I personally see budgetary realities at DOD coming into view very quickly and new systems like SCAR-L and even more so, SCAR-H will be under critical review. Sorry for my somewhat sanguine view, but I've been in DOD in and out of uniform for over thirty-five years. Stay tuned.

I have spent so many months just creeping on this site and I just have to post.

I realize that this is ar15.com, so obviously most people here are fans of this (m16/m4) weapon. The vast majority have used these weapons without incident in a civilian capacity, or limited law enforcement roles (even the longest SWAT engagements are virtually sterile compared to field use), so they really haven't seen m16's in a combat/field environment. Vets, such as myself, tend to view the weapon in a nostalgic way, which somehow converts the experience into a warm, happy memory prompting a fierce defense toward all detractors. Yet, non of these experiences speaks the real truth. The weapon, as a whole, is not reliable enough in combat conditions. I know I'm inviting a beating, but it's true.

What FN did with scar L was to take a completely proven/superior operating system and mate it with an upper rec. which can better handle the equipment loads now seen on m4's and a lower which is more compact and adjustable than the m4, all the while keeping it modular with it's sister weapon. The thing that people fail to grasp is that this the most needed upgrade in the entire military. It is an utter crime, considering the money spent from the 60's till now on defense, that the failure of the m16 wasn't addressed decades ago. In regard to the scar, yes, there will be bugs, no it's not perfect, but in short order I promise it will be more reliable and the m16. I consider this change one of the most responsible actions the military taken 25 years. I own an m4, and I like it, but its time for it to go.

Originally Posted By ElevenMike: Vets, such as myself, tend to view the weapon in a nostalgic way, which somehow converts the experience into a warm, happy memory prompting a fierce defense toward all detractors. Yet, non of these experiences speaks the real truth. The weapon, as a whole, is not reliable enough in combat conditions.

sigh

I have a question regarding the folding rear sight of the F.N. SCAR Light. Is it adjustable from 100 meter to 800 meter in 100 meter increments?

Originally Posted By Dave_A: the Army seems to have come to the same conclusion, as their next rifle purchase - a replacement for the M-24 sniper rifle, is an AR ACTION WEAPON... The SCAR-H was available, but the SR-25 won...

The SCAR-H did not compete in the SASS trials.

Originally Posted By Dave_A:........

No offense, but do you ever stop and think before you post in every topic you can find about other weapons sytems on this site?

The way you're headed, you're going to give yourself a stroke while supplying incorrect information to the masses.

Originally Posted By SanchoPanza: call me when it's actually FIELDed...not FIELD TESTed

are there any at all in the field?

Afghanistan, Iraq?

Originally Posted By redfisher: Originally Posted By SanchoPanza: call me when it's actually FIELDed...not FIELD TESTed are there any at all in the field? Afghanistan, Iraq?

perhaps someone else is Q to answer that; I'm RE-TIREd & outa th' loop completely

Tag

I got to examine, handle (fondle?), disassemble, etc a couple of these at SHOT. Impressions:

Extremely simple. Some aspects of the design are just brilliant.
Seemed like it would be very rugged.
Light, particularly the -H version in comparison to any other 7.62 rifle I've handled.
Really liked the stock.
Long reach to the safety, but they were changing that on the next versions.
I'd put a different kind of handguard on there, but for VFG use it's fine.
Trying to use standard AR sights & optics mounts results in a too-high sightline IMHO. One they had on display had a lower height optics mount which was better.

I was favorably impressed.

I have personally tested the SCAR-L ,H, and EGLM.

The weapon is a step forward, but then again so are all of the piston driven ARs.
One large concern is the small ejection port and open slots through the receiver. There is no ejection port cover to protect the operating system from debris. These two flaws serve to make the weapon prone to stoppages that are very difficult to reduce. The small ejection port cover makes it impossible to inset a gloved finger into the chamber area to clear the offending rounds, you pretty much have to go in through the mag well. Add on the EGLM and it is really hard to get a finger up through the mag well since the EGLM add another 1.5 or so inches to the mag well depth.

Trigger reset is really slow and long, extending the split time of hammers well beyond that of the M16 series. Short stroking the trigger was pretty common.

The reduced cyclic rate seems to help poor shooters in Auto, but once the shooter learns how to control auto bursts with a proper stance it becomes irrelevant.

