My review of the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower for the SCAR 17 S

[chadgvn]

Hello everyone,

This is my first real post here and I wanted thank two members for helping me find this site (Rhinosow) and with this review (Fox33).

I have a SCAR 17 and found the Handl concept of a SR25 patterned lower as a bit frivolous at first. (like a metal glock lower that takes HK mags). I set about working on my first review of a weapons part, I put alot of time, money (ammo), and effort into this. There were several SF/NSW guys (fox33) who helped me immensely and I can't thank them enough.

Well it is in the next post, I have a PDF but it is too big to load. If you like it let me know I can e-mail the PDF, If you hate it let me know how I could do it better.

Thanks,

Chad

[chadgvn]

HANDL DEFENSE SCAR25 FN Mk17/17S replacement lower

The Handl Defense replacement lower for the SCAR has created a vibrant discussion in firearms enthusiast circles. Some see a SCAR SR-25 pattern lower as a novel alteration, others see it as a frivolous exercise in engineering. The intent of this review is to evaluate the origins of the SCAR, the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower, and then evaluate the installation, operation and durability of the Handl Defense SCAR 25 under range conditions.
This evaluation will help determine if the Handl Defense SCAR25 SCAR replacement lower concept is valid. Initially, I had reservations about the concept and wondered if it was worth purchasing. On the outset of this evaluation it appeared to me that this part had limited utilization. Some of the internet discussions have been massively supportive to outright hostile to the idea. One FN oriented internet forum is known for being overtly hostile to the Handl Defense lower concept.

With strident supports and detractors of the concept, I plunge into this conversation. I plan on evaluating the Handl lower as it is the most well-known, and easiest to procure, of the two SR-25 pattern lowers available, with a rumored third option entering its second year of problematic development.

Origins of the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower
In 2003 USSOCOM (United States Special Operations Command) approved a Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) to search for a new selective-fire rifle. The purpose of the program, then titled SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle) now named the CAR-H, was to develop a new rifle for combat operations across all the services that encompass USSOCOM.
Originally the requirements called for a system chambered in 5.56x45 mm NATO and/or 7.62x51 mm NATO. It is presumed there are 6.8 SPC and 7.62x39 conversion kits in existence, based off of a request by certain SOF elements requiring that capability. The SCAR needed to not only be adaptable to multiple calibers, but those calibers in multiple configurations.

In response to the JORD, several manufacturers offered submissions to the SCAR trials. Out of these trials emerged FN SCAR from FN Herstal. “FN won the full and open SCAR competition because we showed up with a weapon that met, and more often exceeded, USSOCOM’s requirements. And this was not just an existing weapon that we tweaked to compete; the FN SCAR was built from the ground up, combining some of the best features from numerous weapon designs all aimed at the primary requirements of modularity, reliability, accuracy and durability,” said Gabe Bailey, FNHUSA’s marketing director for Combat Rifles.

The upper receiver is one piece and constructed of aluminum and the lower is constructed of polymer. The SCAR features an integral, Picatinny rail on the top of the aluminum receiver, two removable side rails and a bottom one that can mount any MIL-STD-1913 compliant accessories. It has a polymer lower receiver with an M4 type compatible pistol grip. This polymer receiver, and operation experiences with it, is what inspired the Handl Defense SCAR 25.

According to one of the SOF contributors, Alan Handl had a chance meeting with a member of SOF in June of 2011. Handl Defense had already began work on their concept of a SR 25 pattern lower. According to one of the contributors, there were issues with the Mk.17 polymer lowers and magazines during operations in Afghanistan. Soon after this meeting, Handl Defense expanded their line of metal prototypes, for not only the civilian SCAR 17S but the Mk.17 rifle as well. The first functional copy was test fired in September of 2011. With the contributions and comments of members of USSOCOM, Handl Defense developed a comprehensive Mk.17 /Mk.20 improvement program which addressed the observations of SOF members in relation with the FN SCAR Mk. 17.

The first production Handl Defense SCAR 25 lowers were delivered en mass to retailers and customers a few months later. Currently the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower is the only item available for public consumption from the Handl Defense Mk. 17 / Mk. 20 Improvement program. The Handl Defense Mk. 17 / Mk. 20 improvement program, which is a 6 phase program intended to address interoperability, durability, heat, recoil impulse, and other areas of emphasis found during Handl Defense testing the SCAR 25 lower to SCAR Mk.17 Specification Standards.

