View Full Version : So, would you consider the SCAR 17 to be the modern "Uber 7.62"?
??????????????????
I've haven't seen one thread (here and on different sites) where a majority in a similar question asked did NOT think that the SCAR 17 was the current 7.62Nato shiznit.
Not for a DMR role, but as a "battle rifle" do you think this is true?
Im curious to. It seems like its a fad that died off with its fan boys. Ive since been deciding on dpms gen II, armalite 10a, sig 716.
It's still my dream gun, and I'm hoping to get one this year. I don't think its just a fad, but if it was cheaper I think it would really take off for the differences it brings to the table.
It's a good mix of lightweight, reliable, and accuracy. It does come with some downsides such as it is hard on optics and accessories, but I think it is one of the better do it all battle rifles.
However my first pick is the SR-25E2 APC.
No, it has way too many shortcomings, when compared to some of the other higher end 762 rifles currently on the market. The only thing it has going for it is light weight in my opinion.
It is a good concept that needs more refinement and improvements.
No, it has way too many shortcomings, when compared to some of the other higher end 762 rifles currently on the market. The only thing it has going for it is light weight in my opinion.
It is a good concept that needs more refinement and improvements.
I would add a solid manufacturer as one of the things "going for it."
Having shot a few 308 BRs (G3 and m14 pattern) in the past 30 years, I feel with my limited experiance (about 4-500 rds) that the SCAR will be around for awhile and not a flash in the pan. The advantages that I like are its size and weight along with its perceived recoil for shooting a 308. My samples accurracy is above what I expected and spare parts are somewhat available and hopefully will grow. In light of this aquisition, several other BRs have hit the market, which I'm not familiar with.
I don't feel as if I'm a fanboy with a limited 450 round experiance with one platform as I still own 1 cetme and two M1As, a standard grade and a supermatch. Parts are still available for both older guns but quality parts are getting harder to find and more expensive. I think the main reason for my purchase was to check out a modern designed MBR over late 40s and 50s era equipment.
I think a major consideration to take into account in not seeing alot of love/hate is simple economics. If a person is interested in honing their skills with a rifle or playing gun games, they can get twice as far with a 5.56 caliber platform due to ammo costs with the same terminal or end effect (hole in target or audible ringing). Most of the popular gun game targets are presented within the operating window of the 5.56 cartridge (I believe 3 gun max is 450-475) and the 600 yd line in DCM compitition can be handled with 77-90 grain projos that can be hand fed within the alotted time. The only thing that would restrict a 5.56 from being competitve would be a power factor (Hvy Metal class) or a required terminal effect as in hunting. Maybe Sky-Pup can jump in here and give alittle comparison between 5.56 and 7.62 terminal performance.
As previously stated, it is hard on optics/mounts. My funshow NF 1-4 in a GGG mount could not stay put. The scope held up but the mount slid around quite a bit on the rail. The rear sling mount is nice for folded carry but I find it in the way when shooting.
It's a good mix of lightweight, reliable, and accuracy. It does come with some downsides such as it is hard on optics and accessories, but I think it is one of the better do it all battle rifles.
However my first pick is the SR-25E2 APC.
Potential first pick?
As far as I know, they don't exist yet.
PatrioticDisorder
05-05-14, 06:39
Everyone keeps parroting "hard on optics" with nothing to back that assertion. Eotechs suck in general but besides that I've only heard of 1 optic I'd consider quality break on a SCAR and that was a Trijicon Accupoint which more than likely had a sub par mount. Put a solid optic + solid mount on a SCAR 17s and don't think twice about it!
It certainly works for me in that role. LMT & KAC & HK make solid 7.62 rifles in more of a precision role, which I'd love to own but the lightweight of the 17 is great, among other things.
Everyone keeps parroting "hard on optics" with nothing to back that assertion. Eotechs suck in general but besides that I've only heard of 1 optic I'd consider quality break on a SCAR and that was a Trijicon Accupoint which more than likely had a sub par mount. Put a solid optic + solid mount on a SCAR 17s and don't think twice about it!
I've seen a TA33, TA55, and an 01 all break on the SCAR. Not so much break into pieces, as cloud and become barely useable. Works fine with AIMPOINT Micro and the EOTech EXPS models hold up great (but they suck to use...?). It's not always as much of what mount is used, though a quality mount helps, but where on the rifle it's being mounted.
Besides being hard on optics, I don't see the Mk17 going away anytime soon. It's versatile, it's held up great in the combat theaters, and is as easy to make DMR or CQB as the current M4. Great gun all around, the "fan boy" attention just seems to always go away with time. Anything that's been around for four years or so loses it's fanatic craze and finds itself either consistent or obsolete, the latter not the case with the SCAR.
