JANES Report: SCAR Supersedes the M4A1 Carbine - Page 2

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - JANES Report: SCAR Supersedes the M4A1 Carbine (Page 2 of 11)

Posted: 11/9/2005 7:58:02 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I would bet a civvie version could save a good chunk of weight by going with a simpler stock without all the mechanisms.

John

Ya, and I don't know if the weight they have quoted is with or without the new polymer lower (I bet without).

Markm's gonna love that

.

BRING ON THE POLYMER SCAR!

Posted: 11/9/2005 7:59:37 AM EDT

[#2]

Here's another question that occurs to me: Where is the gas-port positioned on the barrel? At a carbine-length or a mid-length? Does anyone know the exact specification?

Also, does anyone know of a detailed photo of the gas system? Does it use a separate piston head and piston rod system like the HK416?

John

Posted: 11/9/2005 8:17:39 AM EDT

[#3]

7.7 lbs and it has a pencil barrel. Wait till the SCAR A2 comes out it will weigh 8.5 lbs dry lol.

Posted: 11/9/2005 9:59:17 AM EDT

[#4]

Wonder why they don't extend the reciever / rails further out to help cover the barrel and give more rail real-estate? Trying to keep weight down?

Hmmm, after looking at the shorty versions I think I answered my own question. Still a lil' more rail space would be nice.

Posted: 11/9/2005 10:32:04 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I would bet a civvie version could save a good chunk of weight by going with a simpler stock without all the mechanisms.

John

Even if it saves a full pound of weight, you are taking it from the wrong place (the stock instead of the front); besides the stock is one of the nicer aspects of the rifle. A good cheek weld is critical to accuracy with everything but red dot sights and this rifle will definitely provide a nice cheek weld regardless.

I just can't figure out where the extra weight is coming from though. Does this have some Mk23-like requirement to be able to fire with a bore obstruction?

Posted: 11/9/2005 10:54:38 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Here's another question that occurs to me: Where is the gas-port positioned on the barrel? At a carbine-length or a mid-length? Does anyone know the exact specification?

John

since it's a gas piston design does it really matter ??

Posted: 11/9/2005 10:55:49 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Wait till the SCAR A2 comes out it will weigh 8.5 lbs dry lol.

And the A3 will weigh 9.5 pounds!

Quoted:
Does this have some Mk23-like requirement to be able to fire with a bore obstruction?

The SCAR program did have a requirement that the rifle survive a bore obstruction, have no idea if the FN entry passed this requirement or not.

Posted: 11/9/2005 11:00:30 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I would bet a civvie version could save a good chunk of weight by going with a simpler stock without all the mechanisms.

John

Even if it saves a full pound of weight, you are taking it from the wrong place (the stock instead of the front); besides the stock is one of the nicer aspects of the rifle. A good cheek weld is critical to accuracy with everything but red dot sights and this rifle will definitely provide a nice cheek weld regardless.

I just can't figure out where the extra weight is coming from though. Does this have some Mk23-like requirement to be able to fire with a bore obstruction?

Well, the SCAR/ARM/Mk16-17 is a different design, different operating system, with additional features not included in the standard AR15/M4 setup. If you configured an M4 with full length rail system, quick change barrel mechanism, gas piston, and full adjustable stock with adjustable cheekpiece, I doubt it would be much lighter that the Mk16. I'd wager that the Mk16/17 barrels are heavier under the handguard than the typical M4 as well (like the "SOCOM" M4A1 barrels).

The impression I got out of the SCAR program is that SOCOM is tired of mucking around with weapons. They need good, solid, reliable, durable rifles with features to support the range of missions they perform, and longevity to endure the usage they give their weapons. They're not fracking around with trying to make the statistics look good. If that means a Mk16 weighs 4/8/16/whatever ounces more than an M4/XM8/whatever then so be it.</end opinion>

Besides, just a couple weeks ago one of the testers was complaining that the Mk17 7.62x51 version was so lightweight that it was beating him up shooting it.

Posted: 11/9/2005 11:03:52 AM EDT

[#9]

It still has open ports, and at 7.7lbs the barrel looks like a featherweight. The M4A1 had a pretty heavy barrel.

"7.7 lbs and it has a pencil barrel. Wait till the SCAR A2 comes out it will weigh 8.5 lbs dry lol."

My thought exactly. I don't see how an SF soldier is ever going ot be happy with a pencil barrel. And those guys like their weapons LIGHT.

Posted: 11/9/2005 3:45:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Has anyone seen what the twist rate will be on the SCAR-L?

