Who here has experience with a Scar L or H

[Dobe]

I'm in the market for a Scar, and had planned on getting a Scar 17, but can't find one anywhere. They are scarce. The only thing more scare are the magazines for a Scar 17.

I've shot the Scar 16, and like it, very controllable. I may pick up the 16 instead of the 17 now, and pick up a 17 later.

For those of you who have one or both, what do you think of the Scar?

 

[bufordtjustice]

I shot just a few rounds through a 16 a few weeks ago so it isn't like I am the expert on them. However, I liked it but not for the price they want. I am also interested in the 17 but will probably wait a couple of years to see how things shake out with them (parts, price, etc.).

 

[Jason_G]

If I were going to get one, it would be the H. There are lots of 5.56 rifles out there, and the L would be, at least to an extent, just another iteration of the same old same old, whereas the 7.62 x 51 battle rifle world really hasn't seen much of anything new in a while. Also, I just think 7.62 is a more capable and well rounded caliber for a utility rifle, if that will be its intended purpose. I don't know, but if you get either one, post up some pics and a range report!

Jason

 

[KChen986]

While the SCAR-16/L has a lot of incremental improvements over the AR15 (increased dwell time, increased carrier mass, quick change barrels, etc.) I don't think it's worth the premium over a regular plain jane AR15- 5.56 thrower.

The SCAR-17/H is where all the hoopla's at. Very lightweight 7.62 rifle with 1.5 MOA accuracy. Good ergonomics, good accuracy, modern platform, very reliable. IMHO, it's basically a very accurate modernized FN FAL.

 

[tirod]

It's no FAL, fortunately, it's FN's take on the AR 10. And those who would know, the British MoD, didn't buy them, they bought the L129A1, an AR10 variant.

SOCOM kept buying the 17 because they simply had access to them, and could use a .308 rifle. Note very carefully when they said they were no longer going to buy 16's, because the M4 came free with trained troops, and the SCAR 16 didn't do anything better.

Brass cased cartridge actions are about at the top of their mechanical development curve, and when you bolt the exact same enhancements to either the SCAR and M4, give them to the top line combat soldiers in the world, and can't see it's worth bothering, then don't expect anything more than cool factor buying a SCAR.

It's not going to be more accurate than an M4, the battle requirement is only 2MOA, and most battle rifles don't go much better than that. It uses the same magazine and ammo, and that's problematic, the mags aren't the best design in the world by a long shot, and 5.56 isn't the most powerful cartridge out there, even in the intermediate classs. SCAR's use the same red dot optics and scopes, dead even. The operator controls are mostly in the same place. It has a folding stock, it won't shoot accurately until it's deployed, and soldiers on foot keep them out and locked anyway.

The biggest amount of arguing is over the location of the piston, and that's a toss up, too. It's a process of trading off strengths, you can't have them all. Either gun would likely go two or three days shooting full combat loads before cleaning, and no soldier would do that. There's always a break to shotgun the action, oil it, and wipe it down.

For the money, a civilian shooter could buy two completely different AR's - a hunting 6.8SPC, and a suppressor ready M4gery in .300 Blackout, and have change left over.

It's like buying an antique Stanley plane, the really nice ones still don't do what a router with trim bit on a table can put out. Buy the SCAR to appreciate for what it IS, because as a tool, it's not better for what it DOES.

And shoot it enough, you discover only FN makes parts.