ok guys im pretty sure this has been discussed already..but i need info on scar h

C

chadstrickland

New member
All technical information would be appreciated..and I have already did alot os research on the subject myself but..is there anybody on here that owns one and could give me direct feedback on how good of a rifle it really is..I know it has been getting alot of hype...but idk...I have also read alot of mixed things about it...is it really worth the price or what??
 
SOCOM already said it didn't do anything better than the M4. They kept buying the H because there isn't any other new .308 combat rifle.

Fire a SCAR, a bullet is launched out the barrel. The pro's who are being shot at don't see anything that makes it stand head and shoulders better. It's not 2 and 1/2 times more accurate for the money. It's not 2 and 1/2 times lighter, or smaller, and the bullets don't go 2 and 1/2 times faster, or carry 2 and a 1/2 times more power.

As far as a combat bullet launcher goes, all it does is look 2 and a 1/2 times more cool because nobody else has one. We can't justify that in terms of money, and it's already been said it's NOT justified tactically, by experts in how to use one in the field, overseas, in operations neither government will admit ever happened.

It was much easier to decide to buy an HK91 in the '70s, they were cheap compared to Remington 700's, and definitely 2 and 1/2 times more cool. Today, not so much. Compare it to the possibility of buying two different AR15's and another upper in a third caliber.

Which is a better deal for the money? One SCAR, or, a 5.56 M4gery, a 6.5Grendel long range shooter, and a 16" 6.8SPC upper to pop on either?

Which is the better deal there? Same money.

There will be someone along shortly to say the SCAR is the only smart choice. That will be interesting to read the justification. In reality, 2 and 1/2 guns are better than one. Don't let them kid you.
 
They are consistent 1/2 MOA guns. The SCAR-H is lighter and has much more agreeable ergonomics than most comparable systems. The stock adjusts for cheek weld, length of pull and folds. Its more reliable and durable than an AR. Whether or not that's worth 3k is up to you.

As far as a combat bullet launcher goes, all it does is look 2 and a 1/2 times more cool because nobody else has on
Click to expand...
No offense but you obviously haven't used the 16 or 17, unless your AR does all of the above. I don't own a SCAR in my personal collection at home but I'm still willing to admit its a better all around weapon than my AR-15.
 
That's the point, do we need stock adjustments, 1/2 MOA accuracy, and the high price, too?

Stock adjustments are for wearing armor, and shooting while moving upright in CQB warfare, which is largely urban. That's not Infantry field craft in the natural environment, where you chose to shoot prone, stationary, in a covered and concealed position, out away from the urban scene.

1/2 MOA is prairie dog accurate, 2MOA is still a half minute of soldier at 400m. The expense is unnecessary. An optic will increase the hit ratio more than adding the same expense to make it an more accurate shooter. And it will still need that same optic.

SOCOM already said No thanks. I don't need to shoot a SCAR to understand much more qualified combat veterans didn't see it did anything any better than the M4, and said so, on the record and in print. They didn't do that blasting dirt berms, they went to other countries and started a two way range session with opponents equally determined to shoot them back.

Right, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. No problem, it's not my credibility being questioned - it's questioning the official opinion of a highly trained combat force who have to live with their decisions.

Please note, I'm not saying the SCAR is a POS, I'm just pointing out - it's overpriced, and doesn't do anything better than the M4. For the money, you can certainly spend it on 2 and 1/2 more guns, is that a better value to you, yes or no?

For a recreational civilian shooter, what gives you more bang for the buck? SOCOM already said what works for them.
 
Right, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
Click to expand...
Saying that a SCAR is exactly the same as the AR is plainly factually untrue. At the risk of being juvenile, cry more.

No problem, it's not my credibility being questioned - it's questioning the official opinion of a highly trained combat force who have to live with their decisions.
Click to expand...
If you bothered to do any reading on the topic, even the Wiki article would suffice, you'd have found the 16 wasn't ditched - procurement was stopped for budget reasons. 17 procurement continues. Get a better handle on your facts. I think what is a better "bang for the buck" is up to the OP.
 
I appreciate your opinions even tho they are conflicting..and that is one of the reasons I was asking about it..very true u can get a 6.8 spc upper for your ar15 and I know those things have all the knock down u could want...but idk..I was just wondering if the folks at fn really had came up with the new assault rifle of the century...and im sure the scar probably is a little bit better than the ar15 but I dnt think that the advantages u get are worth triple the price ( well to a 19 year old with no military experience and wouldn't fully be able to use the 308 round that much more effectively than a 223 )...im sure some people who are sneaking around iraq right now might slap me and call me stupid :)...but I think my time would be better spent training more with the m4 and saving my money...but thanks guys..I value your opinions..all of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top