Posted: 11/9/2005 3:55:05 PM EDT

[#11]

1/7 is NATO standard

Posted: 11/9/2005 4:47:24 PM EDT

[#12]

This thing with all the plastic furniture looks like it will hold at least 8 1/2 lbs of sand easy.
I do not see anything revolutionary in this design that justifies changing from a proven system.
The m16 has aged very well changing with the times as needed.
Now the .308 version looks neat, just too much plastic.

Posted: 11/9/2005 5:19:02 PM EDT

[#13]

There is nothing significantly new from a technological standpoint about SCAR. These are still unproven development weapons and there is a way to go yet. At AUSA last month, FN were unable to show the features of the new stock as the stocks refused to work despite efforts by the booth staff. They have a long way to go before they demonstrate that they are superior to the M4.

Posted: 11/9/2005 6:05:31 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would bet a civvie version could save a good chunk of weight by going with a simpler stock without all the mechanisms.

John

Even if it saves a full pound of weight, you are taking it from the wrong place (the stock instead of the front); besides the stock is one of the nicer aspects of the rifle. A good cheek weld is critical to accuracy with everything but red dot sights and this rifle will definitely provide a nice cheek weld regardless.

I just can't figure out where the extra weight is coming from though. Does this have some Mk23-like requirement to be able to fire with a bore obstruction?

Well, the SCAR/ARM/Mk16-17 is a different design, different operating system, with additional features not included in the standard AR15/M4 setup. If you configured an M4 with full length rail system, quick change barrel mechanism, gas piston, and full adjustable stock with adjustable cheekpiece, I doubt it would be much lighter that the Mk16. I'd wager that the Mk16/17 barrels are heavier under the handguard than the typical M4 as well (like the "SOCOM" M4A1 barrels).

This is not true. Leitner wise piston system adds no weight. MRP with carbon fiber barrel or pencil barrel would weigh less, Magpul stock would weight less than or equal to the SCAR stock etc. The SCAR is heavier than a similarly equiped M4.

Posted: 11/10/2005 6:51:47 PM EDT

[#15]

bump

Posted: 11/10/2005 8:55:50 PM EDT

[#16]

damn id like to have one of thos SCARS in 308.

Posted: 11/11/2005 12:00:29 AM EDT

[#17]

I wonder if it takes FNC trigger parts..

If so, maybe those registered FNC sears could be used in a civilian version....

Posted: 11/11/2005 1:40:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
This is not true. Leitner wise piston system adds no weight. MRP with carbon fiber barrel or pencil barrel would weigh less, Magpul stock would weight less than or equal to the SCAR stock etc. The SCAR is heavier than a similarly equiped M4.

You are forgetting one critical feature. This is not just a 5.56 platform. The part commonality between the L and H version probably contributes a lot to the weight issue. If they made the L version ligher, it might be that not all the parts would be interchangeble with the H version anymore because some of the parts might not stand the heavier recoil. If LMT designed a new MRP that would allow both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 calibers with quick-change barrels, I bet the weight would be very different.

Besides, an extra pound of weight compared to the M4 matters very little, if the weight is in the right place. The LMT SOPMOD stock weights 10 oz more than the regular M4 stock and still no-one is complaining about the extra weight. Wonder why that is?

Posted: 11/11/2005 5:24:48 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
This is not true. Leitner wise piston system adds no weight.

I dont see how this is possible. Given that the baseline gas tube/impingement system is probably the lightest system availalbe, how can increasing parts count not add weight?

The SCAR is heavier than a similarly equiped M4.

Yet no M4 exists that has ALL the features of the ARM/SCAR.

Posted: 11/11/2005 5:37:50 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
damn id like to have one of thos SCARS in 308.

+1. 12" barrel, brown.

Posted: 11/11/2005 7:23:06 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I wonder if it takes FNC trigger parts..

If so, maybe those registered FNC sears could be used in a civilian version....

MAN I sure hope so.

Posted: 11/11/2005 7:49:39 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is not true. Leitner wise piston system adds no weight.

I dont see how this is possible. Given that the baseline gas tube/impingement system is probably the lightest system availalbe, how can increasing parts count not add weight?

The SCAR is heavier than a similarly equiped M4.

Yet no M4 exists that has ALL the features of the ARM/SCAR.

The LW system has a lighter carrier. It is exactly as much lighter as the standard carrier as the piston system is heavier than the gas tube. Weight is shifted forward but not increased at all. The amount of weight shift is very minimal.

Posted: 11/11/2005 7:50:11 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if it takes FNC trigger parts..

If so, maybe those registered FNC sears could be used in a civilian version....

MAN I sure hope so.

I believe this question was asked some time ago and the answer was no.

