They do. Nothing has changed.You'd think the military would have FN address any shortcomings
I've seen plenty on the Handl lower, nothing about these, must of have missed them. I'd like to see those threads about these though, can you PM me. I searched just for Handl and only got results about the lower.There are already a handful of threads about this on the forum that I will not link to. It is all shilling and arguing.
I just went to handl's web site and the Recoil Mitigation System and Rail Assembly must be TOP Secrete, not for civi eyes yet:-D. I am however interested in reading about Socom's adoption of Handl SCAR upgrades from any sources that do not have an invested interest in the company. Like firearm magazines who always fail to comment on the short comings of their advertisers products. All parts wear out with use, so a few pics on a web site does not impress me. I would like to see and independent test that pitted the Handl enhanced version against the OEM version; Run 10,000 rounds through each in a controlled setting, and compare the effects on the individual parts. Other then comparative testing by an independent third party, I have seen enough advertising hype to last me a lifetime. :th_32: It would be great farmerted if you could point me in the direction of FNH OEM failure reports, so I may enlighten myself. Thanks!Handl has 4 upgrades:
1. Stainless steel gas control screw that won't weld itself in and uses a standard allen wrench.
2. Aluminum stock hinge, SOCOM was breaking them like the stock latch.
3. Recoil mitigation system that prevents SCAR from NOM NOM on optics.
4. Rail assembly.
I'm sure FN has all that info for you, just call them up. I can't do the letmegooglethatforyou, so here's the contact info:It would be great farmerted if you could point me in the direction of FNH OEM failure reports, so I may enlighten myself. Thanks!
third party, I have seen enough advertising hype to last me a lifetime. :th_32: It would be great farmerted if you could point me in the direction of FNH OEM failure reports, so I may enlighten myself. Thanks!
The only cracked lower I have ever read about was the one from that youtube video of the soldier dropping it on the concrete intentionally. I was unaware that this was a problem too.There really isn't any failure reports because there isn't any real failures. Yeah there is one here and there but no real issue. It is a quality platform.
Development was done by Milestones - very rigorous testing - enduser feedback - implement changes - produced small number of weapons - repeat process - reach next milestone - there are ALOT of steps I am leaving out but its so others can get the gist...This actually might be an interesting case study on how product development is done.
I know nothing about this, so I am just spinning hypotheticals, but I could imagine a scenario where commanders in the field say a cracked poly lower is their biggest issue, but the amount of time/effort for that information to get back up through channels, to determine the extent of the problem, to communicate it to FN, to analyze options, and cost estimate a solution. Plus, since FN have already invested in the molds, they don't want to walk away from that solution without first seeing if there is a solution with polymer formulation, or adding glass fill, or thickening walls, so there is 6 months in R&D ..... net, the official solution is a SLOWWW process.
Meanwhile, Handl can jump right to metal lowers, and since SOCOM is empowered to just buy a commercial solution, bypassing the procurement system, Handl might very well be able to field a solution faster than FN can.
Naturally, FN does not discuss their developments, so to us outsiders, it looks like the military is going to Handl for a solution instead of FN, when reality is that they started with FN.
#1 the word allegation means an unproven assertion, the situation surrounding what happened to Handl Defense would be an incorrect use of that term.
The Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Intellectual Property Right's Coordination Center had an agent look into the matter surrounding what happened on that site. She was assigned to the FBI field office in Chicago. She said that the Handl lowers specific measurements had been transmitted between several members of that site. She then said that she was going forward the case to the office in Washington D.C.
When the owners of that site were confronted with the evidence of what had happened on that site, they cancelled Handl Defense's sponsorship and refused to take calls.
Some seriously shady **** goes on over there. IWC was treated the same way. Discredit, slander, and libel your competitors, then push your product in it's place.
People in that place have a bad history, that is why they can't be out in the open, because they have screwed over some big fish (not Handl or IWC BTW), who want blood.
#2 QA/ QC issues with Handl Defense are over blown, period. The fact they mostly come form the aforementioned site, lends to questionable credibility. All of these "issues" have yet to be documented in video or pictures. What has been noted is that many people think they can install a Handl lower like an AR lower. Simply, you can not, it has to be installed exactly like the directions says, especially in initial mating. The FN SCAR is not as precisely built of a weapon, like a Novseke, MEGA, or LMT.
The lower is atrocious on the FN SCAR, Handl was the first to figure it out (dremeling a stock lower does not count) in mid 2011 Handl had CAD drawings and 3D prototypes, even before people had taken dremels to stock lowers. It is why the competition had to reverse engineer it, they had to get the specific measurements, it is why they have taken so long, they had to wait for some else to figure it out a few critical specifics first, take it, then make their own.
The Handl has been tested to MIL-STD 810-G, It has had extensive testing. It has been tested and in compliance with the Spec sheet for the CAR-H with round counts doubled. The rest of the gun breaks before the Handl lower does. Alan Handl deals with AQ/AI issues personally, as in stops what he is doing goes out to the shop checks the lower, installs it, tests it, shoots it, often videos it. Considering who just got done testing it, and recommended it for adoption, he damn well better. The only testing the Handl lower has not had is what NSWC Crane is going to do. Even though they have done it all in house