Not too impressed with the FN SCAR
- Thread starter Palmetto-Pride
- Start date
Now thats funny...it looks like a boot HA!
I have shot a SCAR and for the price I was not impressed, I could pick up 3 AR's for the price of one SCAR. I honestly cant think of any role that I really would call for this gun? I know my friend loves his and I'm happy for him but its not for me.
I have shot a SCAR and for the price I was not impressed, I could pick up 3 AR's for the price of one SCAR. I honestly cant think of any role that I really would call for this gun? I know my friend loves his and I'm happy for him but its not for me.
"I don't question the appeal of the UGG boot, I merely accept it" 
Very small quibble, but considering you would be able to better secure the rear of the gun between your shoulder & face for loading/clearing were the handle not so located, worthy of at least some consideration.
TCB
Well, so long as you don't have to cock it, I suppose. I always find it so entertaining when folks proclaim the ergonomic superiority of the AR while giving that last-minute-ad-hoc-addition charging handle a pass. Heck, the fact you have to move your head to cycle the bolt is one of the chief complaints on the otherwise-flawless K31 bolt rifle, and I can't think of any other modern design that forces you to move your head in order to reload or work the action --at least the forward assist isn't at the rear of the tube, so you could theoretically push closed a troublesome round without totally breaking your hold (with your shooting hand, however, not the one you just loaded & cycled the weapon with to preserve your precious hold with your cheek off the stock)
Very small quibble, but considering you would be able to better secure the rear of the gun between your shoulder & face for loading/clearing were the handle not so located, worthy of at least some consideration.
TCB
I learned the hard way about the reciprocating charging handle. Me and a buddy were out shooting our 308s, mine being a PTR91. Without thinking I put my hand in a bad place and darn near broke my thumb shooting that SCAR. He loves his but for me they are just way too expensive. I have rifles with two tax stamps and suppressors and the entire setup cost less than that thing! Plus they are very heavy.
Justice06RR
New member
It seems many here do not understand why the SCAR is what it is, and why its expensive.
Why is a Ferrari or Mercedes more expensive than a Toyota or Honda? Are they overpriced pieces of crap that offers nothing more than the average car?
Do you guys also think that a $1000 optic like a Trijicon is overpriced compared to a basic $200 optic from Bushnell?
Clearly there is a misunderstanding here. Not everyone likes the SCAR, but there's a reason that elite forces such as the SF use them.
Plastic lowers? Do you know some cars are made with plastic parts? Your front bumper is made from plastic(polyurethane to be exact). There is a very good reason for these and they are engineered that way to be lightweight and durable, as metal can rust and weighs more.
Just thought some posters need to understand before posting. Such a small issue like a reciprocating charging handle is a non-issue; millions of soldiers around the world use AK rifles just fine.
You mad bro?
For the record Ferrari panels are made from carbon fiber while Corvette are a plastic/fiberglass material. Notice the price and performance difference on those cars? Not trying to start crap just saying. You can gold flake a Toyota and say it is worth a million and it might be that value in gold but the actual car itself is still a Toyota. FN does charge a lot for their firearms. I have an SBR PS90 so I am in full right to say that it is a great firearm but it probably is overpriced by about $200.
Also calling something a non-issue can be very dangerous. In your opinion it is a non-issue but to many it might make a huge difference. For myself I prefer non-reciprocating charging handles and avoid firearms without them in general. So yes, for me that is an issue of personal preference. The allusion that it works for millions of soldiers around the world is a fallacy because those troops don't get to choose what they are issued.
Justice, I have to correct you.
You say It seems many here do not understand why the SCAR is what it is, and why it’s expensive.
Why is a Ferrari or Mercedes more expensive than a Toyota or Honda? Are they overpriced pieces of crap that offers nothing more than the average car?
Well I was the CEO of a multi-million dollar manufacturing company for some time. I oversaw the production of precision products and I also made machinery from scratch to make the products. I am very well educated in production of precision parts and what is involved in their production.
I have looked over the SCAR rifles in both 223 and 308. Neither one has the same amount of machining as a standard rack-grade AR15. In fact they have far less.
A Ferrari costs more than a Honda because of how it’s made. In that you are correct. A SCAR costs more than an AR because FN guessed correctly that some people will tell everyone how beautiful the Emperors new cloths are, but the Emperor is actually naked.
When we look at the way the SCAR works it is a piston gun. So is an SK and so is an FAL. Both of which are less costly than a SCAR. We look at the bolt and carrier of a SCAR and they are a bit simpler than an ARs bolt and carrier. The barrels are comparable.
New let’s look at the production in materials, forging, machining and heat treatment of 7075 T6 Aluminum in an AR and compare it to the amount of costs in injection molding and materials in the receiver of a SCAR receiver. As a machinist I’d say it’s close. But when we look at the lower parts, both the lower receiver itself and the parts within it, the AR is FAR more costly to make. We look at the molding of the stock on the SCAR and compare it to even the higher grades of AR stocks and we see a far higher degree of sophistication in the production of stocks for ARs than the SCAR. The SCAR is not even close.
