User Panel
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ask yourself why you want a .308 rifle. If it's to reach out and thump stuff, then ask yourself why you would want to hobble yourself with a 16" barrel and pay out your nose for it. If you just want a toy that gives you range swag, fireballs, and loud noise, then by all means, go for it. Que? Yes and no. The velocity on my KAC 16" is only 75fps less than the 20" ER making it not worth the extra length and weight. With it balanced correctly (see: doesn't have a ton of shit hanging off of the front) and the MAMS break, its just as fast as a 5.56 up close from standing/kneeling and leaves you an option of going much further out with nothing more than a decent rest, hasty sling or a bipod you stowed in your ruck. |
|
[#2]
Quoted:
What does a scar or ar10 do that a fal doesn't? Well, other than break your wallet. lol View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing wrong with an AR10. What does a scar or ar10 do that a fal doesn't? Well, other than break your wallet. lol I asked myself the same question when I had the itch for a SCAR. I built a few FALs back when the parts kits were dirt cheap and a receiver could be had for $200ish. To me, the juice isn't worth the squeeze to move from the FAL to a SCAR....at least not at the current price point on the SCAR. If I was starting from scratch and did not have a few 7.62 NATO battle rifles in the safe, the story would be a bit different. |
|
[#4]
|
|
[#5]
|
|
[#7]
I wanted one for the longest time until I started adding up all the "upgrades" (fixes) to get the rifle how I want it. Stock hinge, trigger, lower (for mags), Charging handle, ect... that's alot of money for an already expensive rifle, without optics .
|
|
[#9]
|
|
[#10]
I've got a SCAR 17 and a ton of other battle rifles. It is great rifle for sure but for the money an FAL is more enjoyable and shoots just as well. It only lacks the ability to mount optics easily and it is heavier.
|
|
[#11]
Quoted:
I've read they can eat cheap optics. Why does this rifle do that is their some crazy harmonics traveling through that gun? Does the buffer system work well in it? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't there some issue with them shaking optics to death? I've read they can eat cheap optics. Why does this rifle do that is their some crazy harmonics traveling through that gun? Does the buffer system work well in it? With the weapon being light in weight, the recoil has to dissipate through more than just the Buffer. As we all know when dissipating recoil if you give it more paths of least resistance then it will travel that way. I think that is why they eat optics. |
|
[#12]
|
|
[#13]
Quoted:
I've read they can eat cheap optics. Why does this rifle do that is their some crazy harmonics traveling through that gun? Does the buffer system work well in it? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't there some issue with them shaking optics to death? I've read they can eat cheap optics. Why does this rifle do that is their some crazy harmonics traveling through that gun? Does the buffer system work well in it? My theory is that the relatively lightweight rifle plus the relatively heavy bolt carrier group produces a harder-than-normal forward jerk on chambering as the bolt carrier slams into battery. It's similar to how air rifles recoil forward on firing, which can eat optics not designed to withstand recoil impulse in that direction. You also hear of some FALs which like to eat optics for similar reasons. I have to admit to envy of the SCAR's reported accuracy and low recoil, but even if I wasn't already wading around inside a giant puddle of FALs I would still go with an AR-10 over a SCAR. (Obviously, FALs are infinitely superior to both, but that's an entirely different flame war.) SCARs are not so much a rifle as a maintenance contract that happens to come with a rifle. That's great if you're FN and want to avoid the fiscally embarassing situation they ran into with the FAL, where they sold a bunch of rifles that never needed widespread replacement or repair. This happened because the FAL is designed for longevity: Its hard-to-make parts are overbuilt, while wear parts are modular and replaceable. Every part of it can be machined with 1920s technology. In this respect, the SCAR is its opposite: Its wear parts are also impossible to manufacture without hundreds of thousands of dollars in specialized tooling--but once you've made that investment, as FN has, you can pump out extruded receivers and injection-molded plastic trigger housings for pennies. A civilian SCAR owner is paying for the R&D required to sell him a rifle with planned obsolescence. That said, those who don't shoot enough to encounter the wear issue and who have no interest in long-term maintainability of their rifles will only enjoy the benefits of the SCAR and never run into the downsides. That said, a $1K rifle plus 2,500 rounds of trigger time will almost always outshoot a more accurate rifle with less practice. |
