In 2007, trials were held for a new Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle. FN submitted a short-stroke, piston-driven design that could be fired with the stock folded and offered modern features. The family included the SCAR 16, also known as the SCAR-L, chambered in 5.56, alongside the SCAR 17 and SCAR 20. Despite its intended role, the SCAR 16 was never formally adopted by U.S. Special Operations Forces. Cost was a major factor, as the SCAR platform was significantly more expensive than existing M4 and M16 rifles. For that higher price to be justified, the rifle’s capabilities and features needed to clearly surpass the legacy platforms. Instead, reliability concerns emerged, which is a critical issue for any combat rifle expected to function consistently under harsh conditions.
A central complaint about early SCAR rifles was the reciprocating charging handle. On these models, the charging handle is directly attached to the bolt carrier group and moves back and forth with every shot, similar to designs like the M1 Garand, M14, and AK-pattern rifles. According to rumor, decision-makers requested a reciprocating handle because the AK’s reliability was incorrectly attributed to that feature. On the SCAR, the placement of the handle created ergonomic and reliability issues. When mounted on the left side, it could strike the shooter’s hand or knuckles, especially when using certain EOTech XPS optics with lower mounts, sometimes causing cuts and interference. If a shooter’s thumb or gear obstructed the handle’s travel, the rifle could be prevented from cycling, turning a supposed reliability feature into a potential failure point.
The SCAR’s reciprocating charging handle contrasts with FN’s earlier FAL design. On the FAL, the charging handle can fold forward to reduce snagging on gear and does not reciprocate during firing, allowing the bolt to cycle freely without additional external movement. This reduces the chance of the handle catching on equipment or the shooter’s hand. With the SCAR 17, the charging handle can be swapped to either side, and some users prefer it on the right, similar to the M1 Garand, M14, and AK, for more familiar manipulation. However, the SCAR’s handle still protrudes in a way that can interfere with reloads or hand placement, especially under stress. If the handle were reciprocating, any obstruction from a barricade, wall, or gear could stop the action and disable the rifle until cleared, highlighting a design vulnerability for a modern combat weapon.
Beyond the charging handle, the SCAR 16 experienced reliability problems tied to magazine use. The rifle uses a different operating system than the M4 and M16, with a short-stroke piston and adjustable gas system. While its dedicated magazines functioned adequately, many users naturally tried to run existing GI M4 and M16 magazines already in circulation. These older magazines often had worn feed lips and followers from heavy use. As feed lips spread, they failed to retain cartridges properly, leading to double feeds, triple feeds, or loose rounds migrating into the SCAR 16’s operating rod area. Once rounds became lodged in the op-rod section, clearing the malfunction often required disassembling the rifle rather than performing a standard double-feed clearance. This turned a common, normally manageable malfunction into a serious reliability issue in combat conditions.
The SCAR 16’s stock design offered advantages but also contributed to its mixed reception. The side-folding stock allowed the rifle to be fired with the stock folded or even removed, unlike the M4 and M16, which rely on a buffer system in the stock for operation. This made the SCAR 16 attractive as a compact personal defense weapon when paired with shorter barrels such as 12.5 or 14.5 inches, improving maneuverability in vehicles or low-visibility carry. However, early stocks had a weak latch mechanism. Under movement, such as running through wooded terrain or being struck against gear, the stock could unintentionally fold, leaving the shooter with an unshouldered rifle at the moment it was needed. While later versions improved latch tension and overall robustness, the combination of stock issues, magazine-related malfunctions, and charging handle concerns contributed to the SCAR 16 receiving only limited, specialized use rather than broad adoption.
Loading...