SOCOM abandons FN SCAR Mk-16

The big news this week is that SOCOM are abandoning the FN SCAR MK-16 (5.56mm NATO version) after buying less than 1000 rifles.

75th Ranger Regiment with SCAR rifles at NASCAR’s Kit Up blog reports

Details provided exclusively to reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

“The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from “Currently, three of USSOCOM’s four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item.”

The money instead going to be used to purchase FN SCAR MK17 (7.62x51mm NATO) rifles instead.

[ Many thanks to everybody who sent this in. ]

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • Josh

    Its an ugly gun anyways.

  • Vitor

    I think it’s important to remember they are not giving up on the SCAR system, since they will keep getting the Mk-17, they are just prioritizing weapons that give a real extra capability.

  • Jesse

    That’s interesting. The SCAR Mk16 isn’t considered a big enough leap forward from the M14 but the Mk17 is considered a big enough leap forward from what I’m assuming is the M14.

  • jaekelopterus

    Well, color me shocked! The AR-15 platform is not going to be replaced in any great number until the 5.56×45 is replaced. I doubt that’s going to to happen until significant advances in propellant technology are made. Why would all of these SOC groups want to adopt an more expensive, heavier gun with lots of expensive, proprietary parts and the exact same capabilities as the AR platform? Now, using it in the support role, as a marksman’s rifle or a support weapon makes a lot more sense. A SCAR in 7.62×51 with expensive optics and a fun switch is about the coolest thing that I can think of.

  • Glen

    Gee, a 5.56 round coming out of a 14″ barrel is pretty much the same no matter what the plastic looks like that surrounds that barrel. Who’da thunk it?

  • Guy

    What it is really is the US government trying to cover their asses after some ultra classified delta oppretives had them blow up in their hands during a fire fight in Afghanistan.

  • Gun.up

    Just a bit of clarifacation, I was on wiki the other day and it said that the L( Mk 16) is an assult rifle and the H (Mk17) is a battle rifle, what’s the difference between an assult and a battle rifle. I know that the L is 5.56 and the H 7.62(or somthing) but is that the only difference.

    • kyle

      The difference is the mk17 shoots a .308 round and the mk 16 shoots a .223 round that in itself is a huge difference

    • kyle

      The difference is the mk17 shoots a .308 round and the mk 16 shoots a .223 round that in itself is a huge difference.

  • Pete

    The fact is that personal/infantry firearms technology reached its zenith long time ago…there will never be any major performance advantages with gunpowder technology.

  • Meltron

    The day of mourning begins for SCAR fanboys

  • pikestaff

    I presume its to do with longer range firepower in Ashcanistan? about time the troops had something with a decent range, and stopping power.

  • ZomBkiller

    I am not surprised at all. The problem all along was the cartridge, not the delivery system. I am excited that these guys are upgrading to the 7.62×51, finally they get to significantly perforate Charlie.

  • Lance

    You made my year Steve. yeah replaceing a 5.56mm rifle with another 5.56mm makes no since. only a new caliber would bring a new rifle in service like a 6.5mm or 6.8mm rifle. It had too much pastic. And since the Military is buying upgraded M-4s like the H&K 416 in USMC service theres no need to have a differnt rifle for each military service branch.

  • Lance

    I bet too the M-14 and M-110 will be in use for long time as well since most services still use them as well.

    The SEAL always tried to make a SOCOM only gun like the Mk23 handgun. And noone except the SEALs used it becase it was too BIG.

  • Rijoenpial


    It is not news that the SCAR MK16, despite the advantages in less weight, and lower recoil and therefore more precision shots kinda made me wonder why the SCARs were taking so long to be adopted…

    There is no news that the SOCOM operators preferred the MK17s to the Mk16…Just see the photos of Iraq and Afghanistan and you’ll see it clearly…

    I like that the SCAR MK17 is still a go, and hopefully that will mean that the MK16 will see it’s way to civ market sooner than expected…

    Still, it is strange that so soon after the SCAR 16 and 17 were given a green light to full production, these not-so-new news surface…

    Now, all they need to do is improve the folding stock… and some minor

    Still, not surprised given the SOCOM preference for the 7.62×51 version…
    We all knew the desert warfare requires a weapon that packs more punch than the 5.56…

    GO SCAR!


  • Rijoenpial

    Small precision:

    When I meant that with these news, the Scar 16S could see the civ market sooner than expected, I meant in more numbers than the ones previously available in the US…

    It will also free FN to provide the weapon to any army that wants it, therefore lowering costs for weapons mass purchase and so on and so forth…

    Having seen a French special forces operator with a SCAR, I take it they are not exclusive to USSOCOM…Are they?

  • Mike M.

    Note that this does NOT mean the SCAR-L is a bad rifle. It merely means that given a choice between spending SOCOM’s money on SCAR-Ls or spending it on SCAR-Hs, they have chosen the latter.

    Which is entirely understandable. SCAR-L is nice, but M-4s are “free” (at least to SOCOM’s budget). Better to spend the money on something that gives you capabilities that can’t be had elsewhere.

  • Dan

    This seems to be along the lines of what I’ve been hearing in theatre- it’s a nice rifle, but it doesn’t outperform the M4 SOPMOD enough to justify the cost. And remember cost isn’t just the cost of procurment, but also the time and expense of retraining shooters on the weapon. Most guys seem to think the time would be better spent on other training and equipment instead of a new rifle.

  • kcoz

    I agree why waste money on another 5.56mm rifle. The SCAR doesnt really do anything the M-4 doesnt already do.Bullpups and caseless ammo(maybe) are the wave of the future.

  • 17 > 16 duh.

  • Martin

    Hooray for SOCOM. Smart idea to dump 5.56 and go with something that works for the current environment.

  • William C.

    Yeah the Mk.16 costs more than the M4, but what about commonality savings? The Mk.16 may not be a huge improvement over the M4, but commonality is something.

    I don’t see why the Mk.17 won’t follow this unfortunate development considering there are plenty of M14s, SR-25s, and other 7.62x51mm rifles around they could just keep using for a lower cost.

  • jdun1911


    SCAR is dead. There isn’t enough .308 battle rifle in service and hence the SCAR 17. Once M110 and variant is in large quantity, the SCAR 17 will be discarded.

    The US military has a long history of rejecting Stoner Piston design.

    SCAR is a Stoner Piston design.


    No rifle design in the past 50 years has been a big leap forward. The SCAR is an AR18.

    They need more .308 rifles and SCAR is just a stop gap.


