View Full Version : SCAR 17 and SEAL's??
gamewarden
10-06-11, 00:25
Anybody know whats going on? Just came across this link and thought it was interesting...
http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=104622
I'm certainly not shocked.
eta...somewhere on here there is some reports about random POI shift as well.
Not likely but maybe it will make the price drop a little :D
I was really hoping that the SCAR 17 would prove to be a viable platform upgrade from the current selection of US weapon systems.
In fact I was saving up for one... now I think I will wait. :angry:
abn45bravo
10-06-11, 02:39
There is nothing wrong with SCAR L or H. Its biggest obstacle right now is budget cuts and no perceived need for it, but there is. SCAR was designed to be the AK of the modern assault rifle, where it really shines is in resource poor environments were you may not have access to regular weapons cleaning equipment. Now I love my M4 but she likes to be run wet, alot more so than a SCAR needs.
abn45bravo
10-06-11, 02:42
Also keep in mind that the us military has a not so hot track record when it comes to selecting the best weapon for the Soldier/Marine
Failure2Stop
10-06-11, 04:17
The SCAR has had a few issues, the biggest of which is that SOCOM didn't get the rifle they were really wanting.
The benefits of the SCAR have nothing to do with cleaning, but rather armorer support and parts commonality through the program.
We actually did a pretty good job of selecting a weapon that meets a requirement, with the SCAR, there are a few problems:
1- Meeting a requirement document is different than meeting a need.
2- HK did not submit the 416/417
3- Even if they did, the 417 most likely would not have made it, and unlike today where the 5.56 gun is redundant and unnecesssary, if the 416/417 got the nod, the 416 would still be redundant and the 417 would have been shelved long ago.
FWIW- lots of dudes are pretty fond of the H. As in: dudes down range turning booger eaters into worm-food. Bestest ever? No. Servicable? Seems to be. Longevity? Unknown.
All good points above. With any luck I will be adding one to my inventory very soon.:cool:
ICANHITHIMMAN
10-06-11, 12:07
interesting I have not heard any of this stuff. Kind of back door info from guys on the ground. I live in NY so I have never even seen a SCAR, so I guess I'm not to upset its not taking off like they planed.
I'm certainly not shocked.
eta...somewhere on here there is some reports about random POI shift as well.
Don't know if you are talking about optics or lasers, but it is a known fact that the SCAR has been known to destroy electronics.
C4
Don't know if you are talking about optics or lasers, but it is a known fact that the SCAR has been known to destroy electronics.
C4
I haven't heard this one. Is it the piston that's doing it?
I haven't heard this one. Is it the piston that's doing it?
The easiest way to explain it is that the gun has two energy waves moving through it. Most times they never collide, but when they do, it destroys the laser for sure and sometimes the optic.
It is my understanding that the SCAR gets fielded with two lasers because of this issue.
C4
The easiest way to explain it is that the gun has two energy waves moving through it. Most times they never collide, but when they do, it destroys the laser for sure and sometimes the optic.
It is my understanding that the SCAR gets fielded with two lasers because of this issue.
C4
Well that can get pretty expensive. I guess the 416 doesn't do this?
the gun has two energy waves moving through it.
Damn magical firearms!
No, but really, please explain what you mean. I realize there is recoil in a discharging firearm... but... what's the other energy wave?
Well that can get pretty expensive. I guess the 416 doesn't do this?
Not that I am aware of, but the 416 has its own issues.
C4
Damn magical firearms!
No, but really, please explain what you mean. I realize there is recoil in a discharging firearm... but... what's the other energy wave?
From how it has been stated to me, the monolithic upper design coupled with a polymer lower creates some weird energy waves in the gun. Basically, one wave is going in one direction and another wave is going in the opposite direction. IMHO, the second energy wave is coming from the piston system.
C4
It very well may be tied to the optics Grant, is it you that had seen RTZ mounts during recoil captured with a hi speed camera?
It very well may be tied to the optics Grant, is it you that had seen RTZ mounts during recoil captured with a hi speed camera?
Yes, I have seen FN's hi-speed video test of a SCAR shooting and the RTZ mount "Sliding" all over the place.
C4
Yes, I have seen FN's hi-speed video test of a SCAR shooting and the RTZ mount "Sliding" all over the place.
C4
Ouch. Really>? That is not good news at all for those that care about bullet placement. :confused:
You certainly get a few fringe benefits in your line of work;)
I bet that was some very interesting footage to see, and there is nowhere to hide under a hi speed camera.
You certainly get a few fringe benefits in your line of work;)
I bet that was some very interesting footage to see, and there is nowhere to hide under a hi speed camera.
It is sometimes amazing what people will send me to look at or what they will tell me. :D
The down side is that I can share so very little of it on a public forum.
C4
QuietShootr
10-06-11, 19:49
And so the hate begins.
Haters are, in fact, gonna hate. 7.5# 7.62? Not too many of those around, and there aren't ANY others with QC barrels and a piston.
Anybody know whats going on? Just came across this link and thought it was interesting...
http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=104622
I realize the people posting on that site have a lot of cred, but do note one person lambasting the SCAR 17S noted 'Sig also makes a nice gas piston model' and another said 'I had the chance to shoot the Kriss Super V. HOLY SHIT!! That weapon system is amazing.' I let those statements stand for themselves.
Not saying the SCAR doesn't potentially have issues, but mine has been flawless and the positive stuff I've read heretofore is far more substantiated than the claims being made in this thread or that one. When I can see some proof of some of these issues, I'll believe it. Hell, maybe I'll even sell mine, but so far I love the damn thing.
morbidbattlecry
10-06-11, 22:51
Don't know if you are talking about optics or lasers, but it is a known fact that the SCAR has been known to destroy electronics.
C4
Doesn't this have mostly to do with the optics and electronics not designed for the recoil of the Scar H in mind?
Doesn't this have mostly to do with the optics and electronics not designed for the recoil of the Scar H in mind?
From my understanding most of the POI shift that has been documented with the SCAR was narrowed down to the craptastic ARMS mount used with the DR's.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=71767&page=2
No Bananas
10-07-11, 01:48
Don't know if you are talking about optics or lasers, but it is a known fact that the SCAR has been known to destroy electronics.
C4
Is this so for the SCAR 16 also? I have a SCAR 16 but haven't got an Aimpoint T-1 for it yet. (Had an ACOG but wasn't for me)
Well... I guess I was getting a SCAR.
FWIW, on another forum (Tactical Forums) there were frequent comments by a SEAL member. I remember how his comments on the weapons sometimes changed with time... for example the Mk12 SPR went from disliked to very well liked in just a couple of years :)
Crow Hunter
10-07-11, 17:35
There has been some talk about it chewing up optics over on LF for a while.
I got the impression it was because of the significantly heavier weight of the carrier/piston assy and the greater inertia of that system causing there to be a spike that the optics just weren't capable of withstanding. I don't know if it was on opening or closing or both, but the gist of it was the AR DGI system loaded the optics over a longer period of time and since most "HiSpeed" optics were designed around the AR system, sometimes the optics break.
I don't know all the details, but searching for posts by Rgordo at LF will pull up alot of VERY good info.
I haven't read about what Grant is talking about, but he is privy to ALOT more information than I am.
Anybody know whats going on? Just came across this link and thought it was interesting...
http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=104622
I wouldn't read to much into it.
SCAR L-just keep your M4
SCAR H-new capability worth saving and of course will have issues to be worked through.
I was a shooter on user assessment two and after that was attached to operational test where for the next few years I was part of the crew running the testing and I have yet to find reliable info on the internet about weather the program in alive or dead or being scraped. You get a FEW accurate hints of issues every now and then but that is it.
Grant is correct that is was destroying SOPMOD kit but last I heard they went back to the vendors and most have been successful in "hardening" there devices for the recoil impulse.
Doesn't this have mostly to do with the optics and electronics not designed for the recoil of the Scar H in mind?
No.
C4
I wouldn't read to much into it.
