Talk:FN SCAR/Archive 1

From 4chan with some brain cells
/k/ demands you change "Clip" to"Mag" Now. Or else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.33.178 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Doing a quick ctrl+f on the article and searching for "clip," Chrome found no uses of the word "clip" on the article. Please inform /k/ of this, as I am sure they will be pleased. Imadeausername! ( talk · contribs ) 15:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

6.8x43mm?
Wasn't this one of the design specifications, that the SCAR-L be convertible to 6.8mm? Or was this dropped? Spartan198 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually any weapon chambered for 5.56x45mm can fire 6.8 SPC. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Weapons chambered in 5.56x45mm can generally be easily converted to 6.8 SPC, but they cannot fire the round unless they have been converted, at which point they can no longer fire 5.56x45mm. You generally need to change out the barrel and possibly the magazine in order to convert a firearm from 5.56 NATO to 6.8 SPC.  Trying to fire a 6.8 SPC cartridge in a gun designed to fire 5.56x45mm NATO will probably result in a destroyed rifle and possibly injure the person using it, if the bolt will even close on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.247.120 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not up to date
It is now early 2006, therefore this article is not exactly up to date. Dessydes
 * And nothing new has happened. It's only been three months or so since it was selected.  Give them some time.--Asams10 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The SCAR has failed a few military testing. Reliability is one of the major concerns. Special force personnel wasn't impress by it. I doubt it will deploy anytime soon. Most likely it will be cancel by the military. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.25.43 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Your comments are completely lacking in credibility and are, at best, wild conjecture. It IS deployed already and SF personnel DO like it. Please study the English language a bit more before you troll.--Asams10 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me proof that SF used SCAR? They don't. People have to learn that any new weapon needs to meet standards. They just don't hand them out because it is cool looking. They don't. Even passing testing doesn't mean it is going into service. This is common knowledge. One year everybody happy about this state of the art rifle, next year it is a piece of junk. Don't be surprise because it happen to every rifle that complete against the AR. BTW this year is the HK416. Next year it will be rifle XXX. FN SCAR is old news and if the military does order any it will be very small amount like hundreds or less then that. SCAR is DEAD http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=64231 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.25.43 (talk • contribs).
 * Okay, hard to deal with you when you: 1) don't sign your posts, 2) don't use the English language, 3) cite chat forums to back up your point, 4) don't really know what you are talking about. I'll cite a credible source for ya. SOF is getting 1,200 more rifles this FY.  Up till now, they've been testing the 2nd generation guns in places you read about in the news but might not have been.  --Asams10 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So WHY was this rifle developed and deployed? There's no 'SCAR competition' article, so it would be nice to have things clear in this article about why the U.S. wanted ARs other than the M-16 for their Special Forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.43.102.66 (talk • contribs).


 * Signing your posts would help. There was a competition.  Robinson Armament had the second place entry. .  I don't know who else was involved. For the record, this isn't an "AR", it's a new weapon that is more compact, more reliable, more modular, etc.  The reason was that M4's were not getting the job done.  Special Ops folks have always had their pick of weapons.--Asams10 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the XCR was never tested. It was booted from the competition after Robinson failed to deliver Blank Firing Adapters on time. Robison even complained about it on his website.  HK was a no show, although it is reported that XM8 carbines equipped with rails were entered by a third party.  Cobb's entry was reportedly eliminated due to a Daniel Defense rail prototype that became loose repeatedly. According to an article by Chris Bartocci (the author of Black Rifle II) in the July 2006 issue of Small Arms Review, the three Colt entries placed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. --D.E. Watters 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Colt had entries? Where could I research this. Hadn't heard that yet.  I've seen recent pictures of an old gas piston conversion design Colt had floated back in the 60's updated with rails and a quick change barre.  The Colt LE1020 is what I think it's called.  Looked like it solved most of the problems with the M16 family.--Asams10 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bartocci only made brief mention of them in his article. He has stated on AR15.com that there will be a full article on the Colt SCAR entries in a later issue. --D.E. Watters 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The SCAR is NOT YET deployed. It is still a project, and needs some testing. It's likely that the US SOCOM might cancel the program because of a lack of performance of that weapon equipped with a sound suppressor. A few batches have been sold to France and Spain so far, and Slovenia could buy a few thousands too in the near future. -Armorersdream 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SCAR is a complete failure. It has reliability issues and SOCOM has more or less given up on it.

