Barring any major advancements in firearms technology, the only true reason for replacing the M16 family of service rifles for the United States military would've been for modularity. A family of rifles that could easily swap not only roles within an infantry squad, such as an automatic rifleman or designated marksman, but could also swap calibers to enable it to switch between being a great assault rifle and being a great battle rifle when the situation calls for either, rather than having a one size fits all approach.
Imagine issuing infantrymen a service rifle and a half that could make that switch between the two when needed (not only on the tactical level but on the theater level as well, i.e. a division commander giving the order to have his troops switch over from 5.56 to 7.62 and vise versa). Rather than having a shortened assault rifle that is "alright" in a lot of situations, or even worse, have a magnum dong battle rifle become the new service rifle that is good in a very specific way, and pretty bad everywhere else (you know what I'm talking about).
The failure of the SCAR was that it was compared on a one to one within SOCOM between the M4A1 and the mk16 rather than viewing what it truly was and how it should've truly been analyzed: As a rifle that's pretty damn good and pretty much the same as an M4A1, but can also be easily converted into a pretty damn good battle rifle when needed without requiring an armorer. This would've given the US infantry across the board far more flexibility in capabilities instead of sticking with a single assault rifle or switching over to a single magnum battle rifle.
Again, barring any major advancements in firearms technology, this is the only legitimate reason for replacing the M16 family of rifles.
The 5.55 SCAR had some real problems that were fundamental to the design. I could list them here, but the guy at Modern Tactical Shooting was actually an evaluator and has better articulated points than I could give
I would still trade my FNC for a SCAR-L tbh.
>I would still trade my FNC for a SCAR-L tbh.
I wouldn't. I had several FNCs back in the early 90's, and have a SCAR-L now that I rarely use, preferring instead the Robinson XCR which utterly mogs the SCAR-L, and completely scratched that itch for a "modern FNC".
The scar-l is a military rifle with panache while the Robinson is a literally who.
>but it's ”better”
If I'm running around shooting I have a 6920. I just want something that matches jigsaw camo and how cool a gun is should be a major factor for anyone's purchase. These are toys after all.
>The scar-l is a military rifle
lol no it isn't. it wanted to be a military rifle, but faceplanted before it could do it.
>with panache
lol. lmao, even.
>no it isn't
This is what the US armed forces will look like in less than a decade. We are so fricked if WWIII doesn't kick-off here pretty quick.
>I need a military rifle to fullfil my need for a pleasure rifle
You are what is wrong with the gun industry.
>...a rifle that's pretty damn good and pretty much the same as an M4A1, but can also be easily converted into a pretty damn good battle rifle...
Except it's not, which is why there's an -L and an -H variant.
You can have a SCAR-H with a 5.56 adapter, I guess, but now you have a pointlessly heavy 5.56 rifle, which makes it noticeably worse than the M4. At the end of the day, spending millions to replace one 5.56-slinger for another just so you can adapt it into a DMR or something occasionally makes no sense.
Also, see
>I guess, but now you have a pointlessly heavy 5.56 rifle
Is it pointlessly heavy? Both SCARs weight about 7 pounds, which is pretty standard for a modern 5.56 and exceptional for a 7.62. I cant find any info on the weight difference of the conversion kit, but I cant imagine its that significant.
>but I cant imagine its that significant.
Correct, the conversion kit consists of a lower with 5.56 magazine compatibility, a SCAR 16 barrel, a 5.56 bolt, and a -17 bolt carrier with additional lightening cuts.
>Is it pointlessly heavy?
yes
>Both SCARs weight about 7 pounds
the scar 17 weighs 7.9 pounds empty, the M4A1 is ~7.8 pounds with a 30rd magazine
>"pointlessly heavy"
>shoots much bigger bullet, has monolith upper as standard
You're not making any sense. Seems like a decade after Squid stopped tripping, SCAR seethe is alive and well and the gun still cant get a fair shake on /k/.
