The rise and fall of the SCAR.

[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.

[1168]

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.

Nail, head, hammer.

[SteyrAUG]

“Oh, but it’s the softest recoiling 7.62 rifle ever produced.”

- Says those who have never pulled the trigger on one or have zero other points of reference.

I like my SCAR17 alright and will keep it, however: 1. It ain’t that accurate 2. It just about tore my left thumb off 3. Is very front heavy 4. IT RECOILS LIKE A BITCH. - Contrary to what you hear from all the Commie-Tube “experts.”

Oh, and I’m not recoil sensitive, but I’d much prefer to shoot my 458 SOCOM AR.

IMO the G3 is still the softest shooting 7.62 semi. There is only one rifle I'd consistently take over a G3 and that would be a Knights SR-25 / Colt 901 variant.

FALs and M1A are probably tied for second place.

[SteyrAUG]

It’s the softest recoiling 7.62 rifle ever produced.

Point of reference: I own one, and have owned it for 12 years now. I also own an M1A, AR-10, DSA FAL, and PTR-91. The SCAR will outshoot any of them (possible exception of the M1A), weighs less, and has a far softer recoil than any besides the M1A as well.

People are allowed to like what they want, but posts like yours really make me wonder if there was a fundamental redesign after I bought mine because some people report radically different experiences from factors that shouldn't be subjective.

My SCAR sucked as well. I don't remember excessive recoil, but I remember being disappointed it wasn't any better than any other .308 I've ever shot. Mine also gave me shitty accuracy, could be from trying to shoulder a rifle with the ergos of a lego block, but it just wasn't impressive.

Maybe it would have gotten better over time as I got used to it, I think maybe the reason I shoot G3s as well as I do is because I've been shooting 91s since middle school.

[HKGuns]

IMO the G3 is still the softest shooting 7.62 semi. There is only one rifle I'd consistently take over a G3 and that would be a Knights SR-25 / Colt 901 variant.

FALs and M1A are probably tied for second place.

I don’t own a proper G3 but my HK91 is a super soft shooter. Even with the A3 stick affixed which it is most of the time on mine.

Never shot an SR25 but the AR platforms are generally soft in recoil.

[HKGuns]

Well if you reseach it what destroys optics, is not recoil. BB guns destroy optics. All this is internet research and I am no expert. But optics apparently don't take a forward impulse. I can see how the heavy bolt carrier/bolt combo slaming forward could create a forward impulse in a SCAR. I bet both carriers wieght about the same in the 16 and 17. Why doesnt the 16 "destroy optics"?

My wife keeps her PWS brake on hers and likes it. It does make a difference.

The reason SOCOM and cool kids still think the 17 is worth it? Cause it is.

!6 ain't bad. just too heavy.

….and I’m no physicist, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So if it’s going forward, it is because it went backward at a significant clip.

…..and I blame that enormous Bolt group mass for the shitty recoil impulse of the rifle…..that and the light back end.

BUT, it ain’t like the SCAR is alone in that aspect as my TAR21 has a very similar Bolt group. It’s recoil is more than an AR, but wholly tolerable probably because 556 shoots basically like a .22.

Regardless of all of this, I won’t be selling my SCAR.

[mack7.62]

SCAR H vs HK, FAL, M1A as a MSR wins as lighter, optic and accessory mounting, ergonomics. I like all the legacy MBR's for what they are and yes they can be updated but all suffer from weight and ergo problems and either 60 year old or civilian produced parts.

SCAR H vs SR25 M110K1, ECC, ACC tough call, both combat proven, both expensive, one is literally twice the price of the other.

SCAR H vs Colt 901 no experience no opinion.

SCAR H vs HK 417 on experience no opinion, one is unobtainable for civies.

SCAR H vs other AR10's - AR10's suffer from not having a TDP like M16's brand specific parts class all these as hobby guns IMO.

SCAR H Robinson Armament XCR great rifle but not in production or saw any wide spread use. Rumor is that but for the lack of blank adapters the XCR might have won the SCAR competition.

Optics killer, recoil pulse and possible receiver flex, good optics and mount can mitigate.

Accuracy - suggest you look up the 9 hole review where they discuss the accuracy issues they had prior to discovering that proper torquing of barrel retaining screws cured that problem.

[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.

[Defaultmp3]

Why doesnt the 16 "destroy optics"?

A USASOC tester once wrote that the SCAR-L is actually harder on electro-optics than the SCAR-H, due to it having a sharper impulse on recoil. I suspect that it's not as well documented simply because most folks are putting RDSes on the 16S, instead of the more fragile magnified optics that we see more on the 17S, so it's not as noticeable.