    More like:

    Delta: “This carbin suck.”


    Don’t use Wiki as a source.

    Battle Rifle: 7.62 and up.
    “Assault Rifle”: Intermediate round, ie 5.56


    I agree, small arms mechanical technology has reach it limits.


    More like whining.


    SCAR isn’t light. It weight almost 2 more pound then a standard M4 IIRC. Hence the softer recoil.

    The 7.62 will make a difference in Afghanistan because Special Operators are better train as marksmen. However I doubt the entire team will switch over.

  • Lance

    the reason SOCOM is still buying some SCAR Hs is that the regular Army Navy and USMC have took almost all the extra M-14s the military had stocked piled. Since all the M-14s are being DMRs in the regular army some SOCOM units want to have a larger 7.62 weapon to use that spare parts wont be taken up by otherunits like the M-14 and M-110.

  • Lance

    I find it funny on another level in the video game Call of Duty Modern warfare 2 the M-14 and SCAR H are both used by SOCOM players and only the M-4 is around for 5.56mm weapons. Is this another add on to the socalled Call of duty effect! LOL.

  • jdun1911

    Here the thing about the SCAR.

    1. Stoner Piston. Great design but the US military have a long history of rejecting it. Reciprocal charging handle. For those that don’t know. The charging handle moves back and forward when firing, ie AK. Reciprocal charging handle isn’t good when you have to do lots of fighting in close quarters or inside vehicles.
    2. Weight more.
    3. Charging handle in bad location. Third party mount might get in the way of charging handle.
    4. Bulky
    5. Very Cheap Stock.
    6. Plastic lower receiver.
    7. Plastic 3 and 6 o’clock rails.
    8. Handguard gets hot easily because it is attached to the barrel.
    9. Not enough handguard/rail space.
    10. No third party support.

  • Jmc

    Now, I agree on all accounts, the same round fired through a differant rifle is a moot pont. However, I have a confession and a question: I love the stock. Can any one tell me where I can purchase one?

  • When I was in Iraq toting around my M4 I ran into a D-boy on security detail to a US politician who had an early SCAR (5.56mm). I asked him how he liked it since I hadn’t had a chance to try one yet. He said he’d trade me for my M4 in a heartbeat, they were only carrying the SCAR for show since it was plastic junk with poor ergonomics. Still haven’t tried one myself, only held it and wasn’t impressed (caveat: over 20 years in the army using M16 variants and proud owner of five ARs…).

  • Alex

    Predictable. 7.62 is more desired so SCAR-H was kept

  • Ken

    Battle rifles are generally 7.62 NATO. SOCOMs limited budget? Ya….

  • Jusuchin

    Shocked. Not really. But more shocked that the Call of Duty fanboys have yet to rage on this.

    I give em a day or two.

  • AK™

    I wonder what would have happened if the assault rifle,instead of the M16,had been the SIG 5xx series..

    I know the AR-15 market wouldn’t be as saturated as it is today..but the SIG 5xx series seems to fit the bill for an “assault rifle”

    I’m glad that they are going with the .308 version. Another 5.56 rifle just isn’t needed in the system..especially the ACR and the SCAR-L.

    If any other gun was going to be approved,I would have vouched for the Ultimax U100 with mag adapters so the M16 mags could be used,replace ALL the M249/Minimis with MG4s

    I don’t like the idea of FN Herstal being the lone supplier of small arms to the United States Armed Forces..

  • TheAmdMAN

    They need to pick up LWRCi M6’s and call it a day…. Made in the USA, great design, etc. Quit buying these expensive FN and HK rifles.

  • TheAmdMAN

    @jdun1911 – Wiki’s fine, just need to check up on what you read there… Check the sources cited for the articles and don’t spew it if you haven’t verified the content.

    Great resource when used wisely..

  • jdun1911


    Sig 5XX series are AK variant. Well made and better tho.

    As a rule of thumb, modern auto combat rifle/carbine firearms comes in three favor: Stoner DI, Stone Piston, and Kalashnikov. Modern auto rifle/carbine firearms are a variant of one of those 3 actions.

  • subase

    Looks like Socom took my advice : )

    I think they ditched the Scar mainly cause it was just too expensive and too much of a departure from the M16/M4.

    The new program on upgrading the M4 pretty much says as much. They’ll add in some lubrication coatings, put in a reliable piston system (osprey) and that’s, it mission accomplished. A more reliable M4/M16, that needs a lot less finicky maintenance in desert conditions.

  • Bobby

    I like the idea of an LWRCi rifle being the standard AR. But it wont happen.

    Nor does it really need to.

    However, one down, one to go (ACR).

    It doesn’t do anything the AR doesn’t do.

    What I’d like to see though is a 14.5” KAC SR-25 battle rifle.

    That would be an upgrade from the SCAR-L.

  • Vitor

    jdun1911, I know you like to defend DI guns, but the SCAR is not bulky at all. Every owner of the SCAR reports how it feels light and balances great, many claim that the lack of “front heaviness” is par to DI guns. Besides the very low recoil.

    In case you want links of the opinion from actual owners of the gun, just ask. =)

  • Rijoenpial


    Vitor is right: most users, civilian and otherwise (the ones that can be proven to actually have said it!) have said the SCAR feels lighter, more ergonomic (feeling nice) and has lower recoil, and because it is piston-driven, requires far less lubrication than a DI system and, therefore, leaves the SOCOM operators with far more time to train… THAT alone is why SCAR is far better than the M4…

    Now, let’s be practical, soldiers are accostumed to the M4 system and being cheaper helps… And from several videos online, it is cheaper and ‘cheaper’…

    If you want something with quality, you have to pay for it…That’s it for everything… The SCAR is a major improvement on the DI and AK system, with lower recoil from having more mass moving backwards and it matters when you’re firing single shots and repeat shots (two or three-burst shots)…

    My problem with the stock is the rattling… It is not the plastic, but the way the various stock components are put together, especially the locking mechanism, which has been know to break from wrong pressure put against it… The ACR folding stock SEEMS better in this department, but style-wise, I grant that the SCAR stock is very stylish and not bulky at all… Nor is the SCAR Mk16, which is the slimmest AR system I have ever seen…!

