It’s a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options — but you already know that.
So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it’s a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?
Well, let’s ask them.
“This rifle is awesome,” said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. “It’s spot on.”
Now you get an idea of how the men who’ll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what’s most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.
In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.
See the Military.com SCAR Demo Slideshow
The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase — the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.
The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine’s reported lack of “stopping power” and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.
But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you’ll get a completely different response on the rifles’ advantages over the venerable M4.
To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn’t the new carbine’s gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 — they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.
“I like it a lot better than the M4,” one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. “There’s a lot less recoil.”
One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon’s controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon’s handle.
“This works better with my stumpy hands,” the stocky operator joked.
But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR’s ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.
Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.
“That’s the best part of this weapon,” explained one Special Forces Soldier. “When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we’re on an operation where we need an overwatch or we’re observing at a distance, the M4 doesn’t do us much good until it’s too late.”
With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle — all in one.
Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.
“I’m not sure I’d ever want to fire it like this,” one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. “But it’d sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something.”
Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.
It’s unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn’t complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.
– Christian
If soldiers & marines would just learn to clean their M16/M4 rifles better,it would be alright.No need for inferior AK47s(that do not jam up or blow up in your face when you fire them dirty).No,our M16/M4 rifles are the best weapons in the world…ever,just ask any Colt Contractor or person with stock heavily invested in Colt Arms,they’ll tell you with a straight face that everything I’m saying is the “truth.” We do need to keep pouring billions of dollars into “research” into the next “big thing” in rifle technology(& I’d sure like to get my hands in that pie,heh,heh,heh).That’s where the big money is,not in the “next big thing,” but in robbing the tax payers & the U.S. government into believing that we “defense contractors” are diligently working & researching billions of YOUR tax dollars into the “next big thing.“You can rest assured that if we ever get close to the next big thing,we’ll promptly cancel it & use the “technology” learned to go into the next big thing without ever having fielded anything that could ever help the men & women of our armed forces(note to military contractors,are you having a Schindler Moment? You know,in the movie Schindler’s List where Herr Schindler had no plans whatsoever to build weapons that would actually work & help the Germans?).
that’s the whole point,the defense contractors are selling us faulty,dangerous equipment & then they have the nerve to BLAME US if it doesn’t work.This thread is about an assault rifle to replace the M16/M4,but it might as well be about everything project we are putting money into & not getting a thing in return.Whether it’s the assault rifle,body armor,FCS,ARH,UH-72 Lakota,H-47 Chinook along with the accompanying CSAR,F-22,F-35,aerial tanker,DDG 1000,LCS,CG(X)N,God the list goes on & on.……ALL FRAUD & LIES!!!!!!!
.……if I hear one more person mention the “rail gun”.….…I believe all of our navy ships should also have teleportation capabilities like in “the Philadelphia Experiment,” but what are the chances of THAT ever happening(even though I’m sure that the ever so wise defense contractors are selling the point for a few billion dollars more).
The Defense Contractors are selling us a “bill of goods”.They are frauds & liars.They are the tailors selling us the “Emperor’s New Clothes.“
Everyone counting weapons not built into their inventory of U.S. military capabilities should be called what they truly are,frauds & “check kiters(writers of bad checks).”
This rifle is very similar to AK47 and it’s current evolutions. Anything that lasts so long indicates perfection.
Only thing I cannot grasp is it’s front handhold, only Rumenians made one of these on their AK47’s. Better to make vertical compensation jet nozzle.
Roy please do us all a favor and take your hyperbole to dailykos, you’ll be much more appreciated there.
“This rifle is very similar to AK47 and it’s current evolutions. Anything that lasts so long indicates perfection.
Only thing I cannot grasp is it’s front handhold, only Rumenians made one of these on their AK47’s. Better to make vertical compensation jet nozzle.“
About the only thing that the SCAR has in common with the AK family is that it uses a gas piston operating system like AKs but that’s about it. The sights are far more sophisticated than those of AKs, fires different rounds, internals are certainly built to higher tolerances than the AK, and it almost certainly has better range and accuracy than an AK.
