[eb07]

I wonder if they put any thought into how it looks. Excellent as it is functionally, it's kind of the Pontiac Aztec of rifles, if you ask me.

Looks :rofl:

Glocks and M&P's are ugly blocky black hunks of polymer and steel... but they work.

 

[PAGunner]

Looks :rofl:

Glocks and M&P's are ugly blocky black hunks of polymer and steel... but they work.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, SCAR always has been a slick looking gun, I love the boot (I am Italian)! :whistling:

 

[faawrenchbndr]

I wonder if they put any thought into how it looks. Excellent as it is functionally, it's kind of the Pontiac Aztec of rifles, if you ask me.

Damn,.....that's cold! :rofl:

 

[TheJ]

I wonder if they put any thought into how it looks. Excellent as it is functionally, it's kind of the Pontiac Aztec of rifles, if you ask me.

For many, knowing the beauty of its function makes it attractive.

The problem with the Aztec is that (unlike a SCAR) it's odd looks are not really a by-product of better functionality, it's just oddly styled.

 

[countrygun]

Sure. The rifle is an El Camino.

It retains the fine trigger of the M14 series and presses all of it's other (ill-suited) characteristics into the CQB/SRM role.

The M14 is a legendary rifle. It had it's time and it has it's purpose.

Unless you are hung up on the platform for emotional reasons, you would be better served by other options.

It's around because it still works.

Sorry to tell the slaves of modernity but it still puts 7.62 bullets into rather tight groups way out there and it does it with a semi-automatic action.. It has detachable box magazine, a nice trigger, good sights and the ability to mount optics.

If one were surrounded by another system with support and maintenance it wouldn't be a good choice but otherwise, I see no downside to it for the individual.

Of course there are those who are loathe to admit that revolvers and 1911s still work.

I still didn't see anything in that post that laid out a difference. All it says is "the SCAR is NEWER". Terribly lacking in any other discussion of actual features.

 

[eb07]

It's around because it still works.

Sorry to tell the slaves of modernity but it still puts 7.62 bullets into rather tight groups way out there and it does it with a semi-automatic action.. It has detachable box magazine, a nice trigger, good sights and the ability to mount optics.

If one were surrounded by another system with support and maintenance it wouldn't be a good choice but otherwise, I see no downside to it for the individual.

Of course there are those who are loathe to admit that revolvers and 1911s still work.

I still didn't see anything in that post that laid out a difference. All it says is "the SCAR is NEWER". Terribly lacking in any other discussion of actual features.

Again, My reasons:

The SCAR is lighter and has a stock rail system. This allows for much more configurations. Such as a QD Aimpoint t-1 or eotech making it good for close quarters, a QD scope making it good for medium to long range. It can be changed quickly and with a proper mount, holds it's zero.

The SCAR is much more reliable in sand and gritty conditions. it is easier to break down and maintain. You can argue this all day, but it is a fact.

The SCAR is more portable. Folds up for easy storage.

The SCAR has less recoil and is easier to keep on target for quick follow up shots.

The M14 (M1 civilian) is a fine rifle but the SCAR is an advancement in technology.

Yeah 1911's and revolvers still do the job and well. But as with anything progress moves forward, lightweight polymers and steels make higher capacities in lighter packages with the same firepower a reality.

Not to mention new shiny toys are the bomb in this hobby :wavey:

 

[faawrenchbndr]

Eb07.........you make a lot of damn fine points for the SCAR

 

[AK_Stick]

Think of it this way, several M14s were brought back into service for DM use in A'stan. Many companies have developed .308 AR rifles for use. Canada uses the AR10, Brits use the LMT, we are using the M14 and quite a few Scar 17S

The reason we (the army) brought the M-14 back, is honestly because we're stupid.


It was because we decided to issue a red dot sight, and not a magnified optic, so as soon as we hit the mountain warfare of A-stan, we were lacking the ability to make hits at extended ranges. Guys were putting the dot on the target pulling the trigger and then complaining about the lack of 5.56's ability to kill. Instead it was a lack of ARM (advanced rifle marksmenship) simply put, we weren't hitting our enemys.

But, we had a bunch of old dinosaurs that had grown up with the M-14, and as soon as we had any issues, it was "5.56 sucks, gimme a 7.62" and we paraded a bunch out, and fielded them as a stop gap, with a magnified optic, and people went nuts, because oh my god, we can make hits at extended ranges now. They were also phased out with free floated, scoped M-16's in the DMR role.

Notice, you never saw alot of love from the Marines for the M-14. But nearly every single Marine you ever saw, was toting a M16 with a RCO. Funny thing.


Enter the SAM-R, DMR and SPR rifles. All 5.56, all designed to fill the role the M-14 was used in, and none of them in 7.62....



It was a fine rifle, for its time. But much of the love for the M-14 is from the myth of the weapon, and not based in actual first hand use. Its not as accurate or robust as people make it out to be. Much like the AK's often overstated by people who don't like the AR. Talk to the 101st guys who were carrying the brunt of them, and the shooters who've run them as a DMR rifle, and they don't really sing the praises of the extra hunk of gun they had to carry around for a role that the guy on the ground never really asked for.


Also, a DMR, or SAM-R rifle will shoot rings around an M-14. Even the Crane/SEI M-14's aren't anything to write home about.

 

[Big Bird]

A .308 with a short 16" barrel has very little advantage over a 5.56 with a short barrel.

It has no advantage in terms of effective range.

Now stick a 24" or longer tube on that .308 and you'll begin to see significant advantage especially at longer ranges.

