View Full Version : Scar 17 Reliability
A review of the 17 from a few BTDT types, mostly negative. Some of it is more personal preference, but what caught my attention was the claim the teams found it very unreliable. Heard pro/cons of the 17, but always heard it was very reliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCp5g4Zki8
RetroRevolver77
10-24-18, 10:20
deleted
diving dave
10-24-18, 10:27
Yeah I cant argue with their experience down range, all I know is my 17S has not had an issue yet. Most of the time I run it with an AAC 762 can. It is a tad over gassed, but that can be fixed by changing gas jets which I've yet to do. I dont see what the issue is with the charging handle. AK's, M14's, the ol FNC all had charging handles that reciprocated ...... I typically run Winchester 150 grn ball and 1980's South African ball through mine, no issue.
Illuminating. First time that I had heard about all those issues. Just saved me a bunch of money as I was looking at getting one.
RetroRevolver77
10-24-18, 10:43
deleted
I recently came across that video. While I can"t argue with their personal experience, I do know that the SF team we were co-located with in 2011-12 had a couple guys running them. I inquired as to their thoughts and they liked them. No idea as to how hard they were being run, but have to wonder if there were issues from the get go, or if something long term related.
Illuminating. First time that I had heard about all those issues. Just saved me a bunch of money as I was looking at getting one.
I'm no expert here, but I'd probably spend the extra $ and get a KAC SR25, which seems to be loved by all.
I hate to say it, but...some of the "negatives" they pointed out are kinda, well... sort of "duh" to any .308 battle rifle...
There also seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions in there as well.
TBF, the only critique that I found interesting was the unreliability claim. The range ammo looked like steel, so I'm not surprised there. But given the real-world experience was likely with the usual M80, I wish I could see the whole story on that. I wonder how much was due to combat conditions/moon dust and how much was guys running it accidentally in "suppressed" mode...
Everything else sounds pretty much like the price you pay for a heavier gun set up for intermediate ranges...I'm surprised they didn't mention the stock, which I seem to hear more complaints about with this gun...
Mine runs 100%, and is my favorite 7.62 rifle.
If you get 3 malfunctions in first 30 rounds with *ANY* firearm, then that specific rifle has issues and should be returned, not used for further evaluation.
I have talked to more than a few guys that have run them and they had a bunch of complaints, none of them were about reliability.
I hate to say it, but...some of the "negatives" they pointed out are kinda, well... sort of "duh" to any .308 battle rifle...
There also seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions in there as well.
TBF, the only critique that I found interesting was the unreliability claim. The range ammo looked like steel, so I'm not surprised there. But given the real-world experience was likely with the usual M80, I wish I could see the whole story on that. I wonder how much was due to combat conditions/moon dust and how much was guys running it accidentally in "suppressed" mode...
Everything else sounds pretty much like the price you pay for a heavier gun set up for intermediate ranges...I'm surprised they didn't mention the stock, which I seem to hear more complaints about with this gun...
My only real interest in the vid was the ex SEAL claiming not only did his SCAR give him problems, the Teams wanted rid of the SCAR too due to reliability issues. Their n=1 rifle problems in the vid didn't really tell me/us anything.
My only real interest in the vid was the ex SEAL claiming not only did his SCAR give him problems, the Teams wanted rid of the SCAR too due to reliability issues. Their n=1 rifle problems in the vid didn't really tell me/us anything.
I agree, and was what I was taking away from it. As the one guy in the video alludes to, he wanted the scar for a specific purpose and it shit the bed and he got rid of it. Sounds like others too. Now I am certain that if it was reliable, he would not have dumped it. No, it's not a cqb gun. Duh! Again not his stated purpose. I think they could have used a lot better optic as well, but that wasn't the point anyway. I don't care what you have, if not reliable it's garbage. This was the first time that I have heard a scar unreliable. Guess I will keep my FAL. Maybe not as accurate, but it's minute of man to 6-800 yards and stone ax reliable.
In the end, I am mostly AR guy anyway. But .308 is nice in the Wyoming plains...
As pointed pointed out, he was running the bolt on the wrong side for a RH shooter.
Complaints about size/weight, well it is a battle rifle not a subgun. It is not designed for room clearing, just like an SR-25 or M1-Garand is not.
I recently came across that video. While I can"t argue with their personal experience, I do know that the SF team we were co-located with in 2011-12 had a couple guys running them. I inquired as to their thoughts and they liked them. No idea as to how hard they were being run, but have to wonder if there were issues from the get go, or if something long term related.
Even the rental ranges I've seen post stuff seem to say they hold up well, only real problem I ever heard about was the stocks breaking. Still I'd like to know more about his issues.
