AUSA12: New Photos of FN’s Advanced Carbine

FNH USA finally decided to display its new Advanced Carbine that it submitted to the Army’s Improved Carbine competition. It caught my eye as I walked by FN’s booth at the Association of the United States Army’s 2012 meeting and exposition in Washington, D.C.

Yes, the FNAC looks very much like the 5.56mm MK 16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle or SCAR, but there are a few differences.

  It features a non-reciprocating charging handle and is slightly lighter than the MK16, weighing in at 7.95 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine – a key requirement in the carbine competition. It’s equipped with a 14-inch hammer-forged barrel.

Here are a few photos:

About the Author

Matthew Cox
Matthew Cox is a reporter at He can be reached at
  • Sol

    its nice but the Army and Marines better get used to the idea of at best product improved M4’s and M-16’s. budget won’t allow for them to buy all the armored vehicles desired and a new rifle…especially when its not much of an improvement over current models.

    • Lance

      100% agree. No budgets or logic to replace the M-4 which now is being upgraded to M-4A1 and may be upgraded with PIP addons soon check past post here to see. If any weapon would be adopted it be the HK-416 NOT the SCAR. The USMC has 416s so multiservice and share parts with M-4 and M-16s. More accurate than other IC weapons.

      • Brackett

        @Lance; the M27 rifle currently being fielded to the USMC (which is based on the HK416) features a short-stroke gas piston operating system that is completely different than the direct-impingement system used by the M16/M4 family of weapons. ‘Sharing parts’ between the two types of weapons is impossible. Additionally, the 416 is significantly more expensive than FN’s SCAR, and is probably many times the price of FN’s Advanced Carbine submitted to the Army’s Improved Carbine Program.

        • Lance

          I agree but it has same trigger parts and can share flash hiders. Cost doesn’t matter. Over HK 416 is better than the SCAR it beat the SCAR for the IAR trials and beat it possibly for Frances next rifle.

  • mka

    Why review a weapon that is illegal to own without special permits. The barrel is
    too short for most civilians.

    • AceP

      They’re only illiegal if you live in the people’s republic of California. I have 10, 14, and 18 inch uppers, all legal. If you’re willing to pay for the tax stamp there shouldn’t be any issues.

    • FormerSFMedic

      @mka- This site has always been a mixture of Military weapons and gear and Civilian weapons and gear. The FNAC represents a crossover product. One that will likely be sold to civilians and might become part of the Military arsenal as well.

      Also, owning a rifle with a short barrel is actually a very simple process. I see more SBR’s at the civilian range than I do non-SBR’s.

  • Lance

    ICC isn’t going to well M-4 PIP despite the BCG being deleted is doing better. My friend Joshua also says test have shown PIPs doing just as good if not better than FNs product.

    Overall the Mk-16 and this weapon never made a BIG impression on Solders Mk-16 no longer bought The H made the BIG gains but ICC doe not have a multibarrel and caliber requirement So in the end makes no sense to goto another 5.56mm carbine since the M-4A1 and PIP do the job well.

    Im sure all the SCAR lovers will cherish this post so it is a nice weapon to own, enjoy the pics.

  • Distant Voice

    I keep hearing the oft-repeated line that the SCAR series wasn’t much of an improvement over the existing carbines. That’s true, but that also applies to every wondergun being thrown out there now that still relies on legacy ammunition.

    There were 9 companies with 12 weapons in the SCAR competition. Robinson Arms was disqualified because it didn’t have blank firing adapters available. HK was disqualified because their entry was a railed version of the XM8. Excluding FN, that leaves six companies with mystery guns.

    KAC, LMT, Diemaco, Cobb and Colt with 3 entries participated. Daniel defense has been cited by one person as a competitor, but as they would have been only a few years old I wonder if that was a mistake. Either way. That’s 7 of the 9 guns, and those companies all specialize in making the AR.

    Looking over the SCAR requirements there was no requirement for a gas piston, and FN’s was the only entry to pass all of the GO/NO-GO criteria. So somewhere in the pack of requirements for the SCAR program all the ARs fell short. Robinson arms and HK can consider themselves lucky in this case. Because they were disqualified they can still shill their entries without saying they lost to FN. Everyone else has been real quiet about it. NDA would explain that, but then why is Robinson exempt?

    As for the cancellation of the Mk16, Brett Westcott, the guy running the SCAR program until 2010 said budget cuts came down in early 2009 and told to add additional personnel.

    The blogs that reported the cancellation pared down SOCOM’s statement until it became: “The SCAR does not show enough of an improvement to warrant replacement of existing systems given SOCOM’s… limited funds…”. None of the blogs mentioned that SOCOM’s budget had been slashed by 15% and told to stand up an extra battalion at every group. So the focus shifted from “limited funds” to “does not show enough of an improvement”…. and then the fanboys took it from there.

    • FormerSFMedic

      Nicely said. People can say what they want but the SCAR was the only weapon that passed all testing requirements.

      BTW, just a little bit more on your info. Diemaco also submitted a gun for the competition. Robinson Arms excellent XCR was disqualified for a bit more than just the lack of a blank firing adapter. With that said the other reasons were similar. Also, HK never submitted a sample. The XM8R was not accepted at all.

      With concern to SOCOM not purchasing the MK16, I can tell you that many took the situation completely out of context and a lot of writers and bloggers reported things inaccurately. I have worked on the SCAR program for the last few years and the MK16 is FAR from gone. It performs very well and is preferred by many in the SOF community.