As for the foregrip, that’s nothing new really or unique to the SCAR, it helps to provide a better, more natural grip as much as helps with recoil.If you’ve seen any footage/pics of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan most, if not all, the M4s and M16s being used all have a foregrip attached. It’s not even an integral part of the weapon, it’s removable and attaches to the Picatinny rails at the bottom of the weapon which can also accommodate things like flashlights, laser sights, and any number of other accessories.
Sven, Sven, Sven
“I saw and felt it at the Eurosatory and wasn’t impressed. Its virtues must be well-hidden.” Dude have you ever fired a weapon? All the Eurotrash weapons suck and I would rather carry an M1 Rifle than a G36, British Enfield,Steyr Aug or a FAMAS bullpup I have fired them all at one point or another and they major flaws!! Your killing me!!
Nice rifle, how about for the General Forces 2.
Neat.
Love 2 shoot.
A rifle that you can change the barrel so it can have different a performance. Well that sounds a lot like the XM-8 that the Government canned not THAT long ago.
Well if FN’s rifle works then more power to them.
Paul, Paul, Paul…
‘All the Eurotrash weapons suck
I do believe that everything needs constant updating, R&D should be building new ideas all the time. Stop for a bit and that time is lost and slowly you fall behind in technology. Saying the things we have now a good enough shouldn’t matter. It may be good now, but not forever. Better prepare for the future.
This SCAR looks like a pretty solid weapon, I have heard a lot about how well it performs. It should be built and implemented to test out what we have done, see success and failures of the weapon and then start again and build another one. Dumping a weapon design wastes all the hard work that went into it.
Listen to the pros on the fronts lines. If they like it, use it and build it and listen to what they say. I hate it when the engineers and companies try to come up with all the latest gizmos that don’t matter and leave off the ones that the soldiers like.
huhhh, the best rifle is the one you like. Doesn’t matter if someone else doesn’t like it, if it works for you than use it.
Orbital,
The Heckler & Koch factory was built around the old Hsc factory not the Mauser factory. A lot of SWAT units /Special Forces use MP5 sub-machine guns and sniping rifles, the latter less so. The discussion is about assault rifles and I wouldn’t use an old Lee-Enfield in close quarter combat as it is too long, small magazine bolt action. I have a prefermce for the FN-FAL but there is no issue that the G36 is a good rifle but I don’t like 5.56mm. You can burn the AUG — Steyr’s answer to the Ford Edsel.
Now for the throw away society. The Panther was unreliable and a bitch to produce being mostly hand finished. Spare parts were a huge problem as many would only work on an individual vehicle. The Sherman for all its faults has stood the test of time and which flags flew over Berlin in 1945. Timber or stone/brick construction is based on the prevailing material and type of housing. U.S. Houses are detached whereas in europe hey are mainly apartments. Theer isn’t a lot of difference between a chrylser 300c and Mercedes SUV is construction qulaity as many think as both are built in the USA!.
Colt developed a short piston to replace the M16/M4 gas system but according to Colt, the department of Defense declined the modification.
Beware of people offering simple answers as they often compare apples and oranges.
@ GIZhou
Good answer! Really, I thought it was the Oberndorf Mauser werke that turned into H&K. But I can be mistaken.
Really, I know the Panther was a bitch, typical Teutonic over-engineering, but really, the only advantage of the Sherman was in its numbers. German gunners used to laugh at those Americans with their silly little tanks. And for the Merc, well, I’ve been so privileged to test drive a new (German built) AMG C63 (*very* carefully) and my dad used to have a Chrysler. Believe me, you can –smell– the difference. Granted, the SL is a tad more expensive.
My point is simply that European guns do not suck. German, Swiss and Austrian weapons especially run like clockwork. The US builds good guns as well (Thompson!) but OK, compare a M-60 to a MG42 (or MG3) and a FN-MAG. That isn’t apples and oranges, is it?
I do think Europeans tend to build things more durably (is that even a word?) whereas the US tends to focus on rapid consumption.
Oh, by the way — the SMLE is still used in active duty, just like the K98. The latter was designed in 1898, as you probably know, but it can still kill a man as well as it ever could. The quality is in the soldier, not in the weapon.
I’ve got a problem with any new plastic gun firing 5.56. I’ve got a problem with any 5.56 weapon period. If I was forced to use 5.56 I’d arm my squads/fireteams with the CETME Ameli. It’s described as an assault machine gun, not just a SAW. Why would I want to carry a plastic gun with rails just to hang extra junk on it and have it weighing as much as a SAW? You’re still limited by the 5.56. It takes more than a few shots to bring an insurgent down as everyone has by now experienced! So much for one shot one kill.
We’re in the new millennium, our kit should be lighter. Look at the MOLLE system. What a piece of marketing crap that is. Like any of us need an extra piece of webbing to hang another piece of junk off of. A military pack that weighs more than 6 lbs empty should be burned. Commercial packs by TNF, Marmot, Black Diamond, etc. all sell superior equipment that weigh less than 5 lbs. At least Arc’teryx now markets their LEAF line specifically to military and LAW Enforcement.
We seem to be getting off the track but I can talk about small arms for hours. The 7.62 x 51mm SCAR looks so like a reworked FN-FAL and given its from FN, I have no doubt from its lineage it will be a great weapon. But for all the cost a reworked FN-FAL would probably do just as well. Grab a heavy barrel version, take four inches of the barrel, rethread the flash supressor on, a dedcent optic sight and you have a ball terarer. It is a bit hard on the gas return rod but hey titanium and DU would work well here too.
I assume Odenwald you are talking about the Gewehr 41 from WW2 as the H&K G41 in 5.56mm NATO from the early 1980s conistently gave head shots at 300m with the forestock in a rudimentary rest. Shermans with the 17pdr and 76mm made the Panthers and Tigers wary and remember the Sherman could go for hundreds of kilometres on its own tracks without breaking down. Very few Tigers or Panthers could boast that. The HSSS M4E8 Sherman with its 76mm tore T-34-85s to shreds and later with 105mm guns tore T34s, T54s and T55s to shreds. Not too bad for an old warhorse.
“Sven, Sven, Sven
“I saw and felt it at the Eurosatory and wasn’t impressed. Its virtues must be well-hidden.” Dude have you ever fired a weapon? All the Eurotrash weapons suck and I would rather carry an M1 Rifle than a G36, British Enfield,Steyr Aug or a FAMAS bullpup I have fired them all at one point or another and they major flaws!! Your killing me!!“
See? We Europeans don’t even need rifles to kill you.
Seriously, I know rifles and served for a awhile in the Luftwaffe. Your appreciation of European rifles seems to be ideological instead of factual.
And you don’t seem to know how shitty the M1’s loading clip really was.
The AR-15 series and other American designs have major flaws as well, but I don’t feel the need to rant about it like you did about European rifles.
Excellent weapon. But stick with the Mk-17; the Mk-16 would only be marginally effective with its 5.56 NATO caliber.
everybody seems to be hung up on how fat the man was firing the weapon or who made it and which is this better or that . I would like to know what the kockdown power it has. I trained with and fired the m14 and it would take a man down quikly. and the m109 sp now the palledin would take a bunch out . someone tell me how powerful the weapon is ok.
The SCAR needs to be field tested. After a few Spec. Ops teams use them, you will get a real opinion. I would rather see the military change to a 6.8mm round, but it has not gotten much backing. In an urban environment, the 6.8 has the punch to blow a hole in a door and hit the guy on the other side. Or through that thin mud hut wall and into the guy behind it. The regular forces need an assault rifle that uses a piston system. There are so many companies making assault rifles now, the services can pick whatever they want.