms room officer as well) and I have done the HBI spring deal but what a mess and how would GI's, who are all thumbs, deal with that mess: while tired, in the dark, in the rain...

I like the Scorp, but to me a guy w/ former Army experience, who now primarily shoots, and totally trusts, civilian copies of military guns (AK,AR, FAL, M1911, M92, Sig P226) I just do not get the same confidence level from the Scorp.  (I can't explain why, but it just does not have a "military" feel about it - more like a Ruger 10-22)  If CZ reworked the inner workings of the trigger - to make it soldier proof - it might have a chance.    I would rather them update the MP 40.  I am old enough to have used a Grease gun in 1984 in Germany.  They were simply bullet sprayers but simple to work and maintain.  (Am not recommending these!)

I know that you may have fired thousands of rounds through your Scorp, or that some military forces have adopted them, however my main point is that in a prolonged "field" environment I would not want to be responsible for repairing, maintaining, and training soldiers on this platform. 

This forum is replete with countless CZ Scorp "issues"  and we are not even talking about magazine reliability/durability which is HUGE in military arms.

You may be correct. I can see them going with HK or more realistically B&T. The APC guns in rifle and pistol calibers have almost exact copies of the AR FCG.
Plus they are exceptional firearms.

[jameslovesjammie]

Isn't the FCG on the military Scorpion completely different than the civilian verison?

[3guneric]

Not a question of how often you have to do "on the spot" - field fixes - but when.  On a number of occasions I had to tear down M240's, M2's, M85's and others on the front slope of a tank.  The Scorp, as sold on the civilian market (IMO) is just not soldier friendly.

I like my Scorp carbine, but to me, it is in a much lesser league than my other military style/patterned guns.

[hyrysc]

I may stir up a hornets nest here but: Current Scorp is a No-Go from a military field-maintenance point of view.

I don't think the Army would ever go with the Scorpion because of the current design of the FCG.  There are too many small parts that don't intuitively go together!  I was a combat arms officer back in the day (arms room officer as well) and I have done the HBI spring deal but what a mess and how would GI's, who are all thumbs, deal with that mess: while tired, in the dark, in the rain...

I like the Scorp, but to me a guy w/ former Army experience, who now primarily shoots, and totally trusts, civilian copies of military guns (AK,AR, FAL, M1911, M92, Sig P226) I just do not get the same confidence level from the Scorp.  (I can't explain why, but it just does not have a "military" feel about it - more like a Ruger 10-22)  If CZ reworked the inner workings of the trigger - to make it soldier proof - it might have a chance.    I would rather them update the MP 40.  I am old enough to have used a Grease gun in 1984 in Germany.  They were simply bullet sprayers but simple to work and maintain.  (Am not recommending these!)

I know that you may have fired thousands of rounds through your Scorp, or that some military forces have adopted them, however my main point is that in a prolonged "field" environment I would not want to be responsible for repairing, maintaining, and training soldiers on this platform. 

This forum is replete with countless CZ Scorp "issues"  and we are not even talking about magazine reliability/durability which is HUGE in military arms.

As much as I enjoy my Scorpion, if the dead started walking the earth, I would grab my 9mm AR long before the Scorpion. 

[Destructo6]

I don't think the Army would ever go with the Scorpion because of the current design of the FCG.  There are too many small parts that don't intuitively go together!  I was a combat arms officer back in the day (arms room officer as well) and I have done the HBI spring deal but what a mess and how would GI's, who are all thumbs, deal with that mess: while tired, in the dark, in the rain...

GIs wouldn't be allowed to remove trigger parts with a Scorpion, or MP5 for that matter, than they are currently allowed to remove trigger parts of a M4/M16.

GIs can separate the lower from the upper and remove the bolt for cleaning. That's it.

Anything more is depot level maintenance.

For a "same as the AR" subgun, the MPX would take the least training to get troops proficient.

[3guneric]

When they broke in the field we did not always have the luxury of time to send them off - so yes we tinkered around trying to get them up and running right then and there.  Kudos to my old armorer SGT Hill who constantly revived our broken down M60's which were Vietnam War era relics.   

Things are different in the Army at different times in history.  I was in a large conventional tank division preparing for WW3.  We probably viewed things differently than the folks in the Army do now.  One thing that does not change is the need to be ready for all possible situations and the need to perhaps not follow the book.  We did all sorts of field fixes to get the firearms up and running. 

It was a very happy day when we received our new M2 .50 cal, and those new M240's just purred.  That M85 was junk.

[krehmkej]

Keep in mind that the subgun would not be a tool for those on the pointy end of the spear, but rather for support troops.
A personal defense weapon, if you will.
IMHO, a Scorpion SBR might fill that requirement quite nicely.

[3guneric]

Now I can see that point.

[Silent service]

Now if only someone would make a stand alone drop in trigger assembly for the scorpion.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3guneric]

It will come in time.  These little Scorps are catching on and it is actually amazing how many after market products and services are available.  Quality mag pouches really needed as well.

[akuser47]

Field trials, cost and availability will play into this. Its not like this will be an M4 replacement it will be for specialized units. So it depends on who sells what better and how field trials prove what they want falls into a budget for this possible contract. I love that they are smart and getting a new line of PCC to think about. They have relevant use and need in the right applications in this modern age.

[M1A4ME]

Why would they need a "new" subgun?  All they need is a short barreled M16.

Same caliber (no new inventory of a different caliber, I know they already use 9MM for the relatively few - compared to the rifles/carbines - pistols they issue but they'd have to have a hell of a lot more ammo in order to store/ship/issue/use 9MM in submachine guns in combat). 

Same magazines (no new inventory of different magazines).

Same spare parts (except for barrel/gas tube).

Same training/manual of arms.

A 5.56X45 bullet, even out of the short barrel, is still better than a handgun bullet (9MM) out of a short barrel.

Will it be noisier?  Sure.  Not as noisy as the grenades, machine guns, artillery, etc. also used in combat.

[3guneric]

Best post on this yet!  Target - cease fine.