PatrioticDisorder
05-05-14, 08:42
I've seen a TA33, TA55, and an 01 all break on the SCAR. Not so much break into pieces, as cloud and become barely useable. Works fine with AIMPOINT Micro and the EOTech EXPS models hold up great (but they suck to use...?). It's not always as much of what mount is used, though a quality mount helps, but where on the rifle it's being mounted.
Besides being hard on optics, I don't see the Mk17 going away anytime soon. It's versatile, it's held up great in the combat theaters, and is as easy to make DMR or CQB as the current M4. Great gun all around, the "fan boy" attention just seems to always go away with time. Anything that's been around for four years or so loses it's fanatic craze and finds itself either consistent or obsolete, the latter not the case with the SCAR.
No mil experience but it's my understanding older ACOGs were susceptible to breaking even on M4s, but mounting them on a Mk17 I'm sure didn't help. I haven't heard of any ACOG made in the past several years breaking on a SCAR.
I've seen a TA33, TA55, and an 01 all break on the SCAR. Not so much break into pieces, as cloud and become barely useable. Works fine with AIMPOINT Micro and the EOTech EXPS models hold up great (but they suck to use...?). It's not always as much of what mount is used, though a quality mount helps, but where on the rifle it's being mounted.
Besides being hard on optics, I don't see the Mk17 going away anytime soon. It's versatile, it's held up great in the combat theaters, and is as easy to make DMR or CQB as the current M4. Great gun all around, the "fan boy" attention just seems to always go away with time. Anything that's been around for four years or so loses it's fanatic craze and finds itself either consistent or obsolete, the latter not the case with the SCAR.
That's what I intend to use on mine (actually, it's what I have laying in the safe!).
Where is it a problem mounting it? I like mine about midway on the receiver rail, at least on M4's and can't see why the SCAR will be any different placement-wise.
No mil experience but it's my understanding older ACOGs were susceptible to breaking even on M4s, but mounting them on a Mk17 I'm sure didn't help. I haven't heard of any ACOG made in the past several years breaking on a SCAR.
LOL that's true, I like the optic but somehow they can go from being incredibly durable to broken really quick. I think I went through four on my last deployment alone. Luckily we had an EOTech in the spares box.
We took about ten Mk17s out with a bunch of different optics to see what would work best for us. ELCAN took the cake, and that monstrosity the Brits are using on their LMTs too. The TA55 may have been a skewed result, since those came off some SAWs and had a high round count under their belt already.
That's what I intend to use on mine (actually, it's what I have laying in the safe!).
Where is it a problem mounting it? I like mine about midway on the receiver rail, at least on M4's and can't see why the SCAR will be any different placement-wise.
Experience is limited and maybe outdated but what we saw was mounting them midway was ok for RDS. Closer than mid rail worked best for magnified optics, which meant we were using ADM Recons the most effectively only a few slots past the rear sight.
Potential first pick?
As far as I know, they don't exist yet.
Well the only difference between the ECC and the APC at least from what I understand is the Hand Guard, and the ECC has had great success so why not the APC when they are available?
Well the only difference between the ECC and the APC at least from what I understand is the Hand Guard, and the ECC has had great success so why not the APC when they are available?
The APC doesn't have the Mod2 gas block/tube setup?
It's still my dream gun, and I'm hoping to get one this year. I don't think its just a fad, but if it was cheaper I think it would really take off for the differences it brings to the table.
+1.
If I ever had $4k laying around, I'd buy an FDE SCAR17 in a hearbeat. It is one of the best battle rifles IMO.
??????????????????
I've haven't seen one thread (here and on different sites) where a majority in a similar question asked did NOT think that the SCAR 17 was the current 7.62Nato shiznit.
Not for a DMR role, but as a "battle rifle" do you think this is true?
Not sure how others would categorize it, but when i think of a battle rifle, I think something that shoots a big round, has great iron sights, and can be used as a crowbar/club or used to catapult a team mate over a wall. The scar 17 I suspect won't do so well in the last 2 categories. To be fair, I don't think any rifle will live up to the "battle rifle" status as well as the Garand.
Well the only difference between the ECC and the APC at least from what I understand is the Hand Guard, and the ECC has had great success so why not the APC when they are available?
Good point.
MadAngler1
05-05-14, 20:37
I own a SCAR-17, and I think it's a nice battle rifle (not a DMR gun). When compared to my friend's FAL, it is much more user friendly (read: AR-15-like). The recoil is not bad, and it is fairly easy to strip down and maintain. The groups are just fine; if I wanted a target rifle, I would have purchased something else (although as many point out, they should have made the twist rate faster to accommodate the M118LR 175 grain SMK round).
Having said that, I have not had to use it in combat. Likewise, I have not had the chance to run a Knight's SR-25 ECC or LMT or HK 417 and torture test all of these models to see which one would come out on top in the battle rifle role. I guess the only thing we can go on is the fact that the Peruvian military picked the SCAR over several other entries, and the SCAR-H is being used by Spec Ops guys in the MBR/DMR role. The Brits seem to like their LMTs as a DMR weapon, but I can't objectively comment or compare that gun to the SCAR-H.
