My SCAR 17 has an Elcan DR 1.5-6 on it.  I am not worried.

First world problems.

If you look around, you can see photos of SCARs in use by militaries throughout the world.  I'm willing to bet that zero of those have Handl lowers.  And very few of those have elcans.  Someone better go check the Kenyan arfcom though to be sure.

Be interesting to see what pops up in the next year or two.



 

Anyways a controversial topic.

I read on the hide from an end user who is issued the precision rifle version, that they were instructed to turn in all of the precision rifle version SCARs for some sort of recall recently?  

Any truth to that?  

What's the issue?  

How is that version working out?

I run an Eotech 553 on mine.  Zero issues.
Still my favorite Eotech model.

How much full auto do you shoot?



 

Or sooner?

Madcap, seriously?

Probably none.
And the EoTech 553 issues are well known.

Dude the baiting/snide comments/tone of some of your posts is darn near trolling territory.
Go grab your SCAR, shoot some rounds and enjoy the damn thing.
If your optic breaks, contact the manufacturer I'm sure they would be willing to talk. Not to mention most of the quality optics referenced in this thread are backed up by some nice warranties.

It's been stated over and over again from those of us that have more inside knowledge than most that the issue primarily effects full auto fire of the round counts experienced by SF in training and operation.





If you think that trying to give an informed opinion in a tech thread where no one is listening by trying to get people to think is trolling, well then I have literally no purpose or reason to try to help people understand.
"My guns fine cause I put a box a rounds through it yours will be too" isn't discussing anything, and there's only like 4-5 people here that actually understand what is being discussed. With TONS of static from people that don't.



Look at the first couple pages of people denying that there is anything wrong even in the face of proof.  Look how long it continues while the proof there are issues mounting, culminating from two sources close to the problem on opposite ends agreeing and sharing what they can without giving away product secrets and strategies.





So yea, seriously.   How much full auto do you shoot with your SCAR?  "Probably none" then you probably won't ever have a problem.





 

I wish mine would shoot full auto legally

So you are saying this is really a non-issue for 99% of all scarH production rifles?  

Given all of the civilian scar 17s production rifles are semi-auto and none of us are at SF levels of usage (FA &really high round counts); the rifle is good to go.

Glad this is cleared up and all of us civilian users can get back to using our rifles with little to no worry about the optics breaking.

Madcap,

If the optics breakages is limited to full auto then how is this even a relevant discussion to be having? None of us here even own any full auto SCARs.

Pretty sure that got mentioned pages ago.



 

Who says it's limited to full auto?  It's just more likely, and is still a design issue inherent to the Semi auto's which people have mentioned in this very thread.
 

5 years of use in combat and apparently still no identified and validated need regarding the subject topic by USSOCOM.  Where is the disconnect and why won’t they listen to Handl when he tells them that our troops are losing optics left and right atop the MK17?  Should we write our congressmen?

ROFL.





(Not laughing with you FYI)



 

Stop

Comments like this show the extent Alan Handl and Handl Defense have been thoroughly slandered somewhere else. I do not remember seeing any comment by Alan Handl saying that Mk.17's were breaking optics left and right. There is a difference between working to the standard and working as well as possible. The SCAR is just like the M-16 in the early 60's, still unrefined and could be so much better.

As our NSWC crane connect fiends have already said the .gov  improvement system is cumbersome. SOF has another way that most don't but all it takes is one bean counter to say no. Also, just because NSWC Crane has yet to validate needs does not mean at the operator level they do not exist. Because they fucking do, I have seen them first hand. but in case you don't trust me, go find SOF specific website forums and look around

words have meaning: there is a difference between can break, might break, and will break

Can a SCAR 17S break optics, yes, very highly improbable but increasingly possible with higher round counts. Guns are like cars, the harder you drive them more you have to fix/replace, the SCAR is a gen1 dodge viper, run it hard, your going to be replacing things sooner than the others. You get what you pay for, I have said before, buy right the first time. SCARs beat the shit out of themselves, get high quality optics with good warranties and forget about it.

