SCAR-H Controllability?

oldbillthundercheif · March 8, 2007, 07:29 PM

I saw a brief overview of this new 7.62 rifle on "American Rifleman TV" and was a bit underwhelmed. Here's the problem I spotted:

1. It weighs 7.1lbs. I'm sure this is great if you have to carry it around all day, but it leads to problem #2.

2. When slow-motion footage of automatic fire was shown, it was quite obvious that the second round of the burst was fired at such an extreme upward angle that unless the target was within 5 yards, it would be well over his head. The third shot of the burst seemed to be primarily useful for unintentionally shooting at aircraft high in the sky.

If the full-auto M14 was almost totally useless due to this problem, how the hell can FN think the problem will go away with a similar rifle that only weighs 2/3 as much as a M14?

I know most of the folks using this rifle will be highly-trained spooky fellows, and I'm sure it is a fine semi-auto piece of gear, but...

Is the full-auto option really a good idea for this light little plastic wonder?

shaggy · March 9, 2007, 08:06 AM

With a good brake, perhaps. The BM59 is quite controllable in full auto compared to other 308 battle rifles. I've also seen a very effective brakes on a G3 (IIRC it was a Vito Cellini) which significantly tamed the recoil in full auto.

p99guy · March 9, 2007, 08:48 AM

FN is building the SCAR H and SCAR L to meet a military specification...it has little to do FN...they do the best they can to build what a panel of military men have set forth in a thick set of specification. If you have to ask "how the hell can FN think the problem will go away with a similar rifle that only weighs 2/3 as much as a M14?" you need only look as far as SOCOM(and other letters of the alphabet that came up with the preceived need)

FN can only build the best weapon they can, and stay withen the weight limits.(and all other limits set forth)

That new Kel-Tec .308 Bullpup is a teeth loosener even on semi auto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Xqa2vwq60

Though Full AUTO is called for on the Heavy SCAR...it is mainly for off a Bi-pod or emergency use...it is not how it is to be employed most of the time (full auto FAL's unless carried by self/half trained fools in africa are not shot much in full auto either)...great for hunting enraged elephants in telephone booths however

oldbillthundercheif · March 10, 2007, 12:30 AM

Great... now I need a Kel-Tec RFB. I'm a glutton for punishment and that thing looks profoundly entertaining.

Is FN going to sell semi-only SCARs at some point?

p99guy · March 10, 2007, 12:59 AM

Thats the word Bill...but it will be around mid 2008 before we start seeing a civy one for sale...they go to the military first understandably.

FN historically is the company that knew in the 1950's that the T65 cartridge wasnt going to be useable to a great degree on full auto in a rifle...and didnt really want to make the FAL in 7.62x51 NATO...as they had been making it in
several true 7mm and .280 intermediate rounds that was controllable in full auto.( think todays 6.8 SPC) The U.S. Army ordnance folks forced the T65 on NATO ...and went so far as to renig on the deal (you adopt out T65 cartridge and we will adopt your rifle, the FAL) We screwed everybody with a cartridge they didnt want , and went ahead and adopted the M14.....then less than 10 years down the road we adopted the 5.56 after our NATO allies were up to their teeth in 7.62x51 FALs and G3's, and BM59's

FN was there for it all. The FAL was sold to over 90 countries, and was only full auto if the customer wanted full auto...the british used them in semi auto only, so did canada and the Austrailians...they toyed with heavy barreled squad auto models, but the normal one was a semi auto..because they also knew full auto 7.62 NATO was fruitless in a 8.5 pound rifle. Had we went the way NATO would have liked, we would have had
infantry rifles that was usable in full auto, and would have ate AK's for lunch in close in firefights and longer range battles as well(500 meter)...and likely would have never seen .223 Remington except as companion to the .222 remington in bolt action varmet rifles. Instead the stodgy old goats in Ordnance demanded a 1000 yard cartridge in a full auto rifle.....which this is the same ordnance dept that said trap door single shot springfields were fine, and ignored all the reports of Indians with rapid fire spencers and Henrys giving far better than they got. (if we give our boys repeaters..they will waste ammunition) It was ordnance shinanigans, rigging of tests, and lying to congress that got Springfield Armory shut down by the way.
a sorted tale it is....

SR420 · March 10, 2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

If the full-auto M14 was almost totally useless

That issue has been addressed – video

I'm sure the H could be made controllable in full auto.

oldbillthundercheif · March 10, 2007, 02:14 PM

Alright... I'll play along.

The fellow in that video seemed to be getting much better results with that select-fire M14 than the guy on the TV show was getting with the SCAR-H. If the M14 was actually quite controllable in full-auto, what kept the military from using it in that configuration?

All you ever hear about the M14 in full auto is that it was an anti-aircraft weapon disguised as a battle-rifle. I'm sure you have heard this repeated as many times as I have.

If it's not a training issue, the only thing I can think of is the rapidity with which the M14 must have heated up when fired FA. My M14 copy gets hot enough to incinerate CLP after one or two magazines of rapid fire. I can only imagine how hot they must get after 60 or 80 rounds fired more-or-less continuously...

It seems like the stock would start smouldering at some point.

wjkuleck · March 13, 2007, 05:00 PM

I had the chance to run a few magazines through an M14A1 (pistol grip stock, bipod, recoil check). No problems with heating.