+1.
If I ever had $4k laying around, I'd buy an FDE SCAR17 in a hearbeat. It is one of the best battle rifles IMO.
Dude, I'm getting mine for $2700 (plus tax and background check). Granted, I've paid this particular gun shop's light bill more than a few times so I usually get a decent deal.
I saw a FDE SCAR17 for $2752 at Bud's online store. The black one was $2656. Both were in stock.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-05-14, 21:19
It is probably the best of the factory options right now. It has been through more field and development testing that pretty much any other rifle other than the old-line battle rifles (G3, FAL). I think of it more as a replacement for the old battle rifles than a DMR rifle. Really, there aren't any real downsides other than cost (and none of the quality options are cheap).
Not sure how others would categorize it, but when i think of a battle rifle, I think something that shoots a big round, has great iron sights, and can be used as a crowbar/club or used to catapult a team mate over a wall. The scar 17 I suspect won't do so well in the last 2 categories. To be fair, I don't think any rifle will live up to the "battle rifle" status as well as the Garand.
The Garand?
A nice piece of firearms history, sure. Certainly an improvement in its own time and combat proven.
It would not be worthy of the modern battlefield, therefore would not be a good "battle rifle". Ammo (both capacity and caliber) being an issue. Interchangeable parts already proved difficult when the old M14s got dug out of storage for the GWOT. So while I admire the Garand for what it is, unless you have a time machine, it doesn't belong in the modern Battle Rifle running.
No, it has way too many shortcomings, when compared to some of the other higher end 762 rifles currently on the market. The only thing it has going for it is light weight in my opinion.
It is a good concept that needs more refinement and improvements.
Can you elaborate? That's a pretty vague series of statements.
The Garand?
A nice piece of firearms history, sure. Certainly an improvement in its own time and combat proven.
It would not be worthy of the modern battlefield, therefore would not be a good "battle rifle". Ammo (both capacity and caliber) being an issue. Interchangeable parts already proved difficult when the old M14s got dug out of storage for the GWOT. So while I admire the Garand for what it is, unless you have a time machine, it doesn't belong in the modern Battle Rifle running.
of course the garand is not a 21st century weapon, but it is for all intents and purposes the epitome of what a battle rifle is. in terms of caliber I doubt anyone would say the 30-06 is an ineffective caliber nor would they deny that the swinging 12 lbs of wood known as the butt stock of a garand is ineffective in close quarters. Nor will any rifleman deny that the iron sights are usable even if the rifle's design is antiquated. (Which it's not).
The thread was asking about battle rifles and specifically not dmrs. So that's why I compare the scar to the garand. Because the garand is an indisputable effective battle rifle in history.
Also the standard ww2 soldier could carry way more 30-06 ammo and en bloc clips than a modern day soldier with steel mk17 magazines could.
Yeah, 30-06 is great. I won't argue that, except that the only way it would really outshine a lot of the 7.62 ammo we use now would be at ranges that would take it into the SPR/DMR role. And the Mk17 hasn't been limited to the DMR role by the way, not sure where you got that. I certainly never meant to imply that, though I did mention that it is easily changed for either need.
Iron sights are effective on both rifles provided the user applies the fundamentals. The weight, well you can keep 12lbs and run into a compound swinging. I'll take a lighter rifle for the hump to and from that compound, and the 99.8% of the time I'm NOT stuck using a rifle as a club.
And in what way (not being a smart ass, I'm really just curious) do you think our guys are carrying Mk17 ammo, that a bandolier or belt could carry more 30-06? I can provide examples of guys carrying 120rds (only a little over 7lbs) for the Mk17 and still remaining fairly "slick". That's not even mentioning backpacks with spare mags, vehicles, etc.
Sorry if anyone thinks this is a derail. Ask if something's better, or what's best, you'll get contrary opinions. While I don't doubt the Garand was a great rifle, and could be considered a battle rifle, I think the assertion that the SCAR won't "live up to" the Garand is debatable. Whatever made the Garand such a reputable rifle, the SCAR is doing now. Very well I might add, and at a much lighter weight.
malstew123
05-06-14, 02:19
Iron sights are effective on both rifles provided the user applies the fundamentals. The weight, well you can keep 12lbs and run into a compound swinging. I'll take a lighter rifle for the hump to and from that compound, and the 99.8% of the time I'm NOT stuck using a rifle as a club.
And in what way (not being a smart ass, I'm really just curious) do you think our guys are carrying Mk17 ammo, that a bandolier or belt could carry more 30-06? I can provide examples of guys carrying 120rds (only a little over 7lbs) for the Mk17 and still remaining fairly "slick". That's not even mentioning backpacks with spare mags, vehicles, etc.
