Skip to comments.SCAR Goes To War
Posted on 05/13/2009 7:19:28 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
Two years after completing field testing, the new American assault rifle, SCAR, has been issued to a battalion of U.S. Army Rangers, who are headed for Afghanistan. SCAR (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle) was a SOCOM (Special Operations Command) effort to develop a new assault rifle that had some of the characteristics of the (now abandoned) U.S. Army XM-8 rifle. SOCOM had the money, and authority to develop their own weapons. And SCAR is mainly for use by SOCOM troops.
SOCOM wanted a weapon that did everything the XM-8 did, and a little more. Back in 2003, SOCOM asked rifle manufacturers to submit proposals, and FN (a Belgian firm) came up with the best ideas. One advantage FN has was its ability to quickly implement requests for design changes. FNs rapid prototyping shop was often able to turn out a new part in hours. This, and FNs long history of good weapons design, gave them the edge. SCAR has a more reliable short-stroke, gas piston operating system, and a floating barrel for better accuracy, plus several other improvements over the current M-4/M-16.
There are two basic models of the weapon. The 5.56mm SCAR-L weighs 7.7 pounds (empty), while the 7.62mm SCAR-H weighs 8.5 pounds (empty). A 30 round 5.56mm magazine weighs a little under a pound, while a 20 round magazine of 7.62mm ammo weighs a little over a pound. Special sights can weigh a pound or two, so a fully loaded SCAR won't weigh much more than ten pounds. FN also came up with a grenade launcher for SCAR.
Both models operate the same way, and have many interchangeable parts. SCAR-L is basically a replacement for the M4, which was designed (with a shorter barrel) as a close combat version of the M16. The SCAR-H will replace the M14, a 1950s era 7.62mm weapon (a replacement for the World War II M1) that is still favored for long range and sniper work. The SCAR design is the result of much feedback from the field. For example, the rate of fire was lowered to 600 RPM (rounds per minute) from the 800 typical with the M14 and M16. This makes SCAR easier to hold on target when firing full auto.
SCAR-H can be quickly converted to fire AK-47 ammo (the 7.62x39 round) with a change out of the barrel and receiver. Both models can be fitted with a longer and heavier sniper barrel. Thus this ability to quickly change the barrel length enables the SOCOM to equip their troops with the specific weapon they need. SCAR is also built to be more rugged than the M-16. The barrel is good for some 36,000 rounds, twice as many as the M-16. Barrels may be switched by users without special tools. Both models of SCAR take all the special sights and other accessories SOCOM troops favor. SCAR is meant to be easily modified and personalized for each user. Its expected that SOCOM experience with SCAR will influence the next generation of U.S. Army and Marine Corps small arms.
If I had an extra $5000 sitting around, I’d def. own this baby!
Me love long time.
Finally something decent to replace that shytpiece AR?
they need to stop with the anemic 5.56 varmit load crap.(the 6.5 and 6.8 in the same size platform makes more sense)
I would take one in 7.62, but I will stick with an M1A1 in that caliber, I like a wood stock.
It will be interesting to see how they hold up under real world/combat conditions.
Rangers Lead the Way, Sir!
I'd be impressed if ANY quick-change barrel resulted in an rifle accurate enough for long range work.
Maybe they've got the technology down, though - shrug -.
The 6.8 is the way to go, and it’s battle tested.
For a rifle that size, you cant beat it for sheer knockdown and stomp em power.
Not Made in the USA? Oh well, the UAW would probably have killed it if GM would have had the winning design anyways.
Riiiiiiiiiight, because no enemies of democracy have *ever* fallen to the M16 / M4.
I do believe these carbines/rifles were introduced to Special Forces soldiers around January 2008. The design is brilliant as units can specialize their weapons for the job they are doing because most of the parts can be switched out.
If FN makes them, then I am sure they would hold up quite well. Better than the plastic toys built by Mattel LOL!!!
FN also make the M4s. Anyway I soldiered with a Colt model
and found it perfectly adequate. plastic is fine as long as you aren’t planning on using the vertical buttstroke feature.
LOL! Real logical response there.
The 5.56 varmint stomper has come a long way though, and is very accurate now out to 5-600 meters in the new rifles. Problem is the little pill sometimes don't hurt real bad people real good. All too often, they can still shoot back after a 5.56 hit or two, instead of lying there like good little Muslims.
OTOH, changing calibers is one long and expensive PIA. And exactly how many caliber switcheroo kits is a grunt supposed to carry, anyway?
The better to kill you with, my dear.
That SCAR is a fascinating rifle. Everyone whose used them likes them.
So, logically, Barry will try and cancel them.
Id like one in 6.8 SPC..that would almost be a perfect caliber for the size and weight.
FN makes the M-16A2, the M240 and the M2 in the USA (North Carolina ?).
They could make the rifle here easily, if they already don’t.
Unless theyre way behind enema lines they are unlikely to carry a conversion kit.
I’d like to see what kind of 7.62x39 magazines theyve come up with for the SCAR. Its hard to make that caliber work reliably in an AR size carbine.
