It is a lot of fun though. I have not shot the 7.62 SCAR, but I have shot the 5.56 full-auto SCAR, and it surprised me how controllable it was in automatic fire. I could keep six to eight round bursts within four inches of each other at 15 yds offhand, and I’m a total newb at full auto. Supposedly, it’s a MOA to just sub MOA rifle too, which is amazing to me. I don’t see where it’s a 1000 bucks over a very good AR though, especially since most people wont get to own one with a happy switch.
Yeah, that’s so damn irrelevant I’m not even going to bother to comment. Your question was about the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, which as the name would suggest is a military weapon.
Is your question why is it better than an M1 Garand?
Rate of fire is not the only factor in the weapon platform. As noted, the round will be different, the ergonomics will be different, the accuracy will be different, the look will be different…etc.
It’s a military weapon, but in the hands of a civilian it’s for hobbyists only I’d imagine. The multiple thousand dollar price tag encourages that. Why is it better than an M1 Garand for hobbyists? Variety is fun. 
I am completely and thoroughly confused by this thread.
If I am to understand it correctly, the OP is asking why a SCAR is better than an M1 Garand. I just want to make sure, because those are apples and oranges. They are categorically different weapons with different intended uses. OP calls the M1 a perfectly cromulent combat weapon and then later says the intended use is hunting, not combat, which is an inconsistency.
The biggest issue is that the M1 Garand shoots .30-06, which makes it the last of the “Battle Rifles.” This is a leftover from the days when people were obsessed with accuracy over volume of fire. They thought a soldier could be effective with a small number of big damn bullets. Nowadays, this is no longer ideal for combat but great for hunting. Trust me, eight rounds followed by that little “ping” is not suitable for modern combat.
The SCAR is an “Assault Rifle.” This means it is an intermediate cartridge intended for sub-300 meter combat. It is NOT (I say again, NOT) a “machine gun.” I would never attempt to use a SCAR for hunting because, legal problems aside, the cartridges are unsuitable for it. Also, no one in their right mind actually fires the weapon on full-auto, even if it was belt-fed. The proper use of full-auto is 3-5 round bursts. If I was clearing a room, I would like to at least have the option of burst fire.
Which makes things like this irritating:
So why the :mad: are you asking questions about the SCAR?
FYI the US Army is going back to assault rifles with full auto. The M4A1 has a single/auto selector and does away with the 3 round burst. Active duty units are being issued the new version and there are plans to convert all of the current weapons throughout the Army. The conversion also comes with a heavier barrel to cut down on the effects of recoil and heat due to rapid fire.
http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2012/08/23/m4-carbine-product-improvement-program-pip-update/
Yes it’s a pendulum that swings back and forth, utility of full auto rifles. And the 3 shot burst was a Marine idea incorporated into the M16A2, not really the Army’s idea.
However there’s still plausible reason to doubt if full auto light rifles can really hit much in the hands of typical soldiers, let alone the militiaman type fighters in many conflicts. I recall a friend who served in a European army whose squad leader always reminded the men their main main mission was to protect and feed the squad light machine gun. ‘In a real war you guys will be making noise with your rifles, the mg will be killing people’.
As far as ‘assault rifle’, it’s now become a politicized term (in civilian gun control debates) with varying meanings, and few modern weapons fit the original description. No commonly used Western ammo is an ‘intermediate cartridge’ in the sense of the Soviet/Russian 7.62x39 or the German short 7.92mm for the original ‘assault rifle’, the weapon for which the term was coined, the StG 44.
The 5.56mm is ‘small caliber high velocity’ (the M16 was called a SCHV rifle when introduced, not an ‘assault rilfe’). ANd 7.62mm NATO is only moderately less powerful than the .30-06, not an ‘intermediate cartridge’ either.
7.62 NATO was a virtual ballistic duplicate of the .30-06 as used in the M1 Garand. It is less powerful only when we start comparing commercial loadings for non-military applications.