Dude, this isn't a forum for discussing. 71.56.87.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Another Name?
Isn't Another name for the FN SCAR the SCFR with the HW and LW types?

209.120.160.28 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. However, I am curious what the progress of the SCAR is as of now, late May 2007. Still delayed, or being deployed?


 * Delayed, not deployed yet ! Armorersdream 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, when the heck is the SCAR coming out for SOCOM then? Don't tell me they made this big of a fuss over this weapon and gave up on it...
 * Patience is a virtue.--Asams10 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, man, but there has been a major slowdown of info on the status of this gun. It seems that SOCOM is letting FN fix the gun and then they are retesting it, but I just wish for a status report and when the gun will be ready for the enxt evaluation.
 * Please sign your posts. It hasn't been too long, really.  They made PROTOTYPES and a pre-production batch.  There is nothing to FIX, but there are adjustments that always have to be made.  In the Gun Industry, you're lucky if that takes less than 2 years, funding or no. --Asams10 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Right Asams, you're well informed. The SCARs prototypes are to be tested on the field by the SOCOMs in the second half of this year, and the first quarter of 2008.Orders may then follow if the results are satisfying enough. Good point is that the guns are entering the second phase.Armorersdream 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial, official information released by FNH referred to the SCAR as "S.O.F. Capable Assault Rifle"[1]. This article and other sources refer to it as "S.O.F. Combat Assault Rifle". Someone needs to find out the correct name and cite it, preferably from an official FNH webpage. 68.162.31.125 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Old information and new information from FNH USA both indicate "S.O.F. Combat Assault Rifle" -- Hayden120 (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As those links appear to be dead or buried, a citation from an official source is still needed. SJSA 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works - the citation is still valid even if the web link fades. It was an official source and remains one.  As it happens, a trivial exercise at www.archive.org finds the PDF link : http://web.archive.org/web/20060701110329/http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/News/PDFs/3-2-06_FN_SCAR_2.pdf.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, the "LW" and "HW" names were used in a recent video game (SOCOM: Confrontation, I think) to dodge licensing issues, much like the renaming of the F2000 rifle and Five-Seven pistol to "SC-20K" and "SC Pistol" respectively in Splinter Cell. Spartan198 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
I was just wondering why the army would want to replace the m4. I read the issues section, but none of those things that i saw required a whole new rifle. Ben.yarmis 04:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. When you pull the trigger and the gun "don't go boom," you die. That's not just an 'issue' that's a tragedy. --Asams10 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you even shot an M16/M4 or are you talking out of your ass. Asams?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.25.43 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The M4 is based on the M16 and inherited its default, mainly a reliability that would not be accepted for a modern weapon. The accuracy is an issue too. The SCAR is a class I reliability weapon and it will last long.Armorersdream 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * AR-15 rifles are actually very accurate due to less moving parts; the reliability of the direct impingement system is the issue. Hayden120 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the AR-15 rifles are not what are used by special forces. It is a civilian rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoin Walsh (talk • contribs) 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BUT the only difference between a standard AR-15 and a standard M16/M4 is full-auto capability, which is part of the trigger mechanism, and not affected by the gas sytem whatsoever. The only other difference stems from full-auto capability, which is that modern M16/M4 rifles fire semi-auto from a closed bolt, and full-auto on an open-bolt, which allows dirt to get into the bolt and chamber, and is, again, not related to the gas system. Direct-impingement gas systems are difficult to clean, and require more cleaning than some people might expect. A higher rate of fire is attainable with this system, but still requires a lot of cleaning.  -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works, AR-15s and M-16s/M-4s/etc all fire from a closed bolt. A closed bolt weapon that is ready to fire has the bolt in the closed position, an open bolt weapon that is ready to fire has the bolt to the rear.  On a closed bolt weapon, when you pull the trigger the cartridge is already in the chamber and the firing pin impacts the primer.  On an open bolt weapon, pulling the trigger releases the bolt, stripping a cartridge from the magazine, the bolt pushes the cartridge into the chamber and the firing pin is struck. 153.29.211.60 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SCAReglm.jpeg
Image:SCAReglm.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Marines and the SCAR
I was curious if the Marine will use the FN SCAR, because I read online that they were not going to rule out the SCAR L to replace their M16's and M4's, but I don't know how long ago that article was created. Also, will Force Recon use the SCAR?24.15.64.119 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jake

