Back in 2007, the U.S. military was hunting for a next-generation combat rifle. Enter the FN SCAR – short for Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle. It had promise: a short-stroke gas piston system, modular design, folding stock, and solid ergonomics. On paper, the SCAR looked like the rifle of the future. But when it came to real-world performance and logistics, things didn’t go as planned. Despite the hype, the military walked away from the program, and here’s why.
The Cost Problem From the Start
Right out of the gate, cost was a major hurdle. The SCAR was significantly more expensive than the standard-issue M4 or M16. To justify that price tag, it had to outperform the older rifles in multiple areas – reliability, ergonomics, adaptability, and durability. But it didn’t quite hit the mark. The SCAR 16 (the 5.56 version) in particular failed to deliver enough advantages to make the military comfortable with ditching their tried-and-true weapons.
The Charging Handle Catastrophe
One of the SCAR’s most criticized features was its reciprocating charging handle. While many users had no issue with it in theory, its real-world placement and behavior caused big problems. If your thumb or any gear got in the way, the charging handle would slam into it with force, potentially injuring the shooter or jamming the rifle. It could even get caught on barricades or your own sling. In combat, that’s the kind of issue that could be fatal.
Even worse, this feature wasn’t an accident – it was requested by decision-makers who thought it would improve reliability, based on its presence in rifles like the AK-47. In reality, it created more problems than it solved.
Ergonomics: Good Idea, Bad Execution
The SCAR did offer some neat features. It was lightweight, had ambidextrous controls, and you could switch the charging handle to either side. But in practice, the layout frustrated many users. For left-handed shooters, a plastic nub on the stock caused chafing and discomfort. Operators also complained about accidental mag drops, caused by an overly sensitive magazine release button. Small problems like these built up fast in a field where reliability and comfort are everything.
Magazine Compatibility Gone Wrong
One of the selling points of the SCAR 16 was that it could use existing M4 and M16 magazines. That should have been a strength, but it turned into a weakness. The older GI mags were often worn out, with bent feed lips and tired springs. These issues didn’t matter much in the AR platform, but in the SCAR, they caused constant malfunctions. Rounds would misfeed, double-feed, or get stuck in the operating system, requiring full disassembly to clear the jam. In a combat zone, that’s unacceptable.
Reliability That Wasn’t Reliable Enough
For a rifle designed for special operations, the SCAR needed to be bombproof. But it wasn’t. Malfunctions happened more often than they should have, especially under stress or with heavily used gear. When you’re being shot at, the last thing you want is to field strip your rifle to fix a jam. The M4 may not be perfect, but it’s reliable enough for most missions, and cheap and easy to maintain.
That’s a tough act to beat, and the SCAR didn’t beat it.
Folding Stock Fumble
The SCAR had a folding stock, which made it easier to store and transport, especially with short barrels. That sounds like a win. But the early models had a flimsy latch that allowed the stock to fold unintentionally when bumped. In a firefight, if your stock folds mid-shoulder, you lose accuracy and control. Later versions fixed this, but the damage to its reputation was already done.
Too Hot, Too Loud, Too Much
The SCAR ran hotter than the M4 during rapid fire, and the lightweight frame amplified recoil, especially in the SCAR 17 (the 7.62 version). It’s loud, with a sharper recoil impulse, and many soldiers found it unpleasant to shoot for long periods. Even with attachments like suppressors and brakes, it still had more felt recoil than heavier rifles in the same caliber. That made quick follow-up shots harder, and in battle, that’s a big deal.
Modularity Sounds Good – Until You Try It
One of the SCAR’s big features was its modularity. You could swap barrels to change calibers or lengths. But that came with a catch. Changing barrels meant re-zeroing your optics, which adds time and complexity. With the M4, you just pop on a new upper, and your optic stays zeroed. That simplicity made the M4 far more practical in the field.
So even though the SCAR had the potential for customization, it wasn’t user-friendly enough to replace what soldiers were already using.
The Mark 20 and the Mark 17: Slightly Better, Still Limited
The SCAR 17 (7.62 NATO) and its precision variant, the SCAR 20, performed better than the 16. The 17 was selected for limited use, and the 20 offered sniper-level precision. But both were heavy, expensive, and not widely adopted. The 20 even had an issue where it would occasionally fire two or three rounds per trigger pull – an unintentional burst mode that’s a nightmare for accuracy and safety.
These rifles are still in limited service, but the military hasn’t ordered more. That speaks volumes.
Why It Was Rejected
At the end of the day, the SCAR’s cost just didn’t match the benefits. The military needed a rifle that was not only better than the M4, but better in every category – and the SCAR wasn’t. It was louder, less ergonomic, suffered from reliability issues, and didn’t bring enough new to the table to justify the investment.
In a world where budgets are tight and soldiers’ lives are on the line, the SCAR’s flaws were too many and its advantages too few.
A Better Option on the Horizon?
There’s also a new rifle on the block: the SIG Spear, chambered in 6.8x51mm (aka .277 Fury). It’s lighter, hits harder at range, and has better ballistics than the 5.56 or 7.62 platforms. It won the military’s Next Generation Squad Weapon contract, which may explain why the SCAR quietly faded into the background. If you’re spending big money, you want future-proof tech, and the SIG Spear looks like the future.
Great Rifle, Wrong Time
The SCAR is a solid rifle in the civilian world. It’s fun to shoot, looks amazing, and has unique features. But for the battlefield, it just didn’t make the cut. It’s a classic case of a weapon that was ahead of its time in theory but not in execution. Maybe with more tweaks it could’ve stuck around – but by the time those fixes arrived, the military had already moved on.
Sometimes, even a great rifle just isn’t the right fit. The SCAR wasn’t a failure – it just wasn’t what the military needed when it mattered most.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.