If you wanted a .308 battle rifle why not just buy a 16" DSA FAL and call it a day. Mags are plentiful and cheap the FAL is a proven design. DSA makes a fine rifle with no major reliability issues. The design is relatively light compared to most AR platforms. While an AR may be slightly more accurate the FAL is more than capable and the practical accuracy differences between the two systems are irrelevant inside of 300 yards. As I said...you want to shoot stuff farther away you should have brought a longer gun.

The M14/M1A is a great platform and I've worn out 3 barrels on an M1A shooting High Power. But a stock M1A is not inherently more accurate than an FAL and if you match accuraize one you make it too heavy. and the only advantage the SOCOM has over the rest of the systems is the trigger can be made superbly crisp. But the SOCOM and M1As currently are of questionable construction particularly when it comes to the op rod and bolt.

 

[MrMurphy]

A 16" SCAR, OBR or similar shooting MOA or near MOA groups at 700-900 yards, with a 168 grain slug (not a 62) still has advantages over 5.56.

I like 5.56 but past 500, it's running out of gas. Even in a short barrel, the 7.62 has better performance at extended ranges. The M14 stuck around because it's already in the system (free).....no real other reasons.

The SCAR H and L are what came out of the longest, most extensive rifle tests ever conducted in the history of the US military. The end users (SOCOM) got pretty much exactly what they asked for. The SCAR-H has a lot of fans among said end users. The L did as well, but budgetwise they can get M4's cheaper, thus why the L went away.

 

[Boxerglocker]

Care to elaborate, if you have anything worthwhile to say, that is?

I haven't had a bit of trouble with my SOCOM16 and it is quite accurate.

Of course, I have to add some experience to my post (rather than just doing a drive by) and I will admit to being partial to the design having just shy of 30 years of shooting the M-1.

With the standard stock the muzzle brake does a rather impressive job of controlling recoil and muzzle rise.

I have to agree. I got my SOCOM 16 as an cost governed alternative to get me into shooting a little "Heavy Metal" 3-gun. The only mods I have made is a ULTIMAK top front rail and a SADLAK recoil rod with a TUBBS spring, along with shimming the gas block. The gun with both factory .308, Military 7.62 and my equivalent hand loads has very minimal muzzle rise and recoil. That said, I've shot the SCAR mostly in 5.56 but a few times in .308 if I got on it would be in 5.56
I would opt for a LARUE in .308 much better ergonomics IMO for both a battle rifle and long range alternative.

 

[eb07]

A .308 with a short 16" barrel has very little advantage over a 5.56 with a short barrel.

It has no advantage in terms of effective range.

The effective range is all about the shooter. I put the 5.56 @ 550-600 and the 308 at 750-800 out of a 16"

 

[daddysnapmuffins]

MrMurphy hit the nail on the head. Thousands of M14's were sitting around in armories and conex's and that is why they went back into service.

 

[Big Bird]

The effective range is all about the shooter. I put the 5.56 @ 550-600 and the 308 at 750-800 out of a 16"

Well, in terms of the ability of someone to dope wind and know their comeups and hit a paper target--I agree somewhat.

You do understand of course that as the range gets longer the bullet looses energy and thus ability to do meaningful work.

You also understand that as the range gets longer the angle of flight gets steeper and the margin for error gets much smaller.

When I shot long range 1,000 yard matches I never saw a serious competitor with a .308 that showed up with a short barrel rifle and looked at all us master and high master competitors and said--ehh you guys don't need those 26" barrels...its all in the skill of the shooter...

Listen, talk all the smack you want. I've worn out barrels shooting long range. Anyone with serious trigger time on a rifle at any distance beyond 500 yards knows the deal as well. Can you hit a target at 800 yards with a 16" gun. Sure. Are you as effective with that gun as a similarly skilled shooter with a 26" tube. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. The 26" gun has such an advantage in terms of velocity and selection of bullet weight its almost unfair. A gas gun with a 16" tube is mostly limited to 168 grain bullets. (Larue is an exception here). Show me anyone who shoots long range that thinks a 168 grain bullet is a great bullet at 800 yards. In a 16" gun it will be subsonic! It SUCKS ass. I promise.

 

[countrygun]

Well, in terms of the ability of someone to dope wind and know their comeups and hit a paper target--I agree somewhat.

You do understand of course that as the range gets longer the bullet looses energy and thus ability to do meaningful work.

You also understand that as the range gets longer the angle of flight gets steeper and the margin for error gets much smaller.

When I shot long range 1,000 yard matches I never saw a serious competitor with a .308 that showed up with a short barrel rifle and looked at all us master and high master competitors and said--ehh you guys don't need those 26" barrels...its all in the skill of the shooter...

Listen, talk all the smack you want. I've worn out barrels shooting long range. Anyone with serious trigger time on a rifle at any distance beyond 500 yards knows the deal as well. Can you hit a target at 800 yards with a 16" gun. Sure. Are you as effective with that gun as a similarly skilled shooter with a 26" tube. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. The 26" gun has such an advantage in terms of velocity and selection of bullet weight its almost unfair. A gas gun with a 16" tube is mostly limited to 168 grain bullets. (Larue is an exception here). Show me anyone who shoots long range that thinks a 168 grain bullet is a great bullet at 800 yards. In a 16" gun it will be subsonic! It SUCKS ass. I promise.

He was responding to your post about having little advantage over the 5.56 from a short barrel (paraphrasing you).

I actually shoot game animals, I know which is more effective at 400+ yards on a 100#+ living critter. That would be the 7.62 bullet.

 

[TheBelly]

I took a class at Rifles Only a while ago. One guy brought an M-14. The stock self destructed and there went the zero on his rifle. Tightened the screws and the zero came back. Three shots later, same thing happened.

I'll pick a SCAR because there's not a real chance of that happening.