The ammo supply chain is the reason.
We have tens of millions of 5.56mm rounds in variuos inventory locations.
Replacing/substituting that ammo means doubling the inventory for a considerable period, as weapons are switched out.
The rifles themselves would be the easy change.
New weapons are depot-level mods to the M-16/M-4 (and SAW?) to support the new caliber.
Personally, the 5.56mm caliber if fine.
Whenever I hear a guy say, “I pumped a full mag into him and he didn’t go down”, I think: “You missed.”
I really doubt the SCAR will be used in a modular role any more than the M-4. Nobody’s gonna carry a spare barrel. However, being able to switch out a barrel would be great for maintenance purposes. Should eliminate depot-level requirements.
With a proper design? None.
I can see the more rounds per pound issue though.
I took my M-1 garand out of the safe yesterday and was out of breath carrying it upstairs...not being young anymore I have an excuse, but still, you hike all day with an 11 lb weapon, and I can see you wanting to dump it for a 7 lb weapon with the ability to carry a whole bunch of extra ammo.
As I understand it, they are hard to shoot while laying on your belly.
Particularly slick is the automatic conversion from closed bolt to open bolt when the barrel heats up.
The 6.5 Grendel, like the 7.62X39, looks a little fat to me for optimal use in this action, although it's looking great on paper.
That was disappointing, however mix in a few 7.62 guys and it won’t be a problem.
.308 is a strong round. 30.06 is a lot stronger.
Apparently, and I am not at all sure of the actual metrics, but I have been recently instructed that the two rounds are not quite identical, and one should not use the MILSPEC ammo in a civilian .308. Or is it vice-versa?
I date back to the M-14, and also have hunted with a .308. The .308 is a great round, and easily available in all kinds of interesting loads.
“The 6.8 is the way to go, and its battle tested.
For a rifle that size, you cant beat it for sheer knockdown and stomp em power.”
Sure you can, with a 6.5 Grendel. At least with the Grendel you can hit out well past 300 yards - out to 800+ no problem. If you need extra short-range performance, you can use a lighter bullet - but the 120 gr. bullets provide an excellent balance.
If a 62 gr. 5.56 bullet was even close to sufficient, a 120 gr. 6.5 bullet is plenty. If you want to see the terminal effects, take a look at the JFK shooting video - that’s about right (that was with FMJ military ammo, slightly heavier bullet at lower velocity).
The 123 gr. Scenar from the Grendel exceeds the ballistics of the 147 gr. 7.62 ball round by a good bit - out of a lightweight AR platform.
6.5 seems to be the optimal caliber.
After researching the 6.5 Grendel,
I was very impressed as it is superior
to the .308 in long distance knockdown.
6.5 seems to be the optimal caliber.
That 6.5 Grendel certainly gets the job done at long range. That is exactly what is lacking right now, too.
Wonder what the logistics plan for a caliber change actually is, at this point.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Takes me back to my Stoner 63 days!
That... was one hell of a weapons system!
Eugene Stoner, God bless him, devised the 63 as a revolutionary concept for a weapons platform that would be built around a common receiver and certain interchangeable components and could be transformed into a rifle, carbine or various machine gun configurations by simply fitting the appropriate parts to the basic assembly.
The SEALs did okay with it. Or so Thomas... told me so.
Like my Official Keeper... old Dapper Dan--
If Red Xs above, go to http://world.guns.ru/machine/Stoner63lmg-1.jpg or http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/magnum-pi-selleck-1.jpg
/mark for later
Plus the upper receiver will be the heaviest and most expensive part of the rifle. I would prefer to just have a couple of complete rifle versions back at base, and grab the one that's most appropriate to the mission.
THAT’s more like it!
I think it's you should not use civilian ammo in a military-type rifle without checking its suitability. I managed to damage my Garand by using 30-06 ammo that was intended for bolt-action rifles, and was WAY hotter than WW2 rifle specs.
I was a tanker and got familiar with the FN from the M240 MG. It was rugged, disassembled quick and cleaned quickly. I never had an M4, the 240 was far better than the M60 and a lot lighter than Ma Deuce or the M85.
Proponents assert that the Grendel is an ideal middle ground between the 5.56 mm NATO and the 7.62 mm NATO, taking the best attributes of each. It has a flatter trajectory and retains greater terminal energy at extended ranges than either of these cartridges due to its higher ballistic coefficient.from 6.5 mm Grendel
I shoot pop bottles with 5.7x48.6 at 500 yds
.30-06 was not developed from the .45-70. It may have been developed because of the -70, but the development of the .30-06 was from the .30-03, from the 6mm Lee Navy, from the .30-40 Krag, as a result of the new Mauser bottlenecks that was kickingass on the .45-70.
Ballisticly the .30-06, .308 or 7.62x51 are similar. The .308 was developed from the .300 Savage or T65 research, it is not a cut down .30-06. The reason they went with the Savage round had to do with case capacity and taper of the case for ejection in full auto fire, and political issues with Britain.