At this point, only the SOCOM is testing and plans to order the SCAR in all versions. But as always, when the SOCOM adopts a weapon, the Army and the Navy tend to use the same equipment, since it's field-proven. So I think that in I'd say something like 2 years you could see the first orders for the other military units. Armorersdream 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW: Just this month, USMC Systems Command - Infantry Weapons Systems announced its intent to purchase two Mk 16 SCAR-L, two Mk 17 SCAR-H, one Mk 13 EGLM, two HK416, and two HK417. D.E. Watters 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And if SOCOM uses it, doesn't that mean that the Marine branch of SOCOM (is it MARSAC?) will also use it? Like the elite recon units and whatnot?24.15.64.119 05:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Jake

Of course, if SOCOM eventually buys the SCAR, all the special units under its command will have it ;) Armorersdream 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I know alot of people have their doubts over the FN SCAR, but if its good enough for SOCOM and MARSOC, its good enough for me.24.15.64.119 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Jake

I dought it will go into regular use soon or ever. The M16 will be used for at least another 15 years not becuase of how well it will performs it a cost issue. SOCOM can buy all these weapons as they only have to buy mayby 600 but the standard military command has to but 50,000 or them. It will probaly cost a little over a billion to replace the weapons so i highly dought it will become standard issue unless they can use allllot of the parts of the M16.(ForeverDEAD 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Obviously you now nothing about that market. The SOCOM should shortly order a batch of a few thousand weapons for eval, then they will start ordering bigger quantities if they are satisfied (and they look so). So the SCAR is just a matter of time, but probably next year some units will already be aquipped with it. And NO, they are absolutely not compatible with the M16 so the parts and the guns will probably be sold to some other countries still using that old design.Armorersdream 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment about regular use seems vague to me and to clear up any misunderstanding by regular use i ment normal troops like the first infrantry division.(ForeverDEAD 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Of course, it will also be a matter of budget Armorersdream 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
could some one have Mk. 16 and Mk. 17 redirect to this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.102.105 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd do it but I don't know how. Sorry, I'm knew. Help Required.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There, I just did it. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

in use yet?
Has the FN SCAR been issued in the field yet? 82.47.137.100 19:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No not yet, though i could be wrong. Last time i checked it was going through final testing so unless canceld it should be in use soon ForeverDEAD 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the SCAR is delayed yet again with problems with the handle and suppressor. It might not get adopted at all. I know this from a Marine. He says that SOCOM is getting sick of waiting for FN to fix the weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

His infos are not reliable then. The sound suppressor is working well and meets the requirements. The first phase of field testing is just finished and the results are very positive. So stay optimistic, it's just a matter of months.Armorersdream (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was involved in testing of the weapon. He doesn't like it personsally. Also when he tested it, and I believe he is part of MARSOC, he said they had many problems with it. He did say that when USASOC tested it it was positive, though. He just doesn't think the SCAR is going to be accepted. If you find out more info, Armorersdream, I would appreciate it if you posted it here; specifically if the gun passes testing or fails, etc. I would like to know when it is going to be in use.24.15.64.119 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)jake

One more thing: I misspoke when I said the problem was with the suppressor. the problems they experienced in testing was overall wear and tear of the weapon. They yested SCARs that were previously used along with fresh test models. He said the ones that fired about 1000 rounds started to break down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Scar-H is in use by the United States Navy Seals I know because I am in the Navy Seals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.147.61 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Even if you were; it would still be original research. You need a reliable source before you can add it to the article. —  Dan MP5  15:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

7.62x39
I just noticed that the article mentions near the top that FN is not offering the SCAR-H in 7.62x39, but that directly contradicts the statement in the purchases section that indicates that thousands have been sold in that caliber. I've also read comments by an FN employee to this effect, that 7.62x39 is in production now, and will still be for the civilian version.