SCAR L-just keep your M4
SCAR H-new capability worth saving and of course will have issues to be worked through.
I was a shooter on user assessment two and after that was attached to operational test where for the next few years I was part of the crew running the testing and I have yet to find reliable info on the internet about weather the program in alive or dead or being scraped. You get a FEW accurate hints of issues every now and then but that is it.
Grant is correct that is was destroying SOPMOD kit but last I heard they went back to the vendors and most have been successful in "hardening" there devices for the recoil impulse.
Thanks man for the info!
C4
morbidbattlecry
10-07-11, 20:24
No.
C4
So vendors have hardened the optics and electronics to deal with the scar H recoil. And i'm wrong in saying they were not designed for scar H recoil how?
So vendors have hardened the optics and electronics to deal with the scar H recoil. And i'm wrong in saying they were not designed for scar H recoil how?
If I remember correctly I think it was happening on the SCAR L and the SCAR H. That I would have to confirm but I'm currently deployed will have to check it out when I get back I want to know too. I think Grant is just saying there is some "odd shit"(technical terms) going on in the receiver that is the root of the issue. I know the laser issue was resolved and pretty sure the Elcan was too but once again will have to check on that. I know guys have used Nightforce scopes on them with no issues and I would put an aimpoint on anything!! The problem right now is that EOtech is the issued SOPMOD sight.
I do not thing the odd shit going on in the receiver is and issue for the weapon its self in term of longevity as when we were at the plant in Belgium they had what looked to be about 10 guns with 100K on the receivers and still going strong.
I dont know anyone yet running an S&B on it but in a perfect world I'll get the 1-8 when it comes out and put it on the 17S.
QuietShootr
10-07-11, 23:30
If I remember correctly I think it was happening on the SCAR L and the SCAR H. That I would have to confirm but I'm currently deployed will have to check it out when I get back I want to know too. I think Grant is just saying there is some "odd shit"(technical terms) going on in the receiver that is the root of the issue. I know the laser issue was resolved and pretty sure the Elcan was too but once again will have to check on that. I know guys have used Nightforce scopes on them with no issues and I would put an aimpoint on anything!! The problem right now is that EOtech is the issued SOPMOD sight.
I do not thing the odd shit going on in the receiver is and issue for the weapon its self in term of longevity as when we were at the plant in Belgium they had what looked to be about 10 guns with 100K on the receivers and still going strong.
I dont know anyone yet running an S&B on it but in a perfect world I'll get the 1-8 when it comes out and put it on the 17S.
So that whole 30k/barrel 90,000+/receiver round service life for the 17 isn't just a fable, huh?
Despite the hordes of people wanting to shit-talk the 17 all of a sudden, the fact remains that it's the most tested 7.62 rifle ever built. It's not perfect, nothing man-made is. But it's a great, DURABLE weapon. Yes, it eats electronics and optics that aren't tough enough to ride it. So use an Aimpoint, NF, ACOG, or S&B, and drive on. Eothingys were the suck when they first came out, and they're only marginally better now.
And the parts issue is bull-shit. I called FN on Tuesday and ordered a pretty good quantity of parts for my 17 (like enough to keep it going longer than I'm going to need it, not counting a new barrel), and the rep told me they were all in stock except for the magazines.
Magic_Salad0892
10-08-11, 03:16
except for the magazines.
Lol. The most important part.
I have an issue with this. People also claim that their Bushmaster has been flawless or their DPMS has been great, but that isn't the point. What does flawless mean? What ammo are you using? How many rounds per evolution, etc.... All those things make a huge difference.
Are you using your weapon like the personnel overseas and are you using the same optics and accessories?
When guys like grinch or the ones on SOCNETmake posts about their observations they are doing so based upon feedback from other face shooters or their own experiences. They don't have alot of time while they are overseas to make up shit to post online so others can pick it apart.
I remember guys saying that the Eotech was great and they had no problems, yet I had over 70 of them on the shelf and they told a different story.
I realize the people posting on that site have a lot of cred, but do note one person lambasting the SCAR 17S noted 'Sig also makes a nice gas piston model' and another said 'I had the chance to shoot the Kriss Super V. HOLY SHIT!! That weapon system is amazing.' I let those statements stand for themselves.
Not saying the SCAR doesn't potentially have issues, but mine has been flawless and the positive stuff I've read heretofore is far more substantiated than the claims being made in this thread or that one. When I can see some proof of some of these issues, I'll believe it. Hell, maybe I'll even sell mine, but so far I love the damn thing.
I have an issue with this. People also claim that their Bushmaster has been flawless or their DPMS has been great, but that isn't the point. What does flawless mean? What ammo are you using? How many rounds per evolution, etc.... All those things make a huge difference.
Are you using your weapon like the personnel overseas and are you using the same optics and accessories?
Of course I'm not. I can give the details if this was more than a rhetorical question, but no it's not even close nor does it represent "hard use" by anyone's definition. The hardest use my SCAR has seen was a carbine course with 500 rounds in two days. Obviously, that's nothing. That said, plenty of guns have choked on less.
When guys like grinch or the ones on SOCNETmake posts about their observations they are doing so based upon feedback from other face shooters or their own experiences. They don't have alot of time while they are overseas to make up shit to post online so others can pick it apart.
I remember guys saying that the Eotech was great and they had no problems, yet I had over 70 of them on the shelf and they told a different story.
I didn't say they made anything up. I merely said my own experience was positive so far and until I see something more substantiated or detailed, the other feedback I've seen from equally valid sources along with my own empirical observation trumps an off-handed comment--particularly when those same people are saying how awesome the Kriss Super V is. I've literally seen a few verified SF guys recommend DPMS. Does that mean I should run out and buy one? Hell, Grinch made his posts *after* mine and I read them as supporting what I was attempting to say, namely that fundamentally the system seems to be working, that there have been some issues, but these kinks are to be expected in a new system and are being worked out, in many cases by the manufacturers of electronics/scopes which were not designed with the SCAR in mind.
Part of m4carbine's philosophy is that not all are opinions are equal. Mine is certainly not equal, I am nobody. I have no issue with that. But how does one reconcile differing opinions that are considered equal? Using your example of EoTech, I've *directly* (meaning in person and not on the Internet) spoken with former SF guys who think they're fine and the issues are overblown. I've also spoken with others who think you're an idiot for running anything but an Aimpoint. Who's opinion is more *valid* in that case?
Similarly, I've seen lengthy, detailed posts about the SCAR from those overseas (some here) that said it's good, not perfect, but good and that besides a few small issues, it worked for them. In the linked thread I see one or two off-handed comments about issues with no details. I've certainly read about the issues with optics/electronics/etc and as is discussed here it seems more an issue with these optics having been designed for the m4 than the SCAR. Until I see more substantive comments though, all I'm saying is the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest it's a viable weapon system with a few kinks and that my experience with the weapon, as low-value as any of my opinions may be, backs this up. Nothing more and nothing less.
wild_wild_wes
10-08-11, 22:54
FWIW, on another forum (Tactical Forums) there were frequent comments by a SEAL member. I remember how his comments on the weapons sometimes changed with time... for example the Mk12 SPR went from disliked to very well liked in just a couple of years :)
Interesting...I remember hearing that the Mk12 was disliked at first by the SEALS, who wanted "Recce" spec rifles instead, and Mk12s with shot-out barrels had 16" barrels sustituted...so, they came around to appreciate the Mk12? I'd like to see more info on that; a couple of Army DMs I talked to had a very high regard for the SPR, to the point of preferring it to a 7.62 AR-type precision rifle.
Hmm the broken stocks, worn guide rails, and failing barrel mounts comment in the thread worries me. Any truth to these? If so then it sounds like it's not all as fn advertised.
morbidbattlecry
10-08-11, 23:18
If I remember correctly I think it was happening on the SCAR L and the SCAR H. That I would have to confirm but I'm currently deployed will have to check it out when I get back I want to know too. I think Grant is just saying there is some "odd shit"(technical terms) going on in the receiver that is the root of the issue. I know the laser issue was resolved and pretty sure the Elcan was too but once again will have to check on that. I know guys have used Nightforce scopes on them with no issues and I would put an aimpoint on anything!! The problem right now is that EOtech is the issued SOPMOD sight.