|
[#14]
Quoted: Heck.. for just 2K you can get a high-end 3Gun build from Armalite; http://www.armalite.com/Images/large%20images/Rifles/2014_AR103GN18_R_NoScope.jpg Item Number: AR103GN18 Purpose built for 3-gun and practical rifle competition, the AR103GN18 is ready to dominate, right from the box. A Timney 3-lb., single-stage trigger and Ergo wide grip are standard. The light weight MBA-1 buttstock is adjustable for cheekpiece and length-of-pull, and an ambidextrous safety and Raptor charging handle provide ease of operation. Model: AR-10 3-Gun Caliber: 7.62X51 mm / .308 Barrel: 18" stainless steel Rifling Twist: 1:10" RH Muzzle Device: Armalite tunable brake Front Sight Base: 2" MIL-STD 1913 rail section at forward 12 o'clock position of handguard Upper Receiver: Forged, flat-top with MIL-STD 1913 rail, 7075-T6 Aluminum Lower Receiver: 7075-T6 Aluminum (forged) Trigger: Timney 3 lb. single-stage Stock: MBA-1 light weight precision adjustable for length-of-pull and comb height Overall Length: 40.3" / 41.5" Weight: 8.9 lbs. Finish: Anodized aluminum upper/lower receiver, manganese phosphated steel barrel Included with Rifle: One 25-round Magpul PMAG Your Price: $2,099.00 EA View Quote eww. I hate 3-gun looking guns |
|
[#15]
Quoted:
MK20 SSR is supposed to be released soon I saw a guy selling 5 NIB FDE Scar 17 mags at a gun show a couple years ago for $70 for all of them. I would have FO'd like a hobo on a ham sammich...only if I had a Scar 17... View Quote You should have anyways. Deals like that are why bastards jack up the order of your want list. Very nice rifle. Don't have that many rounds through it, but it hands down beats a FAL, HK 91, M-14, or just about any other MBR in weight and handiness. Why over an AR-10? A few pounds lighter, that's why. |
|
[#16]
|
|
[#17]
1. Larue OBR
2. KAC SR-25 3. LMT MWS 4. HK MR762 You're welcome |
|
[#18]
|
|
[#19]
Quoted:
Short barrels on 308 rifles suck, because then you are basically shooting an AK round but with 308 weight to it. But to be honest Larry Vickers says dont go short than 16" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ask yourself why you want a .308 rifle. If it's to reach out and thump stuff, then ask yourself why you would want to hobble yourself with a 16" barrel and pay out your nose for it. If you just want a toy that gives you range swag, fireballs, and loud noise, then by all means, go for it. Que? Short barrels on 308 rifles suck, because then you are basically shooting an AK round but with 308 weight to it. But to be honest Larry Vickers says dont go short than 16" Yeah, a 308 with a 16" barrel won't hit shit. Except for this guy hitting a gong at 994 yards with a stock LMT MWS with a 16" barrel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCfIjl7O8R8 And this guy hitting a gong over and over at 800 yards with a LMT MWS with a 16" barrel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KXS8i8tFQI |
|
[#20]
Quoted:
In before someone bitches about the SOCOM mandated reciprocating charging handle/forward assist. As if FNH forgot how to engineer a non reciprocating charging handle hur dur! I really like mine. The greatest issue is the cost of the proprietary mags imo. No problems with damaged optics here (Aimpoint). View Quote +1...w/ EOTech 512 1800 rounds no problems |
|
[#21]
Quoted:
You ever hold one? Have an OOW model. 20 pounds of hog. Barely any recoil, but that bitch is heavy. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still wish there was a .30-06 AR on the market. Found something better. http://wwiiairsoftreenactorsofmichigan.yolasite.com/resources/VFC-AEG-BAR-M1918A2-STD-AG-1_01.jpg?timestamp=1315427880436 You ever hold one? Have an OOW model. 20 pounds of hog. Barely any recoil, but that bitch is heavy. And changing mags is a bitch! That hog is cumbersome in every possible way. Full auto the magazine capacity is a joke, you burn through the mag before you even get to enjoy shooting it. |
|
[#22]
I love mine!
I'm glad they went with 1/12" twist with the shorter barrel as mine shoots the 147 portugese surplus 1-1.5 MOA. My reloads with IMR 4064 and 155 nosler CC bullets shoots around .75 MOA, at 2650 fps. remember, the 155 match bullets have the same BC as 168's also, the 16" barrel is nice as I have a can hanging off the end... which brings up another point, I can flip the gas adjustment to the right and guess what? No gas blowback into my face!! (unlike a suppressed AR). |
|
[#24]
I have a Scar17S in FDE. Check out fnforum.net. Get one in FDE, they are far more accurate than the black one's.