  • Russ

    The Army ditched the three prong flash suppressor because it grabbed branches in the jungle; why go back? Other than paying three times as much as for an M16/AR, why not get one? Well, other than the M855 drops below 2700 fps from a 14.5″ barrel at less than 100 meters and the eggheads say it doesn’t reliably fragment under 2700 fps…and fragmentation is what makes the 5.56 so lethal. Other than that, bring on the trolls!

    • Sol

      well how about we product improve the M4 and give it a 16in barrel instead? there is no reason for the entire Army and Marine Corps to be carrying carbines into combat instead of rifles. the desire to be SOF “like” is what the problem is. SOF uses carbines and SBR’s because that’s what the mission dictates. the regular infantry mission needs a rifle. once the basics are understood then we can select a new battle rifle. substance over image. it does no good to equip like SOCOM if we’re doing different stuff.

      • FormerSFMedic

        There is a reason why the Army uses M4’s. Because they need them!

        It has nothing to do with image and everything to do with functionality. The idea of being lighter and faster is what makes our CF troops more effective. It’s not about being like SOF, it’s about changing for the modern battlefield. The M4 gives our troops the adaptability they need to go from open battlefield to urban to CQB environments. An M16 cannot accomplish that with the same efficiency. The M4 is a much better suited weapon system and fills the role of “all purpose” better than anything currently in the inventory.

        I’m not sure why someone would think that an M16 is better than an M4 for the MODERN battlefield? The decision was not made because CF wanted to like SF. It was made in response to the rapid change of how our Army is organized and structured and how it now fights. We have to adapt. If we don’t, then we fall behind. The Army Infantry SHOULD be implementing more SOF-like TTP’s and using more SOF-like weapons and gear.

        • Sol

          no the Army shouldn’t be using more SOF TTP’S! **** no! you want to see the Army Infantry ruined? then have them try and copy SOF. want to know the real deal? the M4 was brought forward for no other reason than image…just like the beret. the M-16A4 performs better at most battlefield tasks is only marginally larger. the excuse that many give is that so many troops are mechanized but thats utter ********. most of the fighting in Afghanistan is NOT CQB and you can perform that mission with a M-16A4. the excuses are just that excuses. and instead of accepting the reality of the situation…that the Army is trying to make a carbine into a rifle, you have the Army spending money that it shouldn’t have if it just studied its own history. its pure dee insanity and its a big heaping pile of image over substance. substance would have real solutions like making the M4 with at least a 16in barrel but no. everyone wants to “look” cool. what nonsense!

          • Lance

            Very good point Sol. You notice the USMC has no issues with small arms than the all carbine army did. Overall most kept thinking all wars will be Iraq all over again and so small rifles where looked at. The reality is conventional wars are not over and open area combat exits and a full rifle can do the job better. The Marines know that. Overall the M-4 is not a bad weapon just not made into a rifle, the M-4A1 the army’s buying will help fix that. M-4 PIP will fix things… Better accuracy with a FF barrel assembly, ambi controls a heavy barrel which in my opinion isnt needed but I prefer to shoot on semi anyways. I think many mistake what SOF do and the mission infantry do two very very different things period. While the M-4A1 will be a good upgrade for the infantry over current M-4s other SOF weapons really are not need for infantry. Mixed types of pistols ultra light MG and caliber change weapons wont be used in infantry fighting so no not every thing SF use is needed for the regular army.

            Overall the Marines have the small arms issues pegged. The army will improve the M-4 and I hope its closer to a M-16 for grunts.

          • FormerSFMedic

            See the infantry ruined? That’s funny!

            How is adopting some of the training and tactics from SOF going to ruin the Infantry?

            Oh, and I’m not talking about “acting” like SOF as you so eloquently put it. I’m talking about training, weapons, gear, tactics, etc.

            The Mechanized idea is IN FAVOR of larger M16’s. If we were riding around in vehicles all the time then we wouldn’t need a lighter shorter rifle.

            I’m not an expert in budget and finances, so I’m not going to argue that point. But, I can tell you that the switch to the M4 was NOT about looking a certain way. I would love to hear your thoughts on why the M16 is a better choice nd why our Infantry would not benefit from better training.

      • Lance

        Overall the M-16A4 longer gas system negated the M-4s problems and had higher reliability. a bit more accurate at longer ranges and stronger in cqb situations. The army is doing more motorized operations so a carbine was thought to be better. The USMC dose more basic Infantry ops so a longer rifle was fine. Depends on the mission.

        Watch out for SCAR lovers they never admit the L didn’t go far than the H did so they make everything up to protect there favorite weapons honor. Overall The M-4 isn’t going anywhere in infantry service so dont buy into come commenter’s claims the super SCAR is every thing over any other weapon.

        • Sol

          i totally agree. the only thing that has me spinning is the idea that the M4 is actually the same M4 that came out the shop. i mean seriously! take a look at all the Mk 18! if the Army wants to get real about mechanized combat then why not go there? if CQB is the concern then follow the Navy SEALs and issue that weapon as there primary “firearm” cause with the issue of the M4 they no longer give their soldiers rifles! like i said. the M4 as currently used is a vanity weapon. its not significantly lighter, nor is it more accurate, nor is it more effective at accomplishing any conventional infantry mission. the USMC is suppose to be adding a collapsible buttstock to the M16A4 and possible going with an M27 IAR length barrel. in essence they’re talking about making sensible improvements to a decent rifle. not trying to make gold out of lead.

