SCAR Discussion

It doesn't do much more than what the M4 already does to warrant spending money to replace them all
There won't be any new service rifles until the LSAT program yields results for a potential new standard caliber

>>32564131
FN made exactly what SOCOM asked for, SOCOM bought some, and then realized it was more cost effective to just keep using M4s instead of buying their snowflake rifle out of discretionary funding.

>>32564131
you heard fucking wrong. Why don't you actually pick one up?

The real issue is that M4s are FREE, SCARs are not.

This has been covered to death here by owners that are, you know, not retarded and actually literate.

>>32564172
I legit feel bad for FN whenever USSOCOM announces a competition for a new gun.

"Gimme a new rifle"
>Makes Mk17 and Mk16
"We only want the Mk17 but not as many as we thought we did."

"Gimme a new .45 with a big ass clipazine"
>Make FNP.45
"lol jk we actually don't want a new handgun but we'll take the compact version that HK is offering that we never asked for"

>>32564131

As it stands right now, there is no need to replace the AR series of rifles. Doing so would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for a platform that doesn't offer any substantial improvements.

>scar16
Completely fucking retarded since m4s are already abundant and fn wants to keep sucking uncle sams dick by giving them more

>scar17
A superior but expensive option. Problem is the way the us fights doesn't truly necessitate the traditional x51 dmr like other countries. It's a very good gun but not needed with how the current military functions

>>32564220
>Completely fucking retarded since m4s are already abundant and fn wants to keep sucking uncle sams dick by giving them more

you're dumb as FUCK. SCAR16 was a SOCCOM request, you illiterate fuck. There was and still is perceived shortcomings leveled against the M4/16 in SpecOp. Why do you think JSOC trialed and fielded the HK416?

>>32564131

>what could have been done differently
making it cheaper. NATO knows the SCAR rifles are far superior to anything currently in stock, but they're expensive. That's not to say NATO is against spending money on re-arming, but it's a matter of diminishing returns. The performance boost from a SCAR isn't enough to justify the exorbitant costs of replacing current small arms.

>>32564210

this.

>>32564219

also this. the SCAR just isn't a big enough improvement. I'd guess we'll need to see a real game changer before anyone replaces the ar platform. we've pretty much reached the pinnacle of semi-auto rifles as is.

the next step will have to be creating smart projectiles, or enhanced optics, or even caseless ammo that actually works. any which way though, until we have new tech... the ar platform is here to stay.

File: 2634a12a-db81-4c01-8e84-d8c6153e3a0f.jpg (129KB, 600x392px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 600x392px

>>32564175
>You heard fucking wrong
I stand corrected
>Why don't you actually pick one up?
pic related
>M4s are FREE
According to the source listed, a full M4 system will run the DoD around $1300

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

>>32564370
It's called inventory circulation. Internal acquisition from existing stockpiles are essentially free. What? You think SOCCOM buys new M4s for all in theater operators? What the fuck do you think SOPMOD is?

>>32564393
You've got to replace the ones that are in the stockpiles, no?

>>32564497
Why? Are they broken? Do you expect all infantry to be engaged in conflict at the same time? There are a lot of rifles in the US logistics chain, you know.

I really don't understand where the confusion is.

>>32564210
>
"Gimme a new .45 with a big ass clipazine"
>Make FNP.45
"lol jk we actually don't want a new handgun but we'll take the compact version that HK is offering that we never asked for"

is this shit ever going to end? seems like every ten years the US has relapse about going back to the .45

>>32564497
The US adopted the m4 in the 1990s. They are not old enough to need replacement.

we're expecting the m4 to last long enough to be in time for LSAT program to finish.

>>32564577

lsat already finished. it evolved into the ctsas program.

>>32564528
>Operators using standard issue M4s in bad condition
It's like you're trying to get them killed

>>32564669
they gave up on the caseless ammo?

>>32564131
I think that the M16's best chance at being replaced was when it was a shitty unreliable rifle.

Now that the kinks are gone and it's established, it will take too much to replace, and just about any new improvement will just be retrofitted in M16AX.

The ammo developed with the LSAT program, and a lighter, cheaper, better TrackingPoint system would be something interesting to see added.

>>32564560

>ay mane you got sum s-stobban powuh?

>>32564955
Looks like they went full retard as well,
>1200m
>Proprietary snowflake caliber
>More weight

All things they didn't set out for in the LSAT program.

>>32564172
It's more so SOCOM is a big fucking tent and all the different units wanted different things.

See: Decocker and safety on the mk 23

>>32564934
How and why would they be in bad condition? Stock piles mean storage no?
Guns don't rot like food they last hundreds of years.