That being said most of the issues they listed had nothing to do with the gun. Complaining about the optic or suppressor really doesn't help, same goes to an extent with 308. Hell they mention clearing rooms, I wouldn't want to do that with a sr25 either. At some point you have to look at design. The 10.3 inch mk18 is a good choice for small areas, a battle rifle in 308 isn't. Same longer range shots, the 308 is the best choice, not the short mk18.
Also as someone pointed out it looked like steel ammo. The gun should run it, not sure if I'd really ding it for not.
I never like the SCAR from the beginning when USASOC did it's testing of it.
I know many SEALs that like them but mags were always an issue. Getting mags and then getting getting the mags to work.
Yeah I cant argue with their experience down range, all I know is my 17S has not had an issue yet. Most of the time I run it with an AAC 762 can. It is a tad over gassed, but that can be fixed by changing gas jets which I've yet to do. I dont see what the issue is with the charging handle. AK's, M14's, the ol FNC all had charging handles that reciprocated ...... I typically run Winchester 150 grn ball and 1980's South African ball through mine, no issue.They all had reciprocating handles back at the receiver though, not up where people like to put there hand.
Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
10-25-18, 00:51
I've talked to a couple of guys now who have had the option of grabbing Mk17 SCARs from their arms rooms. They have had nothing negative to say about them, except that they were heavy (as previously mentioned: no, duh) and therefore tended to be left in the arms room in favor of M4/M4A1s, Mk18s, &c.
However, between BFV's reports WRT PTRs and this, makes me think I might just go PTR-91 for my 7.62mm NATO battle rifle, "needs".
(On the other, other hand, the Mk16 SCAR made an appearance in the recent Army Ranger recruiting ad that surprised me, given how much I'd heard that SOCOM didn't seem to care for them that much. And Finland's SOF have also adopted the Mk16 SCAR - and I find it hard to imagine that the land of SAKO, Tikka, and Valmet would suffer an unreliable rifle for their SOF, especially when they could have probably bought HK416s, instead, like everyone else.)
only real problem I ever heard about was the stocks breaking. Still I'd like to know more about his issues.
That being said most of the issues they listed had nothing to do with the gun. Complaining about the optic or suppressor really doesn't help, same goes to an extent with 308. Hell they mention clearing rooms, I wouldn't want to do that with a sr25 either. At some point you have to look at design.
I too, had heard about the stocks, but not much else. I imagine clearing a room with the SCAR 17, would be about like it was when we were clearing a room with the old M16a2. It was often awkward, but we adapted.
I never like the SCAR from the beginning when USASOC did it's testing of it.
I know many SEALs that like them but mags were always an issue. Getting mags and then getting getting the mags to work.
I would be interested in your thoughts as to why you dislike it.
RetroRevolver77
10-25-18, 08:58
deleted
I would be interested in your thoughts as to why you dislike it.
I did not like the the way it shot. It just didn't feel good. Also the reciprocating charging handle is just stupid. It is like having a non QD scope mount today...... let's not use 50 year old technology as the standard when new stuff has been proven.
Also not a fan of the mags and the way they worked.
RobertTheTexan
10-25-18, 10:04
It sits high enough but they had the charging handle mounted on the wrong side to begin with.
His comment about the charging handle wasn’t based on what happened at the range , but based on what’ he experienced in combat, as he said, he needed to choke up on his weapon as is common in pieing a door or CQ. Not saying it couldn’t be fixed, but it wasn’t a range type comment.
I did not like the the way it shot. It just didn't feel good. Also the reciprocating charging handle is just stupid. It is like having a non QD scope mount today...... let's not use 50 year old technology as the standard when new stuff has been proven.
Also not a fan of the mags and the way they worked.
With my very limited time on the gun, I'd agree. This is coming of a lot of LMT MWS shooting... the LMT's drawback is its 300 lb weight.
RetroRevolver77
10-25-18, 11:08
deleted
With my very limited time on the gun, I'd agree. This is coming of a lot of LMT MWS shooting... the LMT's drawback is its 300 lb weight.
300lbs....... and I was going to get one.... not now.... way too heavy..... :jester:
Rifleman_04
10-25-18, 11:12
That video was so cringy I had a tough time making it as far as I did. Not everyone that is “btdt” knows what they are talking about.
RobertTheTexan
10-25-18, 11:46
With my very limited time on the gun, I'd agree. This is coming of a lot of LMT MWS shooting... the LMT's drawback is its 300 lb weight.
+1 on the LMT. That’s the only drawback I’ve found with my MWS upper. I believe the upper weighed as much as my complete LR308 (-) optic. When I put my 762 SDN-6 on it, I realized I ether needed a different battle rifle or I need a new can. I’m going the can route because I’ve found the MWS is just such a reliable shooter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I agree with your charging handle comment. Additionally, lacking any sort of operational experience with this weapon system, I am keen on others observations to help develop a broader picture of it. I have considered purchasing the weapon, but at the price point it sells at I want to make an informed decision before doing so.
