The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 2, 2011, 04:13 AM   #1
Departed402
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2009
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 858
Anyone have any hands-on with a SCAR yet?

I didn't find much on a search, so I thought I would just ask. Has anyone had any hands-on experience with an FN SCAR? It can be either the 16 (light version/5.56) or 17 (heavy version/.308). If you have what did you think of it?
__________________
Slow is Smooth. Smooth is Fast.
Departed402 is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 07:59 AM   #2
chewie146
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 853
A buddy of mine just got one. He got the 17 with the mid-length barrel. It's neat, but I don't think it's special enough to justify the price. It took a little getting used to for me.
chewie146 is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 08:16 AM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Got to play with the Mk16. It is an impressive rifle that has a great deal going for it. Not real crazy about the reciprocating charging handle in that location or the tiny short forearm; but a great rifle. If it were a little closer to the AR in price and I had less time/familiarity with the AR, I might even pick one up over an AR.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 08:20 AM   #4
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,806
Interesting rifles, I like them and how they shoot but I don't have the urge to own either one of them.
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 07:07 PM   #5
USMCGrunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2000
Location: Somewhere in 13T EG
Posts: 619
I qualified with a SCAR-L last year (good to be a CATM instructor in an AFSCOC unit sometimes ) and while I liked some of the bells and whistles like the adjustable and foldable stock, adjustable cheek rest and light weight, I really didn't see it do much of anything my issue M4 wouldn't do. I scored a 47 out of a possible 50 so that's on par with my M4 scores (with an A2 I generally get a 48-49 so I got to give a plug for my old long guns here ) so in the accuracy department, I didn't see any real improvements here. I guess the gas piston design does keep the internals cleaner but then again, I've never had a weapon of the M-16 family give me any trouble either...then again I am particular about keeping them clean too so that may have something to do with it. In any case, I guess I have to say they are no more or less reliable than the M-16/M4 family so again, I really don't see the improvements here either. I guess it's not a bad weapon and does have some nice features. Weather it has enough nice features to justify the price tag is up to you but if it was me spending my money, I would have to say, no it doesn't bring enough to the table over the issue M4 to justify the price tag. I guess SOCOM also agrees with me since they have no plans to purchase any additional SCAR-L models. Now the SCAR-H with it's .30 caliber round is another kettle of fish and one that may be worth taking a look at one of these days!
USMCGrunt is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 08:53 PM   #6
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
I owned a SCAR-16 for a short period of time. I decided I preferred my AR15 since it was familiar, and I did not have to deal with the reciprocating charging handle. I liked the folding stock though.

If you're going to get a SCAR, get a 17. Whereas there are many lightweight, reliable, and accurate 5.56 launchers out there, the same cannot be said for 7.62 guns.
__________________
E Pluribus Unum
KChen986 is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 09:35 PM   #7
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
I got to shoot them for work... I prefer the AR. The SCAR does nothing the AR can't do... besides cost 2-3x as much.

Instead of folding the stock.. I would much rather spend the extra $200 and short barrel rifle an AR than spend an extra $1000+ for a folding stock. I don't see much of a use for hip firing a carbine in my life style here in the States.

Same goes for the ACR
the XCR...

The 17S makes more sense.. but even still I'd probably save money and just build an AR-10.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 08:46 AM   #8
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
I guess I have to say they are no more or less reliable than the M-16/M4 family so again, I really don't see the improvements here either.
From what I've read, the big edge of the SCAR seems to be service life and not so much reliability. If you take a brand new M4 and a brand new SCAR and run them side by side; both are extremely reliable. However, the M4 seems to wear out faster and require parts replacement more often in order to continue at a high level of reliability.

Not a huge issue if you are an individual, especially if you shoot like the typical gun owner. You'd probably be long dead before you paid more in maintenance costs than the initial price difference between an AR and SCAR. However, if you had to maintain a lot of rifles (like an LE agency or military) and could get that initial cost difference to be less of a gap, then I think the SCAR starts to make more sense.

Of course the big "if" in that equation is that even though the SCAR is the most extensively tested firearm ever adopted by the Army, that still doesn't start to equal the knowledge base and testing of the M16 family over the past 50+ years.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 08:51 AM   #9
riggins_83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2009
Location: Wherever I may roam
Posts: 1,481
I've fired both the 308 and 223 versions... while they're good shooting rifles there's nothing about it I find terribly incredible. Personally.. I still choose the AR.
__________________
l've heard police work is dangerous. Yes, that's why l carry a big gun. Couldn't it go off accidentally? l used to have that problem. What did you do about it?
l just think about baseball. -Leslie Nielsen
riggins_83 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 12:34 PM   #10
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
Quote:
From what I've read, the big edge of the SCAR seems to be service life and not so much reliability. If you take a brand new M4 and a brand new SCAR and run them side by side; both are extremely reliable. However, the M4 seems to wear out faster and require parts replacement more often in order to continue at a high level of reliability.
Not calling you a liar Bart but that seems like pure propaganda. I will be the first to say the AR is no where near perfect, but I just don't see the point of going to the SCAR over it... and I think SOCOM felt the same way.