Anybody got a solid reference to support this? CrunchRiff (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since this is your conjecture now, would you like to reference it? FN is not currently marketing a SCAR version in 7.62x39mm, however there was some talk about it early on.--Asams10 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No and no, no SCAR has been made in 7.62x39 and no scar has therefore ever been sold in that caliber :) When the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 will be in mass production, then maybe a third version in that caliber will be made. Armorersdream (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the numbers in the procurement section, then? Was there a Low Rate Initial Production in 7.62x39 or no? If not, where'd those numbers come from? It's very strange to me that this feature would be dropped because this caliber is a big part of the reason the SCAR program was started in the first place. I'll look for the ref.CrunchRiff (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're actually reading these, LRIP has just STARTED for the other two versions, and you're wondering if there was ever LRIP for the 7.62x39mm version? As yet, there is no confirmation of a Prototype let alone pre-prodction or LRIP.  There is no real advantage to the 7.62x39mm operationally (well, for the US at least) except in the minds of some non-operators. FN would probably like to market their gun to countries currently using the 7.62x39mm, however a 6.8mm, 6.5mm, or 5.45mm are just as marketable at this point.  As I've heard the story, FN said, "We're even going to give you a 7.62x39mm version because we know you want one," and to that, Delta, at least, gave a resounding, "What?" --Asams10 (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See here:  http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf LRIP is concluded, as are the initial end user evaluations.
 * Read through this a while ago, but this was before delays. IIRC, the timeline stated there is actually optomistic by about one year based on current developments.  --Asams10 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As to caliber conversions: (question copied from page 3 of http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=24&t=228800&page=1) "I know the SCAR H was supposed to also be able to shoot 7.62x39...is that still the case? or are these rifles 223 and 308 only? any info greatly appreciated"

The reply from a (supposed) FNH USA Employee: "Right now only in 5.56 and 7.62... We have a prototype coversion kit (barrel, bolt, and magazine) for the Mk16 (SCAR-L) that converts it to 6.8 SPC, but that is on permanent loan to one of our customers. Once things settle down with the current crop of work I'm sure we'll see more development into other caliber conversions (which will all be based on the Mk17 / SCAR-H receiver)."

I know, don't believe everything you read on forums. Of course. This guy just presents himself believably. At the same time, this answers my question. There is no production of 7.62x39 yet, even for LRIP.CrunchRiff (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As to my earlier comment about the SCAR program, I was under the impression that SCAR grew out of this: http://www.quarterbore.com/kac/sr47.html CrunchRiff (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like no sign of a 7.62x39mm anywhere still, but the 6.8 required a mere barrel/bolt/magazine change no changes in the mag well as would be required for the Soviet round. The SR47 was actually predated by several other projects, including one that utilized AK-47 magazines. The SR47 is a high-end product by a company whose firearms are rarely purchased outside of special government contracts. Colt made a 7.62x39mm AR-15 first, again IIRC.--Asams10 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappint you guys, but no prototype has been made in 7.62x39, nor in 6.8 and there is actually NO conversion kit since the initial models are not fully fieldable yet ! As I said before, ths testings give positive results and the SCAR will soon be in production on a large scale. Armorersdream (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint you, Armorer, but the weapon is really not preforming well after a lot of use. And by a lot, I mean 1,000 or so rounds. the weapon has a lot of wear and tear. The Marine over at the discovery channel Futureweapons board who got to fire the SCAR said it does not achieve much over the M4. Really, its just a waste to replace the M4's with it. And you keep saying the weapon will be here "soon" or in large production...I would like to know where you recieved this info, against a real Marine who fired and tested the weapon. I hope just as you do that the weapon turns out great, but you do seem a little too optomistic.24.15.64.119 (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)jake

Update this Page!
Will someone with credible weapon knowledge update the status of the SCAR? How is testing going, that sort of thing?24.15.64.119 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)jake


 * It's up to date. Testing is complete; they're in production. --Asams10 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Even the Marine I'm friends with at the FutureWeapons board had hands on testing and said he wasn't sure when it would be ready. When do you suppose they will be in service?24.15.64.119 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Jake

Double wow. Like I know a Marine AND a SEAL, AND a Delta Operator at the FuruteWeapons board. Give me a break... Anyway it'll be ready when it's ready, just be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.181.55 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know its worded kind of childish...but I don't know their names over there. but seriously, those guys know their ****. And I saw the fnhusa website and it said they plan on putting the weapon onto the field FY2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EGLM
Why is the EGLM a part of this article? It can be used with the SCAR, certainly, but it's a separate weapon that was originally designed for the FN F2000. Which predates the SCAR by six years. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The EGLM is unique to the SCAR AFAIK. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything supporting the FN2000 arguement...you sure it was originally designed for it? Everything that I've seen and heard says it's only for the SCAR rifles. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)71.179.8.102 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clear this up, the EGLM is designed specifically for the SCAR family of weapons. The F2000 does have a grenade launcher attachment, much like the M-203 and the new HK grenade launcher for the HK416 and G36. The EGLM however has been developed as part of the SCAR program, and therefore is a part of this article. --Darth Windu (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the EGLM, does the designation Mark 13 Mod 0 refer to both L and H variants, or just the L and the H is yet-to-be designated? Spartan198 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mk13 EGLM's designation remains the same whether it is attached to the SCAR-L, SCAR-H, or the stand-alone configuration. Only one component, the trigger module, is configuration specific.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, needs major update
The SCAR has been deployed by this point. The article should express that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this...?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

