Comments on: Meet the SCAR

By: abl0ck0fch33s3

abl0ck0fch33s3 — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:59:27 +0000

in response to bishop, FN is making a limited run of civilian models which have a firm MSRP of $2696.56. (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/03/civilian-fn-scar-16s-pricing/) I really wish i had 2.7k to spend on a rifle right now, or i would have one of these.

By: Cpl Cansler

Cpl Cansler — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:13:01 +0000

I am an infantry marine by trade and I am currently serving as a marksmanship coach at Parris Island SC. I’ve had plenty of experience with the m16 and its variants in both training and combat environments. Personally I feel that the m16 family is a pretty decent weapon class. It provides an ergonomic platform that is easy to shoot accurately and is relatively easy to maintain. However, I do feel that today’s fighting men and women should have the best possible weapon available. I just recently got my hands on a FN SCAR, and it looks simple enough. Looks to be very rugged, the operating system is very simple and robust, and is very similar to the feel of an M4. No idea on how well it shoots yet, but I would assume acceptable. FN makes a fine weapon, it looks to me like the SCAR would fit the bill for a new service weapon based on what I know. It’s simplistic design would not hinder the average recruit of any branch from learning to use it effectively. I would like to see how well it performs in a field environment for a better idea of it’s ease of serviceability. So far it has my seal of approval, if that means anything to anybody.

By: Rock Soldier

Rock Soldier — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:10:59 +0000

“As long as there are no marines firing the weapon it is useless”.….WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. It is probably too technical for you! Better stick to the old technology .… like your tactics!

By: michael

michael — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:54:28 +0000

cool guns

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:56:26 +0000

I agree with Carl R. There are plenty of different variations of the AR-10, AR-15 that are very similar to the M4 and M16A2 that can many of the same accessories that these standard rifles are equipped with. Also, AR’s have the choice of a switchout to the 5.56 in the Upper reciever. I think the military should switch the calibers only if the mission/objective requires it. It would be a waste of time and effort to exchange the standard rifles to a different one if a soldier does not need it.

By: bulletsrus

bulletsrus — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:31:01 +0000

Many comments are made concerning ammo. 5.56 not big enough, 6.8, bigger, slower, 7.62, 7.62X39.…my reply. Weapon and ammo work best when developed as a system. Ammo has not been forgotten. Expect, as our warfighers diserve, improvements in this area.

By: PFC. Rodriguez

PFC. Rodriguez — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:51:20 +0000

It doesn’t matter how advanced or superior this rifle is, for as long as there are no MARINES firing this weapon it is useless.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:21:30 +0000

“A point that seems to be missed here is that the caliber of the round is irrelvant.“
The caliber of the round is NOT “irrelevant”. It is one of 4 major factors that combine to determine “terminal balistics”… ie what happens when the round hits it’s target.
1.caliber — larger = bigger “permanent” wound channel
2. velocity — larger “temporary” wound channel kind of like the wake behind a boat. Faster it goes the more tissue damage done… even by a smaller round.
3. Mass — more mass = more kinetic energy (linked to both the above) transferred to the target
4. Where you hit them. if you hit someone in the spinal cord with .22 you get a one shot stop. problem is… that is it. The problem with the current 5.56 is a. it does not expand (62gr NATO green tip is designed for penetration not to cause tissue damage) and b. it is being fired from a shorter barrel (14.5″ M4 vs 20″ M16) which = less muzzel velocity. the smaller and slower the round, the less damage and the more accurate you have to be to drop your target. Talk to any cop about shooting a suspect hyped up on drugs or any soldiers who has shot someone or been shot. The adrenalin rush of the fight has kept many from recognizing even severe wounds. You have to have a neuro/vascular hit or do a lot of damage.
You can’t even hunt deer in the US with .223 (5.56mm). And this isn’t hunting… In combat having to shoot the enemy 3–4 times before he is taken out of the fight is a bad thing. I can tell you the insurgents in Iraq can tell the difference when an M14 starts shooting at them. So you keep your .22, I’ll take a 7.62, 6.8SPC, .270Rem, 6.5 grendel or at a minimum a 75gr 5.56mm

By: bishop

bishop — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:41:26 +0000

was just curios if they had a civilian model? if so how much do they cost? reply to email cus i dont get a chance too look at this website everyday. thank you
GO ARMY!!! HOOAH!!!

By: bishop

bishop — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:40:33 +0000

was just curios if they had a civilian model? if so how much do they cost? reply to email cus i dont get a chance too look at this website everyday. thank you
GO ARMY!!! HOOAH!!!