Installation of the Handl Defense SCAR 25

During the installation of the Handl SCAR 25 I will evaluate the aesthetics of the lower, the simplicity of instructions, and the ease of installation.

Aesthetics
The Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower I used during the evaluation was a previously used lower. This particular lower has approximately 3500 rounds fired through it, according to the previous owner, it was one of the first ones available to civilians. This lower had a very small blemish on the right side of the magazine well, in the baked on coating. The original owner had this lower replaced by Handl Defense free of cost because of this small blemish. The previous owner says Handl Defense does a good job solving customers’ issues. The Handl Defense lower was replaced with the new SCAR 25 MOD 2. The SCAR 25 MOD 2 is made of AZ-91 magnesium, and is an impressive and beautifully machined part. It is on par with the highest quality lowers I have seen from the likes of Noveske and LMT. The standard T7075 aluminum lower was quite nice, but the newer lower was very impressive aesthetically. It was not different in its design or function, but it was obvious that Handl Defense has a refined product.

The original used SCAR 25 lower is made of T-7075 aluminum. The used lower is well machined and showed no flaws in construction. I used a micrometer to check for irregularities in the lower, I was unable find any. I also set the lower on a level surface to note any warping and flex in the lower, as there are rumors of this in heavily used SCARs, none was found.

There was no external signs of wear or damage. None of the bored holes in either side has wear or obvious irregularity from the pins. There were no wear spots on sides of the hollow cavities that would denote irregularities in parts interfacing with the lower. I was unable to mechanically verify any of the holes bored into the lower were not plumb and true, with the equipment I have. When the lower was assembled there was no binding or excess friction during manipulation, so it is presumed there are no issues with construction.

The only obvious wear I could find are some small wear marks in the male adaptor and magazine well. The largest wear marks where the male portion of the lower fits into the female end of the base plate. I do not find these to be inconsistent with normal use with any hard coated lower. This is probably from the unconventional initial mating method between the trigger module and upper receiver, more on that later.

I find the color of Flat Dark Earth Handl Defense used in the coating suits the multiple colors of the SCAR 17S very well. Simply put, it looks good and appears very well built. First impressions of the lower are very good.

Simplicity of instructions
The instructions on the website were found under the media tab and after a brief introduction to the Handl Defense SCAR 25, Alan Handl himself takes you through the procedures for installation. I have built many AR series of rifles but looking down into the FN SCAR lower with the intent to disassemble, still gave me a tiny bit of pause.
The FN SCAR is an expensive gun, spare parts are scarce, and there is very little aftermarket support. If one were to make a mistake and damage a part, the consequences could take more time and money than most would be willing to give. Fortunately the video instructions were clear and easy to follow.

Even if you never purchase a Handl lower, every SCAR owner should watch the instructions as they are clear, a bit unrefined, but properly thought out. I found myself very comfortable and familiar with the SCAR lower afterwards.
The instructions were not necessarily simple, as the FN SCAR lower is more complex than any AR series rifle. The FN SCAR lower has far more small clips, screws, and other things to lose than AR series rifles. Fortunately the instructions were clear and accomplished the intent. They were not flashy, or heavy on graphic aids, as some computer animation could have been helpful during some portions of the instructions. They gave a clear understanding of what you need, including tools, and how to do it.

Ease of Installation
Prior to assembling the Handl lower I manipulated all of the controls of the FN SCAR lower to get a lasting impression on the feel so I could compare it to the assembled Handl SCAR 25 lower. Both on my FN stock lower and the donor Handl lower.
During the fitment of the FN SCAR lower internals there was no issue other than the fact the SCAR lower design is more complicated than most other lower receivers. I found the installation of the bolt catch to be the most difficult part. I was also very worried about losing any of the retaining clips, as I had no replacements. For the hobbyist shooter, I would not recommend undergoing this change without the Handl Defense instructions supplied on their website. I cannot say that enough: I would think that anyone who has had issues with the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower probably did not follow the instructions.

There was only one area where I found just the slightest amount of excess friction was in the grip screw. I mounted the Hogue grip that was on my FN lower onto the Handl lower. It felt tight as I screwed it into place. I immediately stopped and inspected the threading, it appeared fine, and so I continued. The grip screw seated firmly and completely. It felt more like as if FN and Handl Defense have the same tread pitch but just microns different.

