Well, the snake eaters have come out from their hides and begun to comment on yesterday’s article about a test shoot I participated in with some SF Soldiers who demoed the SCAR.
Aside from the inevitable implication that somehow I was endorsing the weapon myself, the gist of the upcoming debate seems to be leaning toward the idea that the operators I interviewed haven’t spent enough time with the weapon and don’t know what they’re talking about.
In all candor, I would agree. No one is going to make a definitive judgment on a weapon’s capability from one day of firing. But first impressions are important — especially if they’re the impressions of Soldiers who will actually use the equipment — and that’s why I included them in an article for DT readers.
Here’s an interesting response from “CDRODA396” on the Professional Soldiers web forum:
The SCAR was originally a SEAL requirement, specifically they wanted a weapon that would fire immediately upon breaking the surface of water, as stated above it can do.
The main impetus behind the SCAR has not been USASOC, which they have not helped, but the main push has been SOCOM all along. Specifically an Infantry COL who is the PM down at Tampa. More recently, the Dpty G8, USASOC (18A) has been pushing it, going so far as to making the statement, “We are ready to accept the SCAR right now, and turn in our M-4’s to get it,” at the last SOCOM Weapons Integrated Product Team (IPT) meeting.
This is NOT the position held at USASFC, which is more fix its problems, prove it works and then we’ll move forward. MG Csrnko, CG, USASFC was briefed on the SCAR about two weeks ago. The VTC included all the Groups, USASFC, USASOC and USSOCOM, mainly represented by the O-6 PM.
At that meeting the recurring problems, like the butt-stock breaking, identified over three years ago as an issue, and again found most recently in April (I think it was April, maybe May) at the last User Assessment, were highlighted.
MG Csrnko asked some good questions, including, and probably most importantly, has the thing really been tested in anything other than a “sterile range” environment, which the answer was no.
So, it has been requested by USASFC that the current “issues” get addressed, for good, and it get tested in a FTX, CTC type environment, being used, “like we are going to use it.” Until then, we are keeping the M-4A1.
And that’s what I know about that.
Let’s keep track of what these guys are saying. I’m interested to take a look at how others who’ve spent more time with the weapon feel about it. One commenter said: “start posting on this thread your issues with the wonderful SCAR that’s about to be force fed to you in large doses…It’s time to take the SCAR to task.”
– Christian
Just observing the above picture of the SCAR makes it look more like a toy than the M16/M4 does.It looks like it’s all plastic.
Roy,
Polymer isn’t all that bad of a thing and that seems to be the trend in a good number of military rifles these days, polymer construction. The idea is, in part, to save weight how well it actually works I don’t know but that is the intent at any rate. Even though it may seem cheap the polymers used in firearms construction are not the same thing as the plastics used to make toys and can take a fair amount of abuse. The only drawback to polymers is that they’re less heat resistant than metal and a hot barrel can potentially melt it as witnessed during the early testing of the XM8.
Most semi-auto pistols are made with polymer frames nowadays. It doesn’t seem like a metal or wood gun is necessary and the weight trade off seems more than worth it. But I don’t know, I’ve never had to hump around the mountains with an all metal, wooden, or polymer gun but I’d just guess that a polymer gun might be more desireable.
The receiver and upper assembly is steel, Roy. Its just colored to match the polymer stock, trigger group, and accessories.
people the scar looks like a toy? yes but what was the nickname for the M-16 in the early days?
what was the M-16 considered to be? nothing but a toy
They probably should give half an infantry rifle squad these rifles to try out “under fire” in Iraq or Afghanistan with M4s close by within reach if SCAR rifles bugger up under battle.This would be an excellent way to test the polymers in the heat of Iraq & Afghanistan after firing a few rounds.
Another interesting perspective:
“There is a guy over on SOCNET who goes by the handle of Longrange1947. He is a career Special Forces soldier, and a senior SOTIC instructor. He is a longtime, vetted mmber of SOCNET, so his credentials are bona fide. He has been involved with SOTIC’s evaluation of the SCAR since the beginning, has nothing good to say about it, and says that the FN SCAR-H is pretty much being crammed down SOTIC’s collective throat. He is on record there as saying that they want the HK 417.
About the only person on SOCNET who says anything good about the FN SCAR rifles is a guy who is an employee of FN.“
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=136148&highlight=SCAR&page=5
Great point about the open gas system and silencers, blown_primer. But thinking a little more about it, why should the sound from the gas venting in the forearm of the SCAR, be any louder than the gas venting in the M-4? The gas in the M-16 system doesn’t dissapear. Quite the opposite: it vents right above the breech face, next to a big, open ejection port. Yet apparently, the M-4 carbines can wear suppressors just fine.
(damn, feel free to delete two of those.)
In reply to Mang;
While true that the gas vents above the breach face on the M-4, only some of the gas blasts out the ejection port– the gas escapes the upper reciever at all points around the reciever (over a larger area) than the small, high pressure release in front of a piston. Case in point: while shooting a suppressed M-4 on longer (5–6 rds. or more) bursts, my eyes begin to tear up due to gas jetting through the charging handle raceway and out the rear portions of the reciever (as well as around the reciever). Also, if I pull the mag with a few rounds still left in it (after shooting suppressed– either full or semi), the unfired rounds in te top of the mag are almost always coated with carbon from all the back-pressure created by the suppressor (another indicator that gas is trying to escape in directions other than the ejection port). Finally, simply lisetening to a suppressed M-4 compared to a suppressed Sig 556 ( a gas piston gun with almost the same barrel length and same model of suppressor) exhibits a profound difference in perceived noise level– the M-4 is noticeably quieter.
One additional point: by the time the bolt unlocks and begins it’s rearward travel, some percentage of the gas that is forced back into the reciever has already disipated before the ejection port is “opened” by the rear-travelling bolt/bolt carrier assembly.
The information from FoxThree should not be a surprise. Some time ago someone posted that much of the specops folks had switched the uppers on their M4s to 416. Given the general unhappiness with the 5.56, and the apparent happiness with the 416 uppers, it would only be natural that they would desire the 417. Same great function, bigger bullet.
The rest is also not a surprise. Politicians and paper-pushers assuming they know better than the shooters.
The only way to really find out is to use it in combat. Give a limited number out to Spec. Ops. units in the field and see wat they say. I do remember the SF group that swapped thier M-4 uppers for Hk’s 416, and maybe that should be looked at more closely. There are so many companies producing assault rifles now its hard to keep count. The Marine Corps had LWRC produce a new assault rifle. It’s called the IAR. Barrett makes the 468, and you can put a suppressor on it. There are so many.
Start replacing our M4 and other M16 series rifles NOW with the SCAR. Enough of the beaurocratic delays while our troops are getting killed in the middle east.
Give the soldiers what they need, a weapon that has real stopping power and a round that everyone uses(7.62mm). Sure the M-4 is good, but in urban warfare I want something that takes the bad guy out with one hit, not 3. There are plenty of designs out there and COLT doesn’t have to be the only one.
I’ve gotten my hands on a number of these scars (both light and heavy) and have shot them off and on for the past three years. They suck. Hands down. Of all the things I carry into combat, my rifle is the last thing I want made out of plastic. The 417/416 blows this thing out of the water. Both in durability and accuracy. The 417 can compete with the SR-25 accuracy wise. The SCAR heavy has the accuracy of a stock M4.