View Full Version : FNAC (FN Advanced Carbine)
ForTehNguyen
02-19-12, 18:06
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/02/20/fnac-fn-advanced-carbine/
SCAR minus the reciprocating charging handle, folding front on the gas block, 14" barrel
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fnac_fn_advanced_carbine-tm-tfb1.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fnac-tm-tfb.jpg
FNAC (FN Advanced Carbine)
FNH USA's entry into the Army Individual Carbine competition is the FNAC (Advanced Carbine). The most notable difference between the FN SCAR and the FNAC is that the FNAC has a non-reciprocating charging handle and that the FNAC is 0.3 lbs lighter then a similarly configured FN SCAR Mk. 16.
The barrel is 14" long and feature a M9 Bayonet compatible lug. Like the FN SCAR PDW and FN Mk. 20 SSR , the FNAC's gas block is not topped with a folding front sight, and like the FN SCAR HAMR, the upper receiver lacks the cuts-outs above the barrel.
It looks like FNH USA has merged the best features of the SCAR family into one rifle, and added a few new features of their own, to make one neat package. It will be interesting to see if FN Herstal (Belgium) adopts any of these features for the next iteration of the FN SCAR carbines.
DeltaSierra
02-19-12, 19:06
Interesting features.
I wonder if this will make it to the civilian market anytime soon....
JR TACTICAL
02-19-12, 19:25
Interesting features.
I wonder if this will make it to the civilian market anytime soon....
I just bought a SCAR about a month ago and the salesman was telling me that he went to SHOT and FN has a kit comming out for the charging handle, plus a few more aftermarket things for the SCAR. I dont know if its BS but I guess we will see
I really hope that this lowers the price on the original SCAR :dance3:
ColdDeadHands
02-20-12, 01:20
I'm in for one of the new butt pads.:dance3:
Dammit, and just when I was getting over the fact I rly want a SCAR but will never afford it, they bring this out.
Maybe next year.
Is this an item that is coming out of FNH USA, or will this be an imported item? I'm extremely pleased to see any developments in the SCAR family, for a while there, its future seemed uncertain, especially in 5.56.
Glad to see the non-reciprocating charging handle, was always one of my biggest issues with the design.
Glad to see the non-reciprocating charging handle, was always one of my biggest issues with the design.
I never understood what was wrong with a reciprocating charging handle? Lots of rifles have it, and you never hear about any issues with them. They probably only changed it just to make the army happy.
Voodoo_Man
02-20-12, 15:07
I just bought a SCAR about a month ago and the salesman was telling me that he went to SHOT and FN has a kit comming out for the charging handle, plus a few more aftermarket things for the SCAR. I dont know if its BS but I guess we will see
I figured we would see this sooner than later.
I assume most parts will be backwards compatible with the original SCAR system.
I never had an issue with the reciprocating charging handle. For many people it is an "issue," but in my mind its a training issue.
I really hope that this lowers the price on the original SCAR :dance3:
+1 on that
I believe the reason the SCAR is so expensive is because it's made in very limited quantities, correct? Theoretically, it should be a cheaper gun to manufacture then an AR15. It has a polymer lower, and extruded upper receiver I believe. If it were adopted by the US military in significant numbers, I believe that would drive the price down.
Iraq Ninja
02-20-12, 16:46
I never understood what was wrong with a reciprocating charging handle? Lots of rifles have it, and you never hear about any issues with them. They probably only changed it just to make the army happy.
It hits things and snags stuff.
The Army requested the handle to be reciprocating in the SCAR, for some reason that I have forgotten.
A 7.62 FNAC would be tits. But I suppose FN only made this to compete in the Army carbine trials?
It hits things and snags stuff.
I won't say it can't happen, but in the grand scheme of things, it's never been a reported issue with weapons like the AK,Garand,M14,M1 Carbine, etc.
Magic_Salad0892
02-20-12, 18:16
I don't care for it.
The reciprocating charging handle was okay. I kind of liked it. However, I understand that a non reciprocating handle would enable better shooting positions because the handle wouldn't hit your hand and short stroke the gun or something.
Taking the front BUIS off of the gas block was retarded, because it was space efficient. A 14'' barrel should have been the original configuration.
A SCAR Mk. 16 CQC variant with all of the SCARs original features, but with non-reciprocating handle is IMHO the peak of the SCAR design.
