View Full Version : FN SCAR16S... accuracy tests anywhere?
I have read ad nauseam all the threads on this thing and most seem to be years old... I cannot find anything about how accurate it is with different mil and commercial loads... Is there a thread anywhere by an SME or "competent" reviewer on the accuracy of this rifle?
I also see posts where shooting suppressed they are complaining of gas blowback being so bad they are miserable shooting it... is this a problem even with the gas block set to suppressed or are these shooters getting gassed just most likely unaware of the gas setting feature?
Thanks
KG_mauserman
12-02-14, 22:37
I've had a SCAR 16s for several years now and have close to ten thousand rounds through it. My sample of one hovers right around 1 MOA with the right ammo. It's as accurate as any chromed lined AR that I've been around.
The formal accuracy specification for the SCAR 16 and the SCAR 17 is 0.7 MOA over the ammunition intrinsic MOA.
This may not hold for all commercial ammo out there but for Mil Spec FMJ ammo this is a good benchmark.
With a variety of 55gr to 75r loads I typically get around 1.5 to 2MOA 10 round groups.
About the gas thing, besides switching the gas regulator you can swap gas screws to tune the rifle to work with your ammo and suppressor. The screws come in 0.05mm increments and are available here: http://www.midwestgunworks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=mgwi&Category_Code=scar-parts&view_perpage=all
H
I won't even get started on the so called accuracy test some like to report... "I hit the washing machine at 400 every time and my 40 yard group was really tight" :fie:
Thanks guys really appreciate what you have shared.
On AR's I make custom Gas Busters that USMC03 showed me how to do, but was hoping with the SCAR suppressor gas setting and no AR type CH in the rear that the SCAR would be less gassy than the AR.
I went handled one today and I have to say that being a FN guy of the old school, I really want these SCARs to do well and be what they are suppose to be.
I also really like the gas port cup design to be able to tweak bbl. If I get one I plan on getting a 2nd bbl and chopping to 12.5" and will need those gas cup/screws to set it up right.
Thanks again!
00stormbringer
12-03-14, 10:22
I have read ad nauseam all the threads on this thing and most seem to be years old... I cannot find anything about how accurate it is with different mil and commercial loads... Is there a thread anywhere by an SME or "competent" reviewer on the accuracy of this rifle?
I also see posts where shooting suppressed they are complaining of gas blowback being so bad they are miserable shooting it... is this a problem even with the gas block set to suppressed or are these shooters getting gassed just most likely unaware of the gas setting feature?
Thanks
SCAR 16 begins @ 5m 47s
2 moa m193
1 moa FGM
http://youtu.be/C194tP4ZS_w?t=5m47s
On AR's I make custom Gas Busters that USMC03 showed me how to do, but was hoping with the SCAR suppressor gas setting and no AR type CH in the rear that the SCAR would be less gassy than the AR.
I went handled one today and I have to say that being a FN guy of the old school, I really want these SCARs to do well and be what they are suppose to be.
I also really like the gas port cup design to be able to tweak bbl. If I get one I plan on getting a 2nd bbl and chopping to 12.5" and will need those gas cup/screws to set it up right.
Thanks again!
I can't comment on the 16 since I don't have one, but on a 17 with the 16" barrel, the gas blowback isn't anything to write home about with the gas regulator setting on suppressed. This is with a Surefire SOCOM suppressor mounted on a flash hider. I have an eform in on SBRing my 17 now, and will opt for the 13" factory barrel when that is approved, so I don't have the experience with it to know yet exactly how much the short barrel would cause more gas issues. I'm mostly shooting handloads suppressed and the powders I am using (R15, Norma 203B, 4064) aren't known for being overly gassy to begin with. The other cartridges I have shot suppressed are MKE's M80 (ZQ 7.62X51 NATO from Walmart) and bulk LC M80 and have not noticed anything out of the ordinary. Reliability has been basically boring, with no real issues that aren't either ammo related (subsonic test batch with TrailBoss that does not reliably cycle the carrier) or user induced (a friend who I shoot with occasionally isn't comfortable with the charging handle on the ejection port side and will almost always ride the charging handle and frequently induce double-feeds. His day job is at LAPD, so there's no hope for him to ever follow instructions and not ride the charging handle;)).
From my experience, the gas regulator is doing its job as advertised. I don't see how, from the design, you would get a whole lot of gas blowing back through the chamber unless the gas regulator is very dirty and the vent hole clogged, the piston is worn out (or bad rings) or the cartridge case and/or chamber are out of spec (too short/small/loose). For the gas regulator, the little scraper tool works really well to keep it clean. The FN military tool kits and cleaning kits are scarce and outrageously expensive (there's no way to keep up with the price an Asian airsofter with a hefty credit card limit is willing to pay), but you can find a copy of the scraper sold by this guy (http://shop.shootingsight.com/SCARbon-Scraper-SCARbon-Scraper.htm) out there. The M240 scraper also works, as does a small flat blade screwdriver with a slightly sharpened blade.