Sorry if anyone thinks this is a derail. Ask if something's better, or what's best, you'll get contrary opinions. While I don't doubt the Garand was a great rifle, and could be considered a battle rifle, I think the assertion that the SCAR won't "live up to" the Garand is debatable. Whatever made the Garand such a reputable rifle, the SCAR is doing now. Very well I might add, and at a much lighter weight.
Excellent points. The Mk.17 is lightweight and modular, and weight is important if you're carrying 20-30lbs in armor, water, ammo, and kit on top of whatever you've got in the daypack for mission sustainment. If I were gonna purchase a semi-auto 308 rifle personally, I'd look toward a GAP-10...but all things considered, the SCAR isn't garbage.
soldier_twiggy
05-06-14, 07:33
Excellent points. The Mk.17 is lightweight and modular, and weight is important if you're carrying 20-30lbs in armor, water, ammo, and kit on top of whatever you've got in the daypack for mission sustainment. If I were gonna purchase a semi-auto 308 rifle personally, I'd look toward a GAP-10...but all things considered, the SCAR isn't garbage.
My IBA (armor) was about 40lbs by itself. Not to mention H2O, gear vest, helmet, bag, and weapon.
Ounces make pounds, pounds make pain.
essayons
And in what way (not being a smart ass, I'm really just curious) do you think our guys are carrying Mk17 ammo, that a bandolier or belt could carry more 30-06? I can provide examples of guys carrying 120rds (only a little over 7lbs) for the Mk17 and still remaining fairly "slick". That's not even mentioning backpacks with spare mags, vehicles, etc.
160 rounds each
Scar 17: 13.25 lbs (26.5 ounces for full mag x 8)
Garand: 10.62 lbs (5.31 lbs for 10 loaded en bloc clips x2)
but the argument isn't about garand vs scar 17. and i agree it's about if the scar 17 is as good as the garand was in its time. But I just don't think the scar is. I imagine it'll be some kind of bullpup if anything. Maybe this desert tech mdr in 308
160 rounds each
Scar 17: 13.25 lbs (26.5 ounces for full mag x 8)
Garand: 10.62 lbs (5.31 lbs for 10 loaded en bloc clips x2)
but the argument isn't about garand vs scar 17. and i agree it's about if the scar 17 is as good as the garand was in its time. But I just don't think the scar is. I imagine it'll be some kind of bullpup if anything. Maybe this desert tech mdr in 308
Your numbers are a bit fudged up there...
160 rounds of 30-06 on M1 clips = 11.9 pounds
160 rounds of M80 ball in SCAR-H magazines = 12.96 pounds
Average weight of M1 = 10.5 pounds
SCAR-H Standard weight = 7.9 pounds
With the bare rifles alone plus 160 rounds of ammo, the M1 is about 2 pounds over the SCAR-H.
So as long as we're splitting hairs.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on all of it at this point man. The ammo weight may be down, but the practicality of the Garand clips vs the modern 20rd mags is nowhere close.
Now a bullpup is about as impractical as it gets, so I suppose that's your thing :)
I think to compare the SCAR 17 to the Garand isn't quite an accurate comparison. Comparing the Garand to the M4 might be a little more pertinent. Why? The WWII Garand, in an era before "assault rifles" were COMMON (so rule out the MP-44) was the issue weapon for U.S. infantry. That would be the M4 today. Yeah, seems like an apples to oranges comparison but from an issue/use perspective it becomes more relevant. The SCAR 17 fills a "battle rifle" role in what is currently an "assault rifle" age. It is used as a supplementary weapon, if you will, as opposed to occupying a general issue/use role. Could it be a general issue weapon like the Garand was? Sure, but no first-world military these days fields a .30cal "battle rifle" as it's first-line issue weapon. So basically it is a moot point to compare the Garand/SCAR in regards to the role they occupy.
In a true "battle rifle" role? Hell, even the M14 outdid the Garand given the acceptance of a detachable 20rd magazine alone. That translates to an increased firepower advantage in a firefight. The M14/FAL/G3 all outperformed the Garand in a firefight role. The SCAR is a modern iteration of the battle rifle and as such utilizes polymers for reduced weight savings while still retaining the firepower advantage of a 20rd detachable mag. So yeah, I'd say it outdoes the Garand.
Failure2Stop
05-06-14, 13:35
The Mk17 might not be my first choice, but it certainly would be well above my last choice.
ABNAK,
I agree with all of your points. The SCAR isn't going away anytime soon. Neither is the M4. Having both as options with each filling it's role enhances our capability without limiting us to compromise. And I love my LMT MWS308, the SR25 cut and the barrels are definitely a great design and worth keeping around. But the SCAR as a battle rifle, absolutely.
