InRange TV - Mud Test: FNH SCAR 17S

[1911-A1]

So here's the thing, supposedly the AR, Tavor, and AK have all already gone through those controlled testing procedures you talk about sponsored by whatever their respective governments require. However once introduced to a real world uncontrollable variable such as chucking them into a little pond and rolling them around in a little dirt- only one came out functioning. MAC did the same test on his youtube video and the exact same thing happened, that's not by accident. I've found the same things true myself with rifles I've owned. Which is why I welcome some more real world testing of these newer weapon systems be it SCAR's, B&T's, maybe some new model AUG's, or HK 416's etc.

The thing about "real world testing" is that you need a shit ton of it to be even a little useful, otherwise it's just anecdotal reports that can't be really correlated with anything, this is even more difficult with the numerous companies that make these weapons, all to varying specs. This is my whole point: MAC's tests are by definition accidents. He doesn't know how that type of weapon performs, only that one pistol that he dunked in mud in his back yard. It's entertaining, but it's not meaningful. There's a fatal environmental variable out there in the world for each gun, and unless you're careful, you'll never know if you've included that element in your test or not.

[noonesshowmonkey]

These threads are hilarous. Four pages of people batting back and forth a topic regarding the AK's supposed supremacy as put forth by a dude who's username is a type of Russian ammo. He's clearly not biased, guys. Don't sweat it.

Everyone that I've talked to in the SOCOM community, and those that acquaintances of mine that also have, absolutely, positively love the SCAR-H/17. There are a few dissenters, but generally in the minority. One fellow suggested that all of USASOC just get SCAR-17s with 556 conversion kits and be done with it.

Back to your regularly schedule programming of AK apologism.

[jpmuscle]

So here's the thing, supposedly the AR, Tavor, and AK have all already gone through those controlled testing procedures you talk about sponsored by whatever their respective governments require. However once introduced to a real world uncontrollable variable such as chucking them into a little pond and rolling them around in a little dirt- only one came out functioning. MAC did the same test on his youtube video and the exact same thing happened, that's not by accident. I've found the same things true myself with rifles I've owned. Which is why I welcome some more real world testing of these newer weapon systems be it SCAR's, B&T's, maybe some new model AUG's, or HK 416's etc.

AKs suck. Just accept it already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RetroRevolver77]

These threads are hilarous. Four pages of people batting back and forth a topic regarding the AK's supposed supremacy as put forth by a dude who's username is a type of Russian ammo. He's clearly not biased, guys. Don't sweat it.

Everyone that I've talked to in the SOCOM community, and those that acquaintances of mine have, absolutely, positively love the SCAR-H/17. There are a few dissenters, but generally in the minority. One fellow suggested that all of USASOC just get SCAR-17s with 556 conversion kits and be done with it.

Back to your regularly schedule programming of AK apologism.

The SCAR still has some development to go through to be more durable but it still could be a decent weapon. I owned a couple of them, didn't care much for them because I saw those design flaws that should have never made it into the final production. I switched back to FN 50.63's for that particular need but might entertain going back to the SCAR if they address the rear trunnion mounting system and the stock hinge assembly. Aftermarket components don't change anything because the trunnion screws are still ran through the receiver into the trunnion brackets without any way to anchor them to the receiver other than using locktight. So in my estimation, it's a poor design. I'm not biased as far as AK's go, I just like them for what they are- simple robust weapons that work. However I still contend that the AR18 based weapon designs are the way forward but as long as they don't skip out on the durability aspects.


7n6

[Outlander Systems]

AKs are a joke.

[sig1473]

AKs are a joke.

After finally firing one Full-Auto thanks to my awesome trip to Battlefield Vegas, I completely agree. Don't get me wrong, I love my Arsenal SGL20 but I will be grabbing my Colt, LMT, KAC, Noveske.

[noonesshowmonkey]

The SCAR still has some development to go through to be more durable... if [FN] address[es] the rear trunnion mounting system and the stock hinge assembly. Aftermarket components don't change anything because the trunnion screws are still ran through the receiver into the trunnion brackets without any way to anchor them to the receiver other than using locktight...

I'd hesitate to refer to this as a design flaw in all but the most absolute sense that an engineer has. An ideal design certainly might be put together in another fashion, but I'd be looking for some raw data related to round count, firing schedule, etc. that described a legitimate flaw in the design within a reasonable duty cycle.

