So...is SCAR16 done for?

[RHINOWSO]

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.

This. That is the big issue with the SCAR 16 / 17 right now. I will eventually SBR this thing but it'd be great to have a separate barrel and not have to chop it (which I really have no issue doing, but I'd pay good money to buy a factory SBR or full length to cut down to the length I want).

Rhino

[RHINOWSO]

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.

This.

[RHINOWSO]

And whats with the people that hate the 16 but love the 17...? Because they are SO much different than each other... I mean caliber, mag capacity, weight... ok, what else?

Rhino

[BSWilson]

And whats with the people that hate the 16 but love the 17...? Because they are SO much different than each other... I mean caliber, mag capacity, weight... ok, what else?

Rhino

As I understand it, the military is dropping the 16 because it offers no appreciable advantage over an M4. Therefore, as someone who doesn't have money to burn, it's hard to justify something that doesn't offer said appreciable advantage over a $800 rifle.

The 17 however does offer advantages over competing rifles (at best), and is much more reasonable price-wise, relatively speaking.

[Matt Edwards]

I don't see too many nay-sayers in my circles. However, I see A LOT of what BSWilson stated above, which also supports much of what R. Moran has posted.
It has nothing to do with nay-saying or being a doubting Thomas. It's too easy for some to throw that blanket. As for me, I have no dog in the fight. However, the only opinion about the rifle that I'm interested in is the Mil users. If they agree, across the board that it is worth the cost, we need to make them happen, time now. If they are only mildly impressed, they will have decide that weather or not the "juice is worth the squeeze."

[QuietShootr]

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).


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.

All of these. The folding stock is really nice for carrying a rifle in places no one would think a rifle would fit. My 17 fits, loaded, in a single tennis racket bag.

[SRT-M4]

And whats with the people that hate the 16 but love the 17...? Because they are SO much different than each other... I mean caliber, mag capacity, weight... ok, what else?

Rhino

Agreed. I laugh at these statements everytime I read them. 95% of the complaints that people have with the SCAR 16 end up being the same parts that the 17 have. Virtually the same rifles just different calibers.
If the SCAR 17 is a badass gun then so is the SCAR 16!

That being said, if the SCAR is just marginally better than the M4 then thats enough for me. Our servicemen in the field need the best equipment money can buy and I think ( even though the M4 is a great weapon) that the SCAR platform is worth every penny.
Whatever parts that may be failing in the field need to be corrected. The majority of the gun is there and proving itself.

[variablebinary]

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

That's my point.

There is a line of people that say having a QD barrel is useless, but they are myopic and lack vision.

From a cost, logistics and training aspect, QD barrels make perfect sense.

And the first person that says "you will never change barrels in the field" needs to be slapped, because the QD function was never intended for that purpose.

I personally have changed barrels at the range with my XCR and MRP, but would I do it in the middle of Afghanistan on a mission? No. No one would.

[mkmckinley]

That's my point.

There is a line of people that say having a QD barrel is useless, but they are myopic and lack vision.

From a cost, logistics and training aspect, QD barrels make perfect sense.

And the first person that says "you will never change barrels in the field" needs to be slapped, because the QD function was never intended for that purpose.

I personally have changed barrels at the range with my XCR and MRP, but would I do it in the middle of Afghanistan on a mission? No. No one would.

I was issued a Mk-17 and at first I though the barrel change thing was a great idea. In practice I decided that I like the AR system better with a quicker-change upper. The biggest issue for me had to do with zeroing optics. I know, the SCAR platform is specced for >1MOA shift between barrel changes. In practice however the shift is not as repeatable as I'd like it to be and may or may not be >1MOA depending on the particular gun and barrel. I received the NET training and did my barrel swaps as per that training. I would never go outside the wire having changed a barrel and not rezeroed and nobody on my team would either. If a quick change barrel is one that A: requires tools and B: requires a rezero then doesn't an AR have a quick change barrel too?

Don't get me wrong I really liked my Mk-17. It performed very well and I didn't have any problems with the stock or reciprocating charging handle. However if there is a requirement to run different length barrels I think it could be better accomplished by having a dedicated upper for each length. That way the user can truly quick-change their barrel without tools and more importantly not have to rezero. In addition you can have different optics suited for different roles already on each upper. In my unit we're already seeing this idea played out with the Mk-18 uppers getting issued to augment the M4s. It works great.

If having quick change barrels is a cost cutting measure, and I'm not sure it is, then that's a valid advantage to that system. However if we're discussing what makes the best thing to take to combat I still think the ability to swap pre-assembles/zeroed uppers is the ideal situation.

[Jaws]

Thank you for your imput.

I think you are right. In a smaller unit with a generous budget it makes a lot of sense having customized and prezeroed uppers that can be quickly droped in.
I think, for a bigger unit, that can't afford multiple uppers and multiple optics for each man, being able to change just the barrel is still an advantage that the unit couldn't otherwise afford. Is cheaper to buy an extra barrel and shoot few rounds to rezero the rifle, than buy an entire upper.