Unless I'm missing something.
I'm glad that the SCAR crowd has options now.
No quick barrel change feature ?
ColdDeadHands
02-20-12, 20:33
I don't care for it.
The reciprocating charging handle was okay. I kind of liked it. However, I understand that a non reciprocating handle would enable better shooting positions because the handle wouldn't hit your hand and short stroke the gun or something.
Taking the front BUIS off of the gas block was retarded, because it was space efficient. A 14'' barrel should have been the original configuration.
A SCAR Mk. 16 CQC variant with all of the SCARs original features, but with non-reciprocating handle is IMHO the peak of the SCAR design.
Unless I'm missing something.
I'm glad that the SCAR crowd has options now.
+1 on everything you said. I think the SCAR is an excellent weapon system. I do like the shorter barrel and butt-pad on the FNAC.
It hits things and snags stuff.
Pretty much. I just thought that considering technology having it non reciprocating would have made more sense in my opinion. My issue was that with it placed farther forward from what I would have considered a standard position, such as what you see in an M1 carbine, Garand, or AK, could lead to issues. With it non reciprocating I think it is just a better idea
DeltaSierra
02-20-12, 22:57
I won't say it can't happen, but in the grand scheme of things, it's never been a reported issue with weapons like the AK,Garand,M14,M1 Carbine, etc.
Then why do people with far more experience than I, have this to say about the SCAR:
The reciprocating charging handle is probably the single biggest mistake that FN made apart from making pistols!
scoutfsu99
02-20-12, 23:21
Then why do people with far more experience than I, have this to say about the SCAR:
Wasn't it a requirement? Did FN not give the Army what they asked for?
ColdDeadHands
02-20-12, 23:36
Then why do people with far more experience than I, have this to say about the SCAR:
And yet, Steve Fisher likes his SCAR...haven't heard him say anything negative about it. I think it's just like with everything else...personal preference.
Steve Fisher on SCAR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FzLesJdCvnQ
Steve Fisher on SCAR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FzLesJdCvnQ
Cool review.
Btw, does anyone know why he says he needed to use the HK low-rise mount to keep the same offset as with an AR? I know it has a higher height over bore and I've read a few folks saying that to get absolute co-witness one must use a low-rise mount but on my SCAR 17, I had no problem getting absolute co-witness with my H1 with a regular American Defense mount. Am I missing something here or does the SCAR 16 differ in this regard? I don't see why it would.
ColdDeadHands
02-21-12, 08:16
Cool review.
Btw, does anyone know why he says he needed to use the HK low-rise mount to keep the same offset as with an AR? I know it has a higher height over bore and I've read a few folks saying that to get absolute co-witness one must use a low-rise mount but on my SCAR 17, I had no problem getting absolute co-witness with my H1 with a regular American Defense mount. Am I missing something here or does the SCAR 16 differ in this regard? I don't see why it would.
He said he wanted the hold over to be the same or as close as possible as on his AR's.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97845
On my SCAR16S, I tried my H1 with LaRue LT660 mount (which gives a 1/3 co-witness on my M4). It sat too high me on the SCAR & I also couldn’t not co-witness.
I switched to shorter LT660HK. If I remember correctly, BUIS is slightly higher than center of Aimpoint glass (about 2/3 co-witness). I’ll have to check again. I just initially sighted in the BUIS then have had them folded ever since.
The SCAR16S's BUIS have a 3.5” offset.
BoringGuy45
02-21-12, 09:37
I'd love to get my hands on one of these if it becomes the new standard rifle (I'd imagine by that time the price will have dropped quite a bit and more companies would be allowed to manufacture it).
Also, as someone else had asked, is the barrel still changeable at the user level?
Steve Fisher on SCAR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FzLesJdCvnQ
I found it interesting that he put the charging handle on the right side. It makes sense to do that though, since most AR and AK users charge the weapon with their right hand anyway.
Also, as someone else had asked, is the barrel still changeable at the user level?
The photo of the FNAC shows difference from Mk16. The black plastic piece that retains the two fasteners in front of ejection port is missing. I making a guess that it is not changeable at user level.
I found it interesting that he put the charging handle on the right side. It makes sense to do that though, since most AR and AK users charge the weapon with their right hand anyway.
In the link provided by ColdDeadHands, Steve mentioned that he has gone back to left side.