    Word of mouth from civilian shooters is almost unequivocally positive (except, of course, for the DI fans…!) and I’ll have to say that the ‘plastic feel’ is nothing…We all know that polymer is being employed to reduce the weight while keeping it as or even more durable, waterproof and shock-resistant… The separation of components might happen or the breaking of the locking mechanism, but I doubt that the polymer itself will ever break or is the weak link… FN should put a little more though about the stock parts assembly and locking mechanism… I gather that pushing the stock into the wrong direction will break the locking mechanism…

    So, there are a lot of advantages in the SCAR…BUt we, humans, are animals of habit, meaning that once we get comfrotable with one thing, we become fans and don’t want them to be changed…Why would SOCOM or Delta boys be any different? They know how they work, they know they do work and they don’t mind spending time having to lose time lubricating it or operating the charging handle while taking their eyes off-target… The bolt release is the same as an AR and the learning curve is practically none…less time to disassemble the SCAR, much lesser time to clean it, etc…

    I can see only advantages in the system…Now, the price and the ‘made in USA’ argument always win… I know that the AR is very dear to everyone in the States because it is a US design… FN is building a factiry in the States, FNH-USA employs many American citizens, so I don’t get the hate against FN and why they manufacture 75% is because they are the best at what they do, together with HK… History proves it, with the FAL, the FNC, my favourite tryptic generation of weapons (Five-seveN, P90 and F2000), etc… They design out-of-the-box weapons that are reliable and worth the cost…

    Again, I am glad that the SCAR Mk17 is gonna continue to serve the USSOCOM but I also agree that once the SSR is up and running, even the M110 will be outperformed… The IAR was another breath of fresh air with the automatic open-bolt, closed-bolt system activation…So, FN is at the top because it works to be up there…

    I do agree with kcoz: the bullpup system is the wave of the can see it already from all the countries using them (Chinese, Singapore, France, etc)…


  • Gun.up

    Jdun1911, thanks, wiki isn’t my only source but I use it when I’m in a hurry.

  • Big Daddy

    SCAR guys who own them like them. But they don’t have to go to war with them. In the combat everything is different. I didn’t want to have to go to war with my M-16A1, I liked the M-3 grease gun better since I was a driver, 19 Delta scout, I drove M-113s, M-577s and ITVs. The M-16 was useless, how could I fire it and drive, you could do that with the M-3. Thank goodness I didn’t have to go to war!!!!!

    The Chinese bullpup is not working well from what I have read.

    Plastic and heat are NOT a good match, metal takes heat a lot better and aluminum dissipates heat very well, just ask a cook….LOL.

    The 5.56mm sucks and the 7.62 is great for certain jobs. Both could be dispensed with in the squad organization by either the 6.5mm or the 6.8mm.

    Where’s my ray gun, phaser or plasma rifle? They have to come up with something until those are ready, so were is my case-less bullpup?

    The only step forward right now is the 6.8mm and 6.5mm rounds, why not start slowly switching over? Using either round right now would put our troops in an advantage in any firefight, isn’t that what’s it’s really all about?

  • Heartless Libertarian

    I just cam back from A-stan a couple of weeks ago, and the only ‘operators’ (SEALs) I encountered used HK-416s (with suppressors). The only guy I saw with a SCAR-L was a PSD type in Kabul.

    The MK17 has far more advantages over the M14 than the MK16 does over the M4. Weight, overall length, and ease of mounting accessories (and ergonomics of same, especially optics) being the big ones. While the manual of arms for a SCAR isn’t the same as for an AR-type, it’s a whole lot less alien than that of the M14.

  • Blade

    I must admit I found this decision somewhat surprising, since the whole idea of the SCAR was to purchase a family of systems that are interchangeable, ultimately realizing an economy of scale and cost giving operators a wide range of options from 5.56mm to 7.62 with accessories like optics and grenade launchers on a common platform that fixes the deficiencies of the current M4 system. Ultimately, it does come down to cost.

    For my part, I find the SCAR in most every way superior to the M4 – from handling to ergonomics to ease of maintenance and cleaning. If I had to grab one 5.56mm gun to go, it would be the SCAR.

    I am also gratified to see the 7.62mm gaining emphasis, just as we need to move back from 9mm to .45 ACP for our sidearms. Focus should always be on functionality and lethality vs. logistical simplicity – the NATO compatability concept is a cold war relic. If I had to pick one 7.62mm off the shelf, it would actually be a Galil SAR – I still believe that pound for pound this is the best 7.62mm AR on the market.

    Just some random thoughts, have enjoyed the discussions thus far.

  • William C.

    Do the “Block III” (production) SCAR models have a different mod # than the earlier prototypes. For example is the proper designation Mk.16/Mk.17 Mod 1 as opposed to Mod 0?

  • jdun1911


    To me it feel cheap but that’s my opinion.

    I’m no fan of any firearms or products. I have criticized products that I like and gave disparaging information to Steve to post, like for example AR15 barrel falling off, AR15 KB!, etc.


    Most civilian don’t know how to hold a rifle right much less know how to shoot. You know if you spend almost 3 grands on a firearms, you’ll said whatever it takes to make shit smell like perfume.

    These are not typical soldiers. They are from Special Operation. They have more training than a typical solider.

    Scar isn’t quality as I pointed out in my previous post.

    As mention before in my previous post, the SCAR is a Stoner piston design, ie AR18. It is not a new design. The SCAR is a copy of an old design. Granted it is a copy of one of the three most design used in modern firearms. A design that has a long history of being rejected by the US military.

    Again the standard SCAR weight almost 2 lbs more then an M4. It’s not my opinion it is a fact.

  • jdun1911

    Folks as much as people like to tell you, new weapon design that are coming are not new at all. They recycled designs that have already been proven. The difference is new material and new look but the soul is still the same.

    The SCAR used Stoner Piston design, ie AR18.

    The AR15 which some posters on this blog will you is a 40 years old design. Well that is true but what year was the piston invented? Compare to piston the DI design is a much newer design. The AR15 has modernize itself quite nicely to a point where newer rifle design have to keep up.

    One of the reason why the SCAR is rejected is logistic. Adapting a new platform in the military is a great undertaking. You have to retrain everybody on how to use it, like clearing malfunctions. You needs spare parts. You need armorers to service them. The list goes on.

  • Lance

    Victor The main reason the SCAR Mk16 was dropped was it was NOT proven serpior to the M-4 the article states that only the SEALs and aone group of Rangers used the weapon system in a very imited fasion. They didnt like to the gun in civilian hads is fne with out another 5 punds of gear on it it weighs fine but add bipod ACG lazer sight flashlight ect it became too bulky.

