In August 2009, the Rangers of C Company, 1st Ranger Battalion became the first U.S. soldiers to deploy as a unit with the FN-Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR. After months of training with the new rifle, which comes in 5.56mm and 7.62mm variants and three varieties of barrel length to choose from, the Rangers were ready to test the SCAR in combat. Whether or not the rifle became a permanent addition to the Ranger arsenal depended on how well it held up in the treacherous mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where the unit was deploying to disrupt some of the most well-equipped and active terrorist cells in the region.
The new rifle was a significant departure from the M4A1 SOPMOD previously issued to the unit. The M4 was a gas-operated system, whereas the SCAR was piston driven with a reciprocating charging handle. The SCAR came with an ambidextrous selector switch and foldable buttstock, and maybe most important, soldiers could swap out barrels of different lengths, depending on the mission.
To the uninitiated, this might not seem like a big deal, but the Rangers can go from landing on the ‘X’ and clearing a compound one night, to conducting long-range patrols to a distant target the next. In a place like eastern Afghanistan, the nature of fighting can be as varied as the landscape itself.
The ability to quickly tailor a rifle to meet individual mission requirements, as opposed to being stuck with a 14-inch standard barrel for every mission, was a welcome change for many of the Rangers in C Company. By the time the four-month deployment was over, the SCAR had earned their seal of approval.
With battles being fought on multiple continents in a variety of climes, is it time for the rest of the military to consider a multi-barrel, modular rifle platform like the SCAR? We have seen the Department of Defense spend billions on far more ambitious projects in recent years, like non-stop upgrades to the Abrams tank or the hotly debated F-35 fighter jet. The SCAR has already been combat-tested, and fielding it throughout the armed forces could have an immediate impact on the battlefield.
The SCAR’s cold hammer-forged, chrome-lined, free-floating barrels come in three different lengths, depending on your version: the 5.56mm Mk-16 offers 10, 14, or 18-inch barrels, and the 7.62mm Mk-17 accommodates a 13, 16, or 20-inch barrel. Each barrel has an adjustable gas regulator that ensures a constant rate of fire when using a sound suppressor. Barrels are also equipped with an integrated flash-hider, which allows a soldier to stay concealed while engaging the enemy.
When the Rangers of C Company were shooting on the range prior to their deployment to Afghanistan, the rifle consistently shot sub-minute of angle groups, which proved the barrel — and the weapon in general — were more accurate than the M4.
The process of switching out the SCAR’s barrel was performed at the operator level and took less than five minutes with the use of an included torque wrench, and did not require the expertise of an armorer, the Rangers found. Because C Company would be clearing buildings in Afghanistan, most Rangers chose the small or medium barrel. A few, concerned about the potential for long-range engagements in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, opted for the longest barrel. Some Rangers never stuck with just one barrel, but switched lengths, depending on the next mission. The SCAR offered the Rangers a level of flexibility that few were accustomed to having.
Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.
“Due to how complex our missions were, I think the ability to switch barrels was good to have available,” recalled Jay, a team leader in C Company, whose real name has been changed to protect his identity. Jay ultimately stuck with the short barrel for the entire deployment, because he and his men often found themselves in close-quarters combat. But, he said, it was nice to know that he had the long barrel as an option, too.
Jay raised an important point: Frontline soldiers and Marines, especially those in special operations units, generally want flexibility in all of their equipment. It’s not uncommon for many to spend hours of their free time perfecting how their kit is set up.
But when a grunt receives a modular rifle and three barrels to choose from, will he or she take advantage of that flexibility? As an individual assigned to a conventional unit, not necessarily. Warfighters tend to stick with what they are comfortable with and what they routinely train with. But the modular flexibility is still valuable from a macro perspective because rifle configurations could vary between the needs of the infantry, cavalry, and even armor units. The SCAR would give commanders the ability to tailor their unit’s rifle standard operating procedure (SOP) to the mission. That, in turn, would result in a more agile fighting force.
U.S. Army Rangers from B Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, fire M-4 Carbines, Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR), and Mk46 machine guns during a close-quarter marksmanship range in Fort Hunter Liggett, Calif., Jan. 25, 2014. (Spc. Steven Hitchcock/U.S. Army).
Despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of the SCAR — and its stellar performance in combat, according to C Company’s after-action reports — the majority of the rifle’s production was halted after that inaugural deployment; the Rangers have since returned to their modified M4s. (Currently, all SOCOM units still deploy with the 7.62 Mk-17 SCAR.) During C Company’s 2009 deployment, the platform, and specifically the multi-barrel system, suffered no significant durability issues as some feared. Its slowed production came down to cost, as all things in government do. Simply put, the Pentagon decided that giving all ground troops the flexibility to modify their weapons according to the particular nature of their missions was not worth the rifle system’s $2,500-per-unit price tag. (The Army’s most recent M4 contract with FN was for 77,000 rifles at a price of $120 million, roughly $1,558 per unit.)
“The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said, according to Military.com.
In retrospect, Jay agrees with SOCOM’s decision. “I don’t think it was worth outfitting an entire unit,” he said. “It wasn’t a necessity.”
Rifles, even on the high end, cost significantly less money than most items in the nation’s defense budget though. If there’s a chance to offer a soldier increased flexibility and accuracy at the cost of more money per rifle, the military should take it. Soldiers and Marines are used to working with less and making do with what they have, but for their sake as well as the nation’s, they shouldn’t have to settle for a second-best rifle. An infantryman’s rifle is not an area where we as a nation should be trying to tighten the budgetary belt.
“Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless,” the Marines say. Our military expects its combat troops to be the best in the world. We should hold our military’s battle rifles to the same standard.
The latest on Task & Purpose
- What you need to know about Biden’s IRR executive order
- Vet whose service dog died after violent arrest sues police
- Did Ukraine just assassinate a Russian submarine captain with his own Strava?
- Space Force NCO faces murder charges in shooting of two teens breaking into his Hyundai
- How the Air Force ran short of money for personnel