  • Lance

    Good point a mid length gas system in test is better than carbine system or the 416 and Ruger’s SR 556 shown to delete the problem. You also right the USMC said it will NOT and never goto a IC carbine and will upgrade in several year the M-16A4 to A5. Like M-4 PIP a FF assembly and a adjustable stock will be added. Magpul fixed both durability and siz adjust ment in fixed vs collapsible argument with its new Battle stock strong like the fixed but slightly adjustable. Possibly new flash hider too. Bet the Marines will look at Magpul. Its a ways off since almost all marines have a high satisfaction with the current A4 rifle.

    Strange I call some on here and other places SCAR lovers Sol. They bought a expensive gun and or tactic cool loves plastic mind set and will hound you saying SCAR is perfect and your AR sucks. Ignore them. I goto and talk to people or visit offical SOF people and websites. all the time who are in SOF in the Marines and possibly army. Most carry M-4A1 or Navy case Mk-18s. M-14 EBR and SCAR Hs are the 2nd place in seen weapons they use most say. Looks at MARSOC pics recently.

    Im with you and back your ideas 100%. Overall we agree the Army is stay with the M-4 anyway so all of this page is hype.

  • Johnny Quest

    416 blows

  • WLCE

    I strongly disagree with multiple points. The 416 has no more superior odds of being adopted by big army than the SCAR.

    The only thing I will agree is that the M4 PiP will undoubtedly be adopted and not a completely new rifle. Is it right in my opinion? No. In fact, the Army rarely adopts the best product. Sequestration will undoubtedly affect any future acquisition of a new rifle.

    I would also argue that the 416 is “more accurate” simply because of the differences in the two gas systems. The SCAR’s heavy bolt mitigates recoil significantly. HK 416s are known for their sharper recoil impulses.

    The Army would have no advantage or reason to adopt the 416 but advantages and reasons to adopt the FN AC.

    For one, the FN AC was designed from the bottom up with its gas system. The 416? It is a improved M4-type carbine retrofitted with a gas piston system. You dont have to be a gunsmith to know which one would be more characteristically reliable.

    For another, there is compatibility with parts between the different SCAR rifles. The 416? not so much.

    Finally, costs DO matter. Especially in the age of sequestration.

    I wouldnt use the M27 as a shining example of a impartial trial. I believe the acquisition showed favoritism towards H&K, though that is my personal opinion.

    France’s next rifle? no american knows anything. citations please.

  • Lance

    Not necessarily You did prove my point the M-4 isnt going away. But the HK 416 also has advantages like other services have them and they share some parts with regular M-4s cutting cost in training and repair over a plastic foreign system like the SCAR. SCARs have hardly any parts commonality with current M-4s 416s do in the lower receiver. The SCAR suffers from bad plastic stock and some parts. SOCOM operatives had machined there own parts made of metal and on the H ditch crappy FAL mags for AR-10 mags.

    But we do agree this is hype nothing really going to change for Infantry.

  • Lance

    Hay Joshua you shot both in your opinion do you like the M-4A1 the 416 or something else overall almost every one here agrees this is hype the army is staying with current platforms for infantry.

    • Joshua

      I prefer the M4A1, the HK is snappy in felt recoil and runs at an incredibly high cyclic rate, its also a pig when it comes to weight.

  • FormerSFMedic

    Lance, if you do it here, it will be the same result. Stop with the speculation and bad information.
    The SCAR doesn’t have bad plastic. Also, no one ditched the FAL mags because the SCAR doesn’t use FAL mags. That has been a myth spread about by the errornet. I would be interested in talking to the operators about their AR10 mags especially since the SCAR doesn’t use them. Hhhmmmm…….

  • WLCE

    If “Army infantry ruined” means ruining the current system of garrison **** **** games, ironed uniforms, pretty white glove weapons, and PT belts, then I hope the Army Infantry gets “ruined”, having those demerits replaced with the versatility, superior training, superior gear, impeccable fieldcraft, and emphasis on substance rather than image modeled after SF. Bring on the ruination LOL. Also current wars favor a more flexible and versatile infantry MOS; were not exactly fighting zee germans anymore.

    I love the M16A4. It is a fine weapon system. Equipping it with a collapsable butt stock and free float hand guard would have been a sensible solution, though the M4 was adopted by big army. Its not a terrible weapon system, and its improvements from SOPMOD Block 2 make it a awesome platform. The idea, though, that big army adopted it to “look like SF” is insanely asinine in my opinion.

    “I think many mistake what SOF do and the mission infantry do two very very different things period.”

    But you have to admit, this doesnt excuse the stupidity of the current system our infantry are stuck with, especially since counter-insurgencies had infantry and scout MOS’s typically perform more SOF-style operations than any other time in history.

    This also doesn’t mean our infantry shouldnt be equipped with practical equipment, uniforms that are actually effective, emphasize training and fieldcraft instead of garrison stupidity, and, of course, wield modular and effective weapons.

    “While the M-4A1 will be a good upgrade for the infantry over current M-4s other SOF weapons really are not need for infantry. Mixed types of pistols ultra light MG and caliber change weapons wont be used in infantry fighting so no not every thing SF use is needed for the regular army.”