Posted: 11/11/2005 7:55:52 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is not true. Leitner wise piston system adds no weight. MRP with carbon fiber barrel or pencil barrel would weigh less, Magpul stock would weight less than or equal to the SCAR stock etc. The SCAR is heavier than a similarly equiped M4.

You are forgetting one critical feature. This is not just a 5.56 platform. The part commonality between the L and H version probably contributes a lot to the weight issue. If they made the L version ligher, it might be that not all the parts would be interchangeble with the H version anymore because some of the parts might not stand the heavier recoil. If LMT designed a new MRP that would allow both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 calibers with quick-change barrels, I bet the weight would be very different.

Besides, an extra pound of weight compared to the M4 matters very little, if the weight is in the right place. The LMT SOPMOD stock weights 10 oz more than the regular M4 stock and still no-one is complaining about the extra weight. Wonder why that is?

It would require a new AR15 lower for the L version which is why the common upper would not work. This cant be done on an AR15 so its a non issue. You must compare the SCAR H to an AR10 and SCAR L to an AR15. Weight in the stock is not a concern to me as it helps balance a front heavy weapon.

Posted: 11/11/2005 9:21:40 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Only wish it was designed and made at home

It probably will be. They said they were testing with military guys and they have a plant in the USA (wasn't there a law stating that Gov't issue weapons had to be made here??).

On the rifle, I don't quite like the idea of a polymer lower, just like I don't like the idea of one on an AR. Don't know why.

That said, I kinda like it and the "priced closely to a Colt Carbine, maybe better" comment I read in this thread is really interesting.

I guess we'll have to sit back and see what the furture holds

WIZZO

Posted: 11/11/2005 10:30:31 AM EDT

[#26]

I'm still not impressed. The government would be better served with the LW gas piston setup and designing a 40mm grenade launcher for the rail system, instead of designing a whole new rifle. They already have the m4's and I bet LW might contract the production of the gas piston, etc. Also, the crossover training for the LW piston would be minimal, as the soldiers are already trained on the m4, the only diff would be about care and maintance of the piston vs. the gas impingement. M4/M16 platform is pretty robust, works well, is lightweight, easily configurable. I don't really see how having yet another rifle platform helps the situation in any way except to spend money that could be used for other things.

Posted: 11/11/2005 11:24:07 AM EDT

[#27]

i agree with what you said but i really like the idea of the one in 308.

Posted: 11/11/2005 1:57:47 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if it takes FNC trigger parts..

If so, maybe those registered FNC sears could be used in a civilian version....

MAN I sure hope so.

I believe this question was asked some time ago and the answer was no.

DevL, I remember Clint Lynch posting on Lightfighter that the SCAR uses FNC fire-control parts. If this is the case, we may get lucky if ATF considers it a version of the FNC. Not all that likely, as ATF never seems to fall to the side of reason. But one can hope.

Josh

Posted: 11/11/2005 3:37:22 PM EDT

[#29]

The SCAR/ARM Rifes will be made in the USA. It was designed by the end users and FN, so you can take comfort in knowing soldiers are getting to take part in designing their own weapon.

Upgrading a M4 to a LW piston and adding a RAS would more than likely be more than a SCAR/ARM. Also factor in the added training of armorers, and the added parts count, not to mention it still lacks multiple features that SOCOM is looking for.

There's some really interesting stuff going on with the SCAR/ARM rifles. Personally, seeing the results of the other developmental weapons as opposed to the SCAR/ARM, if anything is to dethrone the M16/M4, this should be it.

Posted: 11/11/2005 7:50:43 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I'm still not impressed. The government would be better served with the LW gas piston setup and designing a 40mm grenade launcher for the rail system, instead of designing a whole new rifle. They already have the m4's and I bet LW might contract the production of the gas piston, etc. Also, the crossover training for the LW piston would be minimal, as the soldiers are already trained on the m4, the only diff would be about care and maintance of the piston vs. the gas impingement. M4/M16 platform is pretty robust, works well, is lightweight, easily configurable. I don't really see how having yet another rifle platform helps the situation in any way except to spend money that could be used for other things.

There is no user maintenance on the piston system. You only need to clean it when you swap barrels after thousands of rounds.

Posted: 11/11/2005 11:34:57 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Ran accross this today on Janes. I know the SCAR has been covered here before to some extent, so I thought I'd throw this one out there. A good read, enjoy.

Victor

"The US Special Operations Community has long had issues with the M4A1 Carbine (see IDR 10/2005, pp62-65).

The Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) for the SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) was approved in September 2003 and actual development and competition began in January 2004. After 10 months of development and competition between prospective manufacturers, a production contract was awarded to FN Herstal. The SCAR programme was unique in that it was developed with full input and participation from special operations forces of all four services. The SCAR will be manufactured in the US in FN Herstal's Columbia, South Carolina facility. In fact, most of the personnel involved in testing the SCAR prototypes were active duty special forces personnel.

There are two versions of the SCAR - the Mark 16 SCAR Light (SCAR-L) and Mk17 SCAR Heavy (SCAR-H). Both are essentially multicalibre modular carbines with 90 per cent parts interchangeability. The two SCAR variants replace five existing small-arms systems in the US Special Operations Community - the M4A1, the Close Quarters Battle Rifle (CQBR), the Mk12 Special Purpose Rifle (SPR), the M14 and Mk11 (SR-25). The SCAR was developed entirely using FN Herstal funding except for the government testing and the SCAR-H was demonstrated six months ahead of schedule, saving tax dollars and enabling the new weapons to get to the troops who need them more expeditiously.

The SCAR carbines significantly improve the overall performance of their predecessors. The SCAR stock both telescopes and folds. The telescoping feature is necessary for adapting the length of pull for different personal equipment configurations, armour, or clothing that may cause changes in the position of the carbine with respect to the distance between the user's shoulder and trigger. The folding stock is a preferred option because special forces operators must be able to conceal their carbines under clothing and fire them with the stock folded. The folding stock also enhances operations from vehicles, helicopter insertions, parachute operations and other missions. The SCAR cheekpiece is sloped and adjustable so that the user has the capability to tailor the stock to their body and aid in obtaining the proper eye relief regardless of the optical sight mounted.

Getting a grip

The SCAR pistol grip was developed using extensive anthropometrical measurements to determine the best overall design and size to suit most users. Adapters are available so that individual users can modify the pistol grip to suit their hand size - from small to large. The redesigned pistol grip offers better control and more positive engagement of the controls.

The SCAR fire controls are optimised for easy engagement. The selector switch moves from safe to semi-automatic to full automatic and return to safe in only 90o and is fully ambidextrous instead of the 180o throw of the M4A1 selector switch that is not ambidextrous in its 'as-issued' configuration. Like the selector switch, the SCAR magazine release is fully ambidextrous and protected on both sides against inadvertent release. The bolt release is also ambidextrous and optimised for all hand sizes. Not only is the charging handle ambidextrous, but also serves as a forward assist mechanism and backup bolt release. The SCAR's cyclic rate is only about 600 to 650 rounds per minute versus the M4A1's 900 rounds per minute. This not only facilitates weapon control, but enables the user to squeeze off short bursts by trigger control. There is no need for a burst-fire feature.

The SCAR tappet gas system is a departure from that of the M4A1 and resolves a problem that has plagued the AR family since its original design - fouling and particulate matter being blown directly back into the receiver. Not only does this make for a very 'dirty' gun that requires fairly intensive maintenance, but with the wrong powder excessive fouling can actually cause stoppages. This was the case when the original M16A1s were fielded. The US Army specified the wrong powder and in the crucible of Vietnam, many soldiers and Marines lost their lives when their rifles ceased to function due to excessive fouling. This problem was resolved nearly 40 years ago, but the M16 rifle and M4 carbine still get a blast of hot gases and fouling with every shot fired. Nearly as bad, the hot gases and fouling directed into the AR's receiver cause the weapons to rapidly heat up under full automatic-fire conditions. This is not much of an issue with semi-automatic only guns, but with Special Forces carbines that are frequently fired extensively on full automatic, heating is critical.

The SCAR tappet impacts against the upper operating rod portion of the bolt carrier and drives it to the rear, unlocking the bolt via a cam. Excess gases and fouling are vented into the air.

We fired several hundred rounds through the SCAR-L to see just how well the gun stood up to heavy use and the receiver did not become hot, as would have been the case if we were shooting an M4A1 or M16. In addition, the SCAR gas system is consistent regardless of barrel length, because the distance of the gas port from the receiver is the same. This makes the SCAR less susceptible to function problems with suppressors and different types of ammunition. Just as important to the user is the fact that the SCAR family is much easier to clean and maintain than the M4A1.

