FN SCAR the most pointless Rifle ever .

The FN SCAR First designed in 2004 for the US Special Operations to fill the role of a Modular Rifle with the Reliability of a Piston.

I know there are SCAR fan-boys on ATS I’m sure of it …. That being said, it is my opinion that the SCAR is the most pointless Rifle ever designed or Fielded .

Why on earth did they feel the need to Build an entirely New Rifle from the Ground up when so many other options already existed ? Was it just Posturing ? Was it just Flashing Cash ? Was FN paying the Correct Army Generals not unlike that moron who fielded the original ACU’s ?

Let me explain my opinion of why the SCAR was Pointless . Ok SOCOM and JSOC were looking for a rifle to replace the M4 which is understandable as the M4 is quite old . So the first logical move would be to replace the’ Direct Impingement M4’s’ with anyone of the ‘ Piston M4’s’ on the market in the early 2000’s

Ruger , HK , Remington , Barret , Colt, SIG and many others offered upgraded ‘ Piston driven M4’s ‘ . It would have been a seamless transition for SOCOM Soldiers to keep using the M4 rifle, just an upgraded version . So why didn’t they ?

Okay let’s say SOCOM wanted to step away from the AR15 design all together . Once again there were already several Rifles on the market that either met or exceeded the SCAR. The most obvious being the HKG36, a rifle that had been in production for years and was very battle tested. Another perhaps less obvious would have been the SIG556 albeit an old rifle but it is arguably one of the best 5.56 rifles ever designed. Ahh and lets not forget the ACR 6.8mm one of the best rifles that never was.

In the end what was the point of the SCAR other than to be a waste of money ? Several units still use the SCAR H the 7.62x54 version but did we really have to go through all of the R&D to get a Heavy battle rifle ?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't remember the details behind the SCARs.

I did get to shoot them once when we were doing training with the Army.

I don't any memorable impressions about the basic assault rifle.

But did really like the machine guns. The M249 Saw equivalent was fun and much lighter the SAW.

The 7.62 machine gun was way way lighter than the 240. I was shooting 2 of them from the hip like Rambo. Tons of fun.

None of the Army guys wanted to shoot so my team got to go through a whole pallet of ammo between 10 of us.

It was a good time.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't remember the details behind the SCARs.

I did get to shoot them once when we were doing training with the Army.

I don't any memorable impressions about the basic assault rifle.

But did really like the machine guns. The M249 Saw equivalent was fun and much lighter the SAW.

The 7.62 machine gun was way way lighter than the 240. I was shooting 2 of them from the hip like Rambo. Tons of fun.

None of the Army guys wanted to shoot so my team got to go through a whole pallet of ammo between 10 of us.

It was a good time.

fnamerica.com...

Oh for sure I have no Argument with the FN line of Machine Guns.

and I love the FN 5.7 Pistol it's probably my favorite pistol to carry.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

if you like the FN 5.7, then check this out:
5.7 rock

I love the accuracy and low recoil of the 5.7. Plus having 24 rounds makes the need for a doubletap a no brainer. But it's a solid weapon and cheap compared to the FN. Mag's also work in the Ruger.

As far as the SCAR, it appears to be an M4 with a folding stock and no buffer tube in the stock. I'm sure there is more to it, but since the epiphany that an AR platform can be so many calibers, makes the choice easy for me.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
The g36 had major problems once it got hot. The accuracy went to sh*t after it got hot enough so directives were issued by several groups to pause during rapid fire to allow it to cool. Well that gets you killed in a fire fight.

Sig 556 is a civilian issue so military wouldn't ever use a civilian approved gun bc it doesn't have an auto fire switch. The sig550 was an option but it was designed in the 80s and they wanted a new updated platform I guess.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

It was what won a Contract between that and the Objective Individual Combat Weapon or OICW. In the end, as almost always, politics and money were a priority over function.