    Jdun the H&K 416 won the IAR compation the Marines didnt like the reprocateing charging hadel and butstock of the SCAR. I do think the Mk-17 will be around in SOCOM for awhile and I also think so will the M-110 and M-14 SOCOM picks its weapons for spacific missions.

  • Lance

    Im with Jdun on this. The SCAR didnt live up to its great expeitations. The H model can be better off in SOCOM hands since almost all the M-14s in the Military arsinal in in use with the Army and USMC as DMRs or Sniper rifles. The navy too uses alot of them for security and ship use. The tow launching perpose alone a SCAR wuldnt hold up to the pressure w/o breaking. As per Heartless Liberation your wrong on why SOCOM wanted a 7.62×51 rilfe of its own. The mainreason came in 2004 when the Army and Marines basicly emptyed all the wearhouses which they stored all of SOCOMs M-14s most of them scoped and restocked for DMR and Sniper persoses. SOCOM cant take the Navy’s invantory since the navy uses them for ship secuirty and tow launchers. SOCOM didnt have very many M-14s left so they wanted there own rifle that could fill the gap left by the regular militray takeing all ther battle rifles.

  • Rijoenpial


    you have it backwards: if you’re gonna spend 3 grand on a rifle, you have to like it in advance, not as you say make excuses for purchasing it…

    The weight is not what I am discussing, but the balance of it, which is an entire different thing… And an M4 with accessories is as heavy, if not more, than the SCAR, so that dog won’t hunt…

    The SCAR has the best of both AR and AK systems, so it is neither… AR is DI (direct impingement) and AK is PD (piston-driven)… The SCAR is PD with the familiar controls and handle of an AR platform…

    Regarding the polymer versus heat, it all depends how and where you place the polymer…If you noticed, the upper part is aluminum and the lower part is polymer and in no way they connect except on the captive pins… The polymer receiver ends right where the barrel begins, and the thinner barrels of the SCAR dissipate the heat far faster than a regular M4 one… And the fact that the barrels last far longer than an M4 as well as the whole system itself lasts far longer than an M4 speaks volumes about the SCAR’s reliability…

    IMHO it all comes to familiarity and habit… The SCAR was done with input from the operators themselves, so them now saying ‘it sucks’ makes no sense…

    And we all know where the rejection and resistance comes from and I have said it above: the AR is a US design and no matter how far better the other systems are, the US will stubbornously cling to the AR until enough soldiers have died from jams and malfunctions easily avoidable…

    They will make conversion kits, they will milk that cow until she’s all skin and bones, but that’s what will happen…And has been happening for the last 50 or so years…

    The PD is a much cleaner system, much more reliable, requires far less maintenance, leaving the SOF operators with far more time to do what they should : train and fire their weapons in every conceivable hostile environment…

    The HK416 is nothing more than a conversion kit for the M4 and it is a temporary solution… Apparently, it is not frost-resistant (the Norwegians say so) so what will happen if the SOF operators have to fight during winter in the Afghan mountains…? Risk jamming during critical firefighting or use extensively tested gear done to their specifications and request?

    IMHO They just chickened out…Either that or the SOCOM procurement division doesn’t have a clue what the hell they’re doing… You don’t waste that much money and time to create a rifle and then at the last minute discard it, especially for the oh-so-lame reasons given…

    That is making fun of Mr and Mrs taxpayer…That means YOU!

    I would be pretty pissed!

    It is always sad and perfectly avoidable having a soldier who needs to rely on his weapon functioning properly, saying that in the middle of a firefight, hiw weapon malfunctioned, leaving him defenseless against the enemy… In desert warfare, you need a gun that is reliable…The PD system rovides that hence why the AK is still so robust and can be used in any extreme environment imaginable…

    The SCAR took the best features and familiarity to the operator of the AR and combined them with the AK PD system and improved on it to provide less recoil and decreasing the fire rate to make the weapon more manageable during auto-fire…

    You can always say that the FAL system (born in 1946 and adopted in 1953) actually took precedence on the 1947’s AK… Originally, FN designed the idea of a rifle with the 7.92×33 mm , so who was the first, Mikhail Kalashnikov or FN?

    The ‘who was first and who was second’ is moot and completely missing the point.. FN built on the AR system because of familiarity to the USSOCOM SOF operator… They could have based it on the FAL and take it from there… And the fact is they improved on the AR system and actually created a weapon from scratch, taking the best from both systems and creating a hybrid one, much cleaner (AR), more reliable, with less recoil (AK), modular, and more ergonomic (AR)… A slimmer design too…

    The SCAR was built on modularity, as it was said before… parts commonality and so on and so forth… There was resistance from the beginning which resulted in the SCAR Mk16 being dropped a couple of months after the authorization for full production…

    If they didn’t want a foreign design, they should have just sticked to COLT, ROBARM, REMINGTON and what not…

    I mean why would a responsible department of the US Army sabotage it’s own decision and then waste millions in R&D just to sabotage it yet again AFTER giving authorization for MASS production of that rifle?

    Makes no sense whatsoever…

  • kcoz


    I doubt the foreign vs domestic isssue was a real deciding factor. We aleady buy alot of our weapons from FN. We’ve been using the M-249 from FN since the ’80s. We replaced the “domestic” M-60 with FNs M-240 in the ’90s. And the Marines just bought an IAR from HK. Maybe your other points are valid and the SCAR really is as good as you say it is. But if so then why would they screw it up with that stupid reciprocating charging handle.

  • kcoz

    Big Daddy,

    Notice I had a (maybe) next to caseless ammo. But the bullpup is definately the direction all modern armies are going.

    I’ve heard of quite a few Chinese made products that don’t work so well. That doesn’t mean the concept is bad.

    I think your right on about moving up to a 6.5 or 6.8 cartridge but not likely to happen until about the time we get our first bullpup.

    • Zimmer

      Everyone keeps crying Bullpup this, Bullpup that, everyone is going Bullpup.

      Just because everyone is doing something doesn’t make it a good idea.

      Bullpup designs have only 1 advantage,(shorter overall length) and many disadvantages.

      Without going to deep into it
      1) Their balance is often awkward and in ways which are difficult to correct without adding weight.

      2) They are harder to reload without dismounting the weapon. And harder to reload to begin with due to the nature of human dexterity,

      3) The action is much closer to the user’s face which is very bad in the event of catastrophic failure.

      4) Ambidextrous designs are much harder, more complicated, and more expensive to develop.

      5) Trigger linkages and assemblies have to be longer which makes them more fragile.

      I can list a plethora of other problems. Bullpups are great when the single biggest concern is the weapon’s volume. Otherwise…not so great.