BoringGuy45
02-21-12, 11:44
The photo of the FNAC shows difference from Mk16. The black plastic piece that retains the two fasteners in front of ejection port is missing. I making a guess that it is not changeable at user level.
Hmm...I wonder if that'll dampen the enthusiasm for it by the Army. Not that it's an absolute need, but it's something that the AR does not have (with the exception of the MRP). Like it has been said, it sounds the Army is looking for a rifle that delivers an absolute knockout blow to the M4 and the more features that one of the IC entries has would probably give it a better chance. Just my thoughts.
I found it interesting that he put the charging handle on the right side. It makes sense to do that though, since most AR and AK users charge the weapon with their right hand anyway.
The development of BCM's Gunfighter suggests otherwise.
-B
Magic_Salad0892
02-21-12, 15:32
The reason for running it on the right side is so that the weapon will have an ambidextrous bolt release.
I think. That's why I would do it. I hate the right handed setup.
Then why do people with far more experience than I, have this to say about the SCAR:
Then I retort my statement. Perhaps it's a problem in particular with the SCAR. I can't say as I've never fired one. With the charging handle moving back and forth with most other designs, not an issue.
ColdDeadHands
02-21-12, 16:57
I don't have a problem with the charging handle. I use a fore grip & the thumb grip method.
morbidbattlecry
02-21-12, 18:44
Wasn't it a requirement? Did FN not give the Army what they asked for?
If i remember right not only did Socom want a reciprocating charging handle they also wanted to be ambidextrous as well.
The development of BCM's Gunfighter suggests otherwise.
-B
Hell I never had one on my AR-15 and I still used my left hand. :D
Then I retort my statement. Perhaps it's a problem in particular with the SCAR. I can't say as I've never fired one. With the charging handle moving back and forth with most other designs, not an issue.
huh? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retort)
So you haven't fired one, but you're positive it's a non-issue?
I have fired one, only 200 rounds or so, and I ****ing hated it. I got hit with it, first, as I tried to figure out where the gun was going to allow me to place my hands, and then found it distracting to have this thing chunking away towards my face when I was shooting. I am POSITIVE I cold get use to either, learn to deal with either, and move past either, but with other options in firearms with way more other benefits besides just not having the reciprocating charging handle, I don't see any reason to.
ColdDeadHands
02-22-12, 07:56
huh? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retort)
So you haven't fired one, but you're positive it's a non-issue?
I have fired one, only 200 rounds or so, and I ****ing hated it. I got hit with it, first, as I tried to figure out where the gun was going to allow me to place my hands, and then found it distracting to have this thing chunking away towards my face when I was shooting. I am POSITIVE I cold get use to either, learn to deal with either, and move past either, but with other options in firearms with way more other benefits besides just not having the reciprocating charging handle, I don't see any reason to.
See, again...personal preference; I've fired a few mags thru my SCAR since I've bought it recently and never even noticed the movement of the charging handle. I also always place my hand as far forward on the rail as it allows so naturally my hand never got hit by it either.
I'm not saying it can't hit you but it's very unlikely if you have a reference point like a grip or hand stop mounted.
Iraq Ninja
02-22-12, 08:06
Then I retort my statement. Perhaps it's a problem in particular with the SCAR. I can't say as I've never fired one. With the charging handle moving back and forth with most other designs, not an issue.
This weapon submission is for the Military, not the Olympic Shooting Team. Thus, an "issue" may relate to fighting functionality vs. firing functionality.
Magic_Salad0892
02-22-12, 08:25
This weapon submission is for the Military, not the Olympic Shooting Team. Thus, an "issue" may relate to fighting functionality vs. firing functionality.
IN, quick question.
Which do you prefer, and why?
I remember hearing you had a bit of operational experience with the SCAR system.
wild_wild_wes
02-25-12, 14:04
What is the muzzle device?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fnac-tm-tfb.jpg
What is the muzzle device?
If big mil tested the SCAR, with a reciprocating handle, there would be all sorts of issues related to snag catches impeding the handle.
It was a point of contention within the assorted SOCOM units. IMO can it.
BoringGuy45
02-28-12, 08:18
How did they make the charging handle not reciprocate?
BoringGuy45
03-05-12, 15:10
Any more news on this rifle?