After assembling the Handl Defense lower in about 30 minutes, I began to manipulate the controls in order to gauge the feel. The Handl Defense lower functions without friction or binding. It feeds and holds fully loaded PMAG’s and M110 magazines. The trigger breaks without snags or bumps. The hammer drops cleanly without perceptible impedance and the safety manipulates cleanly.

The lower mates up to the FN SCAR requiring a good amount of pressure to get it to seat. I was told that the male portion of the Handl lower was made just slightly larger in order to make the parts mate up tighter than the FN polymer lowers. The directions actually call for the use of a rubber mallet in the initial seating of the new lower. This seems counter intuitive to me, but I was assured that it was safe and part of the design. This request for excessive rigidity actually stemmed from requests from SOF operators who have used the Handl lower on the Mk. 20. The FN SCAR 17S feels like solid contiguous item with the Handl lower attached. There is no play in the lower when it is attached, absolutely none. It feels like are really good set of matched set of AR upper and lower receivers you might find on a quality National Match gun, simply rock solid.

The best analogy that accurately describes the situation is a Glock versus a 1911. The FN SCAR lower is the Glock, cheaper feeling, flexes just that tiny bit when you grip it hard, it feels a tiny bit loose, and does its job perfectly. The Handl lower is the 1911, well machined, looks good, feels solid, and functions without defect. I believe that future and current FN SCAR owners that are “polymer-phobes”, those that turn their noses up at polymer framed pistols, will end up flocking to the Handl lower. It gives the gun a solid, contiguous feel the polymer lower does not.
The question is what type of 1911 is the Handl lower. Is the Handl SCAR 25 a Nighthawk Custom or an Ed Brown? Or is it a Kimber, which looks great, feels great, but cannot take heavy use. I went to the range to find out.

Durability and Operation

Operational evaluation
The intent of the operational evaluation was to determine if there was a change in the function of the weapon system with the Handl lower attached. The focus was to find any overt malfunctions but also to determine if fitting a Handl lower would result in an increase in wear on the system as a whole.
The SCAR 17S was fitted with a Vortex Razor HD II scope and VLTOR fore rail assembly. The magazines used were 3 different Magpul 20 round 7.62x51 PMAG and 1 M110 SR-25 pattern magazine. The Magazines used were all in various levels of use, from brand new in the package to moderately worn. The ammunition used was 100 rounds of Black Hills 175gr. match, 100 rounds of Federal 168gr. Match, and 280 rounds of 147gr reloaded M80. The targets used were NRA CMP 200yd centers and USPSA standard silhouettes. The spotting was conducted with a Kowa 60 power spotting scope.

The course of fire was to focus on the natural function of the weapon from the bench and from standing positions. During the later courses of fire there were multiple target engagements, controlled pairs, with speed reloads from the open bolt position. The shooting was not focused on accuracy or grouping, but instead to focus on rate of fire and checking for changes in operation. After each full magazine, or four magazines in later stages, the weapon was disassembled and checked for new wear patterns and damage. The weapon was lubricated initially with Rand CLP and again after every 200 rounds. Below is a chart describing the load, rate of fire, and parts of the gun checked during each tear down.

During the entire course of fire there were 3 issues identified. Issue #1 the brand new Magpul 7.62x51 PMAG was found to have an indentation approximately 1mm wide by 1 mm deep. This was in the base of the follower in the area where the bolt catch is activated by the magazine follower. I found this to be utterly insignificant as it did not affect the performance of the gun or magazine. I did feel it important to report it, as there have been sporadic reports of Handl lowers leaving marks on new PMAGs, but only the most neurotic would consider this an issue.

Issue#2 the same Magpul PMAG seated into the gun, but partially when fully loaded, with the bolt closed. I had to give a slight extra push, to be 100% sure it seated completely, which I noticed a slight movement of the mag release. I attribute this to a brand new magazine more than the Handl lower. This particular PMAG spring and follower felt very stiff, as it was only the second time it had been used. The first time it was loaded it was loaded from the open bolt, not closed bolt. This new PMAG was used 4 more times without issue, from both the open and closed bolt.