      In so far as the SCAR, I figured this would happen. Excellent weapon but when something is not broken don’t fix it. There is already a very reliable 5.7 platform, as a 7.62 platform is where the design really shines.

  • Lance


    I know you like the SCAR but its not going to replace the M-4. There no clear differnce replaceing a 5.56mm rifle with another 5.56mm rifle. Especilly if one has cheap plastic parts that break easly . If FN chose metlail parts who knows what could have happen.

  • UserM4

    According to FNH, they’re developing a dual caliber 556/762 receiver SCAR per the US Military request. There you go. The military don’t care for a single caliber 556 rifle because they’ve already got those. But if caliber is interchangeable ala ACR, then they want it.

  • AK™


    Have Springfield Armory halt all civilian orders for a month or two,then have SOCOM have them crank out a couple of pallets of M14/M1As..

    Being that it’s the M14/M1A,you shouldn’t need full auto..same reason why the M1911/1911 started out with 7 shot didn’t need 15 rounds to stop an enemy.

  • Lance

    User M-4 SOCOM halted any 5.56mm Mk-16s and wont use them the duel role model will be in 7.62 NATO only.

    AK you got a good point in pin point shooting a DMR dosnt need 30-50 rounds per mag since hes useing percision shooting. It all depends on what your useing it for

  • Rijoenpial

    Hi guys,

    trying to adress each individual poster this time:

    kcoz: IU think the reciprocating handle was per SOF specification… I mean, FN has the F200 non.reciprocating, the FAL non-reciprocating, as well as P90 non-reciprocating and so on and so forth… I will try to find the SCAR SOCOM specs where I read it…

    Regarding the foreign versus domestic, I was just trying to make sense out of why this SOCOM-motivated weapon was suddenly being fought from within when the Mk16 was built to their specifications, not FN’s…AND the 5.56 was the weapon procured at the time of the SCAR program, NOT the 7.62, which got in through the cracks apparently…

    With the SCAR program, SOCOM intended to procure a modular weapon that could switch from 5.56 to 7.62 and other calibers as well… Given that the 6.8 was factored in and there are pictures of a 6.8 SCAR floating around, it can be said that that’s what the ‘modular’ means in all FN SCAR ads…

    The problem is that logistically, it is ridiculous to have an already heavy soldier (with all the gear and all( also carry different barrel lengths, different caliber barrels, different bolts, different lower receivers, etc…

    So, this modular things is actually hard to understand in the middle of a battle… I also don’t believe that a SOCOM op would risk jamming at 20 000 rounds and would switch before going on mission to a newer barrel instead of risking it…

    Lance: ACR has polymer lower and folding stock as well…Don’t see you complaining…And why is that?
    As I said, the polymer was introduced to lower the weight of the weapon and I haven’t seen any reports stating and proving that the lower receiver melted from use… And give FN some credit where credit is due…

    If you pay more attention to the SCAR design, you’ll understand why the melting doesn’t occur…

    The polymer folding stotck is a separate issue, because I don’t think the problem is the plastic, but the design…

    And this issue, as well as others, can be easily solvable…

    About the advantages of the SCAR regarding the M4 AR design, they are visible and well-documented…I understand that from an operator POV, this does not add much to switching from the M4 to the SCAR… However, it remains to be seen whereas this resistance is not due to the operator being used to the M4 AND/OR SOCOM doing budget cuts weighing costs versus reward…

    UserM4: There ya have it… This is clear proof of poor management… I mean, I was always under the impression that they were seeking ONE weapon within the SCAR program, one platform capable of adapting various calibers, barrel lengths, receivers, etc… Then they made TWO, one 5.56 and one 7.62 NATO ( the SCAR program contemplated just one, if my memory serves me right) with 85% parts commonality…Now, they step back and say ‘we don’t need the 5.56 actually, the 7.62 will do just fine’ and all this just a couple months AFTER greenlighting both SCARs into full production…

    If this is how I managed my business, I would be out of business…

    So, there are obvious budget cuts at work here because I don’t think SOCOM is this disorganised… Something changed… We’ll probably never know what really provoked this U turn, if just one factor or a confluence of several…


  • Rijoenpial

    Also, almost forgot (sorry about the dual posting), regarding the charging handle, they could easily change it with a folding charging handle like the Kriss Vector or some FAL clones out there… or even the GALIL one… Aftermarket goodies, yes!… So, this is not an issue really… For a SOF operator that uses the vertical grip or Grip-Pod, not a problem… For a civilian that like MAGPUL forward hand grip positions,. not an issue… I give you the problem of having the handle get stuck in the gear, but so would the ACR and XCR…

  • William C.

    The dual caliber receiver variant sounds interesting and would still grant the capability to fire 5.56mm ammunition? What it use the same designations however?

  • Lance

    Strange When I handeled one andread about it from other I read that the lower on a Mk-16 breaks too easliy. I know some here love the SCAR thats fine I bet your mad and bumed. But it had som faults.

    Willam C

    The co caliber reciver will not be used in 5.56mm. The inly SCARs in use will be the Mk-17 and the Mk-20 sniper rifles. This supplament NOT replace other 7.62mm weapons in use. The problum with a mulit caliber reciver is mag well space and spaces can be quite unrelightable.

  • Lance

    Ohh and I forgot the ACR has harder fixed stocks which offer more strength. Im not too fimular with the ACR but im sure it has its ups and downs too. No gun is perfect. Some just dont live long in service like the 5.56 SCAR I died early.

  • Rijoenpial


    just a couple of corrections:

    First of all, SOCOM did not ditch the Mk16 because it was bad, but just because they can’t afford it!

    Second, reading about something is not proof of it actually happening… hence why I stated not having read field reports from reliable sources, not hear-say!

    And third, the SCAR lives on on the caliber that really makes a dent,the 7.62 NATO…

    The ACR will never see service because of the same reason SOCOM gave up on the SCAR: way too costly for their empty pockets! And since the USSOCOM is supposedly the field with an autonomous budget and the ones with bigger budget than the USArmy, then you realise 1) why they continue to field the M4 and 2) there is no chance in hell the Remington ACR will ever see service…

    According to the SOCOM explanations, they just can’t afford the numbers contracted for the SCAR…period…

    The quality of the weapon remains unscathed, being the price the only factor showed by the SOCOM to cancel the Mk16…

    Still, the SCAR Mk17 rolls on and therefore, I have nothing but joy to see that the SOCOM operators love it! The weapon is awesome! And regarding the Mk16, I bet a lot of armies in Europe and elsewhere will want it!