Saw this over on kitup! and figured I would just update this thread. Not a whole lot of new info, but at least some good pics.
http://kitup.military.com/2012/10/ausa12-photos-fns-advanced-carbine.html
http://images-kitup.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FNAC.jpg
http://images-kitup.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FNACleft.jpg
wild_wild_wes
10-25-12, 19:37
New muzzle device? Vortex-type?
Barry in IN
10-26-12, 06:17
Is that a bayonet lug? It sure looks like it, but our CinC says we don't need those, so it can't be.
scoutfsu99
10-26-12, 08:50
Is that a bayonet lug? It sure looks like it, but our CinC says we don't need those, so it can't be.
When was the last time you mounted a bayonet to your weapon?
Barry in IN
10-26-12, 10:41
Probably never.
And?
scoutfsu99
10-26-12, 10:45
I was wondering if it was a comment based on experience/observation or just a chance to get a cheap dig in at the POTUS.
Barry in IN
10-26-12, 11:21
Digs at this POTUS are never cheap
FN needs to push that monolithic rail out a couple more inches...
Barry in IN
10-26-12, 12:42
Yeah I'd rather see that than a non-recip charging handle.
scoutfsu99
10-26-12, 13:25
FN needs to push that monolithic rail out a couple more inches...
They probably don't have much wiggle room because some dinosaur is still stuck on having bayonets.....something I haven't seen outside of OSUT and cyclic's.
jesus christ, they're still making these rifles nowadays with short ass rails
Larry Vickers
10-26-12, 20:05
The reciprocating charging handle isn't the problem ; it is the location
FN put it in a spot where it was easily switched from side to side and sealed the receiver openings when the bolt carrier is in battery - makes sense from a design point of view but by putting it where they did it interferes with proper firearms manipulation for many shooters as well as shooting around barricades, etc.
This is not nearly the problem with fixed charging handles located near the ejection port- but it is much more of a problem to make that location compatible with a reversible charging handle and a receiver that can be sealed effectively when the charging handle is in the opposite location
wild_wild_wes
10-27-12, 00:19
When was the last time you mounted a bayonet to your weapon?
Crowd control. Guarding EPWs.
QuickStrike
10-27-12, 05:32
Would love to get one of those butt pads for my 17. The concave one is more prone to snagging when shouldering fast imo.
morbidbattlecry
10-27-12, 20:17
Well i'm going to have to say i want one. Probably not going to happen, but i want it.
scoutfsu99
10-27-12, 20:25
Crowd control. Guarding EPWs.
My thought on that would be if you're going to threaten or stick someone with a dull ass knife, you're just as justified to shoot them.
Bayonet lugs are an unnecessary limitation on rifle development. That rail could use an inch or two of extension on the bottom/sides at a minimum.
Naval Component guys wanted the reciprocating charging handle, as well as the ability to change to a short CQB-length barrel (from a carbine or standard-length barrel) at an Objective Rally Point.
Paraphrasing Master Sergeant John U. (who was on one of the Army Combat Development teams), "Who thought this was a good idea?! If one of my guys told me he was changing his barrel out in the ORP just before a hit I'd seriously question his judgment."
I'm told the response was the sound of crickets.
Strange I just now noticed it has no vent holes on the sides. I wonder why.
Voodoo_Man
10-28-12, 20:50
If FN decides to sell to the civ market they make an optional factory installed front rail extension. One of my biggest gripes with the SCAR is that there is no rail extension from the factory.
Re: charging handle - the oem charging handle sucks. I am not a fan and have got it stuck in my kit several times, plus the whole optics mounting mashing on your hands, it sucks. Thankfully there is significant aftermarket advancements in charging handles available. I run the tangodown and could not be happier.
Ive never had an issue with the reciprocating handle, the gun functions well and has little issues.
Magic_Salad0892
10-29-12, 01:24
Naval Component guys wanted the reciprocating charging handle, as well as the ability to change to a short CQB-length barrel (from a carbine or standard-length barrel) at an Objective Rally Point.
Paraphrasing Master Sergeant John U. (who was on one of the Army Combat Development teams), "Who thought this was a good idea?! If one of my guys told me he was changing his barrel out in the ORP just before a hit I'd seriously question his judgment."
I'm told the response was the sound of crickets.
Why did the Naval component guys say they wanted a reciprocating handle? Didn't SF guys and other dudes deploying with that gun complain about that to SOCOM in the beginning?
FN (and HK and a number of other firearms manufacturers) know that to get a military contract they have to produce what the customer asks for.