I do not thing the odd shit going on in the receiver is and issue for the weapon its self in term of longevity as when we were at the plant in Belgium they had what looked to be about 10 guns with 100K on the receivers and still going strong.
I dont know anyone yet running an S&B on it but in a perfect world I'll get the 1-8 when it comes out and put it on the 17S.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I remember The LAV saying something about how optics would have to reinforced to deal with the change in recoil. But that was with the Scar L.
VictorMikeLima
10-08-11, 23:36
Such information in this thread. It does keep me on the fence about the SCAR-17S though.
bigrobbierob
10-09-11, 02:27
Grant,
Would the recoil impulse that is/was destroying sights and lasers on the SCAR-H be similar to the recoil impulse on a spring piston air rifle that requires propperly built optics?
Such information in this thread. It does keep me on the fence about the SCAR-17S though.
I would think that if the SCAR 16 destroys electronics, the higher recoil of the 17 would be even worse. Given the shooting advantage you gain using modern electronics, this is just another issue that steers me away from the SCAR platform.
Crow Hunter
10-09-11, 09:47
Not Grant, but from what I have read it is not exactly the same. From the best of my knowledge the spring piston air rifles damage optics because the recoil is opposite those of a normal rifle and unless an optic has been designed with that recoil in mind, it will damage them.
Optics designed for automatic rifles are already designed with counter recoil in mind due to the bolt assembly.
The M4 by virtue of it's DGI gas system and lighter BCG operates "smoother". The SCAR with it's short stroke gas system and heavier BCG operates a little more "abruptly". If you take accelerometer readings on both the M4 has looks like a smooth hill while the SCAR looks more like a sharp mountain peak.
The military optics were designed around the M4 not the SCAR. They are being used on something they weren't designed for. Some of them break. I would imagine that the manufacturers just take the new curves and change materials/beef up thicknesses/add resin/etc. wherever needed and they will be fine.
As to the wearing receiver rails. I could definitely see how this might happen. You have the same off center recoil issue that happens with piston operated ARs and you have a hardened steel BCG riding on extruded annodized aluminum rails. I know extruded aluminum has be be relatively soft to be extruded, 6065 T6 is what we use and it is fairly soft. I don't know if you can go back in and heat treat it/surface harden it or not. The annodizing will harden it some but extruded aluminum is still going to be a fairly soft material. Get a stack up a little wrong or something and I could see you chewing a rail up.
But I am not a firearm designer so take my comments for what you paid for them.:D
abn45bravo
10-09-11, 09:54
I would think that if the SCAR 16 destroys electronics, the higher recoil of the 17 would be even worse. Given the shooting advantage you gain using modern electronics, this is just another issue that steers me away from the SCAR platform.
We were braking sights long before SCAR ever showed up. SOPMOD II has been even worse. You guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I have seen two rotations of SCAR's and have not heard any of the things you guys have mentioned. on second thought you guys are right you all should dump you SCAR's so i can find one cheap when i get home.
QuietShootr
10-09-11, 10:00
We were braking sights long before SCAR ever showed up. SOPMOD II has been even worse. You guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I have seen two rotations of SCAR's and have not heard any of the things you guys have mentioned. on second thought you guys are right you all should dump you SCAR's so i can find one cheap when i get home.
I'm with you. I hope the internet finds a new gun to love, because I'll be picking up more 17s cheap.
This is a bunch of bullshit about nothing. Besides, a guy who thinks a Kriss Super V is the greatest weapon system ever.....yeah, well, I don't care what tab, scroll, or shiny metal object he's wearing, that's just :blink:
No Bananas
10-09-11, 10:48
Is it possible to be specific about "electronic sights?" Have the reports involved mostly EO-Techs? Have there been any reports of a SCAR breaking an Aimpoint?
So that whole 30k/barrel 90,000+/receiver round service life for the 17 isn't just a fable, huh?
Despite the hordes of people wanting to shit-talk the 17 all of a sudden, the fact remains that it's the most tested 7.62 rifle ever built. It's not perfect, nothing man-made is. But it's a great, DURABLE weapon. Yes, it eats electronics and optics that aren't tough enough to ride it. So use an Aimpoint, NF, ACOG, or S&B, and drive on. Eothingys were the suck when they first came out, and they're only marginally better now.
This.
And the parts issue is bull-shit. I called FN on Tuesday and ordered a pretty good quantity of parts for my 17 (like enough to keep it going longer than I'm going to need it, not counting a new barrel), and the rep told me they were all in stock except for the magazines.
Did you ask about barrels? I'm assuming they still have issues with import restrictions (that was the problem as I recall)? Were you able to get a new lower? What were the parts you were able to obtain and their associated costs? Curious as if they're not horribly expensive I may pick up a few key parts. I'd still love to have a 2nd SCAR but not sure if that's in the financial cards at present.
We were braking sights long before SCAR ever showed up. SOPMOD II has been even worse. You guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I have seen two rotations of SCAR's and have not heard any of the things you guys have mentioned. on second thought you guys are right you all should dump you SCAR's so i can find one cheap when i get home.
I don't own a SCAR. However, given the price of the SCAR, I'm not too tempted to purchase one if these issues are real. For those of us who have used the M16 platform for almost 20 years, some of that time being over seas, the SCAR must surpass the M16/M4's capabilities with limited detriments. At this point, it seems than many first hand face shot users are not too impressed with the 16. The 17?.....given the available alternatives it isn't bad, but not sliced bread.
Not Grant, but from what I have read it is not exactly the same. From the best of my knowledge the spring piston air rifles damage optics because the recoil is opposite those of a normal rifle and unless an optic has been designed with that recoil in mind, it will damage them.
Optics designed for automatic rifles are already designed with counter recoil in mind due to the bolt assembly.
The M4 by virtue of it's DGI gas system and lighter BCG operates "smoother". The SCAR with it's short stroke gas system and heavier BCG operates a little more "abruptly". If you take accelerometer readings on both the M4 has looks like a smooth hill while the SCAR looks more like a sharp mountain peak. .....
Are you sure about that? :confused:
From the details posted in this thread:
"SCAR vs AR; A detailed look..."https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889 I got the impression SCAR experiences lower G's during cycle than the AR's tested there.
Crow Hunter
10-09-11, 17:53
Are you sure about that? :confused:
From the details posted in this thread:
"SCAR vs AR; A detailed look..."https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889 I got the impression SCAR experiences lower G's during cycle than the AR's tested there.
Nope. Not sure.
Just going off of information that I have read by someone who is involved in the testing and problems with the optics.
However, it is difficult to tell from Hooties data (assuming the ROF charts have acceleration on the Y axis) what the difference is between the 2. They would really need to be overlayed on the same axis to see a difference (or at least the same scale). But it does looke like the 1st 2 charts show larger amplitude on the SCAR than the AR. I can't tell if there is a difference in frequency.
But something heavier will take more energy to get moving and hit harder when it is stopped. While that is a definite advantage for the SCAR in feeding and ejecting, it might be a detriment to an optic not designed for it.
Maybe Hootie still has this data and can post a composite chart showing both. Maybe it would show something interesting.
I am NOT in the know on this. Just going off what I have read. If others prove me wrong, I am okay with that.
:D
Is it possible to be specific about "electronic sights?" Have the reports involved mostly EO-Techs? Have there been any reports of a SCAR breaking an Aimpoint?
Aimpoints are not issued in the SOPMOD so I don't think you will get any real info.
My guess though is that the Aimpoint would survive.
