FN SCAR issues

[Defaultmp3]

LAV is correct in that it is the most tested battle rifle in history. I started shooting the first batch in 2005. I can't do details regarding specific issues in those days due to NDAs still in effect. But the guns sucked. It does not surprise me in the least that Vickers likes it. Still, I would lay dollars to pesos that his opinion of it say circa 2006/2007 would be drastically different than it is today. Mine is. I would not have taken one if it came with a free BJ. I will confidently use and carry a 17 now, and did during my 2010-2011 Afghanistan tour. It was among the first to make it to the show, and one of very few that fared well during its initial combat action. They were pulled out of theater for a short time in 2011 due to issues, that were addressed, and returned to service overseas late 2011. But this is the gun Larry is fond of, not the first few generations of guns that suffered such a shitty start to life as a battle/service rifle.

What you have in the 17S is over 5 years and millions upon millions of rounds fired as the guns were shot, abused, broken (often), fixed, tweaked, design changes incorporated, magazine issues addresed, and end user input provided. It did not happen overnight, or even in the first few years. It wasn't until about 2009 that we started seeing progress in building reliable heavy's.

The accuracy of the SCAR was noted during testing of newly modifed guns in late 2008. It was then pondered if it could be built to a precision rifle standard of accuracy. In early 2009, the organization sponsoring the development of the system held a two week test of the Mk16 and Mk17 versus the Mk12 and Mk11 respectively. During this testing, both service grade, off the rack SCAR's roundly trounced the existing precision rifles they were competing against. I witnessed a 9.275" group fired from one thousand yards out of a Mk17, stock, no upgraded triggers, or anything else. Gun came out of the box, scope was mounted and off it went to the range.

It was from this testing that the Mk20 precision SCAR was developed. The accuracy was there before the "accurized" versions began to appear. I'm sure much of that went away as the gun started to become mass produced. Still, I get sub-MOA accuracy out to about 350 where it starts to open up to about 2.5 minutes from my gun shooting Mk316 long range ammunition. Federal Gold Medal Match can only do about 2 minutes out of most guns I have tried with it.

It see s as thought i might be giving the impression that i am anti-SCAR. I'm not. I like the SCAR and would grab one for serious work if it warranted a 7.62mm. But when it came time to spend my money I chose the Pred. I have a 16s, and have come to enjoy it and rely on it. But as I mentioned, I don't see a lot of people getting in to put in the time and effort to learn the gun. It is not an AR, and is not AR simple. It also required proprietary mags, and there is little factory support, spare parts, or aftermarket accessories. They also wreak havoc on optics and lasers not designed to withstand he recoil impulse/energy transfer to the receiver. Keeping all of that in mind........I chose the cheaper overall option, with spare parts available, a few choices of magazine makers, and not have to worry about which optic could handle the rifle.

Older post from a long time NSW guy that was involved with the SCAR's development.

[JoshNC]

They are ugly and made with toy grade plastic at the hinges and latches. Plus lack of shoulder for a suppressor, can't swap stock assembly for one with an aluminum mount without risking damage to the rear trunnion bracket screws, retarded gas port grommet to "fine tune" for your specific ammo etc. It's a complete design failure from the ground up.

The Replaceable gas valve did not have anything to do with fine tuning for suppressor use. It’s purpose is to bring the ROF back into spec once the barrel has been shot to the point of port erosion affecting ROF, but not to the point that the barrel itself needs replacing. It’s an ingenious design feature.

[MikhailBarracuda91]

Honestly I don't know what the lugs are called. They aren't part of the bolt or carrier. I'm not familiar with the SCAR that was actually my first time shooting it. TBH I loved it.

He was pointing towards the bottom of the receiver kind of behind the barrel.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Alpha-17]

What you have in the 17S is over 5 years and millions upon millions of rounds fired as the guns were shot, abused, broken (often), fixed, tweaked, design changes incorporated, magazine issues addresed, and end user input provided. It did not happen overnight, or even in the first few years. It wasn't until about 2009 that we started seeing progress in building reliable heavy's.

Much of the same can be said for the AR family, from early M16 problems to the drawn-out attempts at making a reliable carbine. It seems like every weapon these days goes through a long and arduous development process.

[RetroRevolver77]

Delete.

[JoshNC]

It's not even set up to run suppressed. You have to replace the gas port grommets just for certain ammo versus other ammo. The whole thing is a design failure. I hate the SCAR and wish I never owned them but luckily I was able to sell them to some noobs. You know what's ingenious, the FAL- which is where they should have stopped and just focused on creating rail systems and making it lighter.

The SCAR was designed to shoot mil ammunition. The purpose of the removable gas jet is as I previously mentioned. It is a side benefit that one can swap the gas jet to tune for suppressor use. The SCAR is far from perfect, but calling it a design failure is a bit histrionic.

[Alpha-17]

It's not even set up to run suppressed. You have to replace the gas port grommets just for certain ammo versus other ammo. The whole thing is a design failure. I hate the SCAR and wish I never owned them but luckily I was able to sell them to some noobs. You know what's ingenious, the FAL- which is where they should have stopped and just focused on creating rail systems and making it lighter.

I'm a fan of the FAL, I think it is a great rifle, and often wonder about what firearms would look like if it had been adopted instead of the M14, and had gotten the same level of attention the AR had. I've owned several, shot a couple more, and would like to add another to the stable eventually. That said, the SCAR is superior to the FAL in pretty much every way. Lighter, more accurate, more reliable, more modular and adaptable. By most accounts, it's also more controllable in full auto. I'd love to know what ammo you have to replace the gas port for; never ran into the issue from craptastic steel case up to FGMM for either of mine.

Your posts are increasingly sounding like a diehard "Muh M14 was the greatest battle rifle ever! So much better than that plastic Mattel-16 crap!" fanboy.

[RetroRevolver77]

Delete.

[jsbhike]

It's not even set up to run suppressed. You have to replace the gas port grommets just for certain ammo versus other ammo. The whole thing is a design failure. I hate the SCAR and wish I never owned them but luckily I was able to sell them to some noobs. You know what's ingenious, the FAL- which is where they should have stopped and just focused on creating rail systems and making it lighter.

I like the FAL, but not a lot of wiggle room on weight dropping other than the alloy lowers.

[RetroRevolver77]

Delete.