The only guy I know who has been in hand to hand combat (not the same as CQB...actual hand to hand) was pretty good at handling himself without needing a 12lb club of a rifle. Google Cliff Woolridge.
What might kill the Mk17 is the reduction in force and the end of wars. Lessons learned the hard way will be forgotten by the RMFers who focus in things like the pleasing visual of uniformity, banning tattoos, and removing options for gunfighters who know what they want and need. Maybe...maybe the Garand will come back. Has that good snap and pop for the drill field, and isn't that the most important thing?
The Mk17 might not be my first choice, but it certainly would be well above my last choice.
Oh, I bet I could guess what your first choice would be! ;)
Google Cliff Woolridge.
Holy crap! :blink: Not to derail my own thread but screw the Navy Cross....that is MoH shit if I've ever read it!
It is probably the best of the factory options right now. It has been through more field and development testing that pretty much any other rifle other than the old-line battle rifles (G3, FAL). I think of it more as a replacement for the old battle rifles than a DMR rifle. Really, there aren't any real downsides other than cost (and none of the quality options are cheap).
I own a SCAR and, while I love it, there are some gripes I have with it. First, the stock sucks. The stock rattles and moves/flexes. Second, the sling attachment points are small and do not provide a lot of articulation. Many folks resort to using paracord, a large keyring, or Blue Force Hear Universal Wire Loops to mount a sling. Third, there is very little room in between the barrel extension body and the charging handle when its in the forward position. Fourth, there is very little room in between an optic and the charging handle when its in the rearward position. Fifth, the charging handle reciprocates.
I keep hearing about all the "field testing" the SCAR has been through, but I find it hard to believe this is the end result of all that "testing." Either the military or FNH did not listen to the folks giving them feedback. While I love my SCAR, I can't help but feel the design is in beta testing and I'm the beta tester.
My IBA (armor) was about 40lbs by itself. Not to mention H2O, gear vest, helmet, bag, and weapon.
Ounces make pounds, pounds make pain.
essayons
Years later, my back, neck, and knees are paying for all that weight I had to carry around on deployments. Try to take care of your body as best you can.
soldier_twiggy
05-06-14, 23:19
Years later, my back, neck, and knees are paying for all that weight I had to carry around on deployments. Try to take care of your body as best you can.
My knees neck and hands are already "old" from all that junk.
Thanks for your service brother.
essayons
My knees neck and hands are already "old" from all that junk.
Thanks for your service brother.
essayons
I hear the Air Force Death March is taking the sea bag full of issued gear all the way to the barracks and putting it away for four years. Ouch.
I'm kidding, our TACPs and CCTs were the quarterbacks a few times. Good dudes.
There seems to be (relevant to the thread, keeping on track as long as possible) a misconception of what should be expected of guys overseas for carrying. There's weight, but also distribution and mission needs. Sometimes I went out with a Mk12 and three mags in a kangaroo pouch with some illum. Sometimes I had a 240 and a mess of others, with enough ammo to fight all day and night, and distance was never less than 8 hard klicks...usually 20.
Some of the setups available for the Mk17 would have saved us on a lot of weight. Having that 7.62 capability in a light package that could also be fitted for 40mm. DMR options, CQB, it's not hard to have a team capable of damn near anything all carrying the SAME weapon. That's a massive improvement over six guys with six different guns, none of which are interchangeable.
You guys need to do yoga, and stretch more before your runs. The fitness program in the mil currently sucks and isn't designed to sustain you for very long, just long enough for the green pickle to lodge itself deep in your ass.
Yoga daily. More Pilates. Learn about your breathing and your core and you'll feel a lot better.
You guys need to do yoga, and stretch more before your runs. The fitness program in the mil currently sucks and isn't designed to sustain you for very long, just long enough for the green pickle to lodge itself deep in your ass.
Yoga daily. More Pilates. Learn about your breathing and your core and you'll feel a lot better.
I'm medically retired, so the only heavy lifting I concern myself with is my drink. Cheers :-)
cougar_guy04
05-07-14, 06:20
The APC doesn't have the Mod2 gas block/tube setup?
My understanding was that KAC was doing the Mod 2 gas system on everything going forward (save for the M110, Uncle Sam gets a say on that one).
PatrioticDisorder
05-07-14, 06:45
I own a SCAR and, while I love it, there are some gripes I have with it. First, the stock sucks. The stock rattles and moves/flexes. Second, the sling attachment points are small and do not provide a lot of articulation. Many folks resort to using paracord, a large keyring, or Blue Force Hear Universal Wire Loops to mount a sling. Third, there is very little room in between the barrel extension body and the charging handle when its in the forward position. Fourth, there is very little room in between an optic and the charging handle when its in the rearward position. Fifth, the charging handle reciprocates.
I keep hearing about all the "field testing" the SCAR has been through, but I find it hard to believe this is the end result of all that "testing." Either the military or FNH did not listen to the folks giving them feedback. While I love my SCAR, I can't help but feel the design is in beta testing and I'm the beta tester.