This is not to say the SCAR is not a good rifle. I am not saying that.
What I am saying is they are WAY over priced and they are betting that some people will think because it’s not common it’s worth more than common rifles and therefore will pay 2-3 times more than it’s worth, and FN and their distributors are 100% correct in knowing that some people will pay their asking price. But as people see and use them over a few years many will come to their senses and figure out they got ripped off
You say It seems many here do not understand why the SCAR is what it is, and why it’s expensive.
Why is a Ferrari or Mercedes more expensive than a Toyota or Honda? Are they overpriced pieces of crap that offers nothing more than the average car?
Well I was the CEO of a multi-million dollar manufacturing company for some time. I oversaw the production of precision products and I also made machinery from scratch to make the products. I am very well educated in production of precision parts and what is involved in their production.
I have looked over the SCAR rifles in both 223 and 308. Neither one has the same amount of machining as a standard rack-grade AR15. In fact they have far less.
A Ferrari costs more than a Honda because of how it’s made. In that you are correct. A SCAR costs more than an AR because FN guessed correctly that some people will tell everyone how beautiful the Emperors new cloths are, but the Emperor is actually naked.
When we look at the way the SCAR works it is a piston gun. So is an SK and so is an FAL. Both of which are less costly than a SCAR. We look at the bolt and carrier of a SCAR and they are a bit simpler than an ARs bolt and carrier. The barrels are comparable.
New let’s look at the production in materials, forging, machining and heat treatment of 7075 T6 Aluminum in an AR and compare it to the amount of costs in injection molding and materials in the receiver of a SCAR receiver. As a machinist I’d say it’s close. But when we look at the lower parts, both the lower receiver itself and the parts within it, the AR is FAR more costly to make. We look at the molding of the stock on the SCAR and compare it to even the higher grades of AR stocks and we see a far higher degree of sophistication in the production of stocks for ARs than the SCAR. The SCAR is not even close.
This is not to say the SCAR is not a good rifle. I am not saying that.
What I am saying is they are WAY over priced and they are betting that some people will think because it’s not common it’s worth more than common rifles and therefore will pay 2-3 times more than it’s worth, and FN and their distributors are 100% correct in knowing that some people will pay their asking price. But as people see and use them over a few years many will come to their senses and figure out they got ripped off
stubbicatt
New member
Meh. It's a "people gun." I'm sure they are useful in combat, or in 3 gun or such games, or for ripping through a magazine of ammunition at the range for fun, but I really don't have any use for one. None of them really impresses me, all aluminum and plastic with rough edges and cheese graters all over them, and the younger crowd who take "selfies" all the time call them "platforms." (oh! excuse me! "polymer"... plastic was in toys made in Japan in the 60s and 70's).
That people will pay as much as they do for these things never ceases to amaze me. To each his own. The profit margin must be huge, as the actual costs of production of such CAD cut rough parts must be close to nil.
That people will pay as much as they do for these things never ceases to amaze me. To each his own. The profit margin must be huge, as the actual costs of production of such CAD cut rough parts must be close to nil.
If machining time is the cost driver rather than quality, why are there not SCAR knock-offs undercutting the AR market? It's because machining isn't the most expensive of manufacturing techniques anymore (in fact, the aluminum machining associated with ARs is among the cheapest these days)
'Naked' is a bit of exaggeration, would you not say? So, your argument against the SCAR is that it costs less to produce than the AR (which is actually a very good thing let's be honest) but is only sold for more than it's worth because FN are idiots that hate market share despite the gun being developed for mass-issue contracts?
Remington's piston AR is expensive, Bushmaster's is expensive, Magpul's is expensive, Ruger's is expensive, SIG's are expensive, HK's are (very) expensive, FN's are expensive, B&T's are expensive, the conversion kits are expensive... seeing a pattern? Were the concept truly cheap to pull off, why is some clever firm not undercutting all these guys and stealing their business? Because we all know the price is a huge barrier to entry for folks who would otherwise partake.
Going cheap on a piston design gets you the G36, by the way (an excellent design deeply wounded by cost cutting)
It's almost as if the cost to produce & market an autoloading rifle that isn't leveraging the public-domain AR elements in their entirety costs a bit over $1500 any more. Or maybe it's a selection-bias thing, and only higher-end companies with more operating capital for R&D bother developing these projects
There was a time when Mauser bolt actions cost a lot more than rolling block patterns which had served valiantly for fifty-plus years...
TCB
Tucker 1371
New member
"Because SF uses it" is a terrible argument. The Stoner 63A was only ever used by SF and didn't survive the test of time for a reason. It was unreliable and maintenance intensive.
I, personally, am looking forward to the CZ 805 Bren. Looks to me like a SCAR-killer at its projected price point.
I, personally, am looking forward to the CZ 805 Bren. Looks to me like a SCAR-killer at its projected price point.
