So...is SCAR16 done for?

[Todd.K]

Meaning that feature is often pointed to as a great advancement but even the units that can get any realistic benefit from it don't see the value as high enough to fund. Pointing at that feature as a reason big Army or civilian shooters should go with the SCAR is silly.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

What feature are we referring to?

[zacbol]

What feature are we referring to?

Quick change barrels if I'm following along correctly.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Oh. Then I totally agree. I have always been puzzled by people's facination with that in a general purpose rifle.

[RyanB]

Easier to have spare uppers, and there are people in the military who can afford to have a bunch of those in their conex.

[variablebinary]

Oh. Then I totally agree. I have always been puzzled by people's facination with that in a general purpose rifle.

The upper on the SCAR is the registered firearm. That alone is a reason for wanting a QD barrel...

Of course that depends on FN pulling their head out their rump and actually selling barrels in different lengths.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

That's true. I have a Scar-17 that I wish I could get at 20 inch barrel for.

[R Moran]

I don't think it is a testament that Army is f-d up. No matter how good 1911 is and how much I am fond of it, neither Army nor units who were loyal to it are fielding it anymore. You don't carry it anymore either, Bob.

SCAR was designed with intent to be more reliable and more serviceable than M16, just like Glocks are more reliable and more serviceable than 1911s en masse. The difference is that SCAR was never given a chance to be fielded widely enough to truly prove or disprove that, to work out the kinks that M16 had 40 years to fix, and to let non-civilian users to form a truly informed opinion. How many MK-16s were fielded, 1000, for a period of 2-3 months, before they were canned? Is it really enough?

I was being sarcastic...

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on across the boards, is all.

The same people who tout the 1911's long service history as a reason for its "greatness", are the one who disparage the M16fow, ignoring the fact that it is the longest serving service rifle in history.

I'm not sure how much more testing we can do. They fielded it, it wasn't like, so it was no longer pursued. Should we now shove another weapon down their throat? The same complaint many use against the M16fow.

My main issue/comment, is not how great the M16 or M4 is, but, that the idea that is being floated that the troops are some how, suffering with the M4, putting up with it, or "toughing it out", is simply false.
Could we do better? Is there better? Well, better is a moving target.

Interestingly, it wasn't to long ago, when the question being asked, by the M4 haters was, "if its so great, why is socom looking for another rifle? huh? huh?" Now, that socom has apparently chosen the M4, we don't hear from them so much, and what we do hear, is along the lines of Alex Jones conspiracy stuff

The "dust test"?, got me, I wasn't there, and don't know every detail or facet of the tests, dare I say, the vast majority or posters on this site, weren't & don't either. What I do know, is, there are an awful lot of real deal SOF types users, that a perfectly content with the M4 and 5.56. Even those issued a 416, would be fine with a standard M4, at least the few I've talked to.

Is the SCAR better? Again, that's a bit of a moving target. I'm not an engineer, QC guy, metallurgist, etc. I've shot a limited amount of rounds thru a 16s, and came away underwhelmed. But, I guess what can you really expect? I would not give it back, or complain if I was issued one. But, I don't complain about my issued M4 either.
I do note, that there are already aftermarket fixes for some issues with the SCAR, like an extended rail, so.....

In the end I'm more concerned with the M4 hate, then the SCAR hat...

And, if you think a folding buttstock is good for "para guys", you probably have never been a "para guy" or a Paratrooper for that matter.

Bob

[Hootiewho]

My take on it, having run the scar 16 for nearly a year now, in a 16" non suppressed setup, most would be very well served with a quality midlength AR carbine. If you are going to run a shorty, especially with a can; this is where the SCAR shines. I also admit I am very fond of the Noveske switchblock, and after doing what little testing I did for the SCAR vs AR thread, in time all my DI ar barrels will have this feature.