Every one of your gripes is a gripe almost all SCAR owners have and while things could have been designed a but better, every single gripe has an aftermarket solution available and stocks made for the past couple of years have stronger latches and don't rattle (although I agree, the OEM stock could still be significantly better).
How is the accuracy on the scar 17? 1 MOA?
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-07-14, 14:19
It is definilty in the 1 MOA range if you are.
I think the SCAR's development was more about making it reliable and reasonably lightweight. There were some early gripes about stock latches, but most of that was speculative (not all, but most). As far as the charging handle, that is definilty a trade off. Obviously, since concern #1 was absolute reliablity having a side mounted handle fixed directly to the bolt was preferable. It isn't a concern running an AIMPOINT or a magnified optic if you are careful about your mount selection.
I really can't think of any other modern .308 that is in the same League. The HK 417 is a beast, but heavy and pricey. The KAC stuff seems to a LOT more expensive and has its fair share of troubles in the field. What can I say, I am a G3 guy. So to me, the SCAR seems like a fantastic setup from an ergonomic perspective--relativley speaking!
Failure2Stop
05-07-14, 15:44
The KAC stuff seems to a LOT more expensive and has its fair share of troubles in the field.
I prefer not to get into these discussions given my employer, so I'll just say this and bow out:
You can't really compare the M110 SASS to the Mk17. The M110 was built as a sniper rifle, with the configuration frozen by the Army. Very little has been done to the M110 (as a big Army program) with regard to KAC's improvements to weight, size, reliability, lifespan, and cost.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-07-14, 15:49
Not to mention my info is about 3-4 years old.
A guy at work has a class3 FFL and a couple dealer sample SCARS. One Mk16 CQB and a MK17 with 13.x inch barrel and full auto switch. I was thoroughly impressed with the Mk17. Light weight, accurate and the recoil wasn't horrible. If I was buying a battle rifle it would definitely be one of the contenders. I haven't been following AR10s but a KAC carbine set up as a battle rifles instead of a sniper rifle would be pretty sweet. I don't know if they make that or not.
Can you elaborate? That's a pretty vague series of statements.
I was intentionally vague so as not to start a pissing contest.
I own one and like it, I own other rifles in that caliber that I like better for many of the same reasons stated by the Airman above, plus a few more he didn't go into.......
I will be keeping the rifle, but there are better alternatives depending on your intended use of course.
Since FN marketed the SCAR as developed "by users, for users" you would think that the final product would require very little refinement.
I'm medically retired, so the only heavy lifting I concern myself with is my drink. Cheers :-)
Damn. Hope all is well, sounds like you've earned your heavy drink. Cheers indeed.
Since FN marketed the SCAR as developed "by users, for users" you would think that the final product would require very little refinement.
I have the feeling that it was very much designed and developed for users, by users. There are requirements that mil weapons need to meet that don't often translate as well in the civilian market. There are compromises sometimes. Is it the best all around? No, but the best/most ideal isn't realistic. So instead, it's about as good as it can get in some areas without getting significantly worse in others.
Failure2Stop
05-08-14, 12:49
Since FN marketed the SCAR as developed "by users, for users" you would think that the final product would require very little refinement.
I was one of the "users" that was also one of the "developers/testers".
The reality is that it was a product born of a requirement that was drafted by committee, with aspects inserted by the most vocal, with a desired purchase of a system that was not submitted.
I was one of the "users" that was also one of the "developers/testers".
The reality is that it was a product born of a requirement that was drafted by committee, with aspects inserted by the most vocal, with a desired purchase of a system that was not submitted.
This (minus the T&E part for me)
The whole change the barrels in the ORP thing was pretty damn dumb. I happen to really like the SCAR, I bitch about it, because I've seen them broken and I know what it can be. IMO the military issued weapons always seem a few steps behind the civilian market. The Mk.17 is no different. I see the SCAR as the best of the options available as an all round platform.
With the advancements in the soon to market/R&D/T&E phases and one that is in conceptual design, I think the SCAR could be the AR of the 21st century (not the TAR-21 tavor btw)
I love these new 308 AR's by LMT, SIG, Ruger, and particular the HK417 (i work out so the weight is ok, but the prop mag no so much)
But this is refinement of old technology that is limited by the scope of the initial design parameters. The SCAR is also limited by it's design, but it was designed for flexibility and modularity in a way the AR was not. It has much larger envelope for refinement. I consider it to be actually quite crude in its stock configuration, even more so at it's price point.
There is so much more room for improvement, that few more years of refinement could mean the SCAR is the goto gun, and not because team guys are issued them. But because it can be the gun you can comfortably clear rooms with and then lean out a window and drop a target with one shot @ 700m, but its just not there yet.