For example, stamped AK receivers have been shown to catastrophically crack and fail in the 100,000-150,000 round count (I think these numbers are correct, I'd have to check with the Battlefield Las Vegas thread again). AR-15s shear bolt lugs, but a BCG is a drop in fix. Where in a duty cycle do these kinds of failures that you foresee with the SCAR-17 occur, and is that round count an acceptable life cycle?

Personally, I haven't heard of such catastrophic failures happening with any regularity, but I don't hang out with guys that live with these rifles...

[RetroRevolver77]

I'd hesitate to refer to this as a design flaw in all but the most absolute sense that an engineer has. An ideal design certainly might be put together in another fashion, but I'd be looking for some raw data related to round count, firing schedule, etc. that described a legitimate flaw in the design within a reasonable duty cycle.

For example, stamped AK receivers have been shown to catastrophically crack and fail in the 100,000-150,000 round count (I think these numbers are correct, I'd have to check with the Battlefield Las Vegas thread again). AR-15s shear bolt lugs, but a BCG is a drop in fix. Where in a duty cycle do these kinds of failures that you foresee with the SCAR-17 occur, and is that round count an acceptable life cycle?

Personally, I haven't heard of such catastrophic failures happening with any regularity, but I don't hang out with guys that live with these rifles...

When the SCAR is dropped onto concrete by accident it can pretty much break that rear trunnion bracket area. Another is the stock hinge breaking just by someone falling onto it. Peruvian military tested their rifles by dropping their SCAR's from a height of about eight feet onto concrete and the rifles just broke apart. The SCAR is a good rifle except that the design of the rear trunnion bracket mounting system and the stock hinge needs to be overhauled.

If you follow the Battlefield thread, they said the AK's broke the front trunnion on the left side area where the bolt lug locks in something around 100K. They would weld up the trunnions, replace the barrel, springs, and then put them back on the line. AR's they pretty much were replacing bolts, re-staking gas keys, replacing gas tubes, barrels, springs several times over to get them to that number. They said the SCAR and AUG ran the best long term from what I remember. However just firing is part of it, durability in my estimation is something that is severely lacking in a lot of modern weapon designs.

[JoshNC]

When the SCAR is dropped onto concrete by accident it can pretty much break that rear trunnion bracket area. Another is the stock hinge breaking just by someone falling onto it. Peruvian military tested their rifles by dropping their SCAR's from a height of about eight feet onto concrete and the rifles just broke apart. The SCAR is a good rifle except that the design of the rear trunnion bracket mounting system and the stock hinge needs to be overhauled.

If you follow the Battlefield thread, they said the AK's broke the front trunnion on the left side area where the bolt lug locks in something around 100K. They would weld up the trunnions, replace the barrel, springs, and then put them back on the line. AR's they pretty much were replacing bolts, re-staking gas keys, replacing gas tubes, barrels, springs several times over to get them to that number. They said the SCAR and AUG ran the best long term from what I remember. However just firing is part of it, durability in my estimation is something that is severely lacking in a lot of modern weapon designs.

Per Ron at BFV, the Sig 55x series also had some exceptionally good service life in their inventory.

[Serious Account]

When the SCAR is dropped onto concrete by accident it can pretty much break that rear trunnion bracket area. Another is the stock hinge breaking just by someone falling onto it. Peruvian military tested their rifles by dropping their SCAR's from a height of about eight feet onto concrete and the rifles just broke apart. The SCAR is a good rifle except that the design of the rear trunnion bracket mounting system and the stock hinge needs to be overhauled.

If you follow the Battlefield thread, they said the AK's broke the front trunnion on the left side area where the bolt lug locks in something around 100K. They would weld up the trunnions, replace the barrel, springs, and then put them back on the line. AR's they pretty much were replacing bolts, re-staking gas keys, replacing gas tubes, barrels, springs several times over to get them to that number. They said the SCAR and AUG ran the best long term from what I remember. However just firing is part of it, durability in my estimation is something that is severely lacking in a lot of modern weapon designs.

Are you talking about this one?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...e-controversy/

The SCAR was dropped from 8 feet onto hard concrete floor 7 times after it went through countless of other torture tests. The stock survive, the lower and magazine cracked, but overall I bet the rifle is still functional. I say it did pretty damn well in that test.