Best regards,

Walt

March 8, 2007, 07:29 PM	#1
oldbillthundercheif Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 2,450	SCAR-H Controllability? I saw a brief overview of this new 7.62 rifle on "American Rifleman TV" and was a bit underwhelmed. Here's the problem I spotted: 1. It weighs 7.1lbs. I'm sure this is great if you have to carry it around all day, but it leads to problem #2. 2. When slow-motion footage of automatic fire was shown, it was quite obvious that the second round of the burst was fired at such an extreme upward angle that unless the target was within 5 yards, it would be well over his head. The third shot of the burst seemed to be primarily useful for unintentionally shooting at aircraft high in the sky. If the full-auto M14 was almost totally useless due to this problem, how the hell can FN think the problem will go away with a similar rifle that only weighs 2/3 as much as a M14? I know most of the folks using this rifle will be highly-trained spooky fellows, and I'm sure it is a fine semi-auto piece of gear, but... Is the full-auto option really a good idea for this light little plastic wonder?

March 9, 2007, 08:48 AM	#3
p99guy Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area) Posts: 1,506	FN is building the SCAR H and SCAR L to meet a military specification...it has little to do FN...they do the best they can to build what a panel of military men have set forth in a thick set of specification. If you have to ask "how the hell can FN think the problem will go away with a similar rifle that only weighs 2/3 as much as a M14?" you need only look as far as SOCOM(and other letters of the alphabet that came up with the preceived need) FN can only build the best weapon they can, and stay withen the weight limits.(and all other limits set forth) That new Kel-Tec .308 Bullpup is a teeth loosener even on semi auto. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Xqa2vwq60 Though Full AUTO is called for on the Heavy SCAR...it is mainly for off a Bi-pod or emergency use...it is not how it is to be employed most of the time (full auto FAL's unless carried by self/half trained fools in africa are not shot much in full auto either)...great for hunting enraged elephants in telephone booths however __________________ Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes" Last edited by p99guy; March 9, 2007 at 09:49 AM.

March 10, 2007, 12:59 AM	#5
p99guy Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area) Posts: 1,506	Thats the word Bill...but it will be around mid 2008 before we start seeing a civy one for sale...they go to the military first understandably. FN historically is the company that knew in the 1950's that the T65 cartridge wasnt going to be useable to a great degree on full auto in a rifle...and didnt really want to make the FAL in 7.62x51 NATO...as they had been making it in several true 7mm and .280 intermediate rounds that was controllable in full auto.( think todays 6.8 SPC) The U.S. Army ordnance folks forced the T65 on NATO ...and went so far as to renig on the deal (you adopt out T65 cartridge and we will adopt your rifle, the FAL) We screwed everybody with a cartridge they didnt want , and went ahead and adopted the M14.....then less than 10 years down the road we adopted the 5.56 after our NATO allies were up to their teeth in 7.62x51 FALs and G3's, and BM59's FN was there for it all. The FAL was sold to over 90 countries, and was only full auto if the customer wanted full auto...the british used them in semi auto only, so did canada and the Austrailians...they toyed with heavy barreled squad auto models, but the normal one was a semi auto..because they also knew full auto 7.62 NATO was fruitless in a 8.5 pound rifle. Had we went the way NATO would have liked, we would have had infantry rifles that was usable in full auto, and would have ate AK's for lunch in close in firefights and longer range battles as well(500 meter)...and likely would have never seen .223 Remington except as companion to the .222 remington in bolt action varmet rifles. Instead the stodgy old goats in Ordnance demanded a 1000 yard cartridge in a full auto rifle.....which this is the same ordnance dept that said trap door single shot springfields were fine, and ignored all the reports of Indians with rapid fire spencers and Henrys giving far better than they got. (if we give our boys repeaters..they will waste ammunition) It was ordnance shinanigans, rigging of tests, and lying to congress that got Springfield Armory shut down by the way. a sorted tale it is.... __________________ Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"

March 13, 2007, 05:00 PM	#8
wjkuleck Senior Member Join Date: March 13, 2007 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,220	I had the chance to run a few magazines through an M14A1 (pistol grip stock, bipod, recoil check). No problems with heating. Best regards, Walt __________________ Author, NEW! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide The M14 and M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guides The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide The AR-15 Complete Assembly and (New 4th Edition) Owner's Guides

March 9, 2007, 08:06 AM	#2
shaggy Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Posts: 1,519	With a good brake, perhaps. The BM59 is quite controllable in full auto compared to other 308 battle rifles. I've also seen a very effective brakes on a G3 (IIRC it was a Vito Cellini) which significantly tamed the recoil in full auto.

March 10, 2007, 12:30 AM	#4
oldbillthundercheif Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 2,450	Great... now I need a Kel-Tec RFB. I'm a glutton for punishment and that thing looks profoundly entertaining. Is FN going to sell semi-only SCARs at some point?

March 10, 2007, 02:14 PM	#7
oldbillthundercheif Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 2,450	Alright... I'll play along. The fellow in that video seemed to be getting much better results with that select-fire M14 than the guy on the TV show was getting with the SCAR-H. If the M14 was actually quite controllable in full-auto, what kept the military from using it in that configuration? All you ever hear about the M14 in full auto is that it was an anti-aircraft weapon disguised as a battle-rifle. I'm sure you have heard this repeated as many times as I have. If it's not a training issue, the only thing I can think of is the rapidity with which the M14 must have heated up when fired FA. My M14 copy gets hot enough to incinerate CLP after one or two magazines of rapid fire. I can only imagine how hot they must get after 60 or 80 rounds fired more-or-less continuously... It seems like the stock would start smouldering at some point.