The FN SCAR won't be down for breakfast.

Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
1,609
Likes
735
Location
Virginia Beach, VA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
SOCOM just dumped it.

http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html


In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military's Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the "SCAR," as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

Read more about the Mk-16 SCAR cancellation in Kit Up!

"The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration," officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)




SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

News of the cancellation of the Mk-16 variant of the SCAR is a major reversal for a command that spent six years and millions of dollars fielding a rifle specifically made for use by special operators. It was the first rifle since the M-16 that was competed, tested, and built from the ground up for the military.

This cancellation will certainly be poorly received by program advocates who touted the weapon's mission flexibility, better gas piston operating system, and performance in dusty environments as clear advantages over the current M-4.

Elaine Golladay, spokeswoman for FNH-USA, the weapon's manufacturer, declined to comment on the cancellation for this report.

Ironically, the company announced May 4 that it had passed the final hurdle from SOCOM's weapons buying office to go into full production and fielding of both the Mk-16 and Mk-17. It is unclear if SOCOM had made the decision to cancel their buy of the Mk-16 when FNH-USA issued that announcement.

Additionally, sources tell Military.com that SOCOM is leaning toward requiring that all Mk-16s currently fielded be returned as retaining limited numbers of them would complicate training and logistics support.
 
"The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,"
Color me shocked......[rolleyes]

But unlike the arfcom and m4carbine.net fanboys, I really don't give a crap what the army/socom/seals/whoever uses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Mk-17 was a better option I think.

you think based on what experience? I've heard pretty much universal feedback. Guys who get to throw a few mags downrange on a flat range love em... the guys that train with them and field test them began to hate them in short time.
 
you think based on what experience? I've heard pretty much universal feedback. Guys who get to throw a few mags downrange on a flat range love em... the guys that train with them and field test them began to hate them in short time.

Apparently not... since they're buying more.
 
The DOD canceled yet another small arms project? Who'd have thunk it!!!??!?! [rofl]

-Mike
 
But unlike the arfcom and m4carbine.net fanboys, I really don't give a crap what the army/socom/seals/whoever uses.

I do. My daughter's fiance just signed a Navy Seal contract and reports for basic training in December 2010. If it goes as planned, he will be a SEAL by summer 2011. I want him to have the best of the best so he comes home safely after each SEAL assignment.
 
FN needs to work on a replacement program for the M249, since the military has somehow managed to ruin basically every friggen one thats currently issued.
 
FN needs to work on a replacement program for the M249, since the military has somehow managed to ruin basically every friggen one thats currently issued.

A reservist at my company said more or less this exact quote to me last week. A problem we'll be hearing about soon?
 
I do. My daughter's fiance just signed a Navy Seal contract and reports for basic training in December 2010. If it goes as planned, he will be a SEAL by summer 2011. I want him to have the best of the best so he comes home safely after each SEAL assignment.

I hope he likes the cold. I thought New England winters were tough, but Great Lakes in December is something totally different.

Good for him, though. That's kick-ass.
 
interesting how this going effect value and price of SCAR.
Is FN will flood the civilian market with SOCOM unwanted rifles.?
 
Last edited:
Quote: "SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round," unquote.

7.62 appears to be coming back on a bunch of different fronts. The Brits are issuing new rifles in that caliber and now this. I own a DPMS LR308b and all I can tell is is that it's what the "EBR" platform is all about anymore. Yes, it's a lot heavier than a .223 rifle but the power it pounds out is just overwhelming in comparison.

Rome
 
My buddies over in aphcrapistan right now and he has no mproblem with the M-4 his issue is 5.56 just doesnt get the job done. Why doesnt the military get it? make an m4/M16 rifle in a caliber more effective then 5.56? how about 6.8 or 308, this problems not that hard to solve.
 
My buddies over in aphcrapistan right now and he has no mproblem with the M-4 his issue is 5.56 just doesnt get the job done. Why doesnt the military get it? make an m4/M16 rifle in a caliber more effective then 5.56? how about 6.8 or 308, this problems not that hard to solve.

it has more to do with the ammo used. the new mk262 is supposed to be doing real well.
 
My apologies gentlemen... I got my MK designations mixed up. I was speaking about the SCAR.

It is understandable. When the DoD calls a handgun a Mk-23, a sight a mk8, a rifle Mk16 et seq; and both a can opener & a fighter plane share the designator P-38, one can excuse those who can't follow DoD naming logic that doesn't actually exist.
 
I share your amazement.

Imagine funding being killed for upgrading military rifles during this administration?

Indeed. I read the OP as "we don't have enough money to go around and need to fund competing priorities". That doesn't mean the SCAR is not an improvement over the M4.
 
a 30 caliber weapon would greatly help solve the problem of lethality assuming the shooter does his/her part.
 
it has more to do with the ammo used. the new mk262 is supposed to be doing real well.

The problem is MK262 Mod0/1 is not anything approaching standard issue, to my knowledge... only some groups of people are getting it.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I share your amazement.

Imagine funding being killed for upgrading military rifles during this administration?

This isn't an Obama thing. That would actually make sense, at least we could blame it on somebody. The DOD has been doing this for decades. It's why every time someone tells me "BWEAH the military is gonna go back to the .45!!!!" I just say "Yawn. They said this last year, and the year before that, etc. Wake me up when it actually happens."

For those of you familiar with both, Military small arms procurement is almost as bad as "Duke Nukem Forever"... [rofl]

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom