To anyone that shot both guns in real life...

To anyone that shot both guns in real life, does the Scar-L provide any advantage in recoil or handling over the M4 carbine?

Attached: m4scar.jpg (1280x720, 211K)

Heavy =less recoil right?

weight, balance, barrel length, gas system/setting = recoil

it has a better located charging handle, other than that the scar-l isn't any better than a well made ar

so no real advantage compared to a standard issue m4a1?

it doesn't blast you in the face with gas every time you fire it suppressed. that's reason enough for me to prefer it to an ar.

Massively more reliable, longer barrel for better lethality. The two are not in the same league. The SCAR-L was designed and ultimately accepted to replace the M4A1 in SOCOM service before politics and funding killed it.

Look into the Special Combatant Rifle program.

Note that the other poster said a well made AR. That doesn't describe the US government M4 or M4A1, which are overpriced shit, most especially in terms of barrel quality and reliability.

Only in terms of reliability in a SBR configuration due to it being a piston gun.

And also having a folding stock with integrated cheek riser (for optics use). Two things that are difficult to implement in the AR platform due to the charging handle and buffer tube.

And having adjustable gas, which is also important for SBR use. And being more accurate. And having much better barrel life. And requiring less maintenance. Etc.

A whole different league to the M4A1.

t. FN

>reciprocating
>better

Thread is full on FN shill right now. Wouldn't surprise me if one of the posters is actually Squid.

The biggest advantage is the folding stock for transport.

Take no one seriously ITT until they post their scar 16.

No

Attached: 20190719_154145.jpg (3548x1995, 1.77M)

16s has an entirely different recoil impulse than the M4/AR15. It's less snappy and more of a smooth pulse - the bolt carrier and gas system has a lot to do with this. It's also inherently more reliable, but that's common to every piston gun design. Compared to a well made AR, it's no more accurate, but the stock sights are very nice and the folding stock is a massive plus. It ends up very heavy if you hang a bunch of shit off of it, though.
Cons are that there were big problems with gen1 pmags where the mag would hold the BHO against the BCG and scrape the bolt carrier group or snap the hold open off inside the reciever.
Overall I love the 16S but realistically it doesnt do anything a good AR doesn't other than a folding stock and piston system

Attached: fbcljidhmaohddol.jpg (1810x2112, 1.75M)

Only person in the thread with a Scar L:

>better lethality

>It's also inherently more reliable, but that's common to every piston gun design
Oh. This again.

You f forgot about the part where the SOCOM users didn't particularly like the weapon, based FN shill poster.

They did like it, they just didn't see the point in buying two lines of guns when they could get the same functionality with Mk17s and 5.56 conversion kits, which still show up today.