Why does it feel like the SCAR was a flash in the pan?

Cool gun but pricey.

Should you get it... Only if your in love the gun and can save up the cash. But for the other 98% no you shouldn't get the gun.

The 17 is the star and was pretty rad at the time, still is. Nobody ever liked the EBR and SR-25s weren’t viable, so it was a good upgrade.
The 16 isn’t bad, but like every other 5.56 carbine, the AR just has more going for it.

SCAR/JCP program was SOCOM trying to bypass army/navy procurement and standardize their own small arms. That is why the 16 feels forced.

So the happiness level of the world is balanced again?

So are you a gun cuck

Not him but probably More it's just a funny image

How much is the gov. paying for one vs an ar-10?
Its an aluminum extrusion upper and polymer lower so it should cost less. R&D costs be fucked, its what polymer pistols that get on the market have to do.

Attached: Clear%20Extrusion%2020x20.jpg (380x285, 28K)

>no one talks about it
>butthurt faggots make shitty threads just to bitch and moan about it every other day

God damn you people are so annoying.

Sounds like what a poor person would say

With who? The seal teams still have MK17s, and a couple of years ago acquired the MK20s

>reciprocating bolt handle is worse
Why?

2500 dollars isn't a lot in terms of guns and I'm curious why it's the go to for 'flexing'. Custom ar builds can be twice that before any optic or accessory. Good production bolt guns are 1700 easily before an optic and custom ones start at 3500 usually.

Like if you had a Rigby best I'd be impressed, because those start at 7500 pounds and only go up.

Because he’s short and fat

>It wasn't/isn't really any better than the AR and in some ways worse

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

LMT MARS or SR 25 makes the SCAR look like a cold war era production infantry rifle. Quit being poor.

ugg boot

They haven't been 2500 for years.

Because they hit things. If you're in a vehicle, it can catch on gear, webbing, clothing or whatever else; if you're in foliage, it can catch on branches; etc. Having external moving parts creates an additional point of failure because now that's another area that needs to be kept free and clear of obstacles; non-reciprocating handles are less to worry about overall.

Lmt is a fucking meme fielded by tiny poor literally who countries and KAC is on life support from a handful of govt contracts. It's hilarious how poorfags try to shit on the scar by comparing it to other expensive guns they'll never be able to afford as well.

Attached: 15577667635640.jpg (540x960, 133K)

The XCR has all the advantages of the scar, plus a no reciprocating handle, so it doesn't eat optics, and it's about a grand cheaper. There's no reason to buy a scar, unless you're still butthurt over the whole Robinson blowout circa 2014 or whenever.

cost too much for everyone on the civilian market so only a few will consider buying, on the MIL market now is an other story, saudi is arming all their soldiers with SCAR, almost all SF units in NATO have SCARs in their armory, even the NASA use it on their patrol helicopters.
basically the SCAR is succesfull but the reason why it didn't got adopted massively by the US is mostly because the cost and the already saturated in defense.

Because HK came out with the vastly superior piston AR. Once again, Belgium is cucked by the big Teutonic cock.

based and XCR pilled.
My (maybe wrong, also hipster mindset) opinion says that the XCR may have actually came out on top of the SCAR in trials had they not failed to deliver their blank firing adapters on time.
Oh well, it is what it is.

>416
>superior
hk fanboi pls, stop looking like a retard

>It's hilarious how poorfags try to shit on the scar by comparing it to other expensive guns they'll never be able to afford as well
That doesn't even make sense. If they're just seething poorfags then they'd hate everything that costs more than a PSA.

I thought that as well. They've done extremely well in the Canadian market, and their factory options are really good. They have factory tailhook options now, too. I just ordered one of the xcr-m pistols set up that way in fde to scratch my scar larping itch, but still get a good gun.

For me, I don't see the value in dumping money into an AR, because it's diminishing returns until you hit KAC or LMT. And I'm sure that I'll get hate for that, but it's either PSA/AERO, or LMT/KAC. Anything in between is pretty much wasted money, unless you just like it.

>I like to think that somewhere out there is an ISIS fag with a pimped out SCAR now.

That's already happened.