How prevalent will SCARs actually be now that HK won the CSASS contract? Most pictures I've seen of the SCAR in action are a few years old, so I have no idea how or to what extent we currently use them in combat. From what I've read, MARSOC heavily favors the M110K1 over the SCAR now.

Admittedly, I don't know shit about any of this other than what I read on the internet, but maybe someone else here knows more and can elaborate.

>>32565304
>m110k1
you mean mk11 mod 01?

>>32564131
>Jammed the rifle with proprietary features instead of NATO-compliant ones
I have no earthly clue what you mean, I dont think you do either.

>>32565367
He is upset over the magazines.

>>32565402
There are like five companies that make them. The SCAR started out years before magpul changed the game with the pmag LR.

>>32564497
What the DoD has to replace does not really affect the budgets of the groups under the DoD.

File: IMG_4038.jpg (153KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 640x640px

>>32565337
No, I mean the m110k1, unless the mk 11 mod 1 is the navy's designation for it. I know the mk 11 mod 0 is the original SR25 variant. The M110 was an updated version of the SR25, and the K1 is a further update to that.

>>32566068
What certain units prefer can be something as simple as the preference of the head armorer.

>>32566103
I know. I'm just unsure about the future of the SCAR in the US military given that it lost the CSASS competition and was kind of filling that role once units started to ditch their original M110s and Mk 14s.

>>32564131

Not electing Obama and the democrats in 2008.

They pushed for military budget cuts in 2009 and the results came down in 2010 slashing SOCOM's budget by 15% while also standing up an extra battalion at every group.

SOCOM always had the option of getting M4s and M16s for "free" from parent branches. Any rifle that won the SCAR competition, even if it was yet another AR variant, would have come out of SOCOM's pocket.

Of course that's not the way that SOCOM's PR sold it. Instead of telling the bloggers about the budget cuts and extra burden from the new administration, they called it "limited funds" and let people assume the SCAR didn't do enough when it passed every single one of their requirements. Which 11 other rifles from 9 other companies failed at.

>>32564131
SCAR=$$$
HK416=$$
M4=$

That's why

File: 1467237031392.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

>>32564131
Scar 17s are so fucking hot, pity people are price gouging them so fucking hard right now because of califags want them sot hey can butcher them into bullet button guns.

>>32566633
You can find them for $2850 again

File: IMG_1125.jpg (3MB, 2602x3470px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2602x3470px

>>32564131
Its perfect

>>32566689
Where? I'm seeing them for around $2,999 on gunbroker

>>32566793
One I saw a couple days ago on wikiarms is sold out. Still, $3000 is considerably lower than they have been

>>32564131

Too heavy and too expensive

>>32566921
Yeah. I'm waiting for them to drop to around $2700 before I move on one, though. I want the whole package including a geissele trigger for $3000 or less

File: 1474217822155.jpg (8KB, 182x268px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 182x268px

>>32566993
>Too heavy
Shut the fuck up, you clearly never held many .308 rifles, for a semi auto .308 the Scar is light as fuck.

>>32566793
If the $149 is stopping you maybe you shouldn't be dropping $2850 on a rifle either.

>>32567076
Or I could just wait and not overpay...$149 isn't a ton of money, but I don't urgently need the rifle now.

>>32567055
Take a look at the shooting site trigger.

File: fnac_fn_advanced_carbine-tfb1.jpg (94KB, 900x454px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x454px

>>32564131
>What I've heard is that FN jammed the rifles with proprietary features instead of NATO-complaint ones.

You're thinking of HK's XM8 rifles. Not FN's.
FN-H just designed everything to SOCOM specs. Due to this it is more expensive than you'd want a general issue weapon want to be.

As a result, FN tried to design a more basic variation of the SCAR which would be more suited for general issue. It's called the FNAC. It didn't go anywhere though.

>>32564934
Why are you so retarded?

>>32564934
Delta, DEVGRU don't have a standard issue dumbass. If they need something from the stockpiles, they're gonna get the best available

Other less funded SOCOM units also get priority for equipment condition(Rangers, SEALs, SF etc.)

>>32564131
>What could have been done differently that would have led to the SCAR family being adopted?

Creating anything other than an AR-18 in a plastic/aluminium shell.

File: 1479945558132.png (23KB, 595x783px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 595x783px

>>32564219

The AR-15 WILL ALWAYS be better than anything AR-18 related, no matter how fancy or futuristic the fancy injection molded outer shell may be.