    I disagree. A weapon like the FN AC IS needed by the infantry, especially one platform that shares components between different niche firearms in the SCAR family. Exchangeable parts are essential for the 21st century battlefield and continuing to do the same thing over again is reckless. If you dont like the SCAR for whatever reason, then a modular rifle needs to be developed by somebody. I guess since FN is the only one that took this leap of faith, that is why it is succeeding.

    I think formersfmedic was emphasizing the superior fieldcraft and soldier proficiency for combat operations rather than business as usual. If he means this, then I agree with him strongly.

  • WLCE

    Why is liking the SCAR (more like “liking” the flexibility of the platform) somehow a bad thing???

    • Lance

      Because some are loving it too much. To SCAR lovers it a super gun all other guns suck and most of them own one makes them think that all problems will be solved by adopting it. Most get Petty if something bad about a SCAR is said they attack and cry. Truth is if you like the SCAR fine but quit saying its a wonder gun better than all. Thats crap there are good weapons all over and American can do with out having Belgium dictate small arms to call service.

      Say you like it fine quit saying its going to replace all that full of crap. I mean other not you WLCE.

      • WLCE

        Perhaps they like the flexibility and versatility that the platform offers?

  • Lance

    Aww my friends the SCAR lover attack. The SCAR did have a crappy stock and I didn’t say the H was ditched the L is not being bought now. The Hs in SOCOM have been modified to take AR-10 mags. The SCAR would be horrible for weak stocks over complicated gas system and no real iron sights. Its fine in 7.62 NATO for SOCOM NOT for grunts who need a stronger simpler system. Some lairs here want to goto personal attack already proves they are fake and making crap up. Strange have just as many who back me here. So save your breath SCARlovers and go drool on your scars than spew crap online.

  • Lance

    So Josh and Sol some here keep saying your M-16 and M-4 suck and SCAR are perfect w/o no problem so perfect every one should give your M-4 up for one. As two infantrymen what to you say to these SCAR lover attacks???

  • WLCE

    “Not necessarily You did prove my point the M-4 isnt going away.”

    and it probably wont. sad, but true.

    “But the HK 416 also has advantages like other services have them and they share some parts with regular M-4s cutting cost in training and repair over a plastic foreign system like the SCAR.”

    I know of two USSOCOM units that supposedly have them and thats it. I know certain federal defense department agencies also use them. The 416 also has unique parts different than the M4. The parts that do break the most (the gas system) is completely incompatible with the M4.

    “SCARs have hardly any parts commonality with current M-4s 416s do in the lower receiver.”

    The SCAR DOESNT need compatibility with the M4 since the L, H, Mk20, and IAR all have some degree of parts commonality in their own family. From a practical perspective, this is a unique advantage over the M4, which has zilch as far as parts compatibility with other platforms used by the army (i.e. M14, M110, etc). If commonality with a whole family of weapons is possible, while negating M4 compatibility as a necessity, then that is a decisive advantage.

    “The SCAR suffers from bad plastic stock and some parts.”

    I dont agree. Since the SCAR is a new rifle, a new rifle having only problems with the butt stock is a godsend. Didnt the M16 have more problems than that when it was introduced?

    “SOCOM operatives had machined there own parts made of metal and on the H ditch crappy FAL mags for AR-10 mags.”

    ***!?!?!?!? really!?

    I find that hard to believe. I know that there is a product called the Handl Defense SCAR25 lower, which is aluminum and uses Sr25 mags, though im remain extremely dubious of such SOCOM modifications. Source?

    “But we do agree this is hype nothing really going to change for Infantry.”

    I dont agree that its merely “hype”. I think it could make our infantry more effective. Will the Army do it? that is a entirely different story. They arent well-renowned for their superior decision making abilities.

  • Lance


    I said some problems ;like mags and somewhat the stock other fixed some SCARs use AR-10 mags far better. The SCAR wont make infantry more effective since the FN AC loses most MK-16 features for a fixed 5.56mm carbine no point or advantage over PIP M-4A1. If we stay with 5.56mm stay with the M-4 if we can goto 6.5mm or 6.8 you can make a better argument.

    • Lance

      Ohh WLCE we disagree but your civil unlike others and sound like a nice guy. Overall our arguing is pointless since we agree this is all show and tell at AUSA.

      be best to agree to disagree on some agree on others.

  • Lance

    Les than they just love SCAR they never admit a fault to it and no gund perfect. I do say has a place in SOF the H is in use but other SOF have M-4s and MK-18s also so they chose what they like.

    • Riceball

      As I understand it, the reason SOCOM decided to ditch the Mk16 wasn’t so much that it sucked but it just didn’t offer enough advantage over the M4 or 416 to justify the cost.

  • crackedlenses

    The big question is: Is this substantially better than the M4A1 the Army wants, and is it price comparable?

    Otherwise, I like the idea of adopting a new weapon that will accustom troops to the SCAR…..

    • Lance

      Overall going to any new weapon would cost ALOT training, new weapons, new parts, new manuals, new accessories, and new scopes. None of the ICC weapon are substantially better they are all 5.56mm weapons, shooting from a 30rd STAMAG, and all with 14.5 barrels not much of a jump. a new caliber is needed to justify a new weapon 6.5mm would be awesome in a ACR but not going to happen.

      • FormerSFMedic

        New accessories? New scope? NO! Why would you need new accessories and a new scope? That is the whole idea behind the Block II SOPMOD.