    And the US will be left behind with an outdated model! The Italians already are fielding the Beretta ARX-160 and now other countries will be able to buy the weapon SOCOM ditched just for budget reasons… !

    Who knows, maybe the SCAR (probably under a new acronym) will be the new FAL!


  • Lance

    Not going to happen much due to the costs of it most countries wont buy it. And I did read some relightablity issus with the gun. It had a chinsy lower reciver and I know and read of Amry Spc Ops WHO DID NOT LIKE IT!. The US is not behind snce over 70% if the world is useing even older AK-47 varients and clones. The Itilaians still use the AR-70/90 which yes its newer via 1990s vintage version of the 1980s desighn. The ARX-160 is only in use with afew special forces units who are evaulationg it. It may be like new Dawoo which is used by a few members of a squad who need extra firepower the rest useing AR-70s.

    A 5.56 pea shooter is a 5.56 peashooter. Along with 7.62×39 a gun in this caliber is the same as another there IS NO! differnce other than action and packageing.

    Ohh most European counties arnt useing it either. The French where the only one who looked at it and chose the FAMAS F2 instead. Germans use G-36s and Britian the new L-85A2 And most east European are useing either AK-74s, AK-101s and or M-16 we gave them.

    I know your going to argu with me but you arnt going to change my mind or of other who agree with me. Lets just agree to disagree and be Civil rmember firearms NOT plitics.. Right Steve

  • William C.

    Lance if there is no intention of using the dual caliber version under development why would the Army/SOCOM request FNH develop it?

  • Lance

    It from a older percurment order before this recent developement. The fact is a 5.56mm gun isnt going to be used and since other services have showed intrest in H&K 416s I dobt the SCAR will make a full comeback. The duel caliber model Is I bet for other caliber than 5.56 like a 7.62 NATO to .338 Lapua DMR.

    Even FN admits that the Mk-16 and 5.56mm versions arnt going to be used.

  • Woody

    given the costs of the SCAR, especially with it being a 5.56mm rifle, there should be no surprise that it was abandoned since it provides little advantages over the M4/M16. Perhaps SOCOM is considering 6.5-6.8 caliber weaponry…

  • Nicholas

    As a call of duty fanboy let me put in my two cents. I think Infinity Ward actually called this one. Modern Warfare 2 only features the Scar-h, probably because the Scar-L didn’t really have any advantages to distinguish itself from the multiple 5.56mm weapons already in the game.
    I’d like to add that using the mk 17 instead of the mk 16 was regarded as unrealistic, because it was a battle rifle which wouldn’t be used in same way as an assault rifle would.

  • theamdman

    Oh you know it’s a sad day when Infinity Ward is predicting the evolution of the U.S. Firearms industry….

  • Rijoenpial

    Hi guys,

    I think I should place here a piece of news advanced by Clairon in another thread, which I reproduce here:

    -Start of quotes-

    July 7, 2010

    Belgium-based firearms manufacturer FN Herstal hereby refutes the allegations recently found on the web that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR® rifle and reconfirms USSOCOM’s decision to acquire the full FN SCAR® family of weapons, including the 5.56mm rifle.

    The FN SCAR® family of weapons consists of the 5.56mm SCAR® rifle, 7.62mm SCAR® rifle and 40mm LV Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (respectively designated as MK 16, MK 17 and MK 13 by USSOCOM). These three components were developed by FN Herstal in close cooperation with USSOCOM and have each met all the operational and fielding tests required by the program. This resulted in the notification by USSOCOM last May that the full SCAR® system entered into Milestone C phase, allowing production and deployment of the full range of SCAR® weapons. The 5.56 version will be part of USSOCOM’s inventory.

    The choice between the 5.56 and the 7.62 caliber will be left to the discretion of each constitutive component of USSOCOM’s Joint Command (e.g. Seals, Rangers, Army Special Forces, USMC, AFSOC) depending on their specific missions on today’s battlefield.”

    From the official FN site :

    – End of quotes-

    Thanks for the heads-up, Clairon…

    Thought you guys would like to know…


  • Some Guy

    The Mk. 16 probably wouldn’t see much use anyways.

    Most units prefer not to use the M-4 carbine, or really any 5.56mm for that matter.

    While the Scar does represent a huge advantage over the M-4 and M16, in terms of accuracy, recoil reduction, reliability, and weight, the power issue is still prevalent.

    If it was me, I’d prefer a similar 7.62mm x 51mm NATO any day to a 5.56mm rifle, and the Mk. 17 is really and truly one of the first “assault rifles”, or assault rifle like weapons, chambered in 7.62mm x 51mm NATO, that was issued to the military. The AR-10 existed long before the Ar-15 ever did, but, for some crazy reason the military decided not to adopt it.

    The HK417 could work, but it’s like 10,000 dollars a gun or something, and the AR-10 wouldn’t work because they don’t make enough of them, and it’s kind of out dated.

  • Shawn

    I’m not usually one to get involved in a “blog war” but this issue needs some addressing. The SCAR MK-16 is a fine weapon system. My group was issued the SCAR during combat operations and I found it to be reliable and sturdy. SOCOM’s issue with this system is simple. At the end of the day it’s about cost…not reliability. The powers that be view it as “just another M4” or 5.56mm assault rifle. That type of mentality coupled with the fact (for obvious reasons) not all of the components are interchangeable drove SOCOM to stick with the M4. I will go on record and say that FN make some of the finest weapon systems on the market today. And no….I don’t own stock in FN!

  • Blade

    Shawn is correct – the SCAR-L was dropped for the pure and simple reason that the cost was not worth the bang. There are a lot of alternatives to the direct impingement system available now – whether it’s a new upper receiver group for the M4 or the HK-416, you can get a piston gun with the same controls as the M4 for about half of what a SCAR costs.

    The SCAR-H is still seeing some use because there is a general shortage of .308 assault rifles in theater. Again, the cost of the SCAR is significantly higher than the competition, so SOCOM will use what it purchased under the initial buy, but look for other .308 systems from here on out.

    Sad really, because the SCAR really is innovative in so many ways, and is a fine weapon. The US simply won’t give up on the tried and proven M4 design while 5.56mm still lives. I think we’ll see the potential for something new if the 5.56mm ever dies.

    I’d love to see the US go in for a bullpup like the AUG or the F2000 – I’m just not sure the US military establishment will ever embrace a bullpup design.