I did not like the the way it shot. It just didn't feel good. Also the reciprocating charging handle is just stupid. It is like having a non QD scope mount today...... let's not use 50 year old technology as the standard when new stuff has been proven.
Also not a fan of the mags and the way they worked.
That video was so cringy I had a tough time making it as far as I did. Not everyone that is “btdt” knows what they are talking about.
Well aware of that, plenty BTDT types are not really gun guys per se. What grabbed my attention was the claim the 17 had a bad rep across the board in the teams in combat, which I'd not heard before. Heavy (duh), not the best for CQB (duh), and the stock prone to breaking, etc I'd heard and or made sense, but poor reliability was not one of them. I would also have expected the poor reliability, would have shown itself well before ever making it that far, so I thought it a good potential learnin' topic to post for me and others who don't have a lot of experience with the 17.
Dano is completely on point about having relevant competencies.
Dano, or others - have you seen/heard of any third party KAC magazine compatible lower being used/issued in combat as a number of makers make those claims. I own one brand of a .308 compatible lower and its only (major issue) is the need to modify bolt catch. Otherwise, it feeds fine with both KAC and SR-25 mags. Honestly, I would go with KAC magazine if money is no issue as it seems better and drops free easier since it's not as thick.
If they are commenting based on using steel case ammo, then use, both of my SCAR 17's are much more sensitive to ammo quality. They run 100% with brass and some steel case (Herters). However, I have a batch of some steel case that would cause the same issues as they had in SCAR, while it worked fine in MWS and LE 901.
There is already a non reciprocating charging handle for SCAR. However, it's probably not available for civilian purchase.
Personally, if I want a simple, robust .308 carabine, I am a big fan of Colt LE 901 - I own one (if on a budget) or KAC (which I don't have first hand experience with).
One should not mistake effectiveness as an aggressive capable combatant with relevant technical knowledge or savviness on small arms writ large. In too few cases do the that X and Y cross.
Obviously there are some depth and breadth of experience-isms and significant knowledge gaps. IE the scar is not truly ambi as mentioned, a SAW is not even close to being as reliable nor same use case as a SCAR... equivalencies are hard for me to see. The charging handle can be moved to the (IMO) right side and is much better for minimizing issues with manipulating, shooting under obstacles, and not getting knocked out of battery against ones kit.
#1 issue with magazine fed weapons is the magazine... and the SCAR-H has a heavy magazine with less than optimal heat treating on the lips = easily damaged (and the USGI ones are worse than comm sales). Early issue years there were not enough magazines fielded for sure. I have yet to see an organization that teaches end users how to test for reliability in magazines. Or even thinks through a process to ensure managing the primary liability, magazines, in weapons systems. For example... rigorously discards magazines used in training cycle then test, validates and isolates the operational/deployment loadout.
The SCAR is a solid weapon and longitudinal stats from the NSW schoolhouse don't show major issues.
SCAR improvements could certainly be had:
-non reciprocating kit
-a 1/10 or 1/8 barrel twist in 7.62 for better stability at distance and using higher BC projectiles
-the polymer SR25 magazine compatible lower 1) it's a better magazine 2) compatibility across customer 7.62 offerings 3) decreased mag weight.. 5.7oz weight magpul v 9oz FN OEM
-a longer receiver front end or mature add on with functionalities such as the Lancer handguard.
We all have perspective, mine includes lugging a HK417, KAC K110 variants, and SCAR-H around. I prefer the mature KAC K-type offerings but wouldn't feel under served with a SCAR.
It’s always great to see you post [emoji106][emoji2532]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
+1 on the LMT. That’s the only drawback I’ve found with my MWS upper. I believe the upper weighed as much as my complete LR308 (-) optic. When I put my 762 SDN-6 on it, I realized I ether needed a different battle rifle or I need a new can. I’m going the can route because I’ve found the MWS is just such a reliable shooter.
We don't hump the LMT anywhere, so the weight is welcome for prone/fixed position shooting. The gun is bomb proof and takes a lot of abuse (hot bolt gun ammo, etc).
It sits high enough but they had the charging handle mounted on the wrong side to begin with.
Wrong side for whom? Here's another video with a right handed Green Beret who makes the point he wants the right side of the weapon clean. He also quotes a SF saying "If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6cdQUL0aQ
RetroRevolver77
10-25-18, 20:10
delete
I really want a 308 LMT :) have heard they are bomb proof etc..
have two 5.56 MRP one gas one piston love those things and they really want a big brother :)
Compared to "Classic" battle rifles such as the G3 or M14, I would have thought that the SCAR 17 would be more durable, reliable, etc.
