The new design! New upper W/ railed carrier, internal op spring/buffer, self cleaning, self reg, self cooling, directional gas venting, stainless op system. Left (soon right) (fal type) charging, 1″ longer sight radi, higher sight plane, 1/4″ op rod, folding stock? with stowage, (where legal) 1.4 lbs lighter than m4 ™. Prototypes have exceded 12,000 rnds with two drops of lube, and proven to get 20″ performance from a 16″ barrel. Avail late summer 2010.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Our web site is under construction,and we don’t want to publish it until it is 100%. As for public info on H A R products, at this time we are close to (pat pend) status. Public disclosure of the weapon system would propel it into public domain, and therefor make it ineligible for patenting.

I will however, answer any questions that I can pertaining to the weapon.
If you send me your web address, I can send a video of proto t&e.

The production facilities are currently being set up, for first run. These will available for industry t&e, and not for sale. Soon after we hope to be able to produce 100 units per month. First we intend to sell only uppers, as the BATF is swamped with applications and are far behind on licences. Conversions will be possible,but as there are very few parts that can be reused the purchase of an entire upper would be more cost efficient. Our goal will be to provide the highest quality, with median price. The second version will be a folding one,currently we are working on the select fire components of the system. We also have 50 beo(tm) gas piston proto,and a Free floating captured in the for end gas piston designed for use as a dmr. John H A R

Please rate this comment: 0  0

John B. – I look forward to hearing what your guns have to say. Do you have a website, white paper, or any other publicly available information to which you can link?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

The Army is not going to replace M-4s the compateion is suspended or canceld the Army time sataes that the brass wants a piston and new to all M-4 to be upgraded. Its not going to happen soon.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I’d love to have a dollar for every claim I’ve heard like that. The FN Mk. 16 and 17 barrel life tests out to around 25,000 rounds. They are sub-MOA carbines out of the box. The FN P90 weighs just 6.6 lbs with a 50-round magazine, and is very popular in a number of combat arenas. It fires 900 rpm and is easily controllable on full auto. Select special units swear by the HK 416, which shoots great and provides an excellent improvement over the legacy M4. I could go on, but if you’re competing against the M4, I’d say that you’re about 20 years behind target.

Rumor has it that the Army will run a competition this year for a new carbine to replace the M4/M16. If your post is serious, I look forward to seeing your carbine’s performance in the competition. There’s a big difference between the laboratory and the field.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Soon you will be aware of the Synergistic Individual Quantum Rifle.There will be no hype,no actors, no biased claims.

It is an ar based platform,with to many advances to list.What I will say, is that it resembles the m4. It is what has been saught after, but not found! Performance? After 12000 rnds (4000 steel cased )our proto holds 10 moa from a 50 rnd burst. Point of impact is 18″ higher at 100m, and velocity is 80 fps grater at 8′ with no discernable wear.

Rate of fire;1200 rpm
weight; 8.4 lbs w/100rnds
sight radius; + 1″, over 1/4″ higher plane
folding m4 butt w/stowage
45% less recriprocating mass
left charger
Qcb
Low impulse,self cleaning,recoil and torque cancelling,short stroke piston operated

Please rate this comment: 0  0

My Sig 556 SWAT is still running like a champ (not sure how many rounds i have through it but its past 1000 at this point) even with all the Texas sand/dust it eats.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

How can anybody consider the Pat Rogers SWAT magazine article a postive towards LWRCI? The guns ran like crap. Numerous complete part failures in the 3K-5K range. None of the guns completed the test without 3-4 COMPLETE factory rebuids and they still broke. I’m not just talking about simple malfuctions either, we are talking about complete part failures required part replacement. Not just a few either.

IMO: They just poved themselves to be a poorly built hobby gun.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Contrary to anonymous source reports on the Internet, the U.S. military HAS NOT encountered significant problems with HK Model 416s in combat
conditions. HK416s are currently being used in combat operations by U.S.
and NATO special operations forces.

Furthermore, Heckler & Koch HAS NOT suspended production of the HK416. The HK416 continues to be one of Heckler & Koch’s most successful and sought after products.

Steve Galloway
Communications Director
Heckler & Koch
Ashburn, Virginia
TEL: 703-450-1900
3 April 2009

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I found this thread searching for something on Google. I’m amazed at your certainty about a weapon you’ve never even fired and apparently know nothing about. I couldn’t let this go without correcting the record here. Also for the record, I do not work for FN and never have. I do know a few things about military weapons, though.

The SCAR has been following normal DoD acquisition procedures. After the initial production approval, it entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) as is normal. After more extensive operational testing, it has now been approved for full rate production by the SOCOM commander. As of today, there are some 2,000 SCARs in warfighters’ hands around the world. It will appear across SOCOM in increasing numbers this summer.

SOCOM and FN both advertise that the SCAR was developed by warfighters for warfighters, and that’s indeed the case. Active Special Operators were involved in establishing the design requirements and conducting the extensive testing of the SCAR. If it wasn’t the best weapon available, the program could/would have been killed in its cradle by its future users who will bet their lives on it. The truth is quite the opposite.

I have fired both the Mk 16 and Mk 17 many times, as well as the M4/M16, HK416/417, HK G36, IWI Galil, SAR-80, and a number of other assault rifles/carbines around the world. The FN design is the most innovative, reliable, modular, light weight, and easily maintainable. It also shoot great. Its barrel lasts 3x longer than the M4s and sports a host of other features greatly lower the SCAR’s total life cycle cost. Maintenance like barrel changes for which the M4 requires factory equipment can be done by an operator in the field on the Mks 16 and 17. Combined with its accompanying Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM), the SCAR family can be configured for every mission from CQB to sniping, all in the field. Even better, they cost less than a current M4 and can use the existing SOPMOD kit accessories.

You may not like the feel of it because it’s different, but then I’m guessing that your life will never depend on it. Those whose lives do depend on the Mk 16/Mk 17 helped develop it and welcome its arrival into the force. They believe what they have tested and experienced, not what they read on blogs. The Mk 16/Mk 17 are the best of breed.

If that’s your definition of failure, well, that’s your privilege in America.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Ok kid here one simple question. Why is the US military doing another future weapon competition starting this upcoming November. If the SCAR is sooooo successful and soooo cooooollllll looking why do they need to start another program?

You have no idea how the military works or how they procure new weapon platform.

If the SCAR is in production for the US military they would have it last year because you know military get their stuff first before civilians. Right? Right? Where are the Special Forces that are using SCAR?

The only market left for SCAR are game kiddies and internet commando wannabes.

With the exception of Colt, FN, HK, etc does not understand that the US military isn’t looking for a piston driven rifle. It is looking for an improve DI rifle that is superior in every way to the AR15. Anything less is unacceptable.

SCAR is a failure because it does less for more.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

You can say they are all alike. They have pistons and bolt carriers etc.

The SCAR has a much smaller “user stripped” part count.

The piston is contained in the barrel assembly.

It is not “the same action” as the g36 or especially the ar18 which has a lot more small parts.

Thank you for your opinion. I have more confidence in the design and the ability of SOCOM to get the thing right.

I surrender to your knowledge and ability to see the future.

END

Please rate this comment: 0  0