The SCAR's monolithic MIL-STD-1913 rail system provides an uninterrupted top surface for mounting optical sights and night-vision optics such as the recently adopted AN/PVS-22 Universal Night Sight. Of course, both SCAR versions are fully compatible with all SOPMOD components. The SCAR monolithic rail forend also free floats the barrel, a factor that enhances accuracy. Because the barrel has a quick-change feature, users can change barrels in a matter of minutes, varying the length to mission profile. Standard barrel length is 353 mm, while a 251 mm barrel is optional for CQC/entry work and a 457 mm barrel can be mounted when optimum accuracy is desired. Since the barrel can quickly be changed, the capability exists to change calibres as well. The recently developed 6.8 x 43 mm can be adopted by simply changing barrel, bolt head and magazine in only a few minutes, where converting an M4A1 to 6.8 mm involves changing the entire upper receiver, which is much more expensive, not to mention the need to maintain entire upper receivers for conversion. In addition, it is envisioned that the Mk17 will eventually be available in 7.62 x 39 mm.

Headspace is fixed and is not affected when barrels are changed. Any type of ammunition that can be fired from an M4 or M14 can also be fired from a SCAR-L or SCAR-H. For example, some users are conjecturing about the possibility of using special-purpose cartridges such as the .50 Beowulf, a devastating close-quarters combat cartridge. All that would be required would be a barrel change.

Common ground

As mentioned, both SCAR variants have 90 per cent of their components in common - never before achieved in two rifles in calibres so divergent as the 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm. The only parts that are different for each SCAR variant are those that are calibre specific, namely the polymer lower, which must accept the 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm magazine, the barrel, the bolt head and the ejection port. Magazines are, of course, different. The Mk16 uses standard M16 magazines. The aluminium upper receiver is an extrusion that is identical for both carbine variants, except the size of the ejection port. Everything else interchanges. To put this achievement in perspective, it is the equivalent of taking an AR-15 and an AR-10 and making them share every component except lower receiver, bolt head, barrel and magazine.

The SCAR makes use of the most modern manufacturing techniques, keeping its cost on a par with the M4A1, despite its dramatic improvements in just about every way. The manufacturing process required a minimum investment in tooling and personnel training, since most processes are computer controlled. The unstressed upper receiver is an aluminium extrusion. The lower is likewise unstressed, lending itself to polymer construction. All stressed components are steel.

Production Mk16 and Mk17 carbines will be finished in colour, specifically FS595B Flat Dark Earth that is a good compromise colour for deployment in most environments. There are very few straight lines and very little black in nature, so special forces personnel have been camouflaging their weapons with common spray paint for years. The dark earth colour gives them a base upon which to build camouflage to suit their specific needs.

Magazine interchange

A further significant improvement over current small-arms systems involves the redesigned steel magazine that interchanges with current magazines. Not only are the SCAR magazines steel, but have been redesigned with modified feed lips and follower. The SCAR-H magazine externally appears to be a modified FAL magazine, but is totally different and will not function in a FAL, nor will FAL magazines function in a SCAR-H. Each version of the SCAR will be shipped with 10 magazines.

Sources within the special operations community have mentioned that the SCAR's reliability is literally AK-like, which if true, means that the SCAR is a quantum leap ahead of the M4A1 in this respect as well. As such, the SCAR barrel life is stated to be 35,000 rounds and the service life of the overall system is stated to be 90,000 rounds. Of course, when and if barrels are worn out, they can be replaced in minutes by removing two bolts. Mean number of rounds between stoppages is 2,000 rounds.

As if this were not enough, FN Herstal also developed a new underbarrel grenade launcher for the SCAR programme.

The new Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modular (EGLM) mounts to a MIL-STD-1913 rail beneath the SCAR barrel and opens to the side, allowing long 40 mm grenades to be inserted, a major shortcoming of the current M203. Like everything else about the SCAR, FN Herstal's new EGLM is ambidextrous and can be pivoted either right or left to chamber a round. The barrel locks via lugs and rotates to unlock when moved forward. The user can either eject the spent round or not. A stock is available so the EGLM can be used as a stand-alone. The EGLM fire control is state of the art and features a laser rangefinder with automatic elevation built in. When the EGLM is aimed low, the sight reticle blinks red. If the round will go high, the reticle is constant red. If the EGLM is on target the reticle glows green. For hidden targets or those in defilade, the sight gives the distance to the target so it can be engaged. The EGLM sight is compatible with the latest programmable 40 mm ammunition that gives air bursts over targets.

Although we were unable to conduct in-depth accuracy testing of the Mk16 and Mk17 SCAR variants, we had the opportunity to shoot the Mk16 extensively and to examine and fire a few rounds through the Mk17 SCAR-H at FN Herstal's Virginia, US facility. We adjusted the Mk16 using the adjustable stock and cheekpiece to achieve the optimum configuration for our shooting style. Controls were "just right" and in the appropriate location for access with either hand. Both variants were controllable on full automatic. The low cyclic rate enabled us to select bursts from three to five rounds or even single shots with ease. The first Mk16 SCAR-L carbines will be in the hands of Special Forces troops in late 2005.

