SCAR for the Army!

[Quiet]

The US Navy is looking to acquire more SCARs for NSW.

Order placed on 12-09-2011, for Mk 16 Mod 0 (SCAR-L), Mk 17 Mod 0 (SCAR-H), Mk 20 Mod 0 (SCAR-H SSR) and Mk 13 Mod 0 (EGLM).

Interesting that they are requesting the Mk 16 Mod 0 (SCAR-L).
Guess it's not as dead as the internet says.

[MrPlink]

The US Navy is looking to acquire more SCARs for NSW.

Order placed on 12-09-2011, for Mk 16 Mod 0 (SCAR-L), Mk 17 Mod 0 (SCAR-H), Mk 20 Mod 0 (SCAR-H SSR) and Mk 13 Mod 0 (EGLM).

Interesting that they are requesting the Mk 16 Mod 0 (SCAR-L).
Guess it's not as dead as the internet says.

just gotta get the Marines and maybe some CCTs on board

[problemchild]

This is crap!

I have an old bushmaster and a new DD rifle and they NEVER jam. I can run thousands of rounds WITHOUT cleaning for months on end and NO jams.

The first M4 test was disregarded, the crazy high rate of misfires (mid 800's iirc) was unexplained but the test was done in winter and a summer test showed minor differences compared to modern designs.
now the term "minor" means something completely different to a guy who just had his weapon jam as the enemy approached, but out of 10000 rounds to have a range of 220-330 failures across the spectrum of weapons can be attributed to standardized agreement magazines and ammunition (NATO STANAG) more so than individual weapons supremacy.
Truth be told, consistently the piston driven weapons jammed less. Worth the differences, ask the soldier who's life depends on it

[John Browning]

****, now we'll have to start a new tier.

[E__WOK]

I've used the SCAR-L, SCAR-H, and M4 in combat. It still jams if you use bad magazines and it makes a metallic ringing when it shoots (maybe that was just mine).

Is the metallic ringing louder than the suppressed or unsuppressed sound the round makes when it is fired?

[Sturnovik]

There is nothing wrong with the M4 or the M9. They are both fantastic combat weapons that have been battle proven. My life depended on both of them in Iraq, I would still trust both implicitly 9 years later.

But I do LOVE the SCAR. Its an amazing new generation battle rifle.

Good to here they worked for ya, thanks for your service.

and what magazine fed gun is that not true of?

[MrPlink]

Yes, SOCOM stopped purchasing the Scar L, but the Navy did not.

[Sturnovik]

Yes, SOCOM stopped purchasing the Scar L, but the Navy did not.

Aye ok that makes sense. I read the part that it just didnt offer justifiable performance over the other 5.56 systems, wonder in what ways or just overall reliability (FTF/FTE etc..).

[MrPlink]

Aye ok that makes sense. I read the part that it just didnt offer justifiable performance over the other 5.56 systems, wonder in what ways or just overall reliability (FTF/FTE etc..).

what most have read into that was that it was really a budgetary issue in that it made more sense to focus their funding on the big boy versions of the scar as they offered significant improvement over what they were intended to replace (the good ol' M14/Mk14 family of riles still being used)

[ScottsBad]

what most have read into that was that it was really a budgetary issue in that it made more sense to focus their funding on the big boy versions of the scar as they offered significant improvement over what they were intended to replace (the good ol' M14/Mk14 family of riles still being used)

I read your posts and I agree with you. I own a SCAR 17s and a 16s, this is a modern and highly engineered weapon that was well tested (unlike the ACR).

However, I do believe that the reciprocating charging handle could be a slight problem for some operators, BUT it is interesting that the AK fanatics out there never mention the reciprocating charging handle on the AK as being a problem. Hmmm.

And let's face it the charging handle on the M4 is really not ergonomically
optimal.

I also believe that it makes little sense to change rifles, if all you are going to do is slap a gas piston system on a rifle that was never engineered for it. That is why the US military needs a new rifle.

Mr. Plink to strengthen your argument I'll add a link here to another forum (moderator please don't jump ugly on me) that has an engineering analysis of the SCAR vs. a DI AR vs. a Piston AR vs. an AK, if folks read the analysis and still believe the SCAR is not an improvement then they should just read it again until they get it.

As you all will see the analysis describes in detail and with back up data why the SCAR system is superior and has the potential to be much more reliable. The analysis is quite a long, but if you want to understand why modern designs can be superior, read this in detail. And it makes sense that firearm design should improve, it has been a long time since Stoner's design was put into metal. Here is the link to the analysis, enjoy ==> http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889

[Moonshine]

In my opinion we've pretty much taken kinetic energy bullet based weapons as far as the technology will allow at this point in time. Despite all the incredible advances in other areas of technology such as computers, etc many of our infantry weapon systems are still largely based on late 1960s designs.

The information age has given us a lot of interesting new directions with holographic sights, range finders and other equipment that can be rail installed, but until something supplants gun powder as the principle propellent in mass driven infantry weaponry it doesn't seem like substantial advancement is possible. Like someone else said the SCAR is extremely cool but it still seems like a parallel advance and not a leap forward.

Now back when the West Germans were working on the G-11 in the 1980s things got interesting for a bit... and I think with today's technology we really have the opportunity to step outside the boundries and try something out of the box like the G-11 again.

[ScottsBad]

In my opinion we've pretty much taken kinetic energy bullet based weapons as far as the technology will allow at this point in time. Despite all the incredible advances in other areas of technology such as computers, etc many of our infantry weapon systems are still largely based on late 1960s designs.

The information age has given us a lot of interesting new directions with holographic sights, range finders and other equipment that can be rail installed, but until something supplants gun powder as the principle propellent in mass driven infantry weaponry it doesn't seem like substantial advancement is possible. Like someone else said the SCAR is extremely cool but it still seems like a parallel advance and not a leap forward.

Now back when the West Germans were working on the G-11 in the 1980s things got interesting for a bit... and I think with today's technology we really have the opportunity to step outside the boundries and try something out of the box like the G-11 again.

I agree that there are game changer technologies out there that could one day push way beyond what is available now, but maybe the next really big leap are battlefield robots/drones, and battlefield lasers that do not require operators. OR it could be other particle technologies, or wave technologies that disrupt the cells of a living body.

BUT, this thread is about the SCAR, and it was being compared to the M4. ALL I HEAR IS CRICKETS ON THAT SUBJECT NOW>

Have a nice day.