C4
Is there going to be a fix for the aluminum rail wear from the bolt group? :confused:
abn45bravo
10-10-11, 01:48
I don't own a SCAR. However, given the price of the SCAR, I'm not too tempted to purchase one if these issues are real. For those of us who have used the M16 platform for almost 20 years, some of that time being over seas, the SCAR must surpass the M16/M4's capabilities with limited detriments. At this point, it seems than many first hand face shot users are not too impressed with the 16. The 17?.....given the available alternatives it isn't bad, but not sliced bread.
I can run my M4A1 aprox 900 rounds until it needs to be re-lubed, I know my weapon inside and out. The SCAR brings a lot to the table and I get that face shooter is the new buzz word of the week, but i am telling you that I watched the SCAR's get fielded to our guys and then fallowed them around to support them (SCAR's) and the rest of our weapons. I can list of the top of my head everything that has broken on our SCAR's. it is a very short list.
VooDoo6Actual
10-10-11, 04:50
I can run my M4A1 aprox 900 rounds until it needs to be re-lubed, I know my weapon inside and out. The SCAR brings a lot to the table and I get that face shooter is the new buzz word of the week, but i am telling you that I watched the SCAR's get fielded to our guys and then fallowed them around to support them (SCAR's) and the rest of our weapons. I can list of the top of my head everything that has broken on our SCAR's. it is a very short list.
This mirrors my personal experience w/ a SCAR & comments from NSW associates etc.
I know the first evolution had some issues & were resolved by the 3rd evolution revisions I'm told by FNH people.
Very satisfied w/ mine as well.
Sttrongbow
10-10-11, 07:49
Aimpoints are not issued in the SOPMOD so I don't think you will get any real info.
My guess though is that the Aimpoint would survive.
C4
Yet another example of procurement types being attracted to shiney baubles.
They should (once again) shitcan the EOTechs and the Spectre DR's with their shitty external adjustments and ARMS mounts.
I can run my M4A1 aprox 900 rounds until it needs to be re-lubed, I know my weapon inside and out. The SCAR brings a lot to the table and I get that face shooter is the new buzz word of the week, but i am telling you that I watched the SCAR's get fielded to our guys and then fallowed them around to support them (SCAR's) and the rest of our weapons. I can list of the top of my head everything that has broken on our SCAR's. it is a very short list.
I suppose if you burn through 900 rounds and can't stop to put a drop of CLP in the gas ports at least once in that round-frame, then you're just too high speed for the rest of us vets and LE. :rolleyes:
Anyhow, I hope the SCAR platform will evolve into a more tempting alternative. If I were to petition for procurement of a piston system, at this current time I'd rather have my officers use the HK416. I ran about 5k rounds through some DOD test guns last year. However, given the price I've found that a Noveske with its polygonal M249 steel double chrome barrel to run just as well for carbine applications and cheaper cost than either the SCAR or 416. We've got a few Noveske uppers with over 20k rounds through them and they still shoot 1.5 MOA.
I had the opportunity to shoot my DSA SA58 Para along with my friends SCAR H on the last outing and I've gotta say I'm underwhelmed with the SCAR. Granted my Para has a brake (so dose the SCAR) and a DSA railed top cover topped with an Aimpoint (SCAR had an ACOG), but it was, for me, the easiest to make hits with and the softest recoiling of the two. One of the things I love about the FAL is that it's dimensionally "small". You can wrap your hand all the way around the handguard of the FAL. The SCAR H feels like a big battle rifle, lots of bulk. The SCAR is the lightest though. I really really want to buy the SCAR, but it just isn't $1K better than the DSA FAL. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause I'm a fool for new stuff.
and I get that face shooter is the new buzz word of the week
Lol, I love it. At least this site isn't as bad as others, but I'm glad somebody pointed out this silliness. Right up there with being really "switched on". If you coined the term, alright. Everyone else needs to develop their own material.
I've found that a Noveske with its polygonal M249 steel double chrome barrel to run just as well for carbine applications and cheaper cost than either the SCAR or 416. We've got a few Noveske uppers with over 20k rounds through them and they still shoot 1.5 MOA.
While I have no doubts about the performance claims of your Noveske rifles, I do question the polygonal part. Unless my head is buried in the sand, Noveske doen't make a chrome lined poly barrel. If they indeed do, I need to get hot and order one.
abn45bravo
10-12-11, 01:41
I suppose if you burn through 900 rounds and can't stop to put a drop of CLP in the gas ports at least once in that round-frame, then you're just too high speed for the rest of us vets and LE. :rolleyes:
What I meant by this is I know the M4 it's capability's and short comings.
As LE of course you wouldn't see the benefit of a piston gun vs a DI. You work and live in a clean resource abundant environment.
As Paratrooper you will work in a dirty environment sometimes with nothing more than is in your ruck. In this type of environment you would see the benefit of having a weapon that requires half the maintenance of an M4. If I run out of CLP with my M4 i am going to be worried, however with a scar I would not be as concerned.
The testing equipment I have is the same type used to determine the "energy" as is said, or G's/velocity in the industry terms. From what I have seen, the Piston AR's on average exhibit a higher level of G's during firing. I have frequent access to a complete HK 416, LWRC M6 and of course my SCAR 16 for the comparison.
I could be wrong as I am no weapons expert, but most of the higher G spike with the SCAR is when the bolt carrier going home or chambering, or so it appears in the readings I took. This also attributes to the weapon staying on target when fired. Some kind of shock buffer at the end of the receiver may help this???
Guys, we all know that even if a man is a tip of the spear operator or SWAT cop, it doesn't not necessarily make him "all knowing" on gun related things, especially the mechanics of firearms. There is so much more involved for those guys than just the gun. There is a bunch of optics that were made to the operating specs of a M4. Along came the SCAR & it is different. Some optics work fine, some do not. I do find it telling that those which do, have been known all along as robust optics. It's how the world turns, things change, a problem occurs, you locate, isolate, & fix said problem and rock on.
I see no reason to ditch my SCARs or avoid buying another in the future. I am extremely pleased with them. I have shot the hell out of my 16. From personal knowledge, shooting my Colt 6933 suppressed & unsuppressed in the same mannor that I have done my 16 suppressed & unsuppressed in the past year the 6933 would have started to have reliability issues long ago. Actually not even the same mannor, as I had to oil the 6933 every few hundred rounds. I last oiled my 16 2 months and 1500ish rounds ago. I know some say they have DI guns at 5K suppressed, no cleaning only lubed that kept running. I am glad yours did that. My Colt 6933, that had Specialized Armament's Reliability Package done to it would run about 1500 rounds, maybe 2000 suppressed before getting extremely sluggish. This is with a generous shot of EWL every few hundred rounds. Hell, just shy of 6k I found the bolt to be cracked at the cam pin hole.
As far as the stock latch; I personally saw with my own eyes, a member of SEAL Team 8 take a SCAR Mk16 to his knee from a downward thrust from over his head at the folding part of the stock 3 times trying to get the stock to break and fold up. It held twice and gave on the 3rd blow, but to my amusement it did not break the latch or the stock, the latch just gave and recessed allowing the stock to fold. I have seen a M4 buffer tube fail from mortoring a stuck round; so.....
My rambling point(s),
-All machines can and will break.
-Some machines require less maintenance and attention than others to reach a given milestone.
-Some machines are inherently better than others.
-Maybe there is nothing new under the sun, but there is a good bit of high quality "refined" shit out there.
-Anything new will most likely have some initial bugs to work out. If the company who made it address the problems, then all is well as far as I'm concerned. Atleast the SCAR as well as the HK416 has had the benefit of extensive testing at the tax payers expense to expose and address those bugs. Some other designs that claim uber performance have not.
-Also, keep in mind when dealing with the Gov't, it may not always be the company's fault in getting a "fix" for issues. A perfect example is how long it took Colt to get the Army to approve the change of the extractor spring for the M4.
-Don't believe everything you hear, read, see.
