# SCAR Testing



## Trip_Wire (Aug 6, 2008)

Operators Test New Commando Rifle (SCAR)
July 29, 2008
Military.com|by Christian Lowe

It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.

So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right? 

Link:

http://www.military.com/news/article/operators-test-new-commando-rifle.html


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Aug 6, 2008)

I read this one earlier, and it looks like a pretty good rifle. Has anybody heard of any torture testing they've done on them?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 6, 2008)

Sounds like a good deal. I wonder if they'll make and issue the 7.62 version as well.


----------



## 8'Duece (Aug 6, 2008)

*Why all the fuss ?:uhh:*

This rifle has been flogged to death on every military board known to man. 

And, of course nobody wants it, likes it, nor thinks it's any better than the current M4/M16 rifle.    Just start lurking around the usual sites and you'll here every expert tell us that the rifle is either flat out shit or just "So so" I don't get it. The SCAR seems to have every single feature that an SOF soldier could want, but just read the postings and nobody seems to like the damn thing ? 

What more do the SOF guy's want ?  It's fully ambidextrus, gas piston, upgraded stock with both telescopic and comb adjustments, it comes in all barrel lengths and both 5.56 and 7.62, has rails where necessary, accepts standard M4/AR15 magazines, runs cooler and cleaner than the M4/M16 and weighs no more than a fully tricked out M4 and has a gas regulator system to improve controllability and service life with a suppressor. Oh yeah, the stock even folds for those pesky rides in the Hummers and when jumping and fast roping. I realize there's talk of it's recoil being a bit more than the M4, and seems to have a slightly lower per minute rate of fire. But, aren't you SOF guy's the types that can run 5 miles, swim 500 meters then pull a guy's arms out of socket just for fun ? 

All in all ? Looks like what every single SOF soldier has probably echoed down the line that would make a great rifle. So what's the problem ?? 

Not to be sarcastic, but Good Lord, it's like trying make a woman happy on her wedding day.............................just ain't gonna happen to a full 100%

Rant over. Hell, I hope everyone starts making semi auto knockoffs. I'd buy one.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Aug 6, 2008)

82ndtrooper:

I feel the same way about the SCAR. I listened to many active duty SF people, wanting this and that in a new weapon. The SCAR, in it's many forms seems to answer all of the suggestions and/or desires by those people.

Of course, I haven't handled the SCAR, nor for that matter the M-4. I have had experience with the CAR-16. Many of the loudest bitching I heard, was for a 7.62 and or better weapon for long ranges and better 'knock down' power.

I say, Hey you want cheese with that whine! :2c:


----------



## 8'Duece (Aug 6, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> 82ndtrooper:
> 
> I feel the same way about the SCAR. I listened to many active duty SF people, wanting this and that in a new weapon. The SCAR, in it's many forms seems to answer all of the suggestions and/or desires by those people.
> 
> ...



I thinks there's rumors that the SCAR is being put through some actual torture tests somewhere, somewhen kinda thing.  Guess we'll get the story after those tests are completed. 

Although, FN has put down more than enough bad guy's with their machine guns and nobody complains about the 60, 249 and 240 etc.  Can't imagine the SCAR would be a total flop from such a trusted company. But what do I know, I haven't fired one in over 25 years.


----------



## pardus (Aug 6, 2008)

We won't really know how it's going to do until it's been operational for a few years in regular Army use.

FN built one of the best battles rifles ever designed and fielded, the FN FAL, they know a thing or two about this, I'd happily take one with me.

I've have the 7.62 set up with me as well too ;)


----------



## Trip_Wire (Aug 6, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> We won't really know how it's going to do until it's been operational for a few years in regular Army use.
> 
> FN built one of the best battles rifles ever designed and fielded, the FN FAL, they know a thing or two about this, I'd happily take one with me.
> 
> I've have the 7.62 set up with me as well too ;)




I have both an H&K 91 7.62 and 93 5.56 with bipods, both stocks and scopes. The 91 has the H&K sniper stock and the H&K sniper range finder scope. It has had trigger work as well. I used the 93 on SWAT.


----------



## pardus (Aug 6, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> I have both an H&K 91 7.62 and 93 5.56 with bipods, both stocks and scopes. The 91 has the H&K sniper stock and the H&K sniper range finder scope. It has had trigger work as well. I used the 93 on SWAT.



Nice! Do you have any pics?

