Why the SCAR in 5.56 (MK16) was not adopted by U.S. Special Forces to replace the M4.

[Amp]

Reciprocating charging handle was a problem:

[RAM Engineer]

You mean the reciprocating charging handle that was requested by one of the services in the original specs?

[Ndbbm]

I always heard (I am not and never have been in the military) it was more of money issue. Since Scar was a Socom specific item it came out of their budget. M4s came out of the big service budget and are essentially “free” to Socom. The Scar wasn’t enough of an improvement over the M4, for Socom to want to spend the money over the “free” M4s.



Jason

[Thebean]

I have a feeling the price had a large part in it also... Aren't they 3x more than a normal M4??

[psalms144.1]

The Mk16 died because the cost wasn't worth the incremental increase in performance. Because it was a USSOCOM unique piece of equipment, the service SOF components would have had to paid out of their operating budgets to procure them en masse. Specifically in the case of USASOC, the financial juice wasn't deemed worth the performance squeeze over just using "Service Common" M4 variants (that are provided through the larger service's procurement budgets).

I was at the USSOCOM HQs (not in procurement) when the fielding took place, and had just left when USASOC decided they didn't want to pay for them. The reciprocating charging handle was not one of the issues that I ever heard raised with the platform. And, having used them hard in multiple trips into various shitholes around the world, and about 10K/year rounds of training with them for several years, the reciprocating charging handle was never an issue for me or the 16 dudes who worked for me. Heard complaints about the stock locking latch not holding up, heard complaints about PMags not working with them, heard some other complaints, but never heard about the charging handle.

[wvincent]

The Mk16 died because the cost wasn't worth the incremental increase in performance. Because it was a USSOCOM unique piece of equipment, the service SOF components would have had to paid out of their operating budgets to procure them en masse. Specifically in the case of USASOC, the financial juice wasn't deemed worth the performance squeeze over just using "Service Common" M4 variants (that are provided through the larger service's procurement budgets).

I was at the USSOCOM HQs (not in procurement) when the fielding took place, and had just left when USASOC decided they didn't want to pay for them. The reciprocating charging handle was not one of the issues that I ever heard raised with the platform. And, having used them hard in multiple trips into various shitholes around the world, and about 10K/year rounds of training with them for several years, the reciprocating charging handle was never an issue for me or the 16 dudes who worked for me. Heard complaints about the stock locking latch not holding up, heard complaints about PMags not working with them, heard some other complaints, but never heard about the charging handle.

Taking away the reciprocating part, was the location of the charging handle an issue?
As in charging or clearing the weapon in relation to what optic your team was running?

[HCM]

You mean the reciprocating charging handle that was requested by one of the services in the original specs?

It was requested by someone(s) on the committee which created the requirement.

Logically one would think such a committee would be made up of service members with relevant operational experience.

But logic and bureaucracy are often like two parallel lines….. they never meet.

Some of these committees have service members who haven’t fired a small arm since basic training 15 or 20 years ago and/or civilian GS employees who have never fired a gun.

It’s like a bunch of virgins and Incels writing a script for a porn movie.

[HCM]

The Mk16 died because the cost wasn't worth the incremental increase in performance. Because it was a USSOCOM unique piece of equipment, the service SOF components would have had to paid out of their operating budgets to procure them en masse. Specifically in the case of USASOC, the financial juice wasn't deemed worth the performance squeeze over just using "Service Common" M4 variants (that are provided through the larger service's procurement budgets).

I was at the USSOCOM HQs (not in procurement) when the fielding took place, and had just left when USASOC decided they didn't want to pay for them. The reciprocating charging handle was not one of the issues that I ever heard raised with the platform. And, having used them hard in multiple trips into various shitholes around the world, and about 10K/year rounds of training with them for several years, the reciprocating charging handle was never an issue for me or the 16 dudes who worked for me. Heard complaints about the stock locking latch not holding up, heard complaints about PMags not working with them, heard some other complaints, but never heard about the charging handle.

My Agency’s SRT teams were offered some of the Army’s SCAR-L’s for free as a kit with two barrels, two optics and a suppressor. There was initial enthusiasm for switching from the M4 partially because we were using a mix of 14.5 guns and 14.5 guns cut down to 10.5.

When we learned we would only get the rifles with the shorter barrel and one of the optics and the rest of the kit would be kept at our national armory the enthusiasm waned. End use your trials indicated they worked fine but had no real advantage over the M4 as we would have used them.

I know some of these guns went to components of US CBP including Air and Marine and OIG. Some also went to smaller federal agencies such as the US Supreme Court police.

[Default.mp3]

It was requested by someone(s) on the committee which created the requirement.

Logically one would think such a committee would be made up of service members with relevant operational experience.

But logic and bureaucracy are often like two parallel lines….. they never meet.

Some of these committees have service members who haven’t fired a small arm since basic training 15 or 20 years ago and/or civilian GS employees who have never fired a gun.

It’s like a bunch of virgins and Incels writing a script for a porn movie.

Never forget:

The original SCARs also had 0-45 and 0-90 throws for semi and full-auto, respectively. Until one of the component commands threw a fit over that feature, and insisted it be identical to the selector on an M-4, 0-90 & 0-180. The same component command also did not like the captured charging handle.

Said component command did NOT purchase any SCAR rifles upon USSOCOM’s adoption of the Mk17 after insisting on several design changes.

This is another great example of how poorly thought out and executed “design by committee” is by our government.

In reference to the reciprocating CH, this is based on the MK17, but I would imagine it's not terribly different on the MK16:

The side charging handle is a design feature that just plain pisses me off. There is no need for it, yet there it remains. As for being a "self correcting" problem, well.......it is, for those who hit their hand on it once. But there is shit in the real world that doesn't exist on the range. Shooting from underneath a car flat out sucks with the SCAR. If the handle doesn't hit the ground, the car, or your gear, you probably aren't hitting your intended target either. I semi-solved the issue by cutting it in half, and stippling it up with a soldering iron. Still, there exists a SCAR with a captured charging handle.

[psalms144.1]

Taking away the reciprocating part, was the location of the charging handle an issue?
As in charging or clearing the weapon in relation to what optic your team was running?

We were running issued EOTechs, and I don't recall any issues. It was definitely a "gloves only" proposition for most manipulations, because the top cheese grater, I mean pic rail, was pretty close on the underside to the charging handle. Wasn't an issue for us, we were wearing gloves all the time in training and ops, but when we fucked around with them in the office/arms room, you could get skinned knuckles pretty quick.

For me, the biggest issue was the placement of the magazine release. When I would sling my Mk16 over mags on my plate carrier, the corner of one mag (#1 on the left side of my rack) would hit the mag release fairly consistently. Sometimes that would send a mag flying, sometimes it would just break it loose, to fall out later, usually at a wildly inopportune time.