>>64010722 (OP)Any serious discussion about the SCAR needs to be prefaced with an understanding of where the AR was in the early 2000s. Its long seemed to me that in their attempts to countersignal the boomer "muh mattel plastic gun got brave GIs killed in nam" fudd bullshit, a lot of people memoryholed the real issues the M4 had in its early years. These can be broken down into 4 categories. First is the barrel, the pencil barrel was overheating in sustained fire, which opens up the grouping and at high rounds counts supposedly caused cookoffs. Second is the buffer, it was too light leading to bolt bounce and parts wear which makes things unreliable; it also did not play well with suppressors. Third is lower, people often attribute the issues with the early M4 to the burst cam, and that is certainly a big part of is. Lastly is I think the most crucial, but because it wasn't covered by the PIP program, its the least discussed. Thats the magazine, the vast majority of issued mags were dogshit tilt-my-shit-up-senpai black follower mags, with only drip-fed issuing of green followers. Thats what Socom were dealing with when they started the SCAR program. And the SCAR delivered, but unfortunately it didn't do so in a vacuum and by the time it was adopted in 2010, the PIP program was in full swing (Socom barrel, heavy buffer, F/A trigger group) and everything from tan followers to actual Pmags were in wide issue; so the M4A1 was about as good as it is today and the SCAR was left redundant.
>don't use the FAL's manual of armswhy on earth would they? they were designing it for Americans, and we never used the FAL.