IAR Variant
While I agree that the anon. user's edits were of poor quality, FN has admitted that the IAR is a variant of the SCAR. They issued a press release on Feb. 3, 2009 concerning their IAR contract. Among other things, it stated: "The FN IAR derives from the SCAR™ platform..." --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur. I just don't have the energy to make the edits and references myself. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref for Press Release is http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=49. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Major update needed
Okay, the SCAR was supposed to enter limited service in 2007 according to this article....it's now April 2009. Any new updates? Is it in service or has the military been silent? -ANK 71.244.129.247 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's finally being fielded for real, and we found a source and put it in... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

SEALs image
I have contacted FN to disambiguate if the stock plastic is a tan plastic or if it's black with a tan coating, to determine if the photo from the Navy is of actual SCAR rifles or replicas as a user here has suggested. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I received an email from FN confirming that the image appears to show replica weapons (FN mentioned Independent Studio Services, the same company that the earlier editor did). Actual FN SCAR rifle stocks are solid plastic in "Flat dark earth" color - solidly that color throughout, not a paint or coating over a darker black color.  The FN employee has some of the ISS replica weapons and confirmed that they are manufactured in a solid black base material then painted the flat dark earth on top of that.  He also confirmed that ISS has made replica SCARs for the SBS teams for training, and that SBS and SEALs routinely do use replica weapons in this manner to avoid training wear and tear on actual rifles.
 * I have put the email into the OTRS ticket system, ticket 2009051410068171, for reference purposes (not public to keep the FN staff emails private, but verifyable by any OTRS system volunteers or WMF staff). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work. It's been rightfully removed from the article. My reversion had more to do with the fact that if you SAY it's so, doesn't mean it's so.  We don't want pictures of toy guns in articles about real guns... even if the SEALs are the ones playing with the toy guns.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * SEALS using airsoft guns... What has this world come to. Koalorka (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not airsoft - he indicated it's a solid cast plastic part, used as a fit and feel replica in a training situation where there's no intent to do any firing, just familiarization of boat ops / water ops with the rifle, so the operators are doing their other skills while appropriately (simulatedly) encumbered by the rifle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replace M4????
If I could just ask for clarification, the articles for both the FN SCAR and the Bushmaster ACR make the statement that the respective rifles "will replace the M4 carbine". Not sure if it's supposed to be one or the other and someone's got their wires crossed, or is it both of them to replace the M4 in different services or something? I'm sure I'm missing something. Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The ACR and SCAR are currently competeing against eachother in the army's Individual Carbine competition, may the best rifle win *cough*Itsgonnabethescar*cough*. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You say that the SCAR will win even though SOCOM said it wasn't worth the much higher cost for the small improvement in performance. What makes you think the regular Army wouldn't say the same thing, especially compared to the improved M4A1 they are working on? 71.114.155.9 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone willing to make a serious bet on which would be cheaper to build in 6-7 figure quantities? Especially after FNH did cost reduction work on the rifle and most especially its production processes?  The SCAR is a half-century newer design, unless FNH was particularly stupid when they designed it they'll be able to produce them in mass quantities at a price that's competitive with the M4. Hga (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt anything other than a piston-driven M4 will come out of the IC program, simply due to the fact that most of the M4's issues stem from the DI gas system (which isn't necessarily bad or broken... just overworked), rather than the platform itself. Spartan198 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

FN SCAR
The article says the United States Army 75th Ranger Regiment is using FN SCARs into combat. Is this source modernly attained? Because I've heard that the SCARs aren't going into combat: they're just staying for more classified experiments... --Rollersox (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See source 3 - . It's the US Army official newspaper.  It could be wrong, but it's pretty official.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah...thank you. That clears it up...thanks a lot. --Rollersox (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Army Times is not an official publication of the US Army. It has always been an independent publication aimed at a military audience.  It is currently owned by Gannett, the same folks who publish USA Today.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I sit corrected. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mk 16
I'm starting a subpage based on this article at User:User name one/Mk16. Does there need to be one for the Mk17? As i understand it, the mk17 isn't in service yet.username 1 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't normally create separate pages for the major models within a general type; those are normally part of the main page. Is there anything in a Mark 16 page which shouldn't be here?  We could possibly create a Mark 16 rifle specific subsection in the main page, as that's the fielded one so far...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to oppose the split. It's the same rifle, with the obvious changes made to accommodate the larger caliber. Koalorka (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * one example of two completly different objects getting the same article is the german Wiesel (Waffenträger). username 1 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, yet this is the English language Wikipedia and the article is about a firearm, not an armoured vehicle. Koalorka (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google is not a reliable way to determine what something is. The SOCOM Mk. 16 rifle is the SOCOM designation of the SCAR-L, and the SOCOm Mk. 17 is the SOCOM designation of the SCAR-H. I do not know of any Mark 16 armored vehicle, but I know that the Mk. 16 is a RIFLE, and therefore, related to this article, as it is another name for the SCAR-L system, and has a redirect to this page under that query.  -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

