The rise and fall of the SCAR.

[WillBrink]

Kid does a good job of covering the rise and fall of the SCAR, with the US mil at least. I didn't know the reciprocating handle had been a demand of SOCOM:

[mack7.62]

Early SCAR L the op rod track was too big, a 5.56 case or cartridge could get stuck there and cause a major jam. That problem was corrected and SCAR L's donated by Belgium seem to be performing pretty well in Ukraine.

[henri]

It's ugly AF.

[Defaultmp3]

I didn't know the reciprocating handle had been a demand of SOCOM:

According to an NSW guy who was extensively involved in the testing of the SCAR platform:

The original SCARs also had 0-45 and 0-90 throws for semi and full-auto, respectively. Until one of the component commands threw a fit over that feature, and insisted it be identical to the selector on an M-4, 0-90 & 0-180. The same component command also did not like the captured charging handle.

Said component command did NOT purchase any SCAR rifles upon USSOCOM’s adoption of the Mk17 after insisting on several design changes.

So not necessarily so much a demand of SOCOM, so much as a specific component of SOCOM.

[sinister]

The same component command also did not like the captured charging handle.

Said component command did NOT purchase any SCAR rifles upon USSOCOM’s adoption of the Mk17 after insisting on several design changes.[/I]

So not necessarily so much a demand of SOCOM, so much as a specific component of SOCOM.

It wasn't 1st Special Forces Group. The reciprocating charging handle was considered stupid. 5th Group broke stocks and selector switches.

Navy units were given the option (since they were the ones who stated it was a requirement) to use Blue Navy funds (instead of SOCOM) to buy it for all Blue units -- replacing the M4, M14, and Mark 11. Once put that way, they didn't want it.

[WillBrink]

It wasn't 1st Special Forces Group. The reciprocating charging handle was considered stupid. 5th Group broke stocks and selector switches.

Navy units were given the option (since they were the ones who stated it was a requirement) to use Blue Navy funds (instead of SOCOM) to buy it for all Blue units -- replacing the M4, M14, and Mark 11. Once put that way, they didn't want it.

Navy jokes aside, why did they specifically make it a requirement?

[mack7.62]

Navy jokes aside, why did they specifically make it a requirement?

Because the M14 had one. Seriously who knows likely only some retired sailor still laughing in his beer about how he stuck SCAR users with it.

[Todd.K]

. I didn't know the reciprocating handle had been a demand of SOCOM:

I think some of the requirements were specifically written to rule out an AR based improvement program. It was justification for a new platform.

[1168]

I think some of the requirements were specifically written to rule out an AR based improvement program. It was justification for a new platform.

There were things in the M17 program like that, also.

The testers specifically hated the reciprocating charging handle.

[mack7.62]

I think what really killed the SCAR L was the budget drawdown in 2008-2011, SOCOM no longer allowed to spend like drunken sailors plus the SOPMOD Block II upgrades arriving.