In terms of accuracy, I have not done any formal testing, but anecdotally the listed specs from FN50's post of 0.7MOA is spot-on as an average with M80. I have shot my SCAR in a few middle distance (400 and 600 yard / 400/600m) matches and it has been reasonably accurate with a decent "match" load. I don't "seriously" compete and use the match environment just for the ability to use a longer range facility (the longer range is only open in times that conflict with work during the week, whereas matches are early on Saturday morning), so I don't keep statistics on accuracy or results. Without having an actual dataset to quantify results, I can't provide anything more useful than a "washing machine at 400" (or the murky recollection of, on average; 15-18 of a 20 string "mostly" in the black rings, "most" of the time on an NRA standard 400 yard target) analogy.
I would love to buy a 16, but have convinced myself to wait for the conversion kit the is rumored to be offered by FNH some time next year. If they don't actually start selling it, I may cave and buy a 16. I love the ergos on my 17 and find myself shooting it more than anything else I own in the 30 caliber range.
I have read ad nauseam all the threads on this thing and most seem to be years old... I cannot find anything about how accurate it is with different mil and commercial loads... Is there a thread anywhere by an SME or "competent" reviewer on the accuracy of this rifle?
I also see posts where shooting suppressed they are complaining of gas blowback being so bad they are miserable shooting it... is this a problem even with the gas block set to suppressed or are these shooters getting gassed just most likely unaware of the gas setting feature?
Thanks
I've never pushed my 16, but it seems as accurate as my Noveske barrels ARs - easily under 1.5-2 MOA with M193/M855 ammo in 5 shot groups. I don't see it as a making tiny groups on paper rifle and my range is limited to 150yds, so that doesn't help.
In terms of blowback, I hear people talking about this but have never experience it. I'm not a high volume shooter but in at least 1500rds since I've had the weapon SBRs, I've shot all but maybe 20rds suppressed. No blowback, nothing anything like the standard DI AR gas to the face (sans adjustable gas block). When I shot a friends 18" AR suppressed with a Gas busters CH my eyes would water after about 10 shots and every shot gave me the puff to the eyes.
Zero, zlich, nada.
Sample size of 1, or well 2 considering my 17 is in the same boat.
Great info guys! I also read here and there about malfunctions being caused from MagPod prone, i.e. using the mag as a monopod and it inducing malfunctions from being pushed too far into magwell while shooting prone.... any experience with this? I know that the PMAGs (original) were causing the bolts to run funny and thought maybe these were related (if this actually happens and I don't know that).......
Thanks for the thread, guys. I've always wondered about realistic accuracy reports for the SCAR.
Tony.
All semi auto firearms blow gas back through the chamber. Suppressors make it much worse. Almost all the 'extra dirty' you have in your receiver after shooting suppressed came through the chamber. There was an interesting thread about this on Silencertalk that featured photos showing this. http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=114466
Shooting suppressed, there is no advantage to having a piston system as far as cleanliness is concerned.
Your're right about the physics of operation, and you'll always get a dirtier gun when shooting suppressed. The OP's comment was about the blowback being excessive and uncomfortable, not just dirty:
I also see posts where shooting suppressed they are complaining of gas blowback being so bad they are miserable shooting it... is this a problem even with the gas block set to suppressed or are these shooters getting gassed just most likely unaware of the gas setting feature?
The SCAR has the "internet expert" branding of being excessively gassy to the point of being physically painful to shoot due to the blowback. That isn't accurate, at least from my experience with the 17. I don't see the SCAR as excessively gassy and the regulator vents most (or at least most of the perceptible "extra" gas) of the excess gas away from the user. It does get both noticeably dirtier and a little more gassy when the regulator is dirty so the vent holes are obstructed. It certainly isn't uncomfortable to shoot when suppressed. "Uncomfortable" to me may be different than "uncomfortable" to someone else, though. Anecdotally, my wife (who is small in stature and can complain about gas, heat, smell, and likely everything else) is fine with shooting the 17 suppressed prone. When I get the eform approved for the 13" barrel and some quality time with it, I will see if my opinion changes. I don't have the capabilities or time to do an empirical test (like this type of scientific test (http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093) on barrels), so take my experience as what it is.
The OP's comments about all of the info online is good. If you believe the internet hype (either the forum fanboys or the detractors), you get a set of extremes in opinion reported as "fact" with no real data to support anything. The opinions of the fanboys are largely inaccurate since most don't have any real time behind the trigger (maybe two 100 round range trips a year at a <100 yard range) and spend more time on color coordinating whatever gizmo with a silly acronym or name they bolt on this week.