Every one of your gripes is a gripe almost all SCAR owners have and while things could have been designed a but better, every single gripe has an aftermarket solution available and stocks made for the past couple of years have stronger latches and don't rattle (although I agree, the OEM stock could still be significantly better).
I've got aftermarket parts from Impact Weapons Components to fix the charging handle and sling attachment points. I've left the stock as is. I don't care for AR stocks on rifles that are not ARs. Hopefully someone comes out with an aftermarket SCAR stock that's actually meant for the SCAR. Despite my gripes, mine shoots 1 MOA. From what I've seen and read, 1 MOA is typical performance. I'm very impressed with the rifle.
I consider it to be actually quite crude in its stock configuration, even more so at it's price point.
My thought as well. I like my 16 and 17, but considering the initial outlay, the combined cost with aftermarket mods is a little stupid. The factory sling mounts suck, the stock triggers in my two samples sucked, your optic choices are constrained by the charging handle (if you like your knuckles), the forend is too short for monkey arms, the factory brake makes anyone not directly behind the rifle wish for death (esp the 17), the A2 grip sucks, the stock on earlier models rattles like a box full of Legos, the 17 takes a unique mag that was unobtanium for years (and still may be non-trivial to source), and the 16 can't use Gen 2 PMAGs without dremel modification to the mag feed lips (to avoid the pushing the bolt catch up just enough to peen the bolt without stopping it) and even then they won't readily drop free.
I'm afraid to tally what I spent putting a decent grip, trigger, muzzle device, sling mounts, optic, light, VFG, and extended rail on mine, not to mention a brief flirtation with trying to do something other than the stock irons for a BUIS on my H (bad idea). I'm pretty sure that I could have jocked up a really nice AR with most of those things included for the base prices I paid at the time for the un-modded SCARs.
But hey, the bolt and BCG are still barely dirty after ~1500 rounds in class, and I can fold the stock. :big_boss:
But hey, the bolt and BCG are still barely dirty after ~1500 rounds in class, and I can fold the stock. :big_boss:
Stop using common sense! ;)
I really like the SCARs and own some. I was reminded last week about how much I like the SCAR 17 when I was shooting with a friend. "I can shoot this all day long." was my buds comment. Yeah, other than the cost of ammo I could too.
I use the AD Delta scope mount because the LaRue mount just couldn't seem to hold onto the NF NXS 2.5-10. Makes sense, the AD Delta was made for the SCAR.
Originally, I couldn't get a really consistent group, then I put in the Geissele trigger and everything changed. With American Eagle M1A OTM mid range cost ammo I could put 7 out of 10 shots into a little less than 1 MOA at 100 yards. Precision shooting is not my strength so I was pleased.
I've never had a single failure with any SCAR 16 or 17. Better than my ARs. I don't clean my SCARs often and cleaning is quite easy. Most of the time I run a bore snake through a couple times and wipe the bolt off and put a couple drops of oil in it.
The 17 is light, it can be easily shot free hand like an AR or 16. I keep one 17 with a T-1 on it and an Aimpoint 3X magnifier in a pouch just in case.
As for build quality. I have been very happy. The barrels can be switched in and out in a few minutes with a 62in.lb. torque limiter. Much easier than an AR. The continuous rail eliminates the need to install and align a free float rail with the upper receiver. The parts are available. and although more expensive a bolt is likely to last longer than in an AR for instance. The fire control system is clearly more robust than the AR FCG. I also like the steel magazines and they seem to be available now.
Some areas could be improved. The stock trigger has been pretty poor although the last 17 I bought has a pretty good trigger. I bought a G trigger for it but haven't felt the urge change it out yet. The stock on a couple of my rifles rattle more than others, but frankly my Magpul MOE and CTR stocks rattle almost as bad. I like the folding feature, but the commies in CA won't let me use it. I hated the sling points until I found the Parker Mountain Machine rear QD mount. I also didn't like the front rails, so I went with MI replacement rails which also have QD sockets in them.
The reciprocating CH? It doesn't bother me, in fact I prefer it to an AR charging handle with a forward assist. The AR CH has always seemed to be in an odd location and is a relatively weak implementation. I'm not hung up on the AR battery of arms probably because I wasn't trained to the system. I can see that the CH could interfere with barriers and if you use the magazine as a vertical grip your thumb will get thumped.
The design, weight, accuracy, reliability, build quality and manufacturer's reputation make it a excellent rifle IMHO.
DiabhailGadhar
05-24-14, 16:21
I don't really think the SCAR 17 is hard on optics. I've been running a primary arms on mine with a larue mount that I very painstakingly put in the mount. I've put a few hundred rounds thought it..haven't had an issue. And this is with a scope that costs half as much as the mount it's in. Furthermore, a friend of mine LITERALLY ran over my SCAR with his S-10 ZR-2 and the only thing it did was break the bolt in my surefire x400 that was mounted at the time, which they replaced for free, and scratched the still very usable left rail. I've been able to consistently pull Sub-MOA groups at 100 yds with cheap CBC ammo...knock it all you want the SCAR lives up to the hype and isn't going anywhere...IMHO.