Stoner always intended the AR-15 to be superior to the AR-18, which was designed for poor countries with inferior manufacturing capabilities.

The SCAR, XM8/G36, ACR etc. are all just AR-18s in plastic shells.

>>32567242
>Due to this it is more expensive than you'd want a general issue weapon want to be.

There's nothing in the materials or manufacturing processes that make this an expensive weapon. The most expensive part is the barrel and it's nothing special either. The rest of it is molded plastic and extruded aluminum - as cheap as it gets.

>>32567660
The SCAR bolt is like an AR18, but the gas is from an M1 carbine. Essentially, the SCAR is like a greatest hits album. FN picked from the best designs ever made and put them all together. It's not ingenutive, but it is sweet.

The the "shell" on a SCAR is extruded aluminum

>>32564257
>Why do you think JSOC trialed and fielded the HK416?

So they could get the HK stickers for the back window of their car?

File: 14540534_625989550904149_4213915679666995200_n.jpg (46KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x480px

>>32567722
>but the gas is from an M1 carbine

Where do you drooling retards come up with this crap?

>>32564560
>is this shit ever going to end? seems like every ten years the US has relapse about going back to the .45

I think this is about the use of suppressors. Since all .45 is subsonic it's easier than tracking and supplying snowflake 9mm ammo that might get accidentally issued to someone with an M9.

>>32567783
>So they could get the HK stickers for the back window of their car?

But at that point, the H&K meme was already dying, and everyone was realizing that they never made any good weapons, except for the P7 pistol.

The G3 were Nazi designs, they just made various sheet metal clones in different calibers, like MP5, HK33, all of which were heavy and big relative to their calibers.

The G36 was a dud, and clone of the AR-18.

I'm glad the HK meme is finally dead.

>>32567794
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/19/short-history-tappet-operation/

File: fnac-tfb.jpg (70KB, 775x443px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 775x443px

>>32567720
>There's nothing in the materials or manufacturing processes that make this an expensive weapon. The most expensive part is the barrel and it's nothing special either. The rest of it is molded plastic and extruded aluminum - as cheap as it gets.

It has features which are entirely unnecessary or unpopular for GI use. Removing the front sight post from the gas block is something they did to make it cheaper to produce. They also simplified the receiver, specifically removing some cuts above the barrel. Less actions in productions, does mean lower price, regardless of what you claim.

But in some ways the FNAC is also more complex, as it doesn't have a bolt mounted reciprocating charging handle. They made it non-reciprocating now.

>>32566752

Is that an Indian clone?

How long until we get SCAR-17 clones?

>>32566752
>That dogshit

File: 14580331_1068757316572166_532001024_n.jpg (48KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 360x480px

>>32564131
Lower the price.
It's superior to the M4, but most people (government agencies included) can't justify the price tag.

>>32567660
>The AR-15 WILL ALWAYS be better than anything AR-18 related, no matter how fancy or futuristic the fancy injection molded outer shell may be.
>Stoner always intended the AR-15 to be superior to the AR-18, which was designed for poor countries with inferior manufacturing capabilities.
>The SCAR, XM8/G36, ACR etc. are all just AR-18s in plastic shells.

Jesus Christ. Please tell me you're just playing stupid. The AR-18 was designed as a cheap rifle but that doesn't mean every design choice is an inferior option. Short recoil gas systems are generally more reliable than DI/bolt piston systems. The VZ-58 was superior to the M16 in many ways when they were released. Now there's been decades of developement done to the M16 and it's the better rifle. Had the VZ-58 undergone the same development we'd see a vastly different rifle too.

File: IMG_1976.jpg (230KB, 1072x1440px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1072x1440px

>>32568024

Sooner than you realize.

>>32567794
>>but the gas is from an M1 carbine
>Where do you drooling retards come up with this crap?

Your picture shows it! Short stroke piston and rotating bolt. It's everything under the hand guards and above the BCG in the exploded pic.

>>32567794
...
The SCAR gas system looks nothing like that.
>>32567913
>non-reciprocating
GAAAAAAAAAAY

File: FNACleft.jpg (96KB, 600x217px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 600x217px

>>32568162
>GAAAAAAAAAAY

It's what americunts seem to whine most about.

First ask for a forward assist. FN-H implements the most reliable & simple forward assist possible as to not impede the reliability of the weapon by making it more complicated. And then unending whining about how there is a reciprocating charging handle begins.

File: IMG_1977.png (842KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 800x600px

>>32568162
>The SCAR gas system looks nothing like that.

What is a short stroke tappet gas piston, Alex?

>>32568196
>What is a short stroke tappet gas piston, Alex?