-And most importantly, be glad we live in a country where we can still own, shoot, and debate which of the newest military firearms on the market is the best:)
I suppose if you burn through 900 rounds and can't stop to put a drop of CLP in the gas ports at least once in that round-frame, then you're just too high speed for the rest of us vets and LE. :rolleyes:
I have a question, which troops/contract shooters are carrying 900rds on them? Many carry under 180 (which is 6 30rd mags). :confused:
I wouldn't be concerned about my weapon needing to be able to fire 900rds before lubrication simply for the fact that I DON'T/WOULDN'T HAVE 900 ROUNDS!
C4
Littlelebowski
10-12-11, 13:06
What I meant by this is I know the M4 it's capability's and short comings.
As LE of course you wouldn't see the benefit of a piston gun vs a DI. You work and live in a clean resource abundant environment.
As Paratrooper you will work in a dirty environment sometimes with nothing more than is in your ruck. In this type of environment you would see the benefit of having a weapon that requires half the maintenance of an M4. If I run out of CLP with my M4 i am going to be worried, however with a scar I would not be as concerned.
So you've been in a situation where your M4 would have immediately stopped if you hadn't added lube?
abn45bravo
10-12-11, 14:34
So you've been in a situation where your M4 would have immediately stopped if you hadn't added lube?
Only after a long long range session. So I guess the answer is no.
Don't know if you are talking about optics or lasers, but it is a known fact that the SCAR has been known to destroy electronics.
C4
I was just talking to my gunsmith about this the other day..
I have a question, which troops/contract shooters are carrying 900rds on them? Many carry under 180 (which is 6 30rd mags). :confused:
I wouldn't be concerned about my weapon needing to be able to fire 900rds before lubrication simply for the fact that I DON'T/WOULDN'T HAVE 900 ROUNDS!
C4
This is exactly what I was getting at. Basically a top tier M4 will function reliably, well beyond the round count of what anyone would be able to carry on their person. The heaviest load I've ever carried in the field was 400rds, and that was a vehicle compliment, not humping around.
I have a question, which troops/contract shooters are carrying 900rds on them? Many carry under 180 (which is 6 30rd mags). :confused:
I wouldn't be concerned about my weapon needing to be able to fire 900rds before lubrication simply for the fact that I DON'T/WOULDN'T HAVE 900 ROUNDS!
C4
You would if you were a true operator Grant. :ph34r:
What I meant by this is I know the M4 it's capability's and short comings.
As LE of course you wouldn't see the benefit of a piston gun vs a DI. You work and live in a clean resource abundant environment.
Actually, I've worked in 120 temps in the desert southwest during dust storms, and marine drug interdiction in the Keys. I've had my bolt carrier group coated in fine dust, and rusted shut after exposure to high seas. However, I've learned to work through the problems and adapt my equipment to the extremes and have great confidence in the M4. I had less environmental issues in Desert Storm.
I have a question, which troops/contract shooters are carrying 900rds on them? Many carry under 180 (which is 6 30rd mags). :confused:
I wouldn't be concerned about my weapon needing to be able to fire 900rds before lubrication simply for the fact that I DON'T/WOULDN'T HAVE 900 ROUNDS!
C4
While I carried far more than 6 mags when I was in Iraq, I was nowhere near 900 rounds. Hell, I did not even carry 900 rounds as a SAW gunner. However it was not because I did not want to, I simply did not have the room and could not justify the weight:D. As it turned put, I also did not NEED that much ammo at any one time.
While I carried far more than 6 mags when I was in Iraq, I was nowhere near 900 rounds. Hell, I did not even carry 900 rounds as a SAW gunner. However it was not because I did not want to, I simply did not have the room and could not justify the weight:D. As it turned put, I also did not NEED that much ammo at any one time.
I carried 9 mags total. Most of the time. Sometimes I would roll with 7 but that was only if I was not carrying extra ICOM batteries in my mag pouch for extended missions. But I was heavy Infantry and resupply was usually just a radio call to a BFV.
One thing I keep seeing in this thread is the rail wear issue---this is B.S. guys the SCAR has steel rail inserts it is not a hardened steel carrier on aluminum it is hardened steel carrier riding on hardened steel rails.
Stock breaking---not really correct as someone said the stock is plastic and with enough pressure it flexes and give way but does not "break" if you know how to do it just right I can get the locked stock to give and fold just by popping it with my hand just right. There is a commercial fix for this though.
http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=140&osCsid=5288af6da397cdb69e61ce6032470acb
Just by changing out the latch that is a drop in part to an aluminum part the issue goes away.
The barrel mounting issue---this is not a part "failing" the issues during testing came from operators stripping the screws buy not being real careful I do thing this system need to be a bit more robust as a few operators have done this but if you are aware it is an issue then you should not have a problem.
Now like was mentioned before it was breaking sighting kit but that is resolved on some stuff I know for sure and I'm sure will be on anything else so as a civi getting one pick your optics wisely I mentioned what ones worked earlier in the thread and like Grant said Aimpoints will survive about anything.
I'm not a SCAR kool aid drinker or a hater but I think this thing has got a worse rap then it deserves.
Like I said for a 5.56 gun I will keel my M4 unless I was going over the beach then I would take the SCAR.
7.62 I would take the SCAR over any other 7.62 rifle out there and yes I have FALs had HK91s and AR based 7.62 rifles and I would take the SCAR over any of them if I were going in harms way.
Magic_Salad0892
10-13-11, 01:03
One thing I keep seeing in this thread is the rail wear issue---this is B.S. guys the SCAR has steel rail inserts it is not a hardened steel carrier on aluminum it is hardened steel carrier riding on hardened steel rails.
Stock breaking---not really correct as someone said the stock is plastic and with enough pressure it flexes and give way but does not "break" if you know how to do it just right I can get the locked stock to give and fold just by popping it with my hand just right. There is a commercial fix for this though.
http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=140&osCsid=5288af6da397cdb69e61ce6032470acb
Just by changing out the latch that is a drop in part to an aluminum part the issue goes away.
The barrel mounting issue---this is not a part "failing" the issues during testing came from operators stripping the screws buy not being real careful I do thing this system need to be a bit more robust as a few operators have done this but if you are aware it is an issue then you should not have a problem.
Now like was mentioned before it was breaking sighting kit but that is resolved on some stuff I know for sure and I'm sure will be on anything else so as a civi getting one pick your optics wisely I mentioned what ones worked earlier in the thread and like Grant said Aimpoints will survive about anything.
I'm not a SCAR kool aid drinker or a hater but I think this thing has got a worse rap then it deserves.
Like I said for a 5.56 gun I will keel my M4 unless I was going over the beach then I would take the SCAR.
7.62 I would take the SCAR over any other 7.62 rifle out there and yes I have FALs had HK91s and AR based 7.62 rifles and I would take the SCAR over any of them if I were going in harms way.
This echoes what I've been hearing from other dudes.
However, I'd take an AR pattern rifle for most situations.
SMG - Colt 9x19mm model.
General Purpose gun - My 5.56mm 11.1'' build.
DMR - Centurion Mk. 12, or Mk. 12(K).
Battle rifle - SR-25
Precision gun - M110C clone.
Can't really see advantage the SCAR offers me over the M4.
However, I want the SCAR to be a great system.
Sttrongbow
10-13-11, 07:46
One thing I keep seeing in this thread is the rail wear issue---this is B.S. guys the SCAR has steel rail inserts it is not a hardened steel carrier on aluminum it is hardened steel carrier riding on hardened steel rails.
Stock breaking---not really correct as someone said the stock is plastic and with enough pressure it flexes and give way but does not "break" if you know how to do it just right I can get the locked stock to give and fold just by popping it with my hand just right. There is a commercial fix for this though.
http://tangodown.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=140&osCsid=5288af6da397cdb69e61ce6032470acb
Just by changing out the latch that is a drop in part to an aluminum part the issue goes away.
The barrel mounting issue---this is not a part "failing" the issues during testing came from operators stripping the screws buy not being real careful I do thing this system need to be a bit more robust as a few operators have done this but if you are aware it is an issue then you should not have a problem.