If told I could only have 1 from now on, I would take the SCAR without hesitation. After time with both, I feel for ME it is the better weapon. At first I could care less about the folding stock, but over time it has really grown on me if but for one reason...I can fold up my SCAR 16 CQC and put it in something like the Emdom TNT Gym bag and it goes everywhere with me. It looks nothing like I'm leaving the house or going into the office with a gun case. In this config, it is ready to use straight out of the bag. With an AR, Even a shorty, I would need to pop the upper on the lower before I could use it. Hell in theory, if in a pinch, I could shoot through the bag (don't flame me, just sayin).

I love the 45 deg throw on the selector. This is actually costing me some $$$ as now I want BAD 45 deg selectors on my ARs.

Actually, if there is one feature of the SCAR I like the most, it's the charging handle. To me using an AR charging handle always felt like wearing a shoe on the wrong foot. The SCAR is perfect for ME. i have had no issues with it what so ever. Granted I don't jump out of planes with it, but this rifle has seen a hell of a lot of in/out of my truck riding around on property I coyote hunt, and never has it been an issue.

The 16 vs 17....
I told myself I wasn't going to buy the 17, as I didn't "need" a 7.62mm gun, but then my wonderful wife brought one home for me. I have 2 words HOLY ****. I love the 17. I mean, me and the 17 meet weekly in a cheap motel for dirty, kinky, things I can't further go into on this board. I did a form 1 on my 17 and had Marvin Pitts cut my barrel to 13". So now I have a 7.62mm gun, roughly the size or actually a little smaller than a stock M4, weights around what a 6721 does loaded up, and is just an awesome little package of hate. As a man on this board whom I have a lot of respect for says, "a wee little bit of doom!"

I can see why SOCOM chose to roll with the 17 in the areas they are currently in, as it is what I would want if I were there. I have shot back & forth between the 17 and a 12.5" Noveske Leonidas, and really the main thing I came away with is the SCAR has a straight rearward recoil. The Noveske is a stiff up and to the right recoil. For ME, the 17 is much easier to keep on target shot to shot with rapidfire. This is without any kind of muzzle brake as I do not run them on these type guns.

So, is the 16 dead? I doubt it. Even if the US Govt doesn't do anything in the future with it, I'm sure some other countries will. My LE buddies all agree that if given a chance, it would make a great patrol carbine in the 10" variant, folded up in a mount muzzle facing the passenger floorboard. As far as "operator opinion/feedback", for every SOCOM guy I have asked about the SCAR at training classes who has had a negative opinion, there are 2-3 more who like it. I have noticed those who dislike it are very vague with their complaints, and usually say things like "it's a POS", with nothing definitive as to why it's a POS. I have also noticed that from the same group, those who gave it an honest go of 1000+ rounds really,really like it and went and bought one on their own dime.

I'm a firm believer that one should atleast run 1000-2000 rounds, or run a platform for atleast a few months/through a couple traing classes before making an firm go/no go opinion. Especially with the SCAR, I have heard it repeated by way too many real deal operators, "I really didn't want to like it at first, but after running it a while, it's very GTG...., so I bought one for myself"

Unless I go broke, you will not see mine up for sale. As far as tge 10" 16 goes, especially suppressed, it handles and recoils more like a subgun than an assault rifle, I just can't see where any professional entry/SWAT team would go wrong with it, unless it is $$$ concerns.

[Hootiewho]

I know this is getting way off topic, but looking at the SCAR from an adaptibility stand point, with longer lower receiver vs an AR, if time was spent on developement of new rounds/mags, it would be a little easier taking a 16 or 17 to the next level vs an AR, just because of the room you have to work with in the magazine/feeding areas. I saw a pricelist from Belguim once that had all kinds of calibers listed for the SCAR. If that modularity were exploited and longer rails, along with replacement parts available, it would really give the AR a run for the $$$. The gas block is unique, but not so much that someone couldn't replicate it. That quick change barrel feature would be so much more appealing if there were other barrels to swap to.

An example, taking it to a state that doesn't allow SBRs. Although I do see that the quick change barrel would have more appeal to me with the 17, as in having the CQC barrel for GP use, and being able to mount a 20" barrel for use in local long range matches.

As with anything new, there are no shortage of nay-sayers. How many people /old timers balked at cell phones when they 1st became readily available, now everyone, and I mean everyone has one. That's just human nature.