Oooooh sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Who is Turd Ferguson?".

>>32568192
I think it's people who are used to the AR.
AK fans seem to not have a problem with it.
I've never shot an AK, but the AR manual of arms always seemed retarded to me and I love my SCAR and would never ask for a non-reciprocating charging handle.
>>32568196
>all short stroke gas pistons look the same and any gun that has a short stroke gas piston got the idea from, and is a copy of, the AR-18

>>32564669
>>32564998
Do you have a source on this? Not finding it on google at all, and it sounds dumb as fuck. Last I saw (And just found again) they let out a report about 6.5 CT ammo and an adapted M4 sort of thing in a powerpoint.

File: 1397343648377.jpg (766KB, 2126x1397px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2126x1397px

>>32568117
>Need to know more intensifies

File: 200w.gif (262KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 200x200px

>>32566752
Did you simply not care where you took that photo or is that entire yard a minefield of shit? Kek.

>>32568534

He no doubt did it to make fun of the poo in loo indian pictures. They put up promotional pics of the INSAS etc in a field and it was full of shit. And I don't even mean the INSAS rifle itself.

Know your memes.

File: 1452665709890.jpg (658KB, 2040x3160px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 2040x3160px

What's the point in a replacement for the AR system if these other systems still fire the 5.56x45mm? It seems pointless for any country to start a mass replacement of their current standard issued firearm until the next evolution in small arms technology occurs, ie caseless ammo, etc.

File: eiEilCVh.jpg (207KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1024x681px

>>32568561
>Implying military adoption of caseless small arms would happen

>>32568592
>using cased ammo forever

Armed Forces are not going to make the jump directly to directed energy weapon until propellant based weaponry goes through another evolution.

File: cvbcvbgfy545.jpg (11KB, 317x167px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 317x167px

>This is 2006 info so take that as you want.

When I was in the Army, there were rumors of caseless ammo. The ammo was supposed to be 50% lighter than traditional ammo and some other jerk off features that I forget.

And it wouldn't work in M-4s (don't ask me why) so a new gun that could shoot it was supposed to come out too. We all thought the SCAR was that gun. But then something happened with the ammo. It failed field testing or some shit. Something about it failing when it got wet.

And then nothing. I guess the SF guys bought some, 50% feeling sorry for FN, 50% so they could jerk off to it. Thats the last I ever heard about it.

>>32568737

FN never designed the SCAR to shoot caseless ammo, bro. You've been lied to.

>>32568653
t. armchair analyst

>>32568162

>The SCAR gas system looks nothing like that.

Are you stupid, or just stupid?

>>32568592
>That pic

Literally scared to get an doge because I know I would do something stupid like buy one of these.

>>32568231

SCAR gas system is an exact replica of the AR-18 system. Which is not a crime - it works well.

But it just makes your SCAR a throwback to the 50s.

>>32564131
It's not a bullpup. We don't need another grandpa gun.

>>32568842
But bullpups are the past

>tfw no AR-18 in 6.5 Grendel

God I wish AA weren't such fucking turbojews.

>>32569350
Yeah, wanting to have a product that sells, jeeze, some people

>>32569527
It's not the price I object to, just the lack of diversity.

>>32569554
If you want one, get an AR18 and have it converted then.
There isnt enough demand to bring it to market

>>32564329
SCARs are cheaper to manufacture than M4s

>>32568592
Poor dog looks deep in thought.
>insert photo zoomed in on eyes.

File: scar_piston.png (39KB, 246x169px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 246x169px

>>32568829
>>32567794
The SCAR doesn't use the AR-18's gas system. I don't know where you guys get this "all short stroke is exactly the same" crap. Tappets are different from normal short-stroke pistons.

File: cwssgp1-vi.jpg (110KB, 753x777px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 753x777px

>>32570818
here's the M1 Carbine for comparison since anon mentioned it

>>32564131
Not looking like a fucking Ugg boot.

File: ar180-32-cs.jpg (74KB, 1000x503px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1000x503px

>>32570822
now the AR-18 (pics from an AR-180, same thing). Notice no captive tappet in the gas block

File: ar180-30-cs.jpg (64KB, 1000x386px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1000x386px

>>32570895
with the piston on. The piston and operating rod are made from multiple pieces for ease of disassembly, but all are external and move as a group. Compare that to the SCAR and M1 Carbine where the op rod is part of the bolt carrier and the op rod has full travel where the tappet only moves a few millimeters.

>>32568067
better than some toes I've seen

>>32570925
Nicely done

>>32570953
thanks m8