TexasCHLforum.com

rm9792 wrote:Missing:
Adjustable Comb
Adjustable piston drive
not ambidextrous
no side folding stock
includes folding front and rear sights
barrel replacement with allen wrench in minutes
monorail upper

If you dont want or need any of that stuff then an AR is definitely a better deal. AR does have the advantage of being modular for more variety of calibers and uses. I think the SCAR is a better rifle for front line battle but the AR is better suited for home, rear troops or sporting use.

Missing by design....

I didn't want an adjustable comb, but such is available if I wanted it.

I looked at a gas piston conversion kit, but it wasn't worth the price.

My wife is right handed, so an ambidextrous AR is not necessary, although I did consider getting a left handed receiver for mysef and switching out the one on my carbine and using it on my wife's.

I can change barrels by picking up one of my other rifles - no tools necessary at all.

A monorail is nice, but I'm not convinced that it is absolutely necessary.

This build is a first time carbine for a woman who has never fired and/or owned a centerfire rifle, so admittedly it isn't on the same level as a SCAR - which, by the way, I actually think is a nice rifle and wouldn't mind owning one myself. But my point is that I don't blame SOCOM for dropping the SCAR. It isn't the rifle they wanted in the first place. If you read the American Rifleman article about it, it appears as if SOCOM really wanted the 7.62 version all along. You said "the AR is better suited for home, rear troops or sporting use," but SOCOM seems to be satisfied with its M4 brother in 5.56 caliber, the main difference between the two being the "whoopee" position on the selector.

In addition to being a gun enthusiast, I am also a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I have a stake in the military's good stewardship of the money they spend. I don't begrudge them the cost of upgrading weaponry when such an upgrade is necessary. I'm not convinced that upgrading from the M4 to the SCAR is absolutely necessary.... ....in caliber 5.56. On the other hand, a more versatile 7.62 rifle not only seems justifiable, but actually necessary. The fact that the Army and Marine Corps pulled all their old M14s out of mothballs and refitted them for use in Iraq/Afghanistan indicates what many have thought all along, including yours truly, that it was a mistake to virtually walk away from 7.62 battle rifles 45 years ago.

And for the uses in which 5.56 is a good choice, the added expense of a SCAR isn't justifiable... ...in my opinion. I don't thing there is a problem with manufacturing them for the civilian market for those that can afford them, but I'd rather the military not spend my taxes on them.

I did agree the military shouldnt have considered replacing the ar platform with something else in the same caliber. A porsche is nice but a dodge does the job just fine. For what you wanted an ar fits the bill perfectly.

The Annoyed Man wrote: And for the uses in which 5.56 is a good choice, the added expense of a SCAR isn't justifiable... ...in my opinion. I don't thing there is a problem with manufacturing them for the civilian market for those that can afford them, but I'd rather the military not spend my taxes on them.

It's an interesting point, but the roots of the SCAR do go back to a request by the military for an improved warfighter platform for special operations. Currently, different specops teams have different platforms (even at the squad level) and the SCAR was supposed to help alleviate that problem. What I took away from articles and talking to some folks is that a) specops guys didn't want a 5.56 anyway and b) they _do_ in fact like the SCAR-H.

I think there continues to be concerns about the utility of the M4/5.56 as a functional firearm, and I'm hardly the person to rant about the effectiveness of them on the enemy (Not all veterans throw bullets at bad guys ). It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. No matter what, either it's a caliber or platform change (or both), that change is guaranteed to come slowly. Until then, the AR design has proven to be an amazingly flexible platform.

Personally, I kinda drool every time I read about the 300 AAC Blackout, but that's for another thread

Talking about 5.56x45 vs 7.62x51. With the advances of Military grade body armor, how effective is the little small bullet (even the bigger brother) is against infantry's Body Armor?
I heard stories from Iraq war that even the SVD fired bullet (7.62x54R) can be effectively stopped at sniping distances (200-300 yrds)

Silent Professional wrote:The same branch wants to make the next service pistol a .40 S&W - after the Beretta 9mm debacle.

What do you consider the "9mm debacle" - Much less stopping/dropping power compared to a .45 1911?

The .40 would be a step up in caliber. Do you support a .40 pistol, or prefer that they return to a .45?

SIA