>no one talks about it
>butthurt faggots make shitty threads just to bitch and moan about it every other day

So much this. These threads are always festering piles of shit opinions and misguided poorfaggotry.

Thank goodness I'm usually around to help clean up the mess ;)

Attached: IMG_1472.jpg (480x640, 163K)

Because it's a mass produced rifle, not some custom fudd special.
A great AR can be had for 1000 and will perform just a well as a scar that costs over twice as much.

>somewhere innasandbox is a Hakim with a gucci SCAR
Jealous

>perform just a well

By what measure did you draw evidence to support that assertion?

I bet he's having fun there.

Attached: D6RnFjIV4AEoQ7x.jpg (1046x1047, 178K)

It got adopted by a huge number of armies, special operations groups, and armed police agencies throughout the world. Not sure what exactly you'd expect it to do besides that. Even Taliban have adopted it.

Attached: RSDNFJNTMJHE3JT6NF7YU3FCFQ.jpg (1200x625, 188K)

It's an absolute fucking pile of garbage unless using match grade ammo

Prove me wrong

Attached: f3bbf50d98d5b83ceb1708057987f6a36138c05041e0ef6e921bf1ad65b03d36.jpg (242x255, 15K)

A properly made mil-spec ar-15 will be accurate and reliable, there's plenty of evidence to support this,

Most people are broke so they can't afford it.
Currently most relevant users are in SOCOM and it's not exactly common knowledge so most people won't talk about it. The MK16 lost traction, MK17 is still used as spotter rifles, and the MK20 is very common within NSW and some ODA teams.

Attached: 150770514611042621.jpg (1242x1217, 372K)

Scar is more reliable when suppressed.

I don't know about that, the SR25/M110 is pretty unwieldy.

They have a new 16 inch model with mlok.

Can anyone actually explain why the SCAR is better either on paper or practically than the AR? Is it just

>piston

or is there some other reason?

You can fold the stock and it runs cleaner when a suppressor is used. It's also more modular than a baseline M4 carbine.

Is the AR dirty with a suppressor because of direct impingement or another reason?

>accurate
>reliable

Good now we're getting somewhere. At least those are quantifiable attributes we can measurably compare performance between.

Let's start with accuracy. A "milspec" button rifled M4 is minimally required to achieve 4MOA or better. It's real world delivery is typically around that mark. Conversely the accuracy standard before deadlining a cold hammer forged SCAR barrel is not to exceed 1MOA above ammunition base line. The SCAR's practical accuracy is also enhanced by it's utilization of a free floated barrel, which the mil-spec M4 lacks. There's no denying the AR can be an exceptionally accurate platfrom—However, in the comparison you've defined, the SCAR is well regarded as the more accurate rifle.

Next brings us to reliability. Do I really even need to explain this one? The SCAR trials included at least 12 competing AR-15 designs and derivatives from some of the leading manufacturers such as Colt, LMT and Knights. Only the FN rifle passed all phases of competition. It was deliberately designed to be a more reliable and longer lasting service weapon than the M4 it was intended to replace. There are many aspects of its engineering that contribute to those improvements and if you'd like to learn about them I'd suggest starting here: m4carbine.net/showthread.php?62889-SCAR-vs-AR-A-detailed-look

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. The AR is an outstanding time-proven design. But it's not a SCAR. The only thing it does "the same" is put 5.56mm rounds down range. Beyond that, the differences begin to compile. It's your decision which features are worth having, but to suggest they each provide identical capability is simply not true.

Jesus christ Jow Forums is Jow Forumsancer

>Jow Forums
shoo, tourist

Gov pays like $700 or something.

Fuck you faggot, ill Jow Forumsapitalize this bitch if I want to
Heres my shooter, now go fuck yaself

Attached: 2019-02-27 10.02.52.png (1280x720, 1.35M)

>Can anyone actually explain why the SCAR is better either on paper or practically than the AR?

In addition to fielding a SOCOM controlled program of record, the SCAR solicitation was instituted to address common failures experienced by the M4. The usage of which by those organizations included intense firing schedules of suppressed fully automatic fire. Concurrently, JSOC elements sought out the HK416 to address similar issues.

Although there's more to it than just >piston, the use of a completely different operating mechanism by a weapon designed from the ground up to take advantage of it (along with modern production efficiencies) produced a compelling product with certain undeniable benefits.

That looks heavy af

>A "milspec" button rifled M4 is minimally required to achieve 4MOA or better.

What? Isn't that like, an 8 inch diameter circle at 100 meters? Thats dogshit

>poorfag has to buy used scar instead of an actual good rifle
lmao, post your bank account.

4-MOA would be a 4-inch circle at 100 yards.

MOA is roughly 1" at 100 yards. An 8" group would only be 4MOA at 200 yards, which honestly isn't that bad considering most shooters would be lucky to achieve "minute of man" at that distance without optics.

For reference, here's the reg in question, I'm not sure if there's an updated standard available.

>MIL-C-71186(AR) 31 January 1994, Military Specification, Carbine, 5.56mm: M4A1

>"p. 11, Figure 1, Targeting and Accuracy Diagram, a 10 shot group extreme spread fired at 100 yards will not exceed 5 inches.

Oh okay, not as bad as I thought then.

It's still not "good" either. Most civilian AR's can do a lot better than that.

>minute of man

I'm guessing that's referring to the rough size of a mans chest/vitals area, or simply the average width of a man. It seems like the solution to accuracy these days is to just issue magnified optics to everyone, those seem to have more effects on practical accuracy.

Oh so they made it ugly

It would be interesting to see if brownells does a .308 brn-180 upper for lr-308 pattern rifles. If it's 900$ it still would be competitive with aero builds while undercutting the scar.
Basically OP the scar stole the design and upcharged for it, and now that's probably going to bite them in the ass soon. Most Eurotrash gun companies tend to follow this model and I hope PSA and Brownells puts them out of business.

Seething nigger rich poorfag detected. Get an actually good dmr instead of wasting money on ptr tier vidya memes.

Doesn't seem relevant anymore since Army is going for an HK rifle to replace the M14 EBR for DMR use and already has new M110s and M2010's.

In my uninfromed brain, I don't get why 5.56 DMRs weren't issued. Everything I heard about the M14 EBR says that it was heavy as fuck and not even accurate enough to make use of the longer range of 7.62 NATO, so why not give them something that's accurate within its (smaller) range. Like I said I'm talking out my ass, but I would never imagine the Army in Afghanistan saying. "Ok, that taliban fighter is 800m away on that mountain, go get the 1 guy with the EBR to shoot him." All the combat footage I've seen from the DM's point of view is them unloading 20 rounds as fast as the can at the enemy.

Attached: SPRCrane.jpg (900x390, 132K)

The SCAR (Mk 17 at least) was a quick replacement for the failed SR25 rifles that were being used. The SR25 was unreliable and didn't handle sand well. The SCAR weighed less, and didn't fuck up all the time and get people killed (Navy SEALs HATE this one flaw with the Knight's rifle!)

KAC finally unfucked their rifle, but now the US Army is going for the HK 417 anyway which is probably a good choice overall.

5.56 DMRs ARE issued. You still see pictures of guys rocking the Mk12 pretty often when they're available. And a lot of SF guys are just using a 1-6 with an offset or piggybacked micro dot nowadays anyway, plus the URGI upper is being issued now so everyone can have that capability if they need it.

Mk14 is actually a sub-MOA rifle with the right ammo. The problem with them in Army service is that representatives got trained on them, they were shipped off, and the first thing they did with their new rifles was completely disassemble them, throw all the parts in a bin, and then cleaned and rebuilt them. Which is a big no-no because a lot of the parts were hand fitted and modified per rifle.

Attached: Article.png (1019x809, 148K)

Fuckin hell those are both SOCOM mk17 setups. Wonder whose body those were picked from.

You'd think the Army would have learned their lesson about part mismatching after the M1C. The implementation of designated marksman in the Army during Iraq and Afghanistan is fascinating to me because I always get a different answer when I ask about how they were actually employed.

>we didn't even have a magnified optic our DM, he just used an M4 with the standard CCO
>our DM was the guy who had the ACOG on his M4
>we had a DM who had an M16 and just bought his own scope
>we had standard DMs with the M14EBR
>our DMs hated the EBR stock so they used standard polymer stocks
>our DMs got issued old M21s