Issue#3 after shooting the last string of 80 rounds through the gun, at a round count of 440, there was a decent amount of tiny brass specks in the gun. I had seen them before, but there seemed like there was more than normal for an AR series of rifle. I inspected the brass, chamber, barrel, bolt, bolt carrier group, frame rails, and extractor closely. None of the internal components were damaged. It is possible that since this was found after the reloaded cartridges were fired, that may have come into play, but the source of the excess brass chips is unknown.

Operational evaluation summary
After looking for any type of damage or change in the function of the gun, none had been found. Of the three insignificant irregularities found, I attribute two to the magazine, and the other possibly to the reloaded ammunition. There were no stoppages or changes to the cycle of function of the weapon. The Handl equipped FN SCAR performed better than expected. I expected to have stoppages and failures to function.

Prior to doing this evaluation I did a decent amount of open source research on the Handl lower. I found a very small, but vocal group that initially influenced my expectations. In reflection, that pre-conditioning came really from one source without any photographic or video evidence. I just failed to recognize my pre-conditioning was heavily influenced by a direct competitor.
This shows the power of misinformation on the internet, as I fully expected the Handl lower to fail, it did not. Of the performance I saw firsthand, only those blinded by bias could find fault in the performance of the Handl lower, myself included. It works as advertised, no stoppages, no failures, no problems were found.

Durability evaluation
During the evaluation of the durability of the Handl Defense equipped SCAR 25 lower the focus will be on any new wear patterns, excessive wear, or damage to any parts to include ammunition cases or magazines. This is to show if there are any potential decreases in reliability or longevity of the FN SCAR with a Handl lower attached. Before the gun was taken to the range the gun was thoroughly inspected and photographed to establish a baseline for the evaluation. After range use, the gun was thoroughly cleaned and inspected. The intent was to identify new wear patterns that show the Handl lower changes the operation of the gun or may affect the durability of the gun. The chart below lists any changes in the wear patterns found on the gun itself.

Durability evaluation summary
It was surprising to find no changes to the wear patterns of the gun. The initial impression was that the pattern of the M110/PMAG magazine integrated with the FN SCAR pattern lower would cause alterations in the cycle of function or operation of the system. While I consider the test sample of 480 rounds to be robust enough to discover immediate design flaws. I would prefer a larger testing regimen, but this might just be to confirm my own reservations in the SR-25 patterned SCAR lower.

There might be pattern wear changes after say thousands of more rounds. It might difficult to discern if there would be a departure from standard FN lower wear patterns and Handl equipped lower wear patterns. It would require a robust test bank of each type, firing thousands of rounds, per platform. I am under the impression that there would be very little difference in long term wear patterns and nothing of significance to be learned. It appears that after this test that there would be no malfunctions or failures that would occur outside of standard deviation from FN SCAR performance standards. There appears to be no flaw in the design, although the sample size is smaller than I would like. I must conclude, in my initial research, the system works as intended.

Summary
I conclude that the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower works as advertised. There was no change in the cycle of function or operation of the weapon. There was no change in the wear patterns and therefore the probable durability of the weapon. It was surprising how seamlessly the function of the lower was. Simply, undeniably, it works as advertised. I was initially biased against the concept, I have seen it work first hand, and I now support it.
There have been a small number of complaints about the earliest runs of these lowers not working, or having issues.

I have done a decent amount of research and have yet to find video examples or photographic evidence. I am not saying that these did not happen, I just have seen no evidence of them. I presume this must have been a difficult undertaking for Handl Defense, to mesh two different design patterns, one metric and the other SAE. Production anomalies would be reduced over time through product re-evaluation. This was supposedly one of the first lowers available to the public, it had no issues. The lowers have been available for well over a year and I presume Handl defense would have eliminated or replaced any defective items. Then considering most of the complaints were coming from a source of known competition, were they even valid.

Simply, Handl Defense has made a high quality part that works. To answer my question from earlier it is much closer to a Wilson Combat 1911 than a Kimber 1911.

But does it make sense? SCAR 17S can retail for $3000, modifying this weapon is an expensive proposition with its exclusivity and rarity of parts. If you are the kind of guy who hates polymer framed pistols or want to improve the feel of the gun, it makes perfect sense. It also goes a long way to improving the feel of the gun, it feels more like a solid contiguous item. It feels a lot more like an AR patterned rifle.