        • Lance

          Wrong again. new lasers for BD new check rests new Iron sights and Scopes the RCO A$ M$ are for specifically the M-4/M-16 and M-150 is for the M-4 any new rifle need a specific scope. SOPMOD is for SOCOM only Infantry dont use such kits.

          • FormerSFMedic

            Just for clarification. What is BD, check rests, A$, and M$?

          • Lance

            Sorry the ACOG the USMC and Army uses is the RCO A4 and the M4 the M-150 ACOG is the Army’s M-4 scope all made for a M-4 and M-16 a new weapon would need a whole new ACOG. Same for laser sights and range finder new ones needed for a different weapon, BD is Bullet drop compensator.

          • FormerSFMedic

            I am going to keep this as professional as I can. So, here we go.

            The questions about the symbols, abbreviations, and spelling errors were rhetorical. I am well aware of what the Military is using.

            With that said, the SU258/PVQ and the M150 are calibrated for the M16 OR the M4 just like you said. However, you also said that “they (ICC guns) are all 5.56 weapons, shooting from a 30rd STAMAG (STANAG), and all with 14.5 barrels”. You DID say that and you were also correct on that fact.

            The problem is, the SU258/PVQ and the M150 are NOT calibrated for the M16 and the M4 ONLY. The 258 and 150 are calibrated for the 62gr M855 round fired from a 14.5″ barrel OR 20″ barrel respectively. Which means, the SU258/PVQ and the M150 can be used for ANY 5.56mm NATO chambered rifle. You can put them on ANY rifle and still get the same results.

            For the MFAL’s like the PEQ15, PEQ15A, or PEQ16B, the same is also true as with the ACOG’s. The difference being that the MFAL’s CAN literally be used on ANY weapon from 5.56 to. 308 to.300 WM to .50BMG. It doesn’t matter.

            Also, and again, laser rangefinders are NOT gun OR ammo specific. So, no replacing those either.

            Iron sights are the one thing that MIGHT be different. However, ever gun will come standard with each gun and be including in the cost. The most likely scenario is that the current KAC and/or Matech sights will work fine.

            Cheek rests you mean? Since when did any branch of service order cheek rests for every troop? The answer is NEVER! The FNAC, the ACR, etc. already have adjustable cheek rests. Why would…….never mind, that is just out there.

            I mentioned SOPMOD blocks II because the requirement for the Block II program is that accessories are compatible with current weapon systems and the SCAR as well as future weapon systems. The official standards state that in writing. With that said, many accessories that show up in the SOPMOD BlockII are the same as accessories used by the Army and MarineCorps. It shouldn’t take much to understand the correlation I was drawing.

            After your comments on this subject and I my complete rebuttal, I ask that you DO NOT attack my credibility anymore. Most readers here won’t know why I’m saying this but I know you (Lance) understand. With your comments, you have little basis to attack ANYONES credibility.

  • Lance

    Most after market check ret fit M-4 stocks ACR or other new weapons would mean solder have to get new ones more money blown.

    • Riceball

      I’d think that would be more of an issue for the civilian shooting community than the military since, I don’t believe, that the regular military makes much use of cheek rests outside of maybe designated marksmen and snipers. The only cheek rests that I can recall seeing regular Army and Marines use are whatever is built into the stock of their carbine/rifle.

  • Joshua

    Try not to throw my name around all the time. The M4 PiP will happen no matter what happens to the IC. The Army is planning on going the PiP route for reserves and units such as that(the guys who generally have old M16’s) IF the IC happens which will go to the standard Army. I am also told the Marines are pretty dead set on a M16 PiP because no matter the IC results they cannot afford them. They originally looked at adopting the M27 fleetwide but said it would cost to much and take 15+ years for HK to replace every rifle thy have. a PiP gets then 85% of the M27 at 25% of the cost.

    Generally my info is good, this one I am not 100% sure of but I will mention it but DO NOT quote me on this.

    Apparently there is far more rifles in the IC than we know of and apparently one is far exceeding the others and it is a DI rifle. Info supposedly will be out some times in November.

    Thats all I can mention, but from the hints I got if this all ends up being true we may get a new rifle because of what this entrant offers in parts life.

    • Lance

      Sorry to do that my friend no hope feeling I hope. Overall seem like M-4 PIP is the winner since the Army is buying so many new M-4A1s soon.

      I impressed a Direct Impingement rifle is doing well possibly It maybe Colts Enhanced M-4 who knows. Overall we do agree the M-16 and M-4 will stay in military service here for many years to come?

    • Lance

      Strange a DI or Direct impingement rifle is doing well the only IC weapon that DI is the ADCORE BEAR. maybe its better than all thought interesting.

      • Joshua

        I don’t know who it is, but I do know there are more weapons being competed than we know of. ADCOR entered their piston version.

        • Lance

          Email me your new on Nov 5 if your rumors are true got my email.

          Overall who know most say the M-4 and M-16 is here to stay agree? And the USMC is staying with M-16 for a long time agree?

          Any way hope we chat soon my friend.

        • Joshua

          If the information I am being told is correct everyone will know when it comes out. This won’t be a secretive thing, the information will let us all know who was in the IC and How they did during Phase II.

  • Joshua

    From what I understand the Colt entrants did well until the OTB part which they failed.