Now like was mentioned before it was breaking sighting kit but that is resolved on some stuff I know for sure and I'm sure will be on anything else so as a civi getting one pick your optics wisely I mentioned what ones worked earlier in the thread and like Grant said Aimpoints will survive about anything.
I'm not a SCAR kool aid drinker or a hater but I think this thing has got a worse rap then it deserves.
Like I said for a 5.56 gun I will keel my M4 unless I was going over the beach then I would take the SCAR.
7.62 I would take the SCAR over any other 7.62 rifle out there and yes I have FALs had HK91s and AR based 7.62 rifles and I would take the SCAR over any of them if I were going in harms way.
Might wanna recheck that. I just disassembled my SCAR and the BC DOES ride on the aluminum receiver. The steel rail on the left side of the gun is the cam pin guide rail.
FWIW, my SCAR16 has about 2000 rounds on it now, and the BCG has not yet worn through the anodizing on the receiver. I'm think that it's a non-issue for the SCAR 16s. I do not own a SCAR 17, so can't check that yet.
You would if you were a true operator Grant. :ph34r:
You are right.
C4
Not that I am aware of, but the 416 has its own issues.
C4
That's blasphemy!!!! :mad:
The 416 is the best creation God has had since........vaginas...................and I truly think they should use my insight in their ad campaigns!!! :big_boss:
[QUOTE=grinch;1121276]One thing I keep seeing in this thread is the rail wear issue---this is B.S. guys the SCAR has steel rail inserts it is not a hardened steel carrier on aluminum it is hardened steel carrier riding on hardened steel rails.
I stand corrected this is my bust I remembered putting rails in during the SCAR armorers course but it was 3 years ago or so and my memory was flawed you are correct the steel rail is for the cam pin.
The SCAR is still the most worked out current 7.62 battle rifle out there and will continue to be refined more then any of the others on the market.
One thing I keep seeing in this thread is the rail wear issue---this is B.S. guys the SCAR has steel rail inserts it is not a hardened steel carrier on aluminum it is hardened steel carrier riding on hardened steel rails.
I stand corrected this is my bust I remembered putting rails in during the SCAR armorers course but it was 3 years ago or so and my memory was flawed you are correct the steel rail is for the cam pin.
The SCAR is still the most worked out current 7.62 battle rifle out there and will continue to be refined more then any of the others on the market.
In this context, is refinement and extensively worked out a positive or negative thing. If so, for whom...civilians, military, or both.
With all do respect, does a civilian buyer really want to own a rifle that is having to be extensively "worked out" and continually "refined" over a long period of time in order to be a 100% reliable, and trouble free rifle when they don't have the benefit of having a nice supply of parts to replace the previously broken unrefined ones. Not to mention the fact that the civilian will be paying outta his pocket for the few crumbs FN sends their way.
I believe the EMC has generally already been refined and worked out, same goes for the MWS with the Brits in both the DMR capacity and the 13.5" F/A variant. Just my 2cents and my flame suit is on.
I stand corrected this is my best I remembered putting rails in during the SCAR armorers course but it was 3 years ago or so and my memory was flawed you are correct the steel rail is for the cam pin.
The SCAR is still the most worked out current 7.62 battle rifle out there and will continue to be refined more then any of the others on the market.
FWIW,
hard anodized aluminum has a surface hardness of around 65HRC, but only for .002" depth.
Case hardened steel usually is around 60HRC with a depth of .015" or more.
So, the aluminum surface is actually harder than the steel.
As long as the forces are not high enough to punch through the surface, everything is well and the aluminum part sees long life.
If the forces are too high, such as near the back end of the cam pin cutout in certain DI ARs or on the lower front edge of the receiver extension on certain piston ARs, the aluminum will quickly wear through.
This is almost certainly why the SCAR includes the steel insert for the cam pin rail, which could see high point loading.
Ferris2son
10-13-11, 22:16
SCAR parts can be ordered from Browning 1-800-322-4626 X 2863 or from here:
http://www.hi-desertdog.com/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=116
Exploded diagram here:
http://www.fnforum.net/fn-scar-16s-exploded-diagram-parts-list-price-list-t21344.html
In this context, is refinement and extensively worked out a positive or negative thing. If so, for whom...civilians, military, or both.
With all do respect, does a civilian buyer really want to own a rifle that is having to be extensively "worked out" and continually "refined" over a long period of time in order to be a 100% reliable, and trouble free rifle when they don't have the benefit of having a nice supply of parts to replace the previously broken unrefined ones. Not to mention the fact that the civilian will be paying outta his pocket for the few crumbs FN sends their way.
I believe the EMC has generally already been refined and worked out, same goes for the MWS with the Brits in both the DMR capacity and the 13.5" F/A variant. Just my 2cents and my flame suit is on.
My man I'm not going to flame you I'm just trying to help for anyone looking for info. I'm not going to bother getting upset at all over what your saying. I will just say that in my opinion I get what your saying but I think your missing a few thing in perspective on this. The reason I say that is you say weapons that need to be "worked out" I say look at the M16/M4 it has been in refinement over 40 years. The system has had mild TDP changes over that whole time and really has only finally come into its own over the last 10 or so. Now you mention 2 different AR based 7.62 rifles the issue here is your implying they are "worked out" or they are good to go as they are but these rifles I'm certain have no where near the rounds fired through them or in as many different environmental conditions. No doubt those guys at the factories went and shot tens of thousands of round through them but with all the military testing the SCAR has EASILY logged into the millions so really there is no telling how those other two systems would have performed in the same testing and unfortunately we will never get the chance to know. I know the brits adopted the MWS but they did not do even close to the extensive testing that was done for the SCAR so you in all honestly will need to wait 5-7 years and check back in on it and see how they like it OR if they have continued to refine it as they go. The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select so that is not to say it has not been refined because i'm sure they took the info on board and made improvement but it just has not been through the same gauntlet of abuse so it is unfair to say there are not as many things to be worked out on it we just dont know it has not gone down that road.
so please dont read this as any type of flame I absolutely do not mean it that way at all it is just after being involved with the testing as a shooter or test director for years I just think people really dont get what it all involves.
I think parts will get out there just have to give it time and it seems to me the price of the rifle and mags is on par with the AR based 7.62 rifles.
Someone mentioned needing mags.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=255748524
QuietShootr
10-15-11, 09:03
SCAR parts can be ordered from Browning 1-800-322-4626 X 2863 or from here:
http://www.hi-desertdog.com/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=116
Exploded diagram here:
http://www.fnforum.net/fn-scar-16s-exploded-diagram-parts-list-price-list-t21344.html
Welp, there went the old 'no parts' issue.
My man I'm not going to flame you I'm just trying to help for anyone looking for info. I'm not going to bother getting upset at all over what your saying. I will just say that in my opinion I get what your saying but I think your missing a few thing in perspective on this. The reason I say that is you say weapons that need to be "worked out" I say look at the M16/M4 it has been in refinement over 40 years. The system has had mild TDP changes over that whole time and really has only finally come into its own over the last 10 or so. Now you mention 2 different AR based 7.62 rifles the issue here is your implying they are "worked out" or they are good to go as they are but these rifles I'm certain have no where near the rounds fired through them or in as many different environmental conditions. No doubt those guys at the factories went and shot tens of thousands of round through them but with all the military testing the SCAR has EASILY logged into the millions so really there is no telling how those other two systems would have performed in the same testing and unfortunately we will never get the chance to know. I know the brits adopted the MWS but they did not do even close to the extensive testing that was done for the SCAR so you in all honestly will need to wait 5-7 years and check back in on it and see how they like it OR if they have continued to refine it as they go. The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select so that is not to say it has not been refined because i'm sure they took the info on board and made improvement but it just has not been through the same gauntlet of abuse so it is unfair to say there are not as many things to be worked out on it we just dont know it has not gone down that road.
so please dont read this as any type of flame I absolutely do not mean it that way at all it is just after being involved with the testing as a shooter or test director for years I just think people really dont get what it all involves.
