So...is SCAR16 done for?

[Traveshamockery]

Here's a link to an explanation from an FNH USA Vice President, who basically says the SCAR 16 is dead (for USSOCOM).

Explanation is that early in the program, the requirement was split into two guns, one optimized for 5.56, the other for 7.62. The 5.56 platform was heavier than the typical M4, and as we've all heard before, there are very few advantages to justify a change. The 5.56 was thereofore undesirable, and the project requirement has been changed to return to the original idea, a multi-caliber platform compatible with 7.62x51, 7.62x39(?), and 5.56x45. This means the SCAR-17 will continue on in trials, not the 16.

[Spooky130]

I'd love to know what was breaking on the SCARs - just to have that knowledge to watch for it on mine. I can see that the stock could have issues. Now all we need is for MagPul to enter the game with a replacement stock!

[99HMC4]

I'd love to know what was breaking on the SCARs - just to have that knowledge to watch for it on mine. I can see that the stock could have issues. Now all we need is for MagPul to enter the game with a replacement stock!

I would like to know as well for general knowledge sake but were just civilians and can't handle the truth. We can handle a bit if it just not the whole thing....

[Alric]

If I could choose between free M4s paid for by my parent services and paying for SCARs, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the M4 too. Especially with Gates on record in the past about trying to shrink DoD's budget.

I liked cqbdriver's assessment of quote.

[FMJ556]

I guess then all the SCAR16s will be cannibalized into 5.56 upper parts kits for the SCAR17 ? I expect anything else left over will land up as parts for the civilian market.

[Turnkey11]

I guess then all the SCAR16s will be cannibalized into 5.56 upper parts kits for the SCAR17 ? I expect anything else left over will land up as parts for the civilian market.

I can see the price scalping on Gunbroker already..."$2000 parts kits with genuine USGI MilSpec SOCOM 10" CQC barrel assemblies."

[MilitaryArms]

If the SCAR 16 is dropped, good for me. I have two.

When I bought the first rifle I was pretty excited about it. As time has passed, I've found myself less enamored with it. It's a neat rifle, but I'll have to go with what others have said and say, it's not any better than the M4 it's intended to replace. As a matter of fact, the stock on the rifle feels very fragile. While I've not broken one, I know for a fact I could with little effort.

The non-reciprocating charging handle and the weak stock both leave a bitter taste in my mouth. I'll keep at least one of them for no other reason that in 10 years it may be a collectable that people will pay obscene prices for that I can use to fund some other firearm I can't live without.

[Redmanfms]

I would like to know as well for general knowledge sake but were just civilians and can't handle the truth. We can handle a bit if it just not the whole thing....

Dude, you need to cool it.

[Failure2Stop]

I would like to know as well for general knowledge sake but were just civilians and can't handle the truth. We can handle a bit if it just not the whole thing....

Dude, get off it. It isn't about secret-squirrelishness, it's about NDAs and contractural agreements between the US Government and competing manufacturers.

[superstratjunky]

IMHO, FN droped the ball on this one, but politics also played a part. Until we get politics out, {ie special interests, brand favoritism}, we won't ever see a vary good innovative replacement for the M4/M16. We need a hole new round {not to say the 5.56 is bad, but} & then make a rifle around that. Great ideas are out there, but politics keep them out of the picture. As for me, the only thing I liked about that rifle was how light it was. For that price, I could get a AXTS A-DAC upper & lower & build aroud those & still have enough money to buy 2,000 rounds of ammo.