mexico
excuse me .anyone know about the scar in mexico?? baja california state police use it! but i cant find the reference to the article.--Augusto664 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Separation?
Okay, I think this article is long and thorough enough that we can split the article into separate SCAR-L and SCAR-H articles, due to variations in use, capabilities, ballistics, and more. However, I don't know how to do this... I'll look it up... Help Required  -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on the Mark 16 and the Individual Carbine competition
The Mark 16 itself isn't an entry in the competition, the FN Advanced Carbine--a derivative of the Mark 16--is. The FNAC has a number of small differences, probably insignificant in the major scope of things but differences nonetheless, that differentiate it from the Mark 16, such as a different front sight, a longer "standard" barrel length (14" compared to 13.-something" for the Mark 16), no cut-outs in the upper receiver above the barrel, and a bayonet lug enabling it to accept the M9 bayonet. The bit in the opening paragraph about the Mark 16 competing in the IC competition needs to be updated. Spartan198 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firearm Blog entry on the FNAC
 * The FNAC on FN's website

There is some slang in this article
This article seems to require editing for clarity. Wtmn (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference [34] is a dead link
Or at least it links to an article that no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerdog6482 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary?
Is it really necessary to have thumbnailed pictures with the same caption "U.S. Navy SEAL with a SCAR rifle." plastered everywhere on the article? 99.230.29.161 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I counted at least 3 with the same captions. Can this article stick to one image captioning "U.S. Navy SEAL with a SCAR rifle."? 99.230.29.161 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with captioning all of the photos? Or is there something wrong with showing more than one photo with the same caption? Seriously? What is the problem? They're good photos, and the article is big enough to fit them without any issue. ROG5728 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a picture of a different group other than the SEALs with the rifle, for diversities' sake. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Physical Operation?
All this talk of politics, purchase, etc that have little to nothing to do with the weapon itself, and almost nothing on it's operation? I thought I was looking for information on a firearm, not a purchasing process. We all know JROC decisions are BS and are 99% politics. Deal with it and move on. Help improve this article. A user cannot tell from this article if it's op-rod, gas blow-back pipe ala M16, piston (long or short stroke), recoil driven, etc. "Action: gas operated" doesn't tell me squat. Please clean up this mess and add some better technical documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.249.26 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. The details a lot of bureaucracy and next to nothing on the rifle itself. I had to scroll down the excessively long info-box to find such basic information as operating principle, range etc. The article on e.g. the M1 Garand offers a much better balance of technical details and introduction. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on FN SCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110711014552/http://fnhusa1.com/PDF/FN_MIL_SCAR.pdf to http://fnhusa1.com/PDF/FN_MIL_SCAR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928004900/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003597.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003597.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223084812/http://www.defensetech.org:80/archives/003909.html? to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003909.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 one external links on FN SCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120628123121/http://www.fnhusa.com:80/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=&fid=FNF022&mid=FNM0111 to http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=&fid=fnf022&mid=FNM0111
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151208165450/http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1552&cid=0 to http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1552&cid=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708072936/http://www.defensetech.org:80/archives/003597.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003597.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008112444/http://www.thetacticalwire.com/release.html?releaseID=139975 to http://www.thetacticalwire.com/release.html?releaseID=139975
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202193209/http://www.fnhusa.com:80/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF054&gid=FNG006 to http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF054&gid=FNG006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714094805/http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/replacing_the_m4/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/replacing_the_m4/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927163302/http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=49 to http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090513051338/http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3928 to http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3928
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824050531/http://www.fnhusa.com:80/mil/scar.asp to http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/scar.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101223023636/http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=59 to http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=59
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110711014543/http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=82 to http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=82

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)