M16 steps down

It has been a long time since the M16 was first modified into a carbine configuration - more than 40 years. The AR carbine has been a good servant during its lifetime, but all things must come to an end and the US service career of the M4A1 seems to be about over. The M16 is also apparently approaching the end of its service life.
The fate of the M4A1 is already sealed, however. The Mk16 will replace it and all other AR-derived small arms in the US special operations community, although it will be many years before the Mk16 replaces all M4A1 carbines.
Since the only difference between the M4 and M4A1 is one of burst-fire or full automatic capability, US units using M4s may also eventually replace them with Mk16s, since it is a significant improvement over any AR-derived small arm.

SPECIFICATIONS

Mk16 SCAR-LMk17 SCAR-H
Calibre5.56 x 45 mm basic
6.8 x 43 mm possible
.50 Beowulf possible
6.5 Grendel possible7.62 x 51 mm basic
7.62 x 39 mm
.300 WSSM or .300 RSAUM possible
Operation Gas, select fire Gas, select fire
Length, std configuration 620-848 mm, 769-995 mm
Barrel length Varies Varies
Empty weight 3.5 kg 3.85 kg
Cyclic rate 600 rounds/minute 600 rounds/minute
Magazine capacity 30 rounds standard, 100 rounds optional (C-Mag)
20 rounds (7.62 x 51 mm) 30 rounds (7.62 x 39 mm)"

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR1.jpg
Mk16 SCAR-L's stock can be folded to enhance operational flexibility.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR2.jpg
Mk16 SCAR-L with Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modular (EGLM) mounted. Unlike earlier M203, EGLM clamps to bottom MIL-STD-1913. EGLM opens to either right or left side allowing 40 x 46 mm grenades of any length to be fired.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR3.jpg
Mk16 butt-stock extends to adjust length of pull, folds and has adjustable cheekpiece to optimise shooter's cheek weld for any type of sight.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR4.jpg
EGLM dismounted and open for loading. EGLM may be opened to either side and locks via radial locking lugs. Unlike M203, EGLM can chamber and fire 40 x 46 mm grenades of any length, increasing operator flexibility.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR5.jpg
Prototype 5.56 mm NATO Mk16 SCAR-L (bottom) and 7.62 mm NATO Mk17 SCAR-H (top). Mk16 and Mk17 have 90 per cent parts commonality.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/SCAR/SCAR6.jpg
Mk16 SCAR-L selector is fully ambidextrous and can be moved from 'safe' to 'full automatic' in 90o - half that of the M4. The short throw of the selector is an improvement in user ergonomics.
(Source: Chris Rohling)

If we can issue the SCAR-L in 6.8 Rem SPC, it will be perfect. Nice guns!

Posted: 11/12/2005 12:22:01 AM EDT

[#32]

I'm not sold. Luckily Big Army won't get those things (or any M4 replacement) until after I'm drawing retirement. I've even seen rebuilt M16A1's over here with the Guard.

Posted: 11/12/2005 1:34:19 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You are forgetting one critical feature. This is not just a 5.56 platform. The part commonality between the L and H version probably contributes a lot to the weight issue. If they made the L version ligher, it might be that not all the parts would be interchangeble with the H version anymore because some of the parts might not stand the heavier recoil. If LMT designed a new MRP that would allow both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 calibers with quick-change barrels, I bet the weight would be very different.

Besides, an extra pound of weight compared to the M4 matters very little, if the weight is in the right place. The LMT SOPMOD stock weights 10 oz more than the regular M4 stock and still no-one is complaining about the extra weight. Wonder why that is?

It would require a new AR15 lower for the L version which is why the common upper would not work. This cant be done on an AR15 so its a non issue. You must compare the SCAR H to an AR10 and SCAR L to an AR15. Weight in the stock is not a concern to me as it helps balance a front heavy weapon.

Yes, that was my point, the AR-15 does not offer the same features that the SCAR does, so in my opinion it is pointless to argue if an AR-15 could be configured as a ligher weapon system. The 90% parts commonality is a huge advantage that should not be overlooked.

And of course you're right about the weight issue too, the weight at the rear of the weapon helps to balance it, making it easier to shoot. This was the point I was trying to make. The fact that the SCAR is heavier than an M4 is a non-issue as long as the weight distribution is better. This should be quite easy to accomplish since the M4 with the reqular telestock and SOCOM barrel is a bit front-heavy.

