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.

[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.

[1168]

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.

As he says, the Block II improvements answered all of the perceived deficiencies with the M4 at the time. The SCAR L did not, and was not particularly well liked with the testers, who used it for a training cycle and a combat deployment. It didn’t seem to do anything that the M4 couldn’t. I think I remember it weighing more, too.

[prepare]

Outfitting a military with multiple weapons systems to maintain that basically fulfill nearly the same roles just isn't efficient.

Standardizing platforms makes more sense from a procurement, maintenance, logistics, and training/familiarization perspective.

[WillBrink]

As he says, the Block II improvements answered all of the perceived deficiencies with the M4 at the time. The SCAR L did not, and was not particularly well liked with the testers, who used it for a training cycle and a combat deployment. It didn’t seem to do anything that the M4 couldn’t. I think I remember it weighing more, too.

When I think of the SCAR I think of the H myself.