It may not make sense, but the customer is always right.
Sometimes not all customers want the same thing. When the son of the kind uncle who runs the customer test says he wants something that input may get weighted.
When the son finds out he got what he asked for, the design is frozen and the toy goes into production, but the son has to fund it out of his own pocket because the other cousins refuse to buy it (and it isn't the best thing since toilet paper, refrigerators, bottled and canned beer, air con, washing machines and driers, and color TV) there may be a little buyer's remorse.
The uncle may have to tell the family bank account holders (board of directors) they're going to salvage a portion of the program without having to say his son may not have nailed the requirement exactly.
Once upon a time the Army decided they wanted a weapon called the M249 SAW, but they wanted to put their own imprint on it and insisted FN change the stock and put on a non-folding barrel change handle. They bought many, but once it hit the field the users insisted on a stock change and folding barrel handle. The next-generation modifications FN made took the weapon back to almost the original design configuration.
Sure makes for confused engineers.
Magic_Salad0892
10-29-12, 12:29
FN (and HK and a number of other firearms manufacturers) know that to get a military contract they have to produce what the customer asks for.
It may not make sense, but the customer is always right.
Sometimes not all customers want the same thing. When the son of the kind uncle who runs the customer test says he wants something that input may get weighted.
When the son finds out he got what he asked for, the design is frozen and the toy goes into production, but the son has to fund it out of his own pocket because the other cousins refuse to buy it (and it isn't the best thing since toilet paper, refrigerators, bottled and canned beer, air con, washing machines and driers, and color TV) there may be a little buyer's remorse.
The uncle may have to tell the family bank account holders (board of directors) they're going to salvage a portion of the program without having to say his son may not have nailed the requirement exactly.
Once upon a time the Army decided they wanted a weapon called the M249 SAW, but they wanted to put their own imprint on it and insisted FN change the stock and put on a non-folding barrel change handle. They bought many, but once it hit the field the users insisted on a stock change and folding barrel handle. The next-generation modifications FN made took the weapon back to almost the original design configuration.
Sure makes for confused engineers.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification, Sinister. :)
Non-recip CH would be great if it hits the .civ market. I would have to have a SCAR then.
Put a couple hundred rounds through SCARs at various training courses and running around with other agencies that have them and I never ceased to foul the CH doing transitions around barricades and certain roll-over prone CoFs. All stuff that could be eliminated with either a non-recip CH or me taking the time to learn how to run it w/o fouling the CH. All in all, I'd rather have a non-recip CH.
That's the only thing that kept me from pulling the trigger on a purchase for myself. Sadly, I'll never see one issued. Our G36s are SOOO much better. :rolleyes:
From the pics it looks like the NR charging handle could be capable of dropping into existing SCARs. Not seeing a big difference in the upper around the CH area, and the CH looks like it's still switchable to the left or right side.
New carrier, + NR CH parts and it's done? I know FN wouldn't sell them the parts to individuals, but there's always the few companies who would (HDD, Stryker). Unfortunately, knowing FN, that would probably be a $1k bill for the parts.
Non-recip CH would be great if it hits the .civ market. I would have to have a SCAR then.
Put a couple hundred rounds through SCARs at various training courses and running around with other agencies that have them and I never ceased to foul the CH doing transitions around barricades and certain roll-over prone CoFs. All stuff that could be eliminated with either a non-recip CH or me taking the time to learn how to run it w/o fouling the CH. All in all, I'd rather have a non-recip CH.
That's the only thing that kept me from pulling the trigger on a purchase for myself. Sadly, I'll never see one issued. Our G36s are SOOO much better. :rolleyes:
You ever do much runnin and gunnin with an AK type rifle?
My practice with various AK rifles had me move the SCAR ch over to the right hand side. Works much better that way. For me anyway.
Voodoo_Man
11-02-12, 23:36
You ever do much runnin and gunnin with an AK type rifle?
My practice with various AK rifles had me move the SCAR ch over to the right hand side. Works much better that way. For me anyway.
I ran the CH this way for a class. It was great except where I needed to be quick on malfunction drills. I dont like to have to tilt the rifle to the side or reach under or over the rifle in order to charge it. Other than that it was pretty snag free and did not bother me. I still prefer to run the CH on the left
If they do a Non-RCH I hope it is setup with an Israeli-style Forward Assist.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.