The detractors come from two groups mostly - 1. they hate the SCAR due to the price versus an AR, AK, PTR91, used Toyota Corolla, etc. and/or 2. those that have heard stories third or fourth hand (as reported on internet forums and from uninformed gun store employees) from users issued a SCAR where either: a. the issue optic (well used and 5+ years old) went down (the "SCARs kill optics" mantra and these "reports" also hate on the price of ELCANs), b. they heard that you couldn't get enough mags from supply (possible very early issue with the MK17 at NSWC in 2010) so SCAR 17 mags suck, and/or c. those who expect it to be a high precision weapon (better than an M110 or thinking the MK17 is designed and suited for MK20 SSR use case, since there's pictures online of NSW guys with magnified optics on a 17) rather than an assault rifle or battle rifle due to the price.
The detracting arguments are easily debunked: 1. The price is the price. The dollar isn't exactly the all commanding currency it used to be, so when you pay for manufacturing in Belgium in Euros, there's a bit of hit with a weak dollar. Add the fact that the SCAR volume isn't huge on the retail markets like ARs and it isn't cheap to manufacture in a cheap labor market like an AK, so price can't come down until the volume happens. Don't blame FN, the fault for this lies in D.C. with monetary policy (or lack thereof). 2. Unless you are going in combat with both a SCAR and a time machine to go back to 2010-11, all reasons under #2 aren't applicable. Improvements to design, supply, logistics and training have all been done on the .mil side. Some have filtered into civilian markets. That is a good thing.
The truth in the SCAR is that it is a well-built, pretty well thought out, reliable, reasonably accurate (getting back to the OP's original question) adaptable assault rifle (16) and/or battle rifle (17). Just like anything else, there could be some evolutionary improvements over time, and FN is improving things as they get data and user feedback. The design, like everything else, is a compromise between new ideas and older user doctrine - plus it has gone through the political sausage factory of .mil supply and testing. The original M16 or AK47 have been gradually improved with each successive generation to where they are today, but training, technology, and experience have also shaped this. Compared to either, the SCAR is in its teenage years (since technology improves things much faster now than in the 50's-80's) and the overall experience with it (compared to M16s, AKs, FALs, G3s, etc.) is short in relative terms. If a user's expectations are in line with reality, they shouldn't be disappointed with a SCAR.
When I saw shooters (who were obviously questionable in experience) complaining about the gas I was surprised.
I always thought most of the gas coming out of my suppressed ARs was from around the charging handle. I make quite a nice custom Gas Buster too. Because of this belief I figured the SCAR would be dramatically LESS gassy as it has no giant hole in the rear of the receiver like an AR. So, is the gas-factor of the SCAR & AR equal for the most part (assuming both are of equal barrel length) ?
When I saw shooters (who were obviously questionable in experience) complaining about the gas I was surprised.
I always thought most of the gas coming out of my suppressed ARs was from around the charging handle. I make quite a nice custom Gas Buster too. Because of this belief I figured the SCAR would be dramatically LESS gassy as it has no giant hole in the rear of the receiver like an AR. So, is the gas-factor of the SCAR & AR equal for the most part (assuming both are of equal barrel length) ?
Again, I don't have experience on a 16, but from my experience with the 17, the gas escapes from the gas regulator mostly and a little (nothing major or uncomfortable for me at least) from the ejection port. It is not excessive, nor is it anything that you really notice. It is rare that you see any smoke vapor, but this could be due to the ultra low humidity here in the desert (the pic that Aries144 linked was probably taken in the South East, where there is a "little" more humidity, so the vapor is more noticeable and smells hang a bit more, so YMMV depending on where you are). On an AR, you're right because the gas tube points backwards to the charging handle and vents more or less directly in your face unless you use a gasbuster (bought or made) type charging handle. It is doubtful that the original design of the AR incorporated routine suppressor use, so you do have to make adaptations like the gasbuster.
The SCAR was designed from the start to be used with a suppressor. That is why the SCAR has the gas regulator designed to mitigate normal gas flow problems (like hot gas and carbon in your face on an AR). Since the 16 works on the exact same principal, has the exact same design, operation, and the parts are scaled to the 17 in every way, it should (I say "should" since I admittedly don't have any real experience shooting the 16 suppressed) work exactly the same and should exhibit the same level of comfort with gas. The ejection port is not really near your face unless you're both left handed and also have a very large nose, and there's no "big opening" at the rear of the receiver like for an AR charging handle.