  • Lance

    Attack all you want SCAR lover I got my sources and you can hug your SCAR if you want. And the Infantry dose NOT use SOPMOD. It lost alot to order thousands for infantry. It seems the only reason you attack is that your afraid your fav SCAR wont replace everything in inventory. Its not going to happen. fact too is that even a gun same barrel length has different bullet characteristics SO they may need new scopes with anew gun.

    From rumors a either IC is dead or a DI weapon none piston is doing the best. So your scar loving is illrelivent. Your too bias for the SCAR and have no fair saying on any gun you love your scar. So most of what tyou say is crap bias for the scar.

  • WKL

    Actually there are many states that permit the private ownership or SBR’s, suppressors and machine guns with the appropriate documentation. In addition since this website is geared towards military personnel and this weapon could be a future issue, it makes sense that they would discuss it here.

  • WKL


    Are you some 16 year old living in your moms’ basement? I am willing to bet that SFMedic may be a little more in tune to this subject than you are. But, that is just a guess.

    • Lance

      Your personal attack show your ignorance. Im just Say the SCAR is NOT a super gun all guns have faults and it not much a improvement over the M-4.

      • FormerSFMedic

        That wasn’t an attack. That was an observation and a good one at that. Pretty much everyone here has wondered the same thing.

  • Viper65fr

    The HK is not sure at all to be adopted in France. After the test the Special forces of the 11th Airborne brigade chose to order FN SCAR……

  • Johnny Quest

    Here ya go:

    Check out the piece of crap HK 416 bending and flexing due to the abortion scabbed on top of it. You keep a similarly configured M16 well lubricated (contrary to historical military doctrine) and it will do anything a 416 will do at a lighter weight, better inherent accuracy, fewer parts, and less cost.

    WLCE, calling the HK an “improved” M4 is a matter of opinion I suppose, but wholly inaccurate the way I see it. It is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

  • Joshua

    Lance don’t get me started on the IAR. The HK entrant won because it had the lowest cookoff rate, but it had them because the entrants with an open bolt design were forced to be tested for cook offs with the bolt closed. It was not a very fair trial IMO.

    Also when the HKM27 entered service it had incredibly poor performance, it was averaging 300 MRBS, so HK had to do some mods to the rifle to increase reliability. It now has 900MRBS, but I wonder what would have happened had the SCAR entrant been selected? It probably would have performed better and had it been tested on its open bolt feature it never would have experienced a cook off.

  • WLCE

    “WLCE, calling the HK an “improved” M4 is a matter of opinion I suppose, but wholly inaccurate the way I see it. It is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”

    Improved means heavier, free-float barrel, which is a improvement to me. The gas system is just a characteristic rather than a “improvement”, though I would have to say I agree with you Johnny.

    If any rifle should not be adopted, it is the 416. I dont know anything about the ICC contender 416, though it is anything like its older brother, there is little gain for the rise in costs and more mechanical complexity. A gas system built from the ground up is a far more superior approach.

  • Lance

    Im not saying the HK 416 is a improved M-4 its not its a evolution of the Stoner rifle. I know some get made but the USMC did like htem the IAR is doing well. And it beat FN like it or not.

  • Jay

    Every time I read something posted by Lance, that “traing” (cough# propaganda* cough) video from ww2, about the mg34 and mg42 comes to mind. ” so it does have a high rate of fire, but is it better then ours?”
    Comedy pure gold.

  • Joe

    I love getting online reading my favorite blog,scrolling through the comments and laughing my *** off at the comedy relief that Lance provides. And to whoever said the M4 doesnt provide a significant reduction in size and weight….all I have to say is that person hasnt done a 7hr combat patrol in the green zone of Sangin or probably anywhere for that matter. Ounces = pounds, & Pounds = pain.

    • FormerSFMedic

      Yeah, I used to laugh my *** off too until I realized that people were actually believing some of that stuff. At that point it got kinda personal for me.

      Thank you! That was my point. Our Infantry guys are out there ******* all day through conditions that resemble another planet. The M4 offers the flexibility to get through that environment and still accomplish any mission once they get to their target. If anyone needs a shorter lighter rifle it’s the Infantry. The M4 is probably one of the best things to happen to Army CF since the M1Garand.

  • Johnny Quest

    WLCE –

    “Not necessarily You did prove my point the M-4 isnt going away.”

    and it probably wont. sad, but true.

    Please explain that statement.

  • WLCE

    “Please explain that statement.”

    IF there is something out there thats better all around, then our troops need it. Settling for the M4 if there is something better is making compromises to a infantryman’s equipment that has no business being compromised in the first place. Dont even get me started on the billions wasted that could be used R&D, test, and field a rifle that is better, even if it is another theoretical DI rifle based off the M4. Its time to cut the favoritism, bull manure, and emotional arguments and stick to the facts.

    Only if this new rifle proves itself measurably better all around to justify the money and time spent to replace the M4…if the M4 is still just as good, **** it, keep it until pulse rifles are fielded.

    That statement, however, wasn’t implying in any way that the M4 is a bad rifle. On the contrary, I believe it is just as accurate, modular, and reliable (oh gasp!? did i go there!?) as other fielded 5.56mm carbines in its class.

    Filthy 14 anyone??? SOPMOD Block II? Noveske? Larue? Do I need to mention more and more drastic improvements to the platform? I think educated people get the idea.

