The SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) Reaches Final Milestone

FNH USA ^ | May 4, 2010 | FNH USA Press Release

[JRandomFreeper]

This thread is useless without pictures.

/johnny

[east1234]

Definatly needs pics, and gun babes.

[Doomonyou]

[Doomonyou]

[WOBBLY BOB]

SCAR-face

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Re-post? There’s pics on this 2-year-old FR post...

www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2019245/posts

[cut&paste, I’m HTML -lazy today.]

[null and void]

www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2019245/posts

Hmmmm. Interesting. FR used to automatically make links live if there was no other HTML in the post...

[truthguy]

This article is unreadable. It's filled with so many abbreviations and encrypted acronyms that it's painful to read. Every other sentence is filled with them. This is what use to be known as gobbledygook. Very frustrating if you aren't familiar with the lexicon

[ryan71]

Not guilty!

[Lazamataz]

This article is unreadable. It's filled with so many abbreviations and encrypted acronyms that it's painful to read. Every other sentence is filled with them. This is what use to be known as gobbledygook. Very frustrating if you aren't familiar with the lexicon

“Todays Army has exhibited leadership by enhancing the facilitation of synergystic, scalable core-competancy paradigm-shifts vis-a-vis the most granular service point of difference, empowering the ongoing assurance of the product architecture being functionally equivalent and parallel to the longitudinal business-practice shift postulated by the use of mission-critical management dialogue technology on a go-forward basis, in accordance with ISO-9001:2008 standards.”

[ATLDiver]

Nice gun but it would be cheaper to just adopt a gas-piston upper on the standard M-16/M-4 rifles. What makes the SCAR so reliable is the use of a gas-piston as opposed to a gas-impingement system. Today’s M-4 rifle is greatly improved over the old M-16 A1 so the addition of the SCAR is really not needed.

What’s needed is a heavier and more effective bullet. The 6.5 seems to be the all-around winner from the current 5.56x45 AR and SCAR’s. Tests have proven it to be more effective at range as well as being a “fight-stopper” unlike the M855 and XM193 5.45x45 rounds. The new 77-grain MK-262 round is much more effective than previous 5.45x45 rounds but the DoD still hasn’t adopted it fully. At least the MK-262 has the ‘punch’ for stopping the fight in the bad guys; still a heavier and flatter bullet would be best.

[edhawk]

The Mk17 is .308

[ATLDiver]

Thanks, I had read that and was thinking of the 5.45x45 versions the DoD was planning on ordering as well. Replacing the uppers on the current rifles with a .308, gas-piston system would still be cheaper. I’ve read where some of the SPEC-Ops guys issued the SCAR were having growing pains with it but that’s going to be true of any new system.

The 7.62 round in those SCAR’s will fix the shortcomings of the current 5.56 NATO but it comes at a cost of added weight and reduced rounds carried. Again, if the DoD is going to introduce a new rifle I’d like to see the 6.5 adopted with a phase out of the 5.56 NATO.

[TChris]

Very frustrating if you aren't familiar with the lexicon

It's all about the TLAs, baby!

[oldenuff2no]

Which 7.62 are you talking about? The 7.62 NATO. (7.62X51mm) round will not function in an M-16/M4 lower. The 7.62X39 Russian round will but it is far from the best choice. They do make Lower and upper AR type receivers that will take the NATO round and that would be by far the best way to go.
If you are going to convert existing M-16/M4’s then go to then 6.5 but stay away from the 7.62X39 Russian round.

[TXnMA]

"What’s needed is a heavier and more effective bullet. "

As in 7.62 X 51 Nato? (See "[ FN SCAR HEAVY SPECS ]" below...) [click image for full size...]

[Lurker]

“Todays Army has exhibited leadership by enhancing the facilitation of synergystic, scalable core-competancy paradigm-shifts vis-a-vis the most granular service point of difference, empowering the ongoing assurance of the product architecture being functionally equivalent and parallel to the longitudinal business-practice shift postulated by the use of mission-critical management dialogue technology on a go-forward basis, in accordance with ISO-9001:2008 standards.”

Do you have the PowerPoint slide of that?

[oldenuff2no]

You must have been overseas a long time.....