Seriously, if you have the $$ it's a great gun and most likely a good investment. |
|
[#25]
|
|
[#26]
Quoted:
And changing mags is a bitch! That hog is cumbersome in every possible way. Full auto the magazine capacity is a joke, you burn through the mag before you even get to enjoy shooting it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still wish there was a .30-06 AR on the market. Found something better. http://wwiiairsoftreenactorsofmichigan.yolasite.com/resources/VFC-AEG-BAR-M1918A2-STD-AG-1_01.jpg?timestamp=1315427880436 You ever hold one? Have an OOW model. 20 pounds of hog. Barely any recoil, but that bitch is heavy. And changing mags is a bitch! That hog is cumbersome in every possible way. Full auto the magazine capacity is a joke, you burn through the mag before you even get to enjoy shooting it. I do NOT envy anyone who carried one in WWII. I don't even understand how they were effective. You're not shouldering one and firing, you're just not. Thus, I would be scared shitless to clear any areas/structures with one. And to lay it down on the bipod where it excels, with a tiny 20 round magazine......no thanks. I'd rather dual wield 2 Garand's. It's certainly built like a fucking tank, and damn near big enough to get inside of it if you mounted some axles through the stock. But it is just so impractical in all facets. |
|
[#28]
my scar 17 is my favorite rifle and my go to gun for war/shtf scenario.
To all the fal fan boys. You guys are just upset your favorite rifle has been surpassed by the great SCAR H (17). in all serious tho it sounds like most of the people dont buy the scar 17 for 2 reasons 1. price 2. they already have a fal/m1a and don't see the added benefit of upgrading |
|
[#29]
Quoted:
my scar 17 is my favorite rifle and my go to gun for war/shtf scenario. To all the fal fan boys. You guys are just upset your favorite rifle has been surpassed by the great SCAR H (17). in all serious tho it sounds like most of the people dont buy the scar 17 for 2 reasons 1. price 2. they already have a fal/m1a and don't see the added benefit of upgrading View Quote "Going to war rifle", eh? |
|
[#30]
Quoted:
That really depends on what your accuracy requirement is; you didn't say. If you are comparing that SR25 against a really high-end custom bolt rifle, then no, it's not going to be quite as accurate. If you are comparing it to an "off the rack" Rem 700, then yeah, it can be pretty close. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I currently own three .308 "Battle Rifles"; an OBR, an SR25 ECC, and a Scar17. With that said, I absolutely love mine. Can you compare the accuracy of the KAC to the Scar? Own and love my Scar... But I'm wondering if the SR25 is accurate enough to replace my bolt .308 for precision rifle use. That really depends on what your accuracy requirement is; you didn't say. If you are comparing that SR25 against a really high-end custom bolt rifle, then no, it's not going to be quite as accurate. If you are comparing it to an "off the rack" Rem 700, then yeah, it can be pretty close. It's difficult to say, as I have each rifle set up with a different purpose in mind. My Scar wears an Elcan 1.5-6X, and my ECC only has a T1 atop it. I did replace the trigger in the Scar with the Super Scar trigger, which I consider to be a good improvement over the stock set up. As far as the SR vs a bolt gun? Like someone else commented; it depends on the bolt gun. My experience suggests to me that the Scar (with the trigger upgrade) and SR25 are probably pretty comparable accuracy wise. The only bolt action rifle I have is a Texas Brigade Armory M40A3, and that thing is a freakin' laser. |
|
[#31]
Quoted:
That really depends on what your accuracy requirement is; you didn't say. If you are comparing that SR25 against a really high-end custom bolt rifle, then no, it's not going to be quite as accurate. If you are comparing it to an "off the rack" Rem 700, then yeah, it can be pretty close. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I currently own three .308 "Battle Rifles"; an OBR, an SR25 ECC, and a Scar17. With that said, I absolutely love mine. Can you compare the accuracy of the KAC to the Scar? Own and love my Scar... But I'm wondering if the SR25 is accurate enough to replace my bolt .308 for precision rifle use. That really depends on what your accuracy requirement is; you didn't say. If you are comparing that SR25 against a really high-end custom bolt rifle, then no, it's not going to be quite as accurate. If you are comparing it to an "off the rack" Rem 700, then yeah, it can be pretty close. It's difficult to say, as I have each rifle set up with a different purpose in mind. My Scar wears an Elcan 1.5-6X, and my ECC only has a T1 atop it. I did replace the trigger in the Scar with the Super Scar trigger, which I consider to be a good improvement over the stock set up. As far as the SR vs a bolt gun? Like DamageInc308 commented; it depends on the bolt gun. My experience suggests to me that the Scar (with the trigger upgrade) and SR25 are probably pretty comparable accuracy wise. The only bolt action rifle I have is a Texas Brigade Armory M40A3, and that thing is a freakin' laser. |
|
[#32]
Didn't Spec Ops replace their 5.56mm MK 12 SPR's with the SCAR17?
|
|
[#33]
I've got my Scar17 and the optic but I'm having second thoughts on the optic. I got the Leopold VX-6 1-6x24mm with Firedog duplex reticle. I guess I like the Firedot ok but now I'm thinking I am really underpowered with 6x scope. Not even sure I can sight it in at 100yard, kinda small magnification. I went with this scope to keep things light and small but it is a lot heavier than I realized. Crap!
