Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will the FN SCAR become the standard rifle for the US military?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will the FN SCAR become the standard rifle for the US military?

    As we now know the FN SCAR is currently being used in Afghanistan by Army Rangers. So, are the M16's days numbered?

  • #2
    No.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not yet.

      While the Fabrique Nationale SCAR presumably (never shot 1 besides video games, so I can't honestly say without making myself sound like a dumbass) is a great gun, the M16/M4 will continue to be used for at least another 6-8 years...maybe longer.

      We'll all see...I think the SCAR would be good for spec ops, and the ACR should be ushered in more within the next few years for army, etc.
      "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

      --Hávamál

      Comment


      • #4
        The SCAR is simply not providing a revolutionary new capability that the M16 family doesn't already address. And with so many resources already dedicated to the M16 family, it would be insanely expensive, in weapons, spare parts, and training to change the whole military over to what is really just an evolutionary development.

        When something truly revolutionary is put on the table, that provides a new capability or is ridiculously more efficient than the M16, then we'll talk about whole military replacement.
        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
          The SCAR is simply not providing a revolutionary new capability that the M16 family doesn't already address. And with so many resources already dedicated to the M16 family, it would be insanely expensive, in weapons, spare parts, and training to change the whole military over to what is really just an evolutionary development.

          When something truly revolutionary is put on the table, that provides a new capability or is ridiculously more efficient than the M16, then we'll talk about whole military replacement.
          Agreed. I have owned an FNC for many years now, the SCAR is just a 'souped up' version, much like the M4 vs. M16.

          While I do love my FNC, I can not imagine replacing the M4 throughout the military, it simply can not be very superior, if at all. I especially question it's accuracy beyond 300 meters. That question is based on my FNC, so it may not be entirely valid. Has anyone here fired the SCAR? I would be very interested in how it's accuracy compares to the M4/M16.
          Beware the man of one book.
          --Thomas Aquinas

          http://www.clementsmb.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Totenritter View Post
            Agreed. I have owned an FNC for many years now, the SCAR is just a 'souped up' version, much like the M4 vs. M16.

            While I do love my FNC, I can not imagine replacing the M4 throughout the military, it simply can not be very superior, if at all. I especially question it's accuracy beyond 300 meters. That question is based on my FNC, so it may not be entirely valid. Has anyone here fired the SCAR? I would be very interested in how it's accuracy compares to the M4/M16.
            That's going to be too fine a hair to split as far as the military is concerned. However accurate the SCAR is it's bound to be accurate enough, just like the M16 family is. Combat accuracy for these types of systems doesn't need to be sub-MOA anyhow so there's probably not an appreciable difference. For this type of weapon, reliability, durability, to a degree modularity and versatility all come before pin-point accuracy. This isn't a precision rifle, after all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
              The SCAR is simply not providing a revolutionary new capability that the M16 family doesn't already address. And with so many resources already dedicated to the M16 family, it would be insanely expensive, in weapons, spare parts, and training to change the whole military over to what is really just an evolutionary development.

              When something truly revolutionary is put on the table, that provides a new capability or is ridiculously more efficient than the M16, then we'll talk about whole military replacement.
              That pretty much sums it up. Remindes me of the bullpup vs. carbine thread a while back.

              Comment


              • #8
                Other than the fact that it's little or no better than the M4/16 series, the main drawback to the SCAR is its price. Per unit pricing is 2-3 times what an AR goes for.
                PS- On a nitpicky note...you'd think that FN would make sure that all their subcontracted tan components would be the same shade on a $3000 weapon. Nope. There's at least 3 or 4 different shades of tan on the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by llkinak View Post
                  That's going to be too fine a hair to split as far as the military is concerned. However accurate the SCAR is it's bound to be accurate enough, just like the M16 family is. Combat accuracy for these types of systems doesn't need to be sub-MOA anyhow so there's probably not an appreciable difference. For this type of weapon, reliability, durability, to a degree modularity and versatility all come before pin-point accuracy. This isn't a precision rifle, after all.
                  I am not suggesting sub MOA, I am suggesting a torso target at 500 meters, something that I know an issue M16 will do and my FNC will not. Hence my curiousity and concern.

