Anyone have any hands-on with a SCAR yet?

D

Departed402

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Interesting rifles, I like them and how they shoot but I don't have the urge to own either one of them.
 
I qualified with a SCAR-L last year (good to be a CATM instructor in an AFSCOC unit sometimes:D ) 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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
__________________
Click to expand...
 
HkFan9 said:
Not calling you a liar Bart but that seems like pure propaganda.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.:rolleyes:

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.:cool:

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.
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's one of the silliest things I've read all day.
 
The lower receiver is plastic, the stock is plastic and most of the rest of the rifle is stamped sheet metal.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
It is plastic... but it feels different than most plastic you see in the AR world... if that makes sense.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top