The top rail is way higher than that of an M16 type. It has to be to fit the huge bolt. The slow cyclic rate in conjunction with the short stroke piston and high bolt serve to give a very odd recoil impulse. The recoil is noticeably vertical and snappy. It doesn't really push the shooter off target if in a good stance, but it is not nearly as flat as an M16 series rifle or carbine. Most short stroke piston driven ARs feel similar, but once again, not nearly as noticeable.

The sights are odd. The rear sight is just a small peep on a flip-up stick. One thing that I demand in a BUIS is that it is physically present. I highly doubt that the stick could take a serious blow and retain zero, or even remain on the weapon. The LOS over bore is around 3.5 inches! That means that at 15 yards or less, the shooter has to place the tip of the front sight on the threat's hairline to drop shots into the T-Box. It's a pretty disconcerting sight picture. All optics will require lower (thus non-cowitnessing) optic mounts to alleviate this oddity.

The SCAR has gone through several EUAs, with several changes requested in each EUA. Skill level of the participants in each EUA seems to fluctuate, so it's hard for the engineers to pin down exactly what to do with the design. For example, the selector lever is a nightmare. It is a long reach for the thumb to sweep the lever off safe, and really easy to pass the semi position and roll right into auto. It was actually requested to be that way from one EUA, then the next one trashed the design.

Marketing has touted the SCAR as being "Chosen by the warriors." The biggest reason it won the testing was that one requirement was that the weapon be submerged in water, then removed and fired, without draining, in 3 seconds. It was the only tested weapon that passed. Further, the greatest threat to the FN design was not even tested! The HK416 was not involved at all. Litigation with Colt prevented the weapon's inclusion in testing. The XM8 also could not contend since at the time the XM8 was an Army project.

The SCAR is a system based on the lowest common denominator. The basis of the weapon is to basically allow a shooter to be negligent in cleaning or maintaining the weapon. It does not matter how a manufacturer decides to operate a weapon system, a dirty chamber is a dirty chamber, a non-lubed weapon will not run for long, and obstructing brass must be diagnosed and removed by the shooter. No matter how great a design is, a regimen of training and maintenance is essential. Even the venerable AK series can and do experience stoppages. The SCAR not a new spiffy design, it is essentially a reworked FNC painted brown.

With all the dilemma over ammunition (there is a lot more complaint about M855 than about the M4 or M16), I would rather see someone do something with ammo first, then figure out what to launch it from second. The 6.8/6.5 concepts seem to be going in the right direction, but ammo construction is still an issue. I know, barrel change/caliber swap is easy with the SCAR, well it's not that hard with the M16 series either. Since every barrel requires rezeroing anyway (it's not like the shooter is going to pop the barrel off his 18 incher to drop in a 10 inch barrel on the way into the stack) the quick change barrel is virtually irrelevant.

Accuracy? Good, but no better than a service grade M16A4 or M4A1. The weapon keeps being quoted as a "1 MOA gun", but that's 1 MOA over ammo, not combined.

One more thing, the bolt handle reciprocates, just like an AK. Seen many a thumb interface in a negative manner, usually resulting an a failure to feed along with some interesting swearing.

This is not to say that if we implement the SCAR into service we will all be wiped out, just that it is just another weapon. Nothing great. Evolution, not revolution. Until we develop something makedly better, we should just stick to what works, and frankly, the AR platform works. All the ergonomic "improvements" on the SCAR are the same ones you can do to any AR. Keep them lubed and they work.

If the decision is made to switch calibers, the AR may be at a disadvantage. In that even, a whole new test would be in order to ensure that lessons learned by the SCAR selection is not lost. Many manufacturers learned a lot from the tests on exactly what the shortfalls of their weapons were, and I would hope that they figured out what to do to fix them.

The Masada? I remember thinking to myself as I handled it, "This is what the SCAR should be."