A small weapon that spews lots of rounds has a definite place on the battlefield. While an M1 Garand in the hands of a trained shooter is deadly efficient at long ranges, it would not be a good choice in house to house fighting. In close quarters, you want to spew huge numbers of rounds very, very quickly. These weapons are not good choices for your average infantry soldier who need an intermediate weapon like an AK or an M4 which while short and fairly easy to move with is also good out to the kinds of ranges more common outside of a city.
In all reality, short of the GEE COOL factor, a weapon like that is useless to most civilians. BIG dollars, big cool factor but mostly all show and useless.
In wars where killing the enemy is the only priority, WWII was the last one of that type for the US, the hand grenade is the preferred weapon for house clearing. Those who survive the blasts are quite often in no condition to offer effective resistance and can be killed or captured using most any infantry firearm.
I am going to guess that the terrorist’s hostages are going to be less enthusiastic about the grenade idea. Even in WW2, many towns had things called refugees and townsfolk who get caught up in the fight; doubt they are fans of the grenade method either.
And your point is? What if I lived in Somalia or somewhere there are no pesky rules about who can own what? I could be comparison shopping instead of making a question based on my enjoyment of watching FPS Russia blow bottles of soda and mannequins away.
I suppose, though one can go to some ranges and rent all sorts of interesting things that one could’t own and pay through the nose for all sorts of ammo. And definitely a gun for hobbyists!
Because I happen to like shooting, and go for accuracy not bulet hosing of a stack of cans of paint and bottles of soda to see them explode like FPS Russia does [I have some lovely paper targets and will confess I have occasionally shot my initials in the chest] And I was wondering why someone who might like shooting would prefer a bullet hose over something with accuracy. I also used to be an avid hunter until I ended up in a wheelchair, and there is no civilian hunting use for an automatic weapon - a sport where accuracy is king. Though I hunted for food not trophies. If I had not seen FPS Russia playing with a SCAR I would not have asked the question. It was one of those middle of the night musings.
Seriously big bucks. I prefer accuracy not bullethoses. But I am funny that way, I was raised by a father that was combat infantry for the whole slog from landing to the end of the Ruhr Pocket and appreciated a good weapon and taught me accuracy as the best form of ‘gun control’.
I would imagine.
You will note now, if you didn’t earlier, that I specified the type of wars where killing the enemy is the only priority. I even noted that WWII was the last conflict of that type for the US. When did hostages become an issue? Especially in the Pacific Theater, destruction of enemy forces in the most effective way was the focus.
I didn’t say ballistically a lot different but moderately less powerful, which is true. The 7.62mm NATO is the same bore as .30 caliber but with less volume for propellant in the cartridge case. It produces a muzzle energy around 10% less than .30-06.
On commercial v military you have that the wrong way around. The maximum specification for chamber pressure for full power .308 Winchester is 62,000 psi v 50,000 psi for the almost identically dimensioned 7.62mm NATO. So it’s safe to use 7.62mm NATO in .308 Winchester rifles, but not the other way around.
I have no idea where I read this (DECADES ago), but supposedly a firearm was devised that was intended to be a “briefcase” gun: a James Bond-ish weapon that if you were surrounded by hostiles you could hold down the trigger, spin in a circle, and in 2-3 seconds everyone within 20 feet of you would be wounded or dead.
I never said anything about. 308. I was comparing 7.62 NATO to. 30-06 as used in the Garand.
.30-06 M2 Ball used a 150 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2749 fps.
As introduced, the 7.62 NATO (T65) cartridge fired a 147 grain bullet at 2750 fps.
Thus, as I said, 7.62 NATO was a virtual ballistic twin of the. 30-06 as used in the Garand. Which is “more powerful” is a discussion of commercial loadings and I never addressed. 308 at all.
I thought the M-16A3 was the full auto version of the M-16A2. Why bother converting the A4? Well, I guess it’s cheaper to convert an A4 than to buy a heap of A3’s, but still…