  • Blade

    Seems like a while since I’ve posted on this thread.

    A lot of comments on 5.56mm – there are certainly as many opinions on caliber as there are on the guns that fire them. Keeping it at the open source level, there is a lot of new 5.56mm technology out there that has dramatically improved the performance of the caliber at longer ranges and against targets wearing body armor. Given that there are a bazillion rounds of 5.56mm around and just as many magazines that hold them, weapons that fire them, and gear that supports them (Mag pouches) there is a snowball’s chance in hell that we’ll depart from 5.56mm or the standard NATO magazine any time in the near future.

    The term “Fanboy” is really gay. And if your only experience with a firearm is a video game, save yourself some carpal tunnel syndrome and stop posting – your opinion is less than useless.

    Bullpups – something not mentioned in the criticism – a primary advantage to the bullpup is that you can drop a full length barrel into an incredibly compact weapon – you can’t do that with a conventional design. The difference translates to a round coming out of a 20″ barrel (bullpup) vs. a 10.5″ barrel (conventional carbine) in a weapon that is still probably a good 3-5″ shorter (bullpup). As for having to break stock weld to reload a bullpup, I’d bet a paycheck that 99.98% of magazine changes in combat or on the range happen off of stock weld, so that’s an irrelevant critique in my mind.

    Jumping to the training issue on SCAR vs. M4, I’ve actually heard this argument many times by military procurement folks – the fact that it would be very difficult and expensive to retrain folks from M4 to SCAR and that we would lose lives because Marines and Soldiers would be slower in or fail to properly execute immediate action procedures. First point, if the rifle is more reliable, you will have to execute fewer immediate action procedures. Second, really? Is the SCAR that complicated, and is it that hard to use? Unless we are a pack of retards, the operator training for SCAR should take, oh, about an hour. Retraining – uh, again, really? Sure, it will take time to rebuild muscle memory and adjust tactical habit patterns, but that isn’t expensive, it’s just a matter of training time and time with the gun. We issue gear to guys in combat all the time and give them zero training and zero documentation – “here you go, figure it out” and they do. SCAR is not being fully funded and fielded for one reason and one reason only, $$$$.

    • TJ

      I agree with blade, bulpup designs are far mor effective as far as accuracy and how compact they are, just look at the tar-21. In my opinion the m4 has bad accuracy and lacks killing power and on top of that it requirs very high matainence. The FN SCAR on the other hand is accurate with low recoil and preforms much better than the m4. However a gun I believe would be good for the U.S army in general is the TAR-21. It’s compact has high accuracy (due to the bullpup design) and is just as accurate as the m16 (headshot at 300 yrds with nothing but a red dot is pretty impressive). This gun is shorter than an m4 making it good for urban fighting but unlike the m4 it is just as accurate as the m16 making it good for desert fighting of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is all my opinion and maybe I just love my accuracy too much due to me being a Canadian. M4 is still a half decent gun but is nothing in comparison to the modern assualt rifles of Europe and so on.

      • Jared

        Absolutely correct. Our M-4’s would suffer greatly against European weapons and even our M1A2 variant of the Abrams is not sufficiently upgraded to combat the new German L2A6 Leopard tank.

  • Buck Adams

    OK if an M4 jams once between 5,000-6,400 rounds fired while an FN SCAR jams once in every 15,000 rounds fired it may seem significant but when you consider most battles have the shooter firing much less than 300rounds total & it takes only sixty seconds to get the M4 firing again the jamming issue loses some of its fire. It gets even worse when one considers that the US military now owns the design rights for the M4 and can buy M4s at half cost of other rifles. Furthermore, the M4’s ergonomics make its extended rate-of-fire significantly higher than nonM4 variants. The conservatives who want to conserve the use of the M4 do have a point. Personally, my main complaint with the M4 is its caliber. I’m not a fan of the 5.56mm, it’s not totally ineffective, but it would be consistently effective it was comparable to a .243. It would be fine with me if instead of changing the entire rifle they issued a caliber changing kit so the rifle could be more effective at increased range. That’s just me and I still haven’t figured out why instead of adapting the M16 rifle series Uncle Sam just didn’t re-chamber the M14 into something more manageable or the M2 to something stronger.

    • Blade

      Buck, don’t disagree with your logic for the retention of the M4 vs. wholesale adoption of SCAR, as previously stated it all boils down to $$ – it was an economic decision on the part of the SOCOM components. The SCAR simply doesn’t offer enough of a capability improvement over the M4 to justify the significant increase in per-unit cost and life-cycle maintenance over the M4.

      As to the caliber change – I don’t see 5.56mm going anywhere any time soon. BLOGs are filled with threads on 6.7, 6.8, .243 – you name it. And most of the threads make pretty good sense. Are there better rounds than the 5.56mm, sure, there probably are. But every round is a compromise. If we adopted the 6.7 there would be a furor of 5.56 advocates screaming bloody murder, along with the 6.8 fans and .243 fans. The truth of the matter is that 5.56mm is a pretty darned good assault rifle round that handles the vast majority of assault rifle tasks very well. The round is controllable in full auto, suppresses well, and has solid ballistics across its effective range. New 5.56mm rounds fielded by SOCOM and the Services offer significant increases in long-range penetration. There are a lot of dead terrorists who would probably tell you that the 5.56mm is a very lethal round – except they can’t, they’re dead. And lastly, NATO has a ton of rifles, magazines, accessories, and ammunition stockpiles that are all 5.56mm – that translates to $$. In an era when everyone’s defense budget is shrinking there isn’t a nation around that is going to invest in a new primary caliber to replace one that works just fine. My two cents.

  • Mike

    Ok, so I don’t own the M4 or Scar-L, but I’ve read tons of articles on both. To me they are both decent guns. Both use 5.56, Scar is heavier, but reduced recoil. It also uses cheap plastics to reduce weight (But plastics don’t go well with heat), Scar also has less maintenance or jams unlike the M4. I think the main reason SOCOM stopped Scar-L production was overall start up cost.
    First, replacing all M4s in current serivce and armories.
    Second, retraining all forces to use the new weapon.
    Those two alone probably stopped SOCOM production of Scar-Ls.
    But I’m thinking of the long run. Once the troops were trained with the Scar and prefected it like the M4, it would be cheaper to make. Troops don’t need to worry about it jamming or getting clogged like the M4. Lives would be saved, government could just buy the Scar design like they did with the M4 to make it cheap too
    If you want to compare DI and PD systems watch The Ultimate Weapons episode on combat rifles. The AK-47 wins, why? because the PD system is much easier to maintain and clean then a DI system (M16/M4 were in the middle).
    Now I also read an article from Gunpedia that stated the Scar-H could be fitted to fire the M43 (same as the AK-47 rounds). This meant that troops behind enemy lines could resupply their ammo from dead enemies and even use the AK style magazine. I also heard of the Scar-L being in 6.5 or 6.8 too, but that is a bit rarer news.
    Again I like both guns, Colt’s M4 is great but FN’s Scar-L to me is a tad bit better, because I would prefer a gun that needs minimum maintenace, and requires less time cleaning.