I think parts will get out there just have to give it time and it seems to me the price of the rifle and mags is on par with the AR based 7.62 rifles.
Someone mentioned needing mags.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=255748524
Excellent post - thanks for taking the time to put things in perspective.
My very limited time on a 17 has shown it to be pretty much everything I anticipated (so far), with the exception of the the trigger. And the addition of a good trigger - now installed in that "sample of one" - appears to have that issue resolved for me as well.
QuietShootr
10-15-11, 09:33
Excellent post - thanks for taking the time to put things in perspective.
My very limited time on a 17 has shown it to be pretty much everything I anticipated (so far), with the exception of the the trigger. And the addition of a good trigger - now installed in that "sample of one" - appears to have that issue resolved for me as well.
Mine had a shitty, gritty trigger too. It suddenly resolved itself last week, and now it feels like a good stock M4 trigger.
Mine had a shitty, gritty trigger too. It suddenly resolved itself last week, and now it feels like a good stock M4 trigger.
I've read this from a few people. Interestingly, mine seemed pretty decent from the start with a cleaner break and more positive reset than the GI trigger on my Colt. I've considered the Geissele but amazing as it may be, it's hard for me to justify spending $400 on a trigger.
QuietShootr
10-15-11, 12:23
I've read this from a few people. Interestingly, mine seemed pretty decent from the start with a cleaner break and more positive reset than the GI trigger on my Colt. I've considered the Geissele but amazing as it may be, it's hard for me to justify spending $400 on a trigger.
I'm glad I didn't break down and buy one now. It's fine for a battle rifle trigger now.
No.
C4
How is the Scar H (17) so different in recoil than say an M-14? They're both Piston guns with reciprocating charging handles. The M-14 is not a soft shooter from my experience.
I have not fired the 17....yet. I do own a 16 and will say that the reciprocating charging handle gave my Viper PST some issues until I took it back to Vortex for a modification and repair. It works fine now and I have not heard of any trouble from guys shooting 5,000-10,000 rounds out of their 16's.
Eurodriver
10-15-11, 18:00
My man I'm not going to flame you I'm just trying to help for anyone looking for info. I'm not going to bother getting upset at all over what your saying. I will just say that in my opinion I get what your saying but I think your missing a few thing in perspective on this. The reason I say that is you say weapons that need to be "worked out" I say look at the M16/M4 it has been in refinement over 40 years. The system has had mild TDP changes over that whole time and really has only finally come into its own over the last 10 or so. Now you mention 2 different AR based 7.62 rifles the issue here is your implying they are "worked out" or they are good to go as they are but these rifles I'm certain have no where near the rounds fired through them or in as many different environmental conditions. No doubt those guys at the factories went and shot tens of thousands of round through them but with all the military testing the SCAR has EASILY logged into the millions so really there is no telling how those other two systems would have performed in the same testing and unfortunately we will never get the chance to know. I know the brits adopted the MWS but they did not do even close to the extensive testing that was done for the SCAR so you in all honestly will need to wait 5-7 years and check back in on it and see how they like it OR if they have continued to refine it as they go. The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select so that is not to say it has not been refined because i'm sure they took the info on board and made improvement but it just has not been through the same gauntlet of abuse so it is unfair to say there are not as many things to be worked out on it we just dont know it has not gone down that road.
so please dont read this as any type of flame I absolutely do not mean it that way at all it is just after being involved with the testing as a shooter or test director for years I just think people really dont get what it all involves.
I think parts will get out there just have to give it time and it seems to me the price of the rifle and mags is on par with the AR based 7.62 rifles.
Someone mentioned needing mags.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=255748524
Monty, I just want to say thanks for offering up this information. I know it was directed towards someone else but I really had no idea as to the extent of the testing the SCAR has went through.
How is the Scar H (17) so different in recoil than say an M-14? ...
With a flash suppressor the 17 is pretty sharp, IMO as compared to a FAL. Weight is weight. The factory PWS brake makes a big difference, however - in actual felt recoil as well a muzzle jump. It's not bad at all and more like a 9.5 Lb FAL with a Belgium Short (flash suppressor). Reports I've seen claiming the 17 is equivalent in recoil an AR15 are, of course BS.
I've read this from a few people. Interestingly, mine seemed pretty decent from the start with a cleaner break and more positive reset than the GI trigger on my Colt. I've considered the Geissele but amazing as it may be, it's hard for me to justify spending $400 on a trigger.
Oh, it's amazing. I hated paying the money for the Super SCAR, but it's much better than the stock trigger. I felt like the stock trigger had very little difference between the reset distance and fully letting it out, and there wasn't a nice breaking point on it...it was just stiff and gritty and suddenly BOOM it goes off.
For what it's worth, my Geissele came with its own grip screw, since earlier versions had problems with hitting the grip screw sticking up into the lower, which required cutting the screw down to fit.
Oh, it's amazing. I hated paying the money for the Super SCAR, but it's much better than the stock trigger. I felt like the stock trigger had very little difference between the reset distance and fully letting it out, and there wasn't a nice breaking point on it...it was just stiff and gritty and suddenly BOOM it goes off.
For what it's worth, my Geissele came with its own grip screw, since earlier versions had problems with hitting the grip screw sticking up into the lower, which required cutting the screw down to fit.
This is not helping. Lol. I just spent like $600 on 7.62 ammo, a Surefire FH, the Branham rail extension, the Magpul selector, and some 7.62 Magpuls to try and keep the floor plates from popping off my mags (not sure that will even work).
Must...not...spend...money.
I broke down and bought the Geissele. I've not installed a trigger before so I was slightly nervous but figured it couldn't be that difficult. Had to futz around with it a big longer than someone who's done it before but it was not overly difficult. I did have to use the screw for the grip that was provided as the stock one caused me to be unable to reinstall the safety. Function check was good. Not sure if it's worth $400 (I liked the stock one okay), but it's certainly a very nice trigger.
While I was at it I swapped out the safety for a Magpul one (big improvement!) and replaced the A2 with a MIAD (had to file the tang down slightly). I also bought the Branham rail extension, but it weighs 6.5 oz so I'm probably going to return it for the PWS which is only a few oz heavier and five inches rather than two. I'll probably leave installation of that to a trained gunsmith.
scoutfsu99
10-21-11, 23:49
While I was at it I swapped out the safety for a Magpul one (big improvement!) and replaced the A2 with a MIAD (had to file the tang down slightly). I also bought the Branham rail extension, but it weighs 6.5 oz so I'm probably going to return it for the PWS which is only a few oz heavier and five inches rather than two. I'll probably leave installation of that to a trained gunsmith.
Wait until Duffy brings out the BADASS levers for the SCAR;)
For the PWS rail, have you considered cutting it? I stole Stephen's idea for that and pretty much cut it in half......works perfectly for my needs and saved a bunch of weight. You don't need a gunsmith to install that.
Wait until Duffy brings out the BADASS levers for the SCAR;)
For the PWS rail, have you considered cutting it? I stole Stephen's idea for that and pretty much cut it in half......works perfectly for my needs and saved a bunch of weight. You don't need a gunsmith to install that.
How did you cut it in half? I'm guessing I'd have to have someone else do it as I don't have any equipment (or the confidence) to do that. Do you have any pics of what yours now looks like?
EDIT:
I found this, but do you have any closer up pics. Did you end up leaving any portion of the top rail? It's kind of difficult for me to tell from this.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=965768&postcount=5
scoutfsu99
10-22-11, 09:19
I'll take some pictures today for you. All I did was take a dremel to it, polish it a little, hit it with some PermABlack and paint it.
You could send it off and have it done professionally, but I don't see any type of cost benefit in do so. I don't know what Stephen did but I'd wager his was done the same if not better.
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/scb9900/DSC02732.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/scb9900/DSC02735.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/scb9900/DSC02728.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/scb9900/DSC02730.jpg
Do all of them rattle like a box of legos when shaken?
Do all of them rattle like a box of legos when shaken?