|
|
[#34]
U
Quoted:
My theory is that the relatively lightweight rifle plus the relatively heavy bolt carrier group produces a harder-than-normal forward jerk on chambering as the bolt carrier slams into battery. It's similar to how air rifles recoil forward on firing, which can eat optics not designed to withstand recoil impulse in that direction. You also hear of some FALs which like to eat optics for similar reasons. I have to admit to envy of the SCAR's reported accuracy and low recoil, but even if I wasn't already wading around inside a giant puddle of FALs I would still go with an AR-10 over a SCAR. (Obviously, FALs are infinitely superior to both, but that's an entirely different flame war.) SCARs are not so much a rifle as a maintenance contract that happens to come with a rifle. That's great if you're FN and want to avoid the fiscally embarassing situation they ran into with the FAL, where they sold a bunch of rifles that never needed widespread replacement or repair. This happened because the FAL is designed for longevity: Its hard-to-make parts are overbuilt, while wear parts are modular and replaceable. Every part of it can be machined with 1920s technology. In this respect, the SCAR is its opposite: Its wear parts are also impossible to manufacture without hundreds of thousands of dollars in specialized tooling--but once you've made that investment, as FN has, you can pump out extruded receivers and injection-molded plastic trigger housings for pennies. A civilian SCAR owner is paying for the R&D required to sell him a rifle with planned obsolescence. That said, those who don't shoot enough to encounter the wear issue and who have no interest in long-term maintainability of their rifles will only enjoy the benefits of the SCAR and never run into the downsides. That said, a $1K rifle plus 2,500 rounds of trigger time will almost always outshoot a more accurate rifle with less practice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't there some issue with them shaking optics to death? I've read they can eat cheap optics. Why does this rifle do that is their some crazy harmonics traveling through that gun? Does the buffer system work well in it? My theory is that the relatively lightweight rifle plus the relatively heavy bolt carrier group produces a harder-than-normal forward jerk on chambering as the bolt carrier slams into battery. It's similar to how air rifles recoil forward on firing, which can eat optics not designed to withstand recoil impulse in that direction. You also hear of some FALs which like to eat optics for similar reasons. I have to admit to envy of the SCAR's reported accuracy and low recoil, but even if I wasn't already wading around inside a giant puddle of FALs I would still go with an AR-10 over a SCAR. (Obviously, FALs are infinitely superior to both, but that's an entirely different flame war.) SCARs are not so much a rifle as a maintenance contract that happens to come with a rifle. That's great if you're FN and want to avoid the fiscally embarassing situation they ran into with the FAL, where they sold a bunch of rifles that never needed widespread replacement or repair. This happened because the FAL is designed for longevity: Its hard-to-make parts are overbuilt, while wear parts are modular and replaceable. Every part of it can be machined with 1920s technology. In this respect, the SCAR is its opposite: Its wear parts are also impossible to manufacture without hundreds of thousands of dollars in specialized tooling--but once you've made that investment, as FN has, you can pump out extruded receivers and injection-molded plastic trigger housings for pennies. A civilian SCAR owner is paying for the R&D required to sell him a rifle with planned obsolescence. That said, those who don't shoot enough to encounter the wear issue and who have no interest in long-term maintainability of their rifles will only enjoy the benefits of the SCAR and never run into the downsides. That said, a $1K rifle plus 2,500 rounds of trigger time will almost always outshoot a more accurate rifle with less practice. Other than some stock latch issues and wear on replaceable forward rails I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that the SCAR is some POS planned obsolesces model. What is your source for this info? I know the guys that perform the depot level Maintenance on SCARs. Guess what, they all bought SCARs too. |
|
[#36]
You could get an AR10 and an FAL for that price.
It's boutique... |
|
[#37]
Some say 18" is the sweet spot for a .308 battle rifle. When you get down to 16" you not only have massive muzzle flash, but you lose velocity and long range punch, which is the main point of having a .308 rifle.
Those FN SCAR's are expensive too. For the money, an M1A or FAL is probably a better deal. If you must have a SCAR, I'd get the 20" rifle when it's available. If you want something short, get an M4 carbine. |
|
[#38]
As far as the quality of the gun (and without bitching about all the things FN could have done better, or how the entire project was shady from the start) I'll say that its a good rifle. I was a SOCOM enduser BTW. Its much better than any M14 variant and 100x better than a G3. If you want something modernized, and intend to use the modern tech that goes with it (optics, illumination devices, etc.) go with the SCAR. If you want a fine rifle in a legacy format, go with a FAL. All that being said, if I was going to go for a 308 non-precision gas gun, I would just slap together a KISS AR10 in my garage. YMMV.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.