SOCOM use of SCAR?
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Joined
·
21,317 Posts
Kinda assumed that as SOCOM operators usually like to keep things hush hush.
Some older gov't docs I found floating around the net indicated that field testing should be over now, so I was kinda wondering where they were with it.
Thanks for the info Templar
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
Seems like I've also heard some negative reviews coming out of blogs, people saying they're getting them shoved down their throats. Complaints of the stocks breaking, charging handle being a problem, etc. Of course these could just be HK416 lovers that are bitter that they are going to end up with a different set up. I think the positives that are coming through are out-weighing the negatives.
I doubt the folks at Vicker's school are biased, I'm sure they're quite objective with the experience they have.
I doubt the folks at Vicker's school are biased, I'm sure they're quite objective with the experience they have.
Joined
·
21,317 Posts
Militar.com just had an article with some Army SF operators. They really liked them for the modularity (which the 416 doesn't have). I have heard previously that DEVGRU guys didn't want them and wanted to keep their 416's, though I don't know if it was from a reliable source. Some solid words from an operators mouth (like the military.com article) is what I was looking for as I don't trust what a lot of what comes out in various blogs as they can't back any of it up.
B52U, I haven't heard anything about the stocks breaking, and the charging handle being a problem is coming from a lot of "arm-chair" warriors who are coming up with theories of how it would get caught. I wonder what they would say about the AK-47 or any of the other rifles wth reciprocating charging handles that stick out. :roll:
B52U, I haven't heard anything about the stocks breaking, and the charging handle being a problem is coming from a lot of "arm-chair" warriors who are coming up with theories of how it would get caught. I wonder what they would say about the AK-47 or any of the other rifles wth reciprocating charging handles that stick out. :roll:
B52U said:
I'd like to think I'm pretty objective....
I'm not a professional trigger puller nor have I shot these under battlefield conditions, but I like them.
I've gotten trigger time on the HK G36C, FN SCAR-L & H, HK 416 (10.5" & 14.5'), Leitner-Wise M6, Magpul Massada, and the new ADC piston upper, along with "standard" Colt M4A1's.
I think they all offer something. I think from a ground-up new system approach, the FN is a real winner. I hope that Bushmaster doesn't fumble the ball with the Massada/ACR, but realistically, they really don't have the capacity to win a major contract for the US military.
As a stop gap, the HK 416 upper and recoil system is definitely the winner there, and if you can't get one, the new ADC system would be my choice, and has some advantages over the 416 honestly.
Anyway, just my two pfennigs.......
Joined
·
21,317 Posts
Templar,
From your unbiased perspective, which do you like better: the 416 or the SCAR L? Also, how does the recoil of the 416 compare to the SCAR L because there are a lot of people out there who haven't fired either that say the recoil is lower in the 416.
By the way, what did Vicker's think of the SCAR? :?
From your unbiased perspective, which do you like better: the 416 or the SCAR L? Also, how does the recoil of the 416 compare to the SCAR L because there are a lot of people out there who haven't fired either that say the recoil is lower in the 416.
By the way, what did Vicker's think of the SCAR? :?
djv38 said:
I'm a huge believer in "staying in your lane". I'm not a professional trigger puller, Specwar guru or anything like that.
My opinion is just that, it's an opinion, and one that's based on shooting these on a range and in classes, not on a two way range and not really putting them through any serious test protocols.
Having said that.....the HK 416 10.5" and the FN SCAR-L CQC are both top of the line carbines. The FN is softer shooting even though the HK is heavier. I've fired both full auto, and both perform in an outstanding capacity, and I sure as hell wouldn't feel under armed with either.
If BIG ARMY felt the need to upgrade their stocks of M16A2's, M16A4's, M4 and M4A1's, with a minimum of cross training and materiel.....the HK 416 is a winner. You simply replace the upper receiver and the buffer and spring arrangement and you're good to go, no need to buy whole rifles.
If SOCOM or BIG ARMY decides that they need completely new carbines, built from the ground up as entirely new platforms, then the FN SCAR series is definitely a top tier candidate.
FOR ME, the FN SCAR-L CQC was much more ergonomic than a M4 or HK 416, lighter than the 416, and more controllable under full auto fire than either the M4A1 or the 416. The ability to change out barrels easily and quickly (with the provided tool) is a serious bonus.
Anyway, you asked.........that's my answer......
Joined
·
21,317 Posts
Thanks for the answer. It's nice to finally hear from someone who has actually fired all those weapons with the photo evidence to back it up :shock:
We probably won't hear how the 416, SCAR and various other weapons perform in combat and on extended missions for some time, but that how well they perform may also have a bit to do with the operators familiarity with the weapon (especially if there is a failure of some sort, which will eventually occur with any weapon).
We probably won't hear how the 416, SCAR and various other weapons perform in combat and on extended missions for some time, but that how well they perform may also have a bit to do with the operators familiarity with the weapon (especially if there is a failure of some sort, which will eventually occur with any weapon).
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