                  I am well aware of a multitude of studies that point out the fact that soldiers very rarely attempt a shot beyond 300m, but the USMC still insists on 500m accuracy (torso target, prone position), so they might disagree with you.
                  Beware the man of one book.
                  --Thomas Aquinas

                  http://www.clementsmb.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The M-16 platform has been given new life thanks to a myriad of new modifications - gas piston kits, open bolt firing for full auto, various changes to caliber, etc.

                    Current testing for new rifles by the various services and sub groups ended up with quite a few of the "next gen" m-16 type rifles in the lead.

                    Also, the current methodology in the US military is to select common base platforms for equipment which can be modified for each branch as needed. The common base platform and parts brings a number of favorable options to the table. I'd be very surprised to see a return to the days when each branch selected completely different rifle platforms which are incompatible with each other.

                    It's still a great platform, easy to work with and gives excellent results. Add in some of the improvement modifications such as a gas piston kit and change in caliber to a more powerful round and you get one hell of a nice weapon, especially with the latest optics and furniture.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by milbrat View Post
                      Also, the current methodology in the US military is to select common base platforms for equipment which can be modified for each branch as needed. The common base platform and parts brings a number of favorable options to the table. I'd be very surprised to see a return to the days when each branch selected completely different rifle platforms which are incompatible with each other.

                      It's still a great platform, easy to work with and gives excellent results. Add in some of the improvement modifications such as a gas piston kit and change in caliber to a more powerful round and you get one hell of a nice weapon, especially with the latest optics and furniture.
                      When did different branches use different rifles?
                      Don't expect the gas psiton upper to be adopted; or a new caliber.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                        And with so many resources already dedicated to the M16 family, it would be insanely expensive, in weapons, spare parts, and training to change the whole military over to what is really just an evolutionary development.
                        Yes, but the same could be said about supporting two completely different assault rifles (in terms of spare parts, training etc.) simultaneously.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Totenritter View Post
                          I am not suggesting sub MOA, I am suggesting a torso target at 500 meters, something that I know an issue M16 will do and my FNC will not. Hence my curiousity and concern.
                          That's a big maybe. Most rifles will probably be able to manage it, some might not. At any rate, some situations in Afghanistan excepted, even seeing a target at 500 is rare, much less one sitting still long enough to take careful aim at, while you're nice and proned out. The USMC standards are great, they expect and get good riflemen, but applying that to the real world is a different story entirely. At 500, unless you're truely sniping, it's usually lots of rounds from lots of troops, or better yet mortars.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by llkinak View Post
                            That's a big maybe. Most rifles will probably be able to manage it, some might not. At any rate, some situations in Afghanistan excepted, even seeing a target at 500 is rare, much less one sitting still long enough to take careful aim at, while you're nice and proned out. The USMC standards are great, they expect and get good riflemen, but applying that to the real world is a different story entirely. At 500, unless you're truely sniping, it's usually lots of rounds from lots of troops, or better yet mortars.
                            Well, I know all that- I have been there myself.

                            The right or wrong of that philosophy is beyond the scope of this thread, just saying that the USMC might insist on that kind of accuracy and therefore, might squelch any potential rifle that can not live up to it.

                            The problem with my FNC is thrice-

                            1. M16A1 style sights (horrible!)
                            2. A very light barrel
                            3. Essentially an AK47 bolt carrier group-loose tolerances and heavy.

                            I know that the sights on the SCAR have been greatly improved, but I am unsure if barrel weight has been addressed or if anything has been modified to the gas system. A search around the web has not found any details on those points. Still hoping someone here has some answers, anyone?
                            Beware the man of one book.
                            --Thomas Aquinas

                            http://www.clementsmb.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The barrel on a SCAR is thinner than on an M4. I don't have the exact measurements, but it's noticable.
                              The sights are an afterthought. The gun is made for optics.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X