  • BlackGuy


    *** are you even in the Army or Marine Infantry? I wouldn’t be surprised if you were some POG like a cook or a 19D wannabe. All you ever talk about is “SCAR lovers” when nobody is even talking about it?? Please explain to us what it is that you do for a living. And if you can’t tell by the name, FormerSFMedic probably knows more than you ever will about this kind of stuff.

    • Lance

      Contractor know for USCG

  • bbb

    Do we really gain anything significant performance-wise without going to a different caliber? I thought everyone had agreed we needed a middleweight round.

    I mean, I get the fact that we need new guns and that they’re accurate, reliable, lighter, and have less recoil…but also cost significantly more.

    Dollar per dollar spent, I would think new ammunition gets us more than new rifles.

    • WLCE

      Perhaps if we did theoretically adopt a new cartridge, we can make it happen now since we are drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan. Two-Six years ago? it was a impossibility.

      There have been several notable advancements in 5.56mm cartridges so I remain very doubtful that something other than that cartridge needs to be adopted.

      The intermediates have their set of issues too. Increased barrel wear, heavier ammunition, effectiveness that doesnt quite surpass the 7.62 at long ranges, and the effectively bridged gap between 5.56 and 7.62 in the first place.

      I think when placed into production, a rifle like the FN AC would be relatively inexpensive.

    • crackedlenses

      The military is not going to replace the 5.56, not unless something truly revolutionary comes along. The military has spent the past 50 years improving the 5.56 and trying to make it work. Now, it works, and after having defied all those who demanded something else all this time, just dropping the 5.56 doesn’t seem likely…..

  • Billywhat?

    it can share flashhiders….. roflol yeah, thats a cost cut that will surely make them choose a 416 over anything else. hahaha

  • mike

    Would like to see the ACR adopted,but dont think rhat will happen.

  • Tony DiMarco

    The 416 is an overprice POS. At least the SCAR is a new design with benefits over the M4. Not an M4 with a piston slapped on it for an extra $3k like the 416. In A-stan I had the option to try out both and I found the SCAR to be a much better weapon. But opinions are like Lances.

  • WKL


    Do yourself a favor and get s spellchecker or a dictionary. Not only are you screwing up the English language with your incoherent ramblings, but any perceived credibility that you thought you had goes out the window with every stroke of the keyboard.

    I suggest you get a full load out of gear and a weapon (M16Aforgery) and then go put around a few miles with it. Then move in and out of some buildings and vehicle and let us know how it works for you. The M4A1 allows for lightweight and more mobility and movement especially in urban environments. It is also accurate enough when coupled with good ammo such as MK 262 MOD1 or similar to reach out and touch people. Combine that with a good optic and you are more than prepared for combat.

    What I would truly like to see is better ammo made available to the troops on the front lines.

  • Tony DiMarco

    Someone find Lance a hobby. Preferably something that doesn’t require much in the smarts department.

  • Lance

    Your personal attack only show your ignorance and shows how shaky your logic is. fact is Mathew Cox agreed with me on most issue from past post he did so go ahead say what your want the army is not following your lead.

  • WLCE

    geez. some people should have a nice tall glass of ****.

  • sebr

    Lance, just shut the **** up. seriously. your posts have irritated me enough to where i have justified a response. I am sick and tired of your BS.

    you are deserving of a McUzi level insult. I wish the worst upon you.

  • Lance


    Your stupidity and meanness and your attacks shows your sides weakness. I wont shut up never so you just shut up.

    • sebr

      yeah because I care about sides over the internet. ****!!!

      seriously. get over yourself. everybody on here knows youre wrong and they are trying to be nice. im not being nice. you somehow think youre a industry insider but you arent anything. a “contractor for the USCG”? give me a break. like you would know ANYTHING about small arms and tactics.

      Everybody gets it: you dont like the SCAR platform. who cares? the idea of anything being better than your untouchable AR15 platform seems to be outside your realm of reality. well guess what? its happening.

      Im surprised you havent been banned from here. If you pulled your trolling BS on a forum of mine, you would be banned.

  • Johnny Quest

    How is it and evolution of the Stoner rifle? Because somebody thinks it needs a op-rod scabbed on top? A solution to a problem that doesn’t exist? It is in fact, an abortion, and the HK416 leads the pack.

    Gene Stoner designed it the way he did, sans an op-rod, for a purpose, or two.

    Some claim that a 416 in a 10.5″ version performs better than a MK18. It may in some respects, but who wants a 10″ M16 anyway. I suppose because they are available? Add another inch to a DI gun and you gain a 40% increase in dwell time over the 10.3″. 11.5 inches is plenty short and anyone, and I mean anyone, that claims there is a measurable (noticeable) difference in ‘handling’ between a 10.5″ and 11.5″ carbine is being somewhat disingenuous shall we say. Except of course when the 10.5″ version is a heavier and bulkier HK416.

    I prefer a 12.5″ DI personally.

    Go view the slow mo video here of the 416 and a DI weapon. You tell me what you

    • Joshua

      The HK416 in the 10.4″ package is honestly not that much better than current M4CQBR’s. You get a few thousand rounds extra in parts life but the HK416 is louder, and have more snap which leads to more movement of your optic.

      I personally prefer the CQBR and have never had a problem with current ones, they were iffy at first but have come a long ways.

      Another thing to note is that alot of people say the HK416 can get 30,000 parts life….I have never seen that and according to the new revisions from HK about parts life and when you should swap them out its 10,000 so you get an extra 2,000 rounds parts life over a DI CQBR, certainly not worth it for the price increase you see when comparing the two rifles together.