Do you have other SR25 patterned magazine semi auto rifles in your gun safe? It is a foregone conclusion, buy one tomorrow. I understand now why SOF operators asked for this item, as the durable M110 magazines supplied with the SR 25/Mk. 11 rifle, work seamlessly in the Handl lower. I am sure interoperability between weapons systems must be a concern for operations in Central Asia. I would also think that has to be why Handl Defense submitted a proposal for the SCAR 25 to be adopted by USSOCOM. If interoperability between your 7.62x51 guns is important, the Handl Defense SCAR 25 is for you.

That leaves those that have only a FN SCAR 17S as their only 7.62x51 semi auto rifle and those who view this as an unnecessary alteration to an already effective system. It is like buying a metal frame for your Glock so it can take the better HK magazines, which is predominately why I was skeptical of the Handl concept.

Since two of the SOF contributors commented the FN SCAR magazines are not very durable, I would consider that. But if you are heavily invested in the SCAR 17S magazines which I’ve seen retail as high as $70 each, and the SCAR is your only 7.62x51 rifle this concept might not be for you.

I consider this to be a very good buy, even a great buy, depending on your situation. I do not consider a $350 part as a trivial purchase, but it is not prohibitive either. It is not cheap, either in its construction or cost, then on top of that, you have to transfer your parts from your lower. Which means closely follow the directions on the Handl website or pay someone to do it for you. Simply, if you can afford it, as I assume most SCAR owners can, then it definitely bears very serious consideration.

The only limiting factor on the purchase of the Handl Defense SCAR 25 lower is its cost. I have to ask myself, if I had to pay the $350 to purchase it brand new out of the box, would I? If you asked me before this test I would have said never, but now I would say most definitely. While it might not be the first upgrade for the SCAR platform you might make, the Handl Defense SCAR 25 SR-25 patterned trigger module should be near or at the top of the list.

This evaluation would not have been possible without the comments, both public and private, of those I interviewed. I used their private comments with consent, or have reproduced previously released public comments. In particular I want to thank Gabe Bailey of FN, Patrick Carley of USSOCOM J-8, and current and former members of SEAL team 7 and the 1st, 3rd, and 19th Special Forces Groups. Their comments are from public open source documents, or their input was solicited in an open manner and used with their permission.

[Fox33]

Chad,

I do not think anyone is going to read your novel. But I did like it, I think you should give it to Handl Defense, they will probably love it.

[JPB]

How about going into detail about these deficiencies with the factory lower? We know about the magazine floor plate issue, but IMHO while the solution carries the name Magpul, switching over to plastic PMags is not it. Troy has a metal stock latch. Anything else that isn't in public domain?

Oh, and I have and have had lots of 7.62 guns.

[Ferris2son]

Still searching for an audience Chad?

[RHINOWSO]

I think you should add some of the photos you included in the PDF, as it would make the read easier.

I just thought that doing all that work and never publishing your results would have been a shame.

I'm still happy with the OEM Lower but Handl is an option for those who want magazine comparability.

Too bad Handl reportidly let a dope smoker employee machine their first set of lowers (as reported by another member), kinda gave the project a black eye IMO.

[Dasho101]

Read it. I will definantly consider it when I get my scar.

[agr1279]

A good read for someone wanting the Handi lower for their SCAR-H.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chadgvn]

Still searching for an audience Chad?

Well if you mean looking for a fair and impartial audience who is not beholden to a fraud, yes I was looking for and I think found it. Considering I spent days of my time and hundreds of dollars in my ammunition, in producing the review, I feel it needed an audience that liked objective information. So did you like the review or not?

[chadgvn]

I think you should add some of the photos you included in the PDF, as it would make the read easier.

I just thought that doing all that work and never publishing your results would have been a shame.

I'm still happy with the OEM Lower but Handl is an option for those who want magazine comparability.

Too bad Handl reportidly let a dope smoker employee machine their first set of lowers (as reported by another member), kinda gave the project a black eye IMO.

Rhino,

Thanks for the kind words. I had no idea the first Handl run had issues because of a stoner (no not Eugene LOL). Fox33 told me Handl let people go early on because of issues, had no idea it was because of dope (which is legal in WA), Fox said they had returns but the number was tiny (20-30 returns in the first 300) and they are or have replaced them.

The PDF was over 900kb and way too big to load so no pics