Originally Posted By Failure2Stop: I have personally tested the SCAR-L ,H, and EGLM. The weapon is a step forward, but then again so are all of the piston driven ARs. One large concern is the small ejection port and open slots through the receiver. There is no ejection port cover to protect the operating system from debris. These two flaws serve to make the weapon prone to stoppages that are very difficult to reduce. The small ejection port cover makes it impossible to inset a gloved finger into the chamber area to clear the offending rounds, you pretty much have to go in through the mag well. Add on the EGLM and it is really hard to get a finger up through the mag well since the EGLM add another 1.5 or so inches to the mag well depth. Trigger reset is really slow and long, extending the split time of hammers well beyond that of the M16 series. Short stroking the trigger was pretty common. The reduced cyclic rate seems to help poor shooters in Auto, but once the shooter learns how to control auto bursts with a proper stance it becomes irrelevant. The top rail is way higher than that of an M16 type. It has to be to fit the huge bolt. The slow cyclic rate in conjunction with the short stroke piston and high bolt serve to give a very odd recoil impulse. The recoil is noticeably vertical and snappy. It doesn't really push the shooter off target if in a good stance, but it is not nearly as flat as an M16 series rifle or carbine. Most short stroke piston driven ARs feel similar, but once again, not nearly as noticeable. The sights are odd. The rear sight is just a small peep on a flip-up stick. One thing that I demand in a BUIS is that it is physically present. I highly doubt that the stick could take a serious blow and retain zero, or even remain on the weapon. The LOS over bore is around 3.5 inches! That means that at 15 yards or less, the shooter has to place the tip of the front sight on the threat's hairline to drop shots into the T-Box. It's a pretty disconcerting sight picture. All optics will require lower (thus non-cowitnessing) optic mounts to alleviate this oddity. The SCAR has gone through several EUAs, with several changes requested in each EUA. Skill level of the participants in each EUA seems to fluctuate, so it's hard for the engineers to pin down exactly what to do with the design. For example, the selector lever is a nightmare. It is a long reach for the thumb to sweep the lever off safe, and really easy to pass the semi position and roll right into auto. It was actually requested to be that way from one EUA, then the next one trashed the design. Marketing has touted the SCAR as being "Chosen by the warriors." The biggest reason it won the testing was that one requirement was that the weapon be submerged in water, then removed and fired, without draining, in 3 seconds. It was the only tested weapon that passed. Further, the greatest threat to the FN design was not even tested! The HK416 was not involved at all. Litigation with Colt prevented the weapon's inclusion in testing. The XM8 also could not contend since at the time the XM8 was an Army project. The SCAR is a system based on the lowest common denominator. The basis of the weapon is to basically allow a shooter to be negligent in cleaning or maintaining the weapon. It does not matter how a manufacturer decides to operate a weapon system, a dirty chamber is a dirty chamber, a non-lubed weapon will not run for long, and obstructing brass must be diagnosed and removed by the shooter. No matter how great a design is, a regimen of training and maintenance is essential. Even the venerable AK series can and do experience stoppages. The SCAR not a new spiffy design, it is essentially a reworked FNC painted brown. With all the dilemma over ammunition (there is a lot more complaint about M855 than about the M4 or M16), I would rather see someone do something with ammo first, then figure out what to launch it from second. The 6.8/6.5 concepts seem to be going in the right direction, but ammo construction is still an issue. I know, barrel change/caliber swap is easy with the SCAR, well it's not that hard with the M16 series either. Since every barrel requires rezeroing anyway (it's not like the shooter is going to pop the barrel off his 18 incher to drop in a 10 inch barrel on the way into the stack) the quick change barrel is virtually irrelevant. Accuracy? Good, but no better than a service grade M16A4 or M4A1. The weapon keeps being quoted as a "1 MOA gun", but that's 1 MOA over ammo, not combined. One more thing, the bolt handle reciprocates, just like an AK. Seen many a thumb interface in a negative manner, usually resulting an a failure to feed along with some interesting swearing. This is not to say that if we implement the SCAR into service we will all be wiped out, just that it is just another weapon. Nothing great. Evolution, not revolution. Until we develop something makedly better, we should just stick to what works, and frankly, the AR platform works. All the ergonomic "improvements" on the SCAR are the same ones you can do to any AR. Keep them lubed and they work. If the decision is made to switch calibers, the AR may be at a disadvantage. In that even, a whole new test would be in order to ensure that lessons learned by the SCAR selection is not lost. Many manufacturers learned a lot from the tests on exactly what the shortfalls of their weapons were, and I would hope that they figured out what to do to fix them. The Masada? I remember thinking to myself as I handled it, "This is what the SCAR should be."

This is by far the most comprehensive 1st-hand account on the FN-SCAR I've read to date. Thanks for taking the time to post.

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By Failure2Stop: <removed for brevity's sake> This is by far the most comprehensive 1st-hand account on the FN-SCAR I've read to date. Thanks for taking the time to post.

My sentiments exactly. I have yet to encounter a more thorough evaluation. Bravo Zulu.

Justin