As far as us civies... I have nothing against the rifle... but I prefer my AR... and for the type of choice the SCAR's cost... I personally would be looking for something different.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 12:47 PM   #11
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 1,967
I have an XCR, and I find the controls on it perfect (everything is where it should be, it works the way it should, its very intuitive ).

I have a AR and like the accuracy (specially selected model for that) but the controls are about as poorly done as you could do. People have got used to them, but ergonomically they are terrible.

I handle the SCAR, like it balance and feel, but they went with the reciprocating charging handle (XCR does not) and the rest is AR controls. They picked the worst of both worlds.

My take is if you are going to do it, do it right like the XCR did.

Quote:
I got to shoot them for work... I prefer the AR. The SCAR does nothing the AR can't do... besides cost 2-3x as much.

Instead of folding the stock.. I would much rather spend the extra $200 and short barrel rifle an AR than spend an extra $1000+ for a folding stock. I don't see much of a use for hip firing a carbine in my life style here in the States.

Same goes for the ACR
the XCR...

The 17S makes more sense.. but even still I'd probably save money and just build an AR-10.
__________________
RC20 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 01:48 PM   #12
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,936
RC, is the XCR made by Head Down Products?
LockedBreech is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 02:05 PM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by HkFan9
Not calling you a liar Bart but that seems like pure propaganda.
Its my interpretation of what I've read. My bet is that on a long-term fleet-wide basis (i.e. many rifles, not one or two SCARs in your closet vs. one or two ARs), the SCAR demonstrates a significant edge in service life and less maintenance costs.

Quote:
I will be the first to say the AR is no where near perfect, but I just don't see the point of going to the SCAR over it... and I think SOCOM felt the same way.
I wouldn't go with a SCAR either for my personal use, especially at the current price. I like the AR ergonomics, particularly the charging handle and longer forearm, and I know how to work on an AR.

I wouldn't place too much importance on SOCOM's decision though. They basically decided that they would rather have free M4s from big Army rather than pay out of their own pocket for the SCAR. I don't think anybody here would turn down that deal. Interestingly enough, they did continue to pay out of their own pocket for the Mk17 version, which makes perfect sense since the Mk17 offers some capabilities that are more difficult to find in a 7.62x51 semi-auto. Not to mention that if the rumored 5.56 conversion kit is true, you've got a remarkably modular rifle that makes the Mk16 more or less obsolete.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 04:19 PM   #14
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
Oh I agree with them taking the deal definately... I was just referring to the fact that they kind of shunned it based on my same reasons... cost... just on a much larger scale.

The 17 is intriguing however. I was just throwing around the idea of building up an AR-10 myself to punch some paper and look cool while doing it.