Interestingly, the Rhodesian relegated the G3 to a secondary role as it wasn't reliable enough and stuck with the FN.

I'm a huge fan of the FN FAL.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Aug 6, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Nice! Do you have any pics?
> 
> Interestingly, the Rhodesian relegated the G3 to a secondary role as it wasn't reliable enough and stuck with the FN.
> 
> I'm a huge fan of the FN FAL.



No, I haven't taken any pictures of them. I even have the .22 conversation kit for the '91. I never had any trouble with them on reliability. I think the bolts would feed your hand through them. 

A lot of people don't like them because the stocks are short compared to the rifles like the SAR. The rifle (G-3) was designed as an assault weapon to be fired from the hip while assaulting a position, as I understand the design.

My team had the H&K Sniper (FA) version of the 5.56 weapon. It was a great sniper weapon.


----------



## 8'Duece (Aug 6, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> No, I haven't taken any pictures of them. I even have the .22 conversation kit for the '91. I never had any trouble with them on reliability. I think the bolts would feed your hand through them.
> 
> A lot of people don't like them because the stocks are short compared to the rifles like the SAR. The rifle (G-3) was designed as an assault weapon to be fired from the hip while assaulting a position, as I understand the design.
> 
> My team had the H&K Sniper (FA) version of the 5.56 weapon. It was a great sniper weapon.




The 91 and 93 are superb rifles. One of my hunting partners bagged his first elk with an H&K 91 .308.  "In a world of comprimise, some dont"


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Aug 6, 2008)

I liked the G3 for its accuracy and power, but it kicked like a sniper rifle so trying to rapidly and accurately fire it in the standing was hard as hell. Not to mention my shoulder was bruised to hell after 5 mags.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Aug 6, 2008)

To clarify I should say it took longer to get back on target.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Aug 7, 2008)

Hitman2/3 said:


> To clarify I should say it took longer to get back on target.



You think that kicked! try zeroing in a 12Ga Shotgun off a bench rest, shooting slugs. I did, it and it makes my shoulder ache just thinking about it.:eek: :doh:

My battle rifles was the M-1 Garand and the BARs. :uhh:


----------



## Ajax (Aug 7, 2008)

82nd-  Speaking of my bretheren, you will not find a group people who bitch more than SF guys outside of the democratic party.  If it's TDY, the hotel sucks because the jets in the tub don't tickle the taint just right.  If it's in the field, we're not training hard enough and the Maj wants to pull people out for their Government Credit Card class.  If we acted satisfied, no one would try to please us, and then where would we be?  

In conclusion, _Of Course_  the SCAR isn't good enough...keep trying...but in the mean time give me 12 w/ SOPMOD kits and throw in a couple cans of coyote brown spray paint.


----------



## P. Beck (Aug 9, 2008)

The vast majority of the people rendering their "ex-spurt" opinions on this weapon are gear-queers, mall ninjas and airsofters who have never (and in all likelihood, will never) laid their hands on one, much less actually fired it.

One problem is that it has been slow getting to the field, so there's not any combat data.  Full-rate production was announced in Fall, 2007.  We were supposed to get them in Jan.-Feb., '08, in time for PMT, so we could deploy with them.  Now we're told we'll get 'em when we get back. I'm not holding my breath. Shame.  I was kind of looking forward to trying that short 7.62 carbine version. Sticking with my "Boomstick" for now.

The whole thing reminds of of that joke about Microsoft.  Why is Windows Vista like sex with Bill Gates?  Because they both consist of sitting around for hours, listening to how great its going to be.

"Ex-spurt" = [n., v. ek-spurt; adj. ek-spurt, ik-spurt] -noun 1. "ex-" meaning former, "spurt" being a drip under pressure.  -adjective  1. pertaining to, coming from, or characteristic of an ex-spurt: ex-spurt work; ex-spurt advice.


----------



## zushwa (Aug 9, 2008)

Yeah, somebody's testing them.  Somehow one found it's way into the store.  I'm not dropping any dimes but I could probably throw a rock at some guys doing the testing.







Josh


----------



## P. Beck (Aug 10, 2008)

See.  That's just it.  The "testing" part was supposed to be over already.

"Full-rate" production is supposed to signal the beginning of the "Hey-let's-start-issuing-these-fuquers-out-to-our-fuquers-and-let-'em-start-shooting-the-other-fuquers-with-'em." phase.


----------