      When the HK416 first came out everyone was amazed by it…..including myself but as it has become adopted and fielded by numerous military’s the quality of it has gone down, this is to be expected as any widely fielded weapons will see a difference in quality from hand crafted test guns to fielded weapons when you need to push out 4,000 rifles a week. Now that the HK416 has gone wide spread in certain military realms its parts life has become what we could expect from it if we were to adopt it…..and by that I mean no different than our current issued M4A1.

    • WLCE

      I really dont like the 416. I think HK did good things when they initially introduced it, though much has changed and been learned in the M4 realm. I dont like the slightly harsher recoil, which is another reason why I like the SCAR the best (its gas system and heavier bolt give it very mild recoil).

      Perhaps its just because I like Stoner’s internal piston design (mostly commonly known as “direct impingement”). External piston guns arent measurably more reliable in my opinion, though you do add mechanical complexity to the mix. I think this

      has a lot more potential than HK’s short strike piston, which was basically a derivative of the Rhino system and other gas piston retrofits experimented by Colt after the vietnam War.

      Lance, how did the 416 beat the FN entry into the IAR competition??? it was mechanically inferior and less reliable.

      • Joshua

        The HK416 beat both the SCAR entrant in rounds before cook off, and it beat the Colt entrant in weight.

        The onl reason it beat both is because they removed the open bolt requirement and forced the SCAR to test cookoffs in closed bolt mode so naturally it lost, even though in reality it would never have a cookoff running in open bolt mode. The Colt entrant was just to heavy.

  • WLCE

    wow, so they forced the SCAR IAR to operate outside its mechanical limitations? unbelievable.

    I read somewhere that the SCAR IAR was also open/closed bolt, meaning it self-adjusted to open bolt mode when the weapon heated up.

    I do know that the IAR had initial issues with reliability and still has a lower MRBF than the M16A4 (which blows my mind away).

  • Joshua

    The SCAR entrant would switch over to open bolt dependent on temps in the chamber, when that would happen they would close the bolt to test its cook of ability, well with its barrel profile of course it failed. The Marines viewed an open bolt feature a liability to untrained soldiers who might pick up the rifle so they really did not want open bolt. The Colt entrant did icredibly well as well but it was 3lbs heavier than the HK entrant.

    The way HK gets such a high 36 round cook off for a carbine is a few things.
    1. They use a bull barrel(little over 1″ diameter under handguards.)
    2. The barrel nut is a very large and long aluminum nut basically acting like a heatsink.
    3. The handguard also contacts alot of the barrel nut so its transfers to the handguard cooling the chamber.

    Thats how they do it but it does make a very heavy carbine. The M27 is basically a 10lb carbine.

    So in the end the HK won the IAR trials when it first came out and was field tested it had around 300 MRBS so HK had to make a few mods and now it has 900 MRBS, vs the 700MRBS of the M4 and the 1100MRBS of the M16.

  • WLCE

    fascinating! you learn something new every day

  • FormerSFMedic

    Mike, and everyone else here too, I got to take a look at the ACR IC rifle today along with most of the other guns as well. I can’t say much regarding which guns are still competing but I’m pretty impressed the ACR candidate.

    I’ve always liked the ACR concept and I’m actually more fond of the ACR than the SCAR. However, after testing a number of Remington ACR’s, I was left shaking my head at all the problems it had. But today I my faith in the gun was renewed. The ACR IC has a really good quick change barrel system and a much more ergonomic forend. It’s still pretty heavy but lighter than ACR’s I played with prior. The gun ran well with no problems but I did only get to shoot a little bit. The magazine issues SEEM TO BE fixed but only time will tell.

    All in all, it might just be worth it.

    • Joshua

      Well that’s good to know, I remember trying one of the ACR’s at first and there was so much wrong with them. At least they learned and hopefully fixed those issues.

  • Joshua

    I have yet to see any “scar lovers”, nor have I seen anyone attack the M4 or call it a POS.

    I personally feel the SCAR offers very little over an M4A1 with the SOPMOD package but everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one has said the AR-15 system is a POS, it’s actually been quite the opposite.

    While some people on some forums to say the SCAR is perfect its generally trying to justify their purchase but I have not seen that hear.

    Things would be easier here for you Lance if you relaxed on the hateraide type comments.

  • Pepe Le Pew

    France’s next rifle? The only testing needed for those cheese eating surrender monkies is the drop test.

  • Pepe Le Pew

    We something new to help. The M4 is not doing the job. At best we fought to a draw in Iraq and we lost and are retreating in Afghanistan. I used the MK17 in the sandbox and loved it. Will not go back to the M4.

    • Joshua

      Huh? Clearly you never served, and clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • blah

    As someone that has fired both the M4a1 and the MK16 overseas the comparison are so different, that reading the army could not find differences is just makes me green. I got to witness a between soldiers field test. When an ODA decided to test the scar 16 against the m4a1 in an adverse environment. The Scar did not jam until it had gone through 3000 rounds, the m4a1 jammed after 420 rounds. Next test was water and mud the m4 fired one round and one round only, mk16 fired a mag. Accuracy between the two are the same for all tense and purposes. For the Army to say that all the New rifles failed the reliability test compared to the m4a1 and mk16 is funny since with my own two eyes I have seen it different when tested in the field.