I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with the SCAR.... not any more so than what is wrong with a plain old AR. I just can't justify the cost, not to mention the AR still has the corner stone on accessories and parts.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 09:54 PM   #15
oneshot onekill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2010
Posts: 166
I bought a SCAR 17 a few months ago. It shot Sub-MOA and functioned flawlessly. But once I got past the very sexy look and tacticool factor I decided it was WAAYYY over-priced for what it was. It's a very simple design which is probably much of the attraction for military purposes. The bolt carrier is basically a big block of steel with an AR bolt in it. The lower receiver is plastic, the stock is plastic and most of the rest of the rifle is stamped sheet metal. I sold it soon after I got it and spent the money on a custom bolt gun and a Sig Scorpion .45. I'm much happier!
oneshot onekill is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 11:07 PM   #16
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,607
Quote:
I have a AR and like the accuracy (specially selected model for that) but the controls are about as poorly done as you could do. People have got used to them, but ergonomically they are terrible.
That's one of the silliest things I've read all day.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 08:10 AM   #17
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
The lower receiver is plastic, the stock is plastic and most of the rest of the rifle is stamped sheet metal.
I've only handled the Mk16 version; but the lower receiver on it is aluminium. I'm surprised to hear the Mk17 has a plastic receiver. Are you sure about that?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 12:45 PM   #18
oneshot onekill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2010
Posts: 166
Absolutely... The lower is definitely Plastic. I thought they all had plastic lowers.
oneshot onekill is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 01:01 PM   #19
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Hmm, maybe I am the one who is confused then? Guess I'll have to get my hands on that same SCAR and see if I am putting out bad info. Looking at images on the Internet, they sure look plastic but I have actually used one and I could have sworn it was aluminum.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 01:18 PM   #20
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
It is plastic... but it feels different than most plastic you see in the AR world... if that makes sense.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old November 5, 2011, 09:51 PM   #21
Departed402
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2009
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 858
Thanks for the input. I'm actually interested in the 17s, but I figured I would ask for any information on the 16 also since they would funtion the same. I'm looking into different battle rifle platforms. I've knocked it down the either the AR-10/SR-25, M1A/M14, or the SCAR 17S. Obviously the SCAR is the most expensive, ARs are good, and I would have to pour a ton of cash in an M1A to get it how I would want it. I still have some saving to do either way.
__________________
Slow is Smooth. Smooth is Fast.
Departed402 is offline  
Old November 6, 2011, 07:37 AM   #22
oneshot onekill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2010
Posts: 166
In hind-sight, after owning a SCAR 17s, I wish I had gone with a POF. I might have been more inclined to keep it. Although... Maybe not. I'm more of a bolt-gun guy and semi-autos eat ammo too fast in my hands and generally are not as accurate. Good luck with what ever you end up with but my vote would be for something in an AR Platform. The DI ones are less expensive and there's TONS of aftermarket stuff out there. They can also be made very accurate without breaking the bank.
oneshot onekill is offline  
Old November 6, 2011, 07:46 AM   #23
plouffedaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2011
Location: Carolina
Posts: 3,220
I've shot both the 16 and the 17 at work and in 223 the gun just doesn't justify the price IMO. The 17 is where the gun shines. It's extremely accurate for a non-bolt gun and you can easily ring 8-10'' steel plates at 400+ meters. It also handles recoil very well so follow-up shots are quick. That said, I'm not sure it's much of an improvement over the SOCOM II rifle and that's a good bit cheaper....
plouffedaddy is offline  
Old November 11, 2011, 09:15 AM   #24
sirgilligan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2009
Posts: 349
joneeman,

Quote:
I didn't find much on a search, so I thought I would just ask. Has anyone had any hands-on experience with an FN SCAR? It can be either the 16 (light version/5.56) or 17 (heavy version/.308). If you have what did you think of it?
I own the SCAR 16s and have hands on experience.



The SCAR 16:
- It is tight. No rattles or movement between upper and lower.
- It is accurate.
- It doesn't kick. Muzzle Brake is extremely effective.
- It is easy to clean. Only tool needed is a cleaning rod to push the piston out of the cylinder.
- It stays clean in the receiver.
- The bolt carrier group is robust.
- It is well balanced.
- It is not heavy.

There are many reviews out there. Here is one:

http://www.gunblast.com/FN-SCAR.htm

In the reviewers opinion:
Quote:
You never regret buying the best.
__________________
SirGilligan
If there isn't a photo then it never happened.
Gun Log SPC iOS Range Book
If you find your back is up against a wall, maybe you have been backing up for too long.
sirgilligan is offline  
Old November 11, 2011, 04:19 PM   #25
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
Quality AR's don't have receiver wobble, even if they do a 10 cent o-ring in the right spot solves that.

Accuracy is on par with an AR (seeing as it is just an AR with a monolithic gas pistol upper)

The same muzzle brake can be bought and installed on any AR or rifle alike.

I don't need any tools to strip down and clean an AR.. and the parts washer in the gun smith shop at works makes it even easier.

People say gas pistons are cleaner in the receiver but it isn't exactly true. If you want more of an explanation look up the interview with Noveske on why they didn't want to waste time building a gas piston upper. You can also look up SWAT mag's article on BCM's Filthy 14 rifle to see that DI isn't as scary as some may think.

The BCG is robust which means more recoiling mass.. which in turn makes for more felt recoil.

As for well balanced and heavy... I would personally say shares those attributes with the AR.

Best is a subjective term... when laying the hands side by side... a quality built AR will do everything a SCAR does, and a SCAR does nothing better... and I only spent less than half the price tag of the SCAR... which left me with more money for magazines, optic, and most importantly ammo.

I have no problem with the SCAR, I just feel that some over glorify it, when really its another AR copy, with a gas piston and monolithic upper, plastic lower and plastic folding stock. Also the SCAR comes with a thinner barrel, but I will say not everyone needs a grenade launcher mount.

The SCAR will always be in the shadow of the AR just based on accessories and versatility alone. A lot more calibers and configurations that you can practically change out in the matter of seconds will always make it( the AR) the more popular platform.

Last edited by HKFan9; November 11, 2011 at 05:24 PM.
HKFan9 is offline  
Reply

Tags
16s , 17s , fnh , scar

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13440 seconds with 7 queries