Just got back from shooting mine. Was banging steel at 600 yards. I have a NF scope in a Larue mount. I really love the platform. Thank God I have plenty of 168gr Amax purchased back when it was affordable. It really likes this round. My only complaint is my cheek gets a bit sore after a few mags. Eventually I need to rig up some sort of cheek pad for comfort.
Now that they've been out a while mags are finally plentiful. I was lucky to buy mine from a writer who sold to me with 10 mags.
PatrioticDisorder
05-24-14, 17:08
Just got back from shooting mine. Was banging steel at 600 yards. I have a NF scope in a Larue mount. I really love the platform. Thank God I have plenty of 168gr Amax purchased back when it was affordable. It really likes this round. My only complaint is my cheek gets a bit sore after a few mags. Eventually I need to rig up some sort of cheek pad for comfort.
Now that they've been out a while mags are finally plentiful. I was lucky to buy mine from a writer who sold to me with 10 mags.
168gr. particularly AMAX seems to be the most accurate ammo out of the SCAR.
I don't really think the SCAR 17 is hard on optics. I've been running a primary arms on mine with a larue mount that I very painstakingly put in the mount. I've put a few hundred rounds thought it..haven't had an issue. And this is with a scope that costs half as much as the mount it's in. Furthermore, a friend of mine LITERALLY ran over my SCAR with his S-10 ZR-2 and the only thing it did was break the bolt in my surefire x400 that was mounted at the time, which they replaced for free, and scratched the still very usable left rail. I've been able to consistently pull Sub-MOA groups at 100 yds with cheap CBC ammo...knock it all you want the SCAR lives up to the hype and isn't going anywhere...IMHO.
Sounds like you need a new friend :)
I know I don't have near the experience than many of you on these forums but I do like my SCAR 17. I like it because it is lightweight, easy to take apart clean and put back together and it seems to have good military history. Not saying it's the best because I can't say that as it's the only .308/7.62 I've fired. I'd shoot it a lot more if I could find better deals on ammo...LOL....just had to order 500 more rounds of Lake City 7.62....60 cents a round OUCH...LOL
soldier_twiggy
05-30-14, 18:17
I know I don't have near the experience than many of you on these forums but I do like my SCAR 17. I like it because it is lightweight, easy to take apart clean and put back together and it seems to have good military history. Not saying it's the best because I can't say that as it's the only .308/7.62 I've fired. I'd shoot it a lot more if I could find better deals on ammo...LOL....just had to order 500 more rounds of Lake City 7.62....60 cents a round OUCH...LOL
60 cents/round for Lake City ain't shabby. I'm seeing that price on a lot of steel cased garbage.
PM me where you order ammo from if you would.
essayons
Everyone keeps parroting "hard on optics" with nothing to back that assertion. Eotechs suck in general but besides that I've only heard of 1 optic I'd consider quality break on a SCAR and that was a Trijicon Accupoint which more than likely had a sub par mount. Put a solid optic + solid mount on a SCAR 17s and don't think twice about it!
My 17 destroyed my Eotech 512. It also loosened my Aimpoint Micro off its mount. All 4 bolts managed to partially back out. I have no doubt that the SCAR is hard on optics. I currently have a Vortex Razor 1-6 sitting on top. Its held up very well... Damn well should considering it weighs a ton!
That said.... I was a FAL guy. In my experience, The 17 surpasses the FAL in almost every respect. Its lighter, much more accurate, and has proven to be more reliable than any of the FAL variants I own.
PatrioticDisorder
06-01-14, 08:57
My 17 destroyed my Eotech 512. It also loosened my Aimpoint Micro off its mount. All 4 bolts managed to partially back out. I have no doubt that the SCAR is hard on optics. I currently have a Vortex Razor 1-6 sitting on top. Its held up very well... Damn well should considering it weighs a ton!
That said.... I was a FAL guy. In my experience, The 17 surpasses the FAL in almost every respect. Its lighter, much more accurate, and has proven to be more reliable than any of the FAL variants I own.
Come on man, EOTechs, 512s in particular have a rep for breaking if you sneeze on them he wrong way!
Come on man, EOTechs, 512s in particular have a rep for breaking if you sneeze on them he wrong way!
I like that quote! Sig line material right there.
My 512 has been back to L3 4 times in 6 years of ownership now. They are garbage.
However there are various examples of decent optics being blown out if you look on TOS or FNforums.
That said, I sent a TA31 crying back to Trijicon after riding the FAL for a few cases of Port and Paki surplus. My theorey is that .308 with huge, recriporcating bolt carrier groups tends to **** optics up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.