>shoots a much bigger bullet
You know that the fricking SCAR came in 5.56, right moron?
scar 16 is kinda pointless imo
delta uses 5.56 conversions for scar 17 and if you want a lighter 5.56 rifle you have mk18s and m4a1s
The point is for a service rifle for infantry. not for a gucci rifle for Delta.
no shit homie, but its not a gucci rifle its just a scar 17 with a barrel and lower for 5.56
>delta uses 5.56 conversions for scar 17
care to elaborate?
SOCOM got a contract for the SCAR 17 but also requested a few 5.56 conversion kits
>On 25 June 2010 SOCOM announced that it was cancelling the acquisition of the Mk 16, citing limited funds and a lack of enough of a performance difference in comparison to other 5.56mm rifles to justify the purchase. Remaining funds would be expended for the SCAR-H and the Mk 20 sniper variant. At the time, SOCOM had bought 850 Mk 16s and 750 Mk 17s.[38] SOCOM had operators turn in their Mk 16s and is not keeping them in the inventory, but started developing a conversion kit for the Mk 17 to make it capable of firing 5.56mm rounds.[39]
Was France right to ditch the SCAR for a 11'' HK 416 ?
>France right to ditch the SCAR
What the frick are you talking about? The HK416F for combat forces is 368mm (14.5 inches) and replaced the FAMAS.
SCAR H is the precision rifle of french regular now though
replaced the old MAS precision rifle
Ok, that isn't relevant though. The anon was saying that the french got rid of the SCAR for the short 416, which isn't true.
>destroys optics
>5.56mm SCAR-L
Pick one.
I swear to god. This board was never good, but it's like the majority of anons on here can't even read at a 5th grade level nowadays.
right, didnt read, just know we use it fairly enough
Why be allergic to specialization? We've seen time and again the problem with 556 is the ability to engage targets at range, in fact the first MoH earned on film was entirely up to the failing of the caliber. Issue two rifles, expan the number of dmrs in each squad. Stop trying to shoehorn ONE gun into multiple roles that are so far removed from each other its not worth thinking about them in the same context.
>in fact the first MoH earned on film was entirely up to the failing of the caliber
556 had nothing to do with SEALs leaving a CCT behind
>Want to make a gun specifically for Special Operations without the input from people that were actually in that field of experience
>US Special Forces fools around with it
>Turns out it needs a bunch of changes and isn't much better than the M4A1
>Eventually relegated to the civilian market and Fortnite
Why are subject matter experts not brought in before making a gun you know you're going to sell to a military first?
>GWOT era SOF
>subject matter experts
At what? Getting ambushed?
The Army's Futures Command was stood up to change the acquisitions process to specifically avoid the turds that fell out of GWOT's floppy, infinite-money butthole. USASOC in particular and USSOCOM in general have very rapid acquisition flows that enable them to adapt to tasks required, but is also prone to relatively low ranking officers having undue weight in the writing the requirements for a program in a way that satisfies their pet ideas and not the problems actually concerning the force.
You see the changes the Army made having an effect in the NGAD program where soldier touch points were implemented very early and carried a good amount of weight.
Something I like about the SCAR over the AR is the (supposedly) extreme bolt durability.
Battlefield Las Vegas has had an employee claim that it has gone >200k rounds without failure.
Do you guys know if there's any design element that allows for this or is it literally just because it's bigger?
I kind of wish we could retrofit that bolt into the AR platform.
The entire bolt assembly for the SCAR is built like a brick shit house.
That extra mass causes issues if you overgas your rifle though leading to stretching of the rear of the receiver. Swapping out the gas jets is easy and fixes that problem. Replacing the rear buffer pad thing and the rear screws with slightly beefier ones also helps a bit or at least that's my understanding.
I've implemented most of these changes and have about 5k rounds through mine. Never had a single issue despite running it suppressed for about 3k of those.
What's wrong with this gun? It looks cooler / more powerful than the newer one.
1. The SCAR is stupid expensive for no real benefit
2. It destroys optics
3. Apparently it performed poorly in the sand box
I just like it, okay?
The thing with the AR had over anything else was the quick change BCG, everything else is either to big or takes too much time to get to it which is probably why the SIG won as it retains that feature as well as some under the table cheques