Lol. It's not quite as bad as QuietShootr is making it out. It's definitely more than a M4 but it's primarily the stock as I think he pointed out. Perhaps one of us can post a video for those curious.
I'll take some pictures today for you. All I did was take a dremel to it, polish it a little, hit it with some PermABlack and paint it.
You could send it off and have it done professionally, but I don't see any type of cost benefit in do so. I don't know what Stephen did but I'd wager his was done the same if not better.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks!
Crappy, impromptu video of the rattling. I don't normally shake my rifle like a maraca and some some noise may be coming from the yet-to-be-totally-secured Aimpoint 3x, so this may or may not be totally representative. I'll let other owners chime on what they think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aE2ZnOEF68
Grinch, thanks very much as well for your detailed and very well informed reply to my question...guess that is why you have your name in yellow;)
Can we please just leave Legos outta this gents....oddly enough when the Lego man describes something rattling, he refers to it as "rattling like a Scar":D
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC01421-1.jpg
My man I'm not going to flame you I'm just trying to help for anyone looking for info. I'm not going to bother getting upset at all over what your saying. I will just say that in my opinion I get what your saying but I think your missing a few thing in perspective on this. The reason I say that is you say weapons that need to be "worked out" I say look at the M16/M4 it has been in refinement over 40 years. The system has had mild TDP changes over that whole time and really has only finally come into its own over the last 10 or so. Now you mention 2 different AR based 7.62 rifles the issue here is your implying they are "worked out" or they are good to go as they are but these rifles I'm certain have no where near the rounds fired through them or in as many different environmental conditions. No doubt those guys at the factories went and shot tens of thousands of round through them but with all the military testing the SCAR has EASILY logged into the millions so really there is no telling how those other two systems would have performed in the same testing and unfortunately we will never get the chance to know. I know the brits adopted the MWS but they did not do even close to the extensive testing that was done for the SCAR so you in all honestly will need to wait 5-7 years and check back in on it and see how they like it OR if they have continued to refine it as they go. The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select so that is not to say it has not been refined because i'm sure they took the info on board and made improvement but it just has not been through the same gauntlet of abuse so it is unfair to say there are not as many things to be worked out on it we just dont know it has not gone down that road.
so please dont read this as any type of flame I absolutely do not mean it that way at all it is just after being involved with the testing as a shooter or test director for years I just think people really dont get what it all involves.
I think parts will get out there just have to give it time and it seems to me the price of the rifle and mags is on par with the AR based 7.62 rifles.
Someone mentioned needing mags.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=255748524
Thanks Monty.
This deserves reposting.... https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=80069
MikeCLeonard
10-25-11, 00:50
The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select
Anyone happen to have details on why the MRP/MWS platform did not pass this first phase? I'm curious if the reasons were performance based, or more function/feature based short-comings.
Anyone happen to have details on why the MRP/MWS platform did not pass this first phase? I'm curious if the reasons were performance based, or more function/feature based short-comings.
The only time that I know of that the MWS, and Scar H were actually evaluated head to head was alongside the HK417 for the British MoD, the MWS beat out the other two and won the L129A1 contract. This competition and the results are well documented for all to learn about who decide to do so.
I don't believe the actual MWS was even tested alongside the Scar H for a U.S. contract, as the nature of his wording sounds as if he is referring to another rifle that I guess in some way is patterned like the MWS but not the actual MWS as denoted by the following portion of his reply...."The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it ..."
This competition and the results are well documented for all to learn about who decide to do so.
I've never seen anything approaching documentation on it, other than what LMT said about the competition.
Another industry professional has indicated the testing was not very stringent in terms of measuring reliability in adverse conditions.
My MWS is miles beyond any other .308 AR I've ever owned, on the surface it seems like the newer KAC style guns are finally approaching the reliability of their 5.56 counterparts, but I'm not sure it would be nearly as good as a SCAR if the going got rough.
MikeCLeonard
10-25-11, 02:24
His comments about the MWS being based on a platform that didn't move through the SCAR program read to me as he was referring to the MRP platform. Though this discussion is focused on .308 rifles, the MRP could have been submitted for the 5.56 portion of the SCAR program and not passed through the first phase.
In the end, every procurement/competition calls for different specs and capabilities, and it's difficult to draw concrete conclusions about a rifle by comparing one competition to another.
I'm just curious if the MRP/MWS platform didn't move beyond the first phase because of performance reasons, or because of something like weight or lack of a folding stock...or something like that....something more feature based.
I've never seen anything approaching documentation on it, other than what LMT said about the competition.
Another industry professional has indicated the testing was not very stringent in terms of measuring reliability in adverse conditions.
My MWS is miles beyond any other .308 AR I've ever owned, on the surface it seems like the newer KAC style guns are finally approaching the reliability of their 5.56 counterparts, but I'm not sure it would be nearly as good as a SCAR if the going got rough.
Care to share who that industry professional was?
I have never heard LMT actually speak out on this matter in public...again care to share where you heard LMT discuss this competition and their subsequent awarded contract?
I have heard and read from a number of different sources what the actual competition entailed and how the rifles performed during it, however unless your willing to call LEI out, I think he serves as a pretty good and reliable source on this matter. I personally take the man at his word considering he would know about this matter far more than either me or you, or most likely any other member on M4C.
......
Initial testing by MOD was at 900 metres on a very windy range. We were told that our 16" barrel outperfomed 20" barrels of other competitors. MOD had never heard of LMT, and our product took them by complete surprise. Three further guns were requested - and supplied - to ensure that the orginal sample was not a fluke. These guns further validated the system.
The final short list was just HK & LMT. Contract award was on the basis of (1) best physical performance (2) best technical responses in the tender document.
LMT were an unknown manufacturer from nowhere, fighting in a tender as the "under dog". And, yes, we did literally "blow away the competition".
Two years on, the rifle is proven to be reliable in harsh conditions, and verifed hits have been recorded at over 1,000 metres. The rifle has exceed expectations and the contract has been extended and increased several times.
.....
LEI
My man I'm not going to flame you I'm just trying to help for anyone looking for info. I'm not going to bother getting upset at all over what your saying. I will just say that in my opinion I get what your saying but I think your missing a few thing in perspective on this. The reason I say that is you say weapons that need to be "worked out" I say look at the M16/M4 it has been in refinement over 40 years. The system has had mild TDP changes over that whole time and really has only finally come into its own over the last 10 or so. Now you mention 2 different AR based 7.62 rifles the issue here is your implying they are "worked out" or they are good to go as they are but these rifles I'm certain have no where near the rounds fired through them or in as many different environmental conditions. No doubt those guys at the factories went and shot tens of thousands of round through them but with all the military testing the SCAR has EASILY logged into the millions so really there is no telling how those other two systems would have performed in the same testing and unfortunately we will never get the chance to know. I know the brits adopted the MWS but they did not do even close to the extensive testing that was done for the SCAR so you in all honestly will need to wait 5-7 years and check back in on it and see how they like it OR if they have continued to refine it as they go. The MWS is also based on a platform that did not make it through even the first phase of the SCAR down select so that is not to say it has not been refined because i'm sure they took the info on board and made improvement but it just has not been through the same gauntlet of abuse so it is unfair to say there are not as many things to be worked out on it we just dont know it has not gone down that road.
so please dont read this as any type of flame I absolutely do not mean it that way at all it is just after being involved with the testing as a shooter or test director for years I just think people really dont get what it all involves.
I think parts will get out there just have to give it time and it seems to me the price of the rifle and mags is on par with the AR based 7.62 rifles.
Trident, the expert was ginch, who direct his post towards you on page 5.
BTW, quick question...
How do you get more official than the owner of LMT's UK distributor, who specced out the MWS and holds the contract with the Ministry of Defense?
Failure2Stop
10-25-11, 04:35
The requirements for the MoD DM gun and the SCAR were very different, and comparison between the two is irrelevant other than to point out that they are both carried in combat by uniformed service members.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.