From what Aries144 describes, he is correct in the physics of the suppressor and gas venting in a normal semi-automatic firearm. Yes, there is always going to be gas, dirt, carbon, etc. I disagree with him in that the system designed by the FN engineers on the SCAR to mitigate the excess gas functions as a solution and (at least on the 17) this venting coupled with no "big openings" near your face means that don't get excess gas in your face. There is a nice bit about this in the SCAR 16 and 17 maintenance manual with some good diagrams (that are exactly the same for both), but the distribution clause prohibits posting contents online.
I haven't tried it on my 17 with the standard setting and a suppressor, but since this closes the vent holes, I would imagine that the consequence would be all of the excess gas venting back through the chamber. If the setting isn't right, that would be user error, not something wrong with the design.
If you have a chance, try one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
This is incorrect. The vast majority of gas escaping the receiver on any suppressed rifle, AR15 or not, is coming from the chamber, not the gas system.
Piston systems don't have any noticeable effect on "gas-in-face."
From a standpoint of perception of gas where it is noticeable to the user, I disagree. An AR pattern "feels" gassier than a SCAR, and needs a gasbuster type of charging handle for user comfort. From a technical standpoint, you are 100% correct. I can't disagree with that and appreciate the correction of my comment.
I have access to this document. Mind posting a page number? I suspect any mention of gas reduction is in reference to the gas being used to drive the piston, not to gas exiting the receiver that may irritate a shooter's eyes/nose.
Nice gas system diagram on page 1-10 of SW370-CF-TRS-010, TECHNICAL REPAIR STANDARD FOR MK 17 MOD 0 7.62 MM SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES (SOF) COMBAT ASSAULT RIFLE, HEAVY (NSN 1005-13-119-7703), March 2008 edition. (this page is also on the redacted copy that was posted online, so it can be seen by more people). The MK16 manual uses the same diagrams and descriptions.
Overview with instructions on gas regulation on 2-55 through 2-57 in SW370-A4-OPI-010 Rev 1, SOFWEP-05-G10-00088-00, OPERATOR'S MANUAL... "SCAR Family" (abbreviated by me since the rest of the title is very long) June 2008 edition.
In this section, the statement "Most of buildup is blown out of vent hole in front of regulator." (emphasis mine) is there to describe one of the functions of the suppressed setting. The focus of the design is to keep excess carbon from accumulating on the bolt carrier which could cause reliability issues. A nice byproduct is a much more comfortable rifle to shoot suppressed.
Shooter comfort isn't going to be in any .mil manuals outside of the silly "warnings" for risk management. Do you think that some SGM or CPO responsible for training with the SCAR will have much sympathy for someone complaining about their eyes or nose hurting from gas to the face shooting suppressed?
There's also some powerpoint from Crane floating around that discusses the gas system in the context of a suppressor, too. I can't locate it, but I know I've seen it. I think it was from NDIA or some other conference. It is likely found here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/
I did manage to locate this (ETA Sorry, I misread the document, but it is interesting anyway): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf,
When I saw shooters (who were obviously questionable in experience) complaining about the gas I was surprised.
I always thought most of the gas coming out of my suppressed ARs was from around the charging handle. I make quite a nice custom Gas Buster too. Because of this belief I figured the SCAR would be dramatically LESS gassy as it has no giant hole in the rear of the receiver like an AR. So, is the gas-factor of the SCAR & AR equal for the most part (assuming both are of equal barrel length) ?
I feel I receive an equal amount of gas to the nose and eyes from an AR or a SCAR suppressed in a stationary position. The SCAR is also louder to the shooters ear when not wearing ear pro.
It seems the linked document only references new ammunition and it's accuracy when fired from (pictured) rigid bolt action test equipment. I can't find any references to the MK16 or accuracy with the Mk16 other than a bullet point which reads [that the MK318 Mod 0 ammunition is] "Optimized for MK 16 (14” BBL)." I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just want to know if you have additional information about whether or not the accuracy picture presented in that document was definitely fired from a MK16.
Sorry, I misread the document and posted it in haste. I flagged it as such in my original post. The right info, if it exists, is probably on the NDIA site. You can find it if you are so inclined. The "not trying to be a dick here" comment gave me a good laugh. It is as funny as "with all due respect" and usually has the same meaning behind it.
Thanks for all the info guys. I guess I will just have to find one and shoot it and see... or take the plunge and find out the hard way ;-)
I didn't catch your edit before I wrote my reply.
I've never been the type to sneer at people like that. I meant what I said with all sincerity.
No offense taken. I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong. I will freely admit to it and use the correction to learn. The context of my comment, which I probably should have mentioned, was that I just had seen "Talladega Nights" on an airplane earlier in the day and the "not trying to be a dick, but" made me laugh in the context of the "with all due respect" scene that I had just viewed from Rickybobby. I am not trying to call you out, either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.