SCAR Testing Review Military

[jdun]

Guy in the Army, Ranger? Is in the process of testing the SCAR. It doesn't look good.


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=280622

[k9870]

Looked okay to me, saw no major complaints. The few errors are part of breaking in as he said, ive never known anyone who bought an AR without breaking in errors. He also says he prefers an m4 due to familiarity. If someone is trained on something a while they get used to it. If people used only scars and switched to ar15s similar result.

[MT2008]

Major sense of "blah" is the impression I get from it. See his conclusion:

Bottom Line:
The SCAR is a good system. I’m not ready to give up my M4.
As the SCAR evolves over the next couple years, it will be a top-of-the line rifle.
I’m not convinced that it is worth the cost to purchase and train on a completely new system.

And what he says makes complete sense, too.

Originally Posted by k9870

He also says he prefers an m4 due to familiarity. If someone is trained on something a while they get used to it. If people used only scars and switched to ar15s similar result.

Right, but what about the SAS operators who spend their careers training on the L85 and instead use M4s once they join the SAS? Or the Aussie commandos who start out with the AUG as cadets but switch to M4s once they go SF? Or what about the French RDP who prefer the M4 over the FAMAS used by the rest of their military?

Saying that people prefer the M4 due to "familiarity" is not a satisfactory explanation for why almost every SF unit in the world likes the M4 over whatever service rifle their country issues.

[k9870]

Well id take anything over a famas, enfield or aug, as i hate bullpups The m4 is in existence, we give people good deals on m16 series rifles to try and get the world to use it, its modeular, and whatever the military uses must be good, right?

I think the reason nothing else akes it is everyone says "the m4 is good enough why buy something better."

m4s are good, there is just some way better stuff. Politics also has something to do with it, god forbid they spend money on new guns....even though we could replace all the existing m4s and m16s with SCARs for the price of a single B2 bomber. The m4 is also currently used so people with one will be partial and biased, most are incapable of admitting there is anything better. Although I know some vets who claim that the Daewoo Rifles used by SK troops are better....

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

Well id take anything over a famas, enfield or aug, as i hate bullpups

Right, but you don't necessarily represent the opinion of every fighting man and woman on the face of the Earth.

Anyway, those aren't the only ones. What about Japan? They use the Type 89, which is basically a glorified AR-18, and yet their SF also uses M4s. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on the M4 and check out "Users". You'll see endless countries whose SF use M4s, even though the rest of their troops use something else...not necessarily a bullpup, either.

Originally Posted by k9870

The m4 is in existence, we give people good deals on m16 series rifles to try and get the world to use it, its modeular, and whatever the military uses must be good, right?

Wrong. These are SF units we're talking about, who buy M16s and M4s in extremely small numbers. I'm not referring to countries like Taiwan or Saudi Arabia that depend on U.S. supplies to equip ALL of their troops. I'm talking about countries like France, Japan, the U.K., etc. that have their own defense industries, and in most case produce their own service rifles. Their SF has the option to use these rifles, or anything else they want. But they choose M4. Why is that?

Originally Posted by k9870

m4s are good, there is just some way better stuff. Politics also has something to do with it, god forbid they spend money on new guns....even though we could replace all the existing m4s and m16s with SCARs for the price of a single B2 bomber.

Per-unit cost isn't the only issue; it's also a matter of training all of our troops on the new weapon, and the fact that we're involved in two wars. In circumstances like that, the money goes to stuff that's a priority. And it isn't the DoD's priority to re-equip our troops with a new service rifle just because every kid who plays "Call of Duty 4" thinks the SCAR is cooler than the M4.

Not to mention that small arms are pretty much irrelevant to the broader, more strategic picture of American military prowess, anyway.

[k9870]

If we refused to ever adopt a a new rifle to to training and costs well be using m4s when we are being ripped to shreds by lazer cannons. The m4 has seen its day, its just a matter of time now. And for the record, video gamers love m4s and there is no SCAR in call of duty. And m4 fans will discredit everything, say the dust test is inconclusive or rigged, etc. Im willing to bet if the m4/m16 never existed, and something else was in use, people would be saying that thing is better and shouldnt be replaced.

Not that these pissing matches ever go anywhere. Im betting way back there was complaints when they tried to replace trapdoor springfields with krags....

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by k9870

The M4 has seen its day, its just a matter of time now. And for the record, video gamers love M4s and there is no SCAR in Call of Duty.

Because all gamers in the future will make decisions on our military firearms right?

To be fair, the first Rainbow Six Vegas has an FN SCAR and no M4 at all. By the second one, they give you the M468, which was dumb because I wanted a damn M4! No 6.8mm for me please, I want realistic 5.56mm. And they got the magazine capacity wrong I believe, don't 6.8mm's hold 28 rounds, not 30?

[k9870]

I thought the 6.8 held 25? I loved the lack of M4, its the most overused video game gun. And gamers should never decide military weapons, because the DE 50ae would be the standard sidearm. I want to see a 6.5 type round redisighned to feed more reliably (6.5mm tends to jam easy) then youd have manageble recoil with better punch and ballistics.

A good compromise may be keep the AR platform, in the form of the LWRC IAR, in an intermediate caliber.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by k9870

Looked okay to me, saw no major complaints. The few errors are part of breaking in as he said, ive never known anyone who bought an AR without breaking in errors. He also says he prefers an m4 due to familiarity. If someone is trained on something a while they get used to it. If people used only scars and switched to ar15s similar result.

Well with this soldiers think we would still be using Trapdoor Springfield's. Does he realize that the M16 system is almost 50 years old. It hold the record for the longest serving rifle in the US military surpassing the Trapdoor Springfield.

If he is a Ranger he just made them sound like a bunch of idiots that can't transition to another system.

[jdun]

It jammed three times on him. Two of those jams were double feed. Those take a lot longer to clear then the standard malfunction. You also lose an entire mag clearing it. The SCAR was suppose to more reliable then the M4 what happen to that?

Hopefully he keeps us up to date in the post.