Posted: 11/12/2005 8:31:53 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

And of course you're right about the weight issue too, the weight at the rear of the weapon helps to balance it, making it easier to shoot. This was the point I was trying to make. The fact that the SCAR is heavier than an M4 is a non-issue as long as the weight distribution is better. This should be quite easy to accomplish since the M4 with the reqular telestock and SOCOM barrel is a bit front-heavy.

That's good to know, I'm going to start carrying lead weights in my back pockets so I can distribute the beer belly weight, then it will be a non-issue.

Thanks for the tip!

Posted: 11/12/2005 10:20:57 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:

And of course you're right about the weight issue too, the weight at the rear of the weapon helps to balance it, making it easier to shoot. This was the point I was trying to make. The fact that the SCAR is heavier than an M4 is a non-issue as long as the weight distribution is better. This should be quite easy to accomplish since the M4 with the reqular telestock and SOCOM barrel is a bit front-heavy.

That's good to know, I'm going to start carrying lead weights in my back pockets so I can distribute the beer belly weight, then it will be a non-issue.

Thanks for the tip!

Try it, ýou'll love it and never look back.

Posted: 11/12/2005 10:34:46 AM EDT

[#36]

Mr. Lynch,

Why does the EGLM shroud the magazine well?

Regards,

Justin

Posted: 11/12/2005 10:49:20 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Mr. Lynch,

Why does the EGLM shroud the magazine well?

Regards,

Justin

Slicker,

I'm no insider, but, notice the EGLM (double-action) trigger - it operates using the lower digits of the hand, meaning the user can operate both primary & EGLM triggers w/ the same firing hand. The trigger links to the hammer through those shrouds.

Personally, that EGLM is pretty slick even w/o its electronic-targeting system. I wonder if FN would ever be willing to sell them as NFA toys?

Posted: 11/12/2005 2:48:04 PM EDT

[#38]

As pertains to a FNC sear, yes the original version of the SCAR utilized basically an FNC lower. This new version (polymer) uses a completely new fire control parts, and alas, it looks like a FNC sear won't fit. (However, until I actually have one in my hand, and look it over, I'm not completely discounting the possibility of using one of Curtis' sears.)

I'll take extensive photos and write about the SCAR when I get to shoot (drool?) on one, hopefully in a couple of months, or so. Post sample version.

Posted: 11/12/2005 4:18:14 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are forgetting one critical feature. This is not just a 5.56 platform. The part commonality between the L and H version probably contributes a lot to the weight issue. If they made the L version ligher, it might be that not all the parts would be interchangeble with the H version anymore because some of the parts might not stand the heavier recoil. If LMT designed a new MRP that would allow both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 calibers with quick-change barrels, I bet the weight would be very different.

Besides, an extra pound of weight compared to the M4 matters very little, if the weight is in the right place. The LMT SOPMOD stock weights 10 oz more than the regular M4 stock and still no-one is complaining about the extra weight. Wonder why that is?

It would require a new AR15 lower for the L version which is why the common upper would not work. This cant be done on an AR15 so its a non issue. You must compare the SCAR H to an AR10 and SCAR L to an AR15. Weight in the stock is not a concern to me as it helps balance a front heavy weapon.

Yes, that was my point, the AR-15 does not offer the same features that the SCAR does, so in my opinion it is pointless to argue if an AR-15 could be configured as a ligher weapon system. The 90% parts commonality is a huge advantage that should not be overlooked.

And of course you're right about the weight issue too, the weight at the rear of the weapon helps to balance it, making it easier to shoot. This was the point I was trying to make. The fact that the SCAR is heavier than an M4 is a non-issue as long as the weight distribution is better. This should be quite easy to accomplish since the M4 with the reqular telestock and SOCOM barrel is a bit front-heavy.

However the SCAR runs a pencil barrel and it is only a matter of time till the military wants to upgrade the thing to be a heavier barrel. I also do not see the parts commonality being that big of an advantage. Its nice but not necessary. If the SCAR is capable of AR type accuaracy then I am sold. If not I wont be buying one.

Posted: 11/12/2005 5:22:31 PM EDT

[#40]

I realize the place for the new SCAR-L and SCAR-H, but ......................

According to the SOPMOD enhancements planned, the M16/M4 should be around at least until 2010 and likely beyond

Notice the time-lines, and planned roll-out of various weapon developments for the venerable AR15 design.

SCAR, SASS, and other specialty weapons have a place, but the bulk of the small arms will be Colt/FN M16/M4s for now.

Posted: 11/12/2005 8:32:42 PM EDT

[#41]

What is kinda disappointing, from a civilian's point of view, is that the SCAR-L is the 5.56, but the 7.62x39 caliber conversion is for the SCAR-H.