    • Blade


      I applaud you for doing some research on the issue, but challenge your assumptions and also disagree with some of your statements.

      As previously stated, the SCAR is not being procured because the $$ do not justify the evolutionary benefits of the SCAR vs. the current inventory of M4s and other M4-like systems like the HK-416.

      However, the mythology about M4’s jamming or clogging (not sure how you clog an assault rifle) are pretty much just that. The MTBF of the M4 is indeed less than that of the SCAR, but we’re talking thousands of rounds. A properly maintained M4 will function reliably and effectively. True, the SCAR is easier to maintain than the M4.

      The SCAR doesn’t have cheap plastic parts – the non-metallic parts are composite – just like the composites used in automobiles and airplanes. They are lighter and have a different feel than metal parts, hence the accusations that they are “cheap”. There are certainly design improvements that can be made like the buttstock fastener, but these are minor adjustments that will happen once any new product gets some operational time. Look how many evolutions the M-16 has gone through since it’s adoption 40 years ago to it’s current versions today.

      AK-47 vs. the world on Combat Rifles. I haven’t seen the episode, but this is a debate as old as the hills. The AK-47 is a fine weapon and is probably the most reliable assault weapon in the world in terms of functioning. However, it is mediocre in terms of performance, accuracy, and is pretty poor in terms of modularity and ergonomics. A great weapon in the hands of poorly trained troops or in areas of the world where the user can’t or won’t properly maintain the weapon – they will fire under almost all circumstances. Beyond 200-300m they are essentially worthless. The M4 and many other fine assault rifles around the world require more care and maintenance because they are made to much closer tolerances. This means better performance in terms of accuracy and consistency. They are also much better ergonomically which translates to more rounds on target and more dead bad guys.

      Your reference to the SCAR WRT the M43 bullet is fiction. First off, the M43 is a bullet design – the cartridge is the 7.62x39mm – normally outfitted with an M67 bullet (better ballistics and grain weight among other improvements). The 7.62x39mm has relatively poor ballistics when compared to a 5.56×45 (NATO standard) regardless of the bullet used. The Soviets adopted a 5.45x39mm round with the AK-74 in the 1970s to replace the 47 and AKM because the 5.45 is a better and lighter round. Nobody ever designs a weapon so the operator can scavenge off the enemy behind enemy lines. If I’m out of ammo for my M4, I’m going to scavenge the enemy’s rifle AND his ammo, not just his ammo. As for using the enemy’s captured stockpiles, there is some truth to that in that USSR mortars were made 1-2mm smaller in diameter than NATO so they could use NATO rounds, but not the reverse. The SCAR was NEVER designed to shoot 7.62×39 or 5.45×39. The rifle is modular and could be adapted to fire a wide variety of rounds like the 6.8, but it involves switching components, not something a soldier or Marine in the field is going to do – most guys don’t hump multiple barrels and/or reciever groups around with them. The modularity of the SCAR system is designed to be taken advantage of inside the wire – the weapon is configured with the appropriate barrel length and optics to suit the mission at hand.

      See if you can find or rent a couple of these weapons and shoot them at the range, it will give you a better feel for the points of your discussion.

      • Onyx

        Did you mean larger instead of smaller? I was an 81mm mortar man in the Marine Corps and the Russian mortar is 82mm. They can indeed fire our rounds and we can’t fire theirs as you said but if theirs was 1-2mm smaller than ours like you also said, then we could fire their rounds out of our tubes and they couldn’t fire our rounds from their tubes.

  • Blade

    Onyx, you are correct and I had it 180 out WRT Soviets building smaller vs. bigger – they built bigger mortars so they could use ours. Mortars are really the only munition I am aware of where this was the case – when you start talking cartridge munitions like rifles, pistols, and artillery there are other dimensional issues like case length, neck size, base diameter, shoulder spacing, etc. that come into play.

  • Buck Adams

    I want to know how well the FN SCAR performed for the 75th Rangers when they were in Afghanistan. I believe I read one report that 25% of the rangers loved the SCAR, 25% of the rangers hated the FN SCAR and 50% of the rangers thought there was really no difference between the FN SCAR and the M4. Some rumors about “teething problems” in the field are also floating around but I haven’t found any concrete information on the SCAR’s usage in Afghanistan.

  • yomhxuifgjsfbsncmph, Online prescription pharmacy, OsvPMXh, [url=]online pharmacy[/url], eUQhnWR, Online pharmacy soma, KBDVrNX.

    • SJC

      Err, Steve? Looks like a spambot got through.

  • L

    My humble two cents: I’m without a doubt the least knowledgeable regarding firearms on this site. And I’m glad I’ve stumbled upon it because with each post I’ve learned something new.

    With that being said, The only contribution I can make to this discussion is personal experience. I spent one afternoon with an FN Scar at the range and found the recoil minimal, very comfortable to fire for long periods of time (even with injuries), and surprised over the improvement in my accuracy as compared to an AR15 or M16, or M4. My point is –IF EVEN I can shoot tight groupings at 600 meters with a Scar, then it’s nothing short of awesome.

  • Michael

    buck ur a noob. m4 made 884 stopages in 60000 rounds when u divide u get a stopage in every 67 rds ur maths sucks dude. scar makes 8 times less aka once in 536 rounds. USA doesnt have money for poor troopers cuz they figured that they can be more like russians why equiping 1000 scars when u can make a nuclear bomb instead … doh.

    • Jackson

      LMFAO did you just call someone a “noob”? What is this, COD?

    • John

      I’ve never seen an m4, ar-15, M16, whatever, that gets a stoppage every 67 rounds.

      Under what conditions did an M4 get 884 stoppages in 60,000 rounds? Doused in lube and then filled with sand?

  • RT @vladchoc: Changing light bulbs brings similar groups of people together in varying numbers, but walking into bars requires mixed ethnicity. Discuss.