Is the FN Scar here to stay? + Other Scar Questions

[forgiven]

Well, what do you think?

What were the results of the testing that the military conducted on the HK416, FN Scar, HK XM8, and Colt M4?

Has the military made/going to make any large orders for the SCAR? Furthermore, will the SCAR be outdone by the HK416? Why or Why Not?

Have there been any major teething issues with the SCAR?

[TOrrock]

Typing "Scar" into the search engine and selecting "other assault rifles"
brought up this.....

https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php?searchid=1515263


Yes, they're here to stay, yes, the US military has placed large orders.

Lots of info out there.

[Business_Casual]

In my opinion, asking the question shows you haven't handled the various items in question.

What do I mean by that? Merely that if you had handled them and shot them, you would be able to tell that the SCAR is a step forward in assault rifle design.

It corrects some areas in which the AR and AK are sub-optimal, but remains largely free of trade-offs and defects.

M_P

[variablebinary]

Well, what do you think?

What were the results of the testing that the military conducted on the HK416, FN Scar, HK XM8, and Colt M4?

Has the military made/going to make any large orders for the SCAR? Furthermore, will the SCAR be outdone by the HK416? Why or Why Not?

Have there been any major teething issues with the SCAR?

1. If you're talking about the dust test:



2. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/id...1029_1_n.shtml . As for being outdone by the 416, who knows...

3. Probably. Everything has teething issues. The bigger question is are there lingering, unaddressable issues.

[Jerod]

The Scar was not meant to be a huge" jump forward " . It was designed by FN with imput from Socom to improve on the short comings of the M4. It seems to have done this well so far. The Scar has gone threw alot of testing over the past 4 years and has done well . I have yet to see alot of combat test results yet. Any short comings will be taken care of by FN right away.

[Failure2Stop]

Is the SCAR here to stay?

Yes.
At least as far as any military firearm design "stay".

If it will pan out in the civilian market is still to be seen. Many of the benefits to SOCOM as far as ease of maintenance and part replacement will not mean quite as much to the civilian user, or at least might not be worth the cost of the base platform to them.

[Armati]

I am not popular here for saying it, but the truth is that the SCAR is still too new to tell. The Rangers and a few other units out there are testing them in the box. Reviews are mixed.

If the SCAR gets a 'go' AND is fully adopted by SOCOM, AND all SOCOM line units turn in there M4's then you could say it is here to stay. Until that happens it is anybodies guess.

Personally, I would not go headlong into the SCAR until I knew that it had a large following, a robust aftermarket, and market longevity.

Now, with that out of the way I have to put on my CarbonX underwear.....

[variablebinary]

Speaking pragmatically, the SCAR family of weapons is FN's flagship product.

I seriously doubt the honcho's in Belgium are banking entirely on SOCOM to secure the SCAR's position in the market. There would be no civilian variant this early in the game if that was the case.

There is also a massive global market full of nations that are or will be transitioning from the G3/FAL or older generation 5.56 carbines. Someone, somewhere, will gobble up a large quantity of SCAR's.

[crusader377]

Getting back to the orginal question. Even if the SCAR performs better than advertised, I would still only give it a much less than a 50/50 chance at best for a general issue rifle. Reason for this is not performance based at all but based on political and budget issues.

Bottom line is that we have overspent in this country over the past several years and it is catching up to us. Unfortunately, we have a liberal administration and congress right now and defense cuts will happen sooner or later to pay for social programs. The military is simply not going to have the money to buy alot of new equipment. Furthermore, rifles just aren't the exciting for politicians and they don't bring multiple congressional districts huge amounts of money like programs like the F-35. Finally, rifles just aren't high on the priority with alot of senior officers who would rather spend their increasing scarse procurement budgets on their high tech toys rather than bringing useful equipment to front line troops.