So much for having a barrel and bolt laying around for cheap plinking when you're tired of 5.56

WIZZO

Posted: 11/13/2005 6:10:22 AM EDT

[#42]

My eyes are old and tired, especially after trying to read all the posts on this, but one item I don't think I saw addressed was the folding stock. From a functional issue, the current A4 telescoping stock allows ambi use with the stock in any position. From practical experience with other folding stocks, use was restricted with the stock folded like the old Stoner AR-18/180. Yes, I am that old (and older).hat
Just my $.02.

BTDT long ago.

Posted: 11/13/2005 9:18:55 AM EDT

[#43]

Hell, bring on the civvie version of the SCAR-L............I have 4 AR's and i will buy one of these!

Posted: 11/13/2005 4:28:37 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Mr. Lynch,

Why does the EGLM shroud the magazine well?

Regards,

Justin

Posted: 11/14/2005 6:15:56 AM EDT

[#45]

tack!

Posted: 11/14/2005 7:02:10 AM EDT

[#46]

The problem this rifle will face it going out the whole military is the amount of time and effort to replace the existing weapons. That 80% parts commonality will not come into play until most or all of the M4/M16s are gone. So for many years you'll have more parts to deal with not less.

The gas piston modification to the M4/M16 is a great idea to me. You could rotate weapons back to the arsenal for refit. However by adding a gas piston the Army would be saying they were lying about the M16's reliability for 40 years. Perhaps a bit too much crow to eat.

Posted: 11/14/2005 7:12:23 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
The problem this rifle will face it going out the whole military is the amount of time and effort to replace the existing weapons. That 80% parts commonality will not come into play until most or all of the M4/M16s are gone. So for many years you'll have more parts to deal with not less.

The gas piston modification to the M4/M16 is a great idea to me. You could rotate weapons back to the arsenal for refit. However by adding a gas piston the Army would be saying they were lying about the M16's reliability for 40 years. Perhaps a bit too much crow to eat.

You are missing the part that says this is a SOCOM solicitation. As in a command that has 50,000 people in it, not the whle military. Big Green will use the M4 for another 10 years.

Posted: 11/14/2005 7:25:33 AM EDT

[#48]

Advanced weapons technology is a rapidly moving field.

Even now, the FN SCAR is somewhat "last years news", and there are other things breaking on the horizon. In 6-10 years, it will be so outmoded that it would be ludicrous to even consider adopting.

I see the military as staying with the M16/M4, and adapting it as needed.

Smaller special ops units will get to play with numerous new technologies, in small quantities, as the technologies develop.

Posted: 11/14/2005 7:32:25 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem this rifle will face it going out the whole military is the amount of time and effort to replace the existing weapons. That 80% parts commonality will not come into play until most or all of the M4/M16s are gone. So for many years you'll have more parts to deal with not less.

The gas piston modification to the M4/M16 is a great idea to me. You could rotate weapons back to the arsenal for refit. However by adding a gas piston the Army would be saying they were lying about the M16's reliability for 40 years. Perhaps a bit too much crow to eat.

You are missing the part that says this is a SOCOM solicitation. As in a command that has 50,000 people in it, not the whole military. Big Green will use the M4 for another 10 years.

Actually I was replying to some other posts about the Army adopting it. You're right the article was about SOCOM. I'll bet you a nickel that 10 year estimate is low.

Posted: 11/14/2005 10:00:26 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem this rifle will face it going out the whole military is the amount of time and effort to replace the existing weapons. That 80% parts commonality will not come into play until most or all of the M4/M16s are gone. So for many years you'll have more parts to deal with not less.

The gas piston modification to the M4/M16 is a great idea to me. You could rotate weapons back to the arsenal for refit. However by adding a gas piston the Army would be saying they were lying about the M16's reliability for 40 years. Perhaps a bit too much crow to eat.

You are missing the part that says this is a SOCOM solicitation. As in a command that has 50,000 people in it, not the whole military. Big Green will use the M4 for another 10 years.

Actually I was replying to some other posts about the Army adopting it. You're right the article was about SOCOM. I'll bet you a nickel that 10 year estimate is low.

Don't mean to be hard on anybody, but it's silly that ARFcom decided to re-equip the whole US military with a prototype weapon without telling them.

Yeah, 10 years might be low, especially with some of the newer developments. SOPMOD and the M4, even the SOPMOD II are already outdated. The Army is having a hard time keeping up with how fast technology is changing. Things like Noveske barrels, the URX II and all the cool guy gear to hang of 12 and 13.2 inch rails are revolutionizing the industry.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - JANES Report: SCAR Supersedes the M4A1 Carbine (Page 2 of 11)

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us