RetroRevolver77
10-26-18, 16:50
deleted
I'm not sure. As I said before, my FAL is stone ax reliable. It may not be the best tool to use, but I would bet my life on it to work when I need it.
RetroRevolver77
10-26-18, 17:23
deleted
BoringGuy45
10-26-18, 17:59
I've heard that the big, heavy BCG of the SCAR, both 16 and 17, is murder on optics, and even good ones like Aimpoint and Trijicons have a short service life if mounted on a SCAR. Any truth to this?
I've heard that the big, heavy BCG of the SCAR, both 16 and 17, is murder on optics, and even good ones like Aimpoint and Trijicons have a short service life if mounted on a SCAR. Any truth to this?
I recall there was lengthy thread on that one a while back if anyone can find it.
RetroRevolver77
10-26-18, 18:28
deleted
Nightstalker865
10-26-18, 19:16
ELCAN’s and Razor HD’s have been holding up very well on the MK17’s, from what I’ve seen and read.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cagemonkey
10-26-18, 20:56
I have no doubt individual users, in looser commands, added aftermarket lowers for magazine compatibility reasons... haven't heard of a programmatic test.
FN has made SR25 compatible lowers (polymer) and would surely produce them if USG asked. I would personally buy one.
The non reciprocating handle conversion is a bit complicated with new carrier and other parts... I would personally buy one.
Military weapons are built around an ammo type. All the minute dimensional changes or hardness in projectiles, brass, primers matter. The type and weight of charge, pressures, really matter.
Great Assessment. These have been around for a while; https://www.handldefense.com/product/mk17-m110/
The SCAR may be a little more reliable than traditional battle rifles but it isn't more durable.
Nobody cares about AKs. Let it go
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Compared to "Classic" battle rifles such as the G3 or M14, I would have thought that the SCAR 17 would be more durable, reliable, etc.
The SCAR may be a little more reliable than traditional battle rifles but it isn't more durable.SCAR is clearly more modern, may have other advantages. But there is no way I position it as more reliable/durable as G3/HK91s.
I'd even gamble that FALs could challenge the SCAR in the reliability dept.
The M-14 was pickier and less durable than the G3 & FALs, so not sure I'd even use them in the same sentence. Maybe more accurate, much beloved, etc.
RetroRevolver77
10-27-18, 14:40
deleted
I would disagree, strongly.
There is no legacy battle rifle that has seen the high round count the SCAR has in SOCOM or could hold up to it. Pre 9/11 I had a 18.5" M14 and a HKG3 that that were not up to the task of modern high round count training (legacy cold weather team weapons... the m4 being less than optimal for some climates)
The SCAR's modularity makes it much more serviceable, minutes of down time to re-barrel or re-spring versus hours to days... or tossing a HK9X variant
I'll defer to your direct experience, especially for SOCOM high round count usage. And the modularity point is valid. If you shoot out barrels, valid point on repairability.
And I'm not advocating the G3 is better, just that it was a pretty tough service rifle in it's day. And no slouch even now in terms of reliability.
I also know there are a ton of ancient G3s still in service around the world. And recent service rifle experience with allies. I still see them in Europe in PD/gendarmerie hands. You didn't hear about stocks breaking, optics failing, etc. (Curious how old your G3 was, 20 years?)
Granted it's civvy usage, but my early HK91 ran a steady diet of German 7.62 when it was $25 for 200 round sleeve. We did not bother with .22, just shot and hunted with the HK. Shot it a ton, cleaned it rarely, for right at 25 years. Never an issue. My civvy experience: They are tough rifles.
Those days are past, roller locks are a moot point now.
SCAR looks like a great rifle for modern mil usage. I'd love to have one. And a SR-25. And a LMT to match it.
FlyingHunter
10-27-18, 16:20
I've had a SCAR 17 for 10+ years. I'm always amused at the "I heard it on the internet" level of chatter regarding the SCAR 17 by those who have zero experience with the gun. I'm nothing more than an enthusiast and hunter with some occasional 3 gun competition use with the SCAR 17.
My direct use experience has the following observations:
1. Dead nuts reliable, in fact, I cannot recall a single failure to function, ever.
2. All of my optics have been fine. Currently wears a Leopold 1x6.
3. Weight and balance are excellent for a 308.
4. Accuracy is ok, 2-3 moa most days.
Top Positive: Reliability
Top Negative: Magazines are relatively expensive, proprietary, non factory polymer option, non platform interchangeable.
In my opinion, while expensive, one of my best firearm purchases. The juice has been worth the squeeze.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.