View Single Post
Old November 3, 2011, 02:05 PM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by HkFan9
Not calling you a liar Bart but that seems like pure propaganda.
Its my interpretation of what I've read. My bet is that on a long-term fleet-wide basis (i.e. many rifles, not one or two SCARs in your closet vs. one or two ARs), the SCAR demonstrates a significant edge in service life and less maintenance costs.

Quote:
I will be the first to say the AR is no where near perfect, but I just don't see the point of going to the SCAR over it... and I think SOCOM felt the same way.
I wouldn't go with a SCAR either for my personal use, especially at the current price. I like the AR ergonomics, particularly the charging handle and longer forearm, and I know how to work on an AR.

I wouldn't place too much importance on SOCOM's decision though. They basically decided that they would rather have free M4s from big Army rather than pay out of their own pocket for the SCAR. I don't think anybody here would turn down that deal. Interestingly enough, they did continue to pay out of their own pocket for the Mk17 version, which makes perfect sense since the Mk17 offers some capabilities that are more difficult to find in a 7.62x51 semi-auto. Not to mention that if the rumored 5.56 conversion kit is true, you've got a remarkably modular rifle that makes the Mk16 more or less obsolete.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03314 seconds with 8 queries