Just to further clarify the process.  Units Identify problems, they report them up the Chain.  Once there are enough problems and it becomes apparent that there is a need that has to be fixed, that need becomes Validated.  Then the Sponsor, in this case USSOCOM has a decision. They can allocate money to fix the need, or not.  Sometimes validated needs remain unfunded if the cost of a fix is deemed to be to high or not worth the trouble to fix.  Once USSOCOM decides they are going to address the problem, and with that allocated money, the give the work to someone.  In the past SOCOM has used various entities to address problems with equipment, some in house, others outside of the SOF community.  

What Im getting at here is, quit putting the ball in Crane's court till such time as there is even a sport, let alone a game to play.......

Honest question here.  Why would the military buy lowers from some third party small company instead of dealing directly with FNH?  I know that FNH sells scars around the world and not just to the US military, but you would think they would be willing to make any requested changes.

Send us a link to the SOF forums please. I want to know which optics are breaking and what mount they are using.
Or screen cap what info you are allowed to share.

What solution has Handl proposed to correct the issue? New scope mounts?

Thanks

#1 PSYWAR I think we are on a different wave length here, you seem to think I have an agenda that I do not. I have only discussed only what I have seen firsthand or know of from the community at large, both of the Mk.17 and of Handl Defense, all provable, all true. There are products that are out there in the civilian market that I have seen that can improve the function and capabilities of the system. For the most part as long as it just does its job nobody seems to care that much with this specific platform. I know many wish we would have gone the other way, and still want to.  

just working to some spec sheet IMO is not enough, ever try a controlled pair with this gun on a target @ 150m in stock configuration? Ever use it in a house, in a stack? ever have it burn the fucking shit out of your hand? Ever be in no light and have it come out of battery when it rubs against your gear? Then it just goes click when you need it to go bang? You ever see parts of it break and have to be duct taped together?

yes Handl Defense has addressed making the gun better, as shooting one of their test beds is a much better experience than the stock gun. I speak on what I have seen and know, never have I said go buy a damn thing from them. You brought up the procurement details, I was trying to be ambiguous about it.

the CAR-H is not at the level of refinement it needs to be, we are just getting started when it comes to warfare IMO. The Russains and Chinese are not afghans, they are rapidly modernizing equipment and doctrine. Both are becoming proficient at asymmetric/ unconventional warfare, all the while our conventional military is busy taking sexual harassment classes and gay awareness courses while being downsized to 1930's levels. We are inviting attack, as we overtly ignore provaction. The Crimea is a confidence target and the Chinese are watching with an obvious window until late 2016

And the fuck if I am going into any of those situations with a gun that obviously could be better. I dont care who makes it (even if it is Jim E.) or how much it costs, or if .gov buys it for me or not. All I care about is making the gun better, I might come across as a 1st class motherfucker, but that's all I really care about.  Smoother, Faster, Easier

#2 LAWYER UP - think SOPMOD block I and II not to mention Daniel Defense, all parts for a colt rifle. If I remember correctly FN offered an aluminum lower in the SCAR but went polymer.  

#3 RILEY S - I have seen broken EoTechs, handl defense is looking at the recoil impulse. I would try professional soldiers and search for SCAR to start.

Highlighted for posterity.



 

"Passing around rumors and gossip as fact isn't constructive and it's not helpful."





I seriously doubt your motivations to accept anything posted at this point.

We agree on a whole lot more than we disagree actually.  If you would quit inferring that Crane has something for action we might be on the same sheet of music.  In my travels I have heard "Crane Fucked Us" on more than one occasion.  Most often this comes for reasons like how FN won the SCAR contract instead of H&K.  Now the fact that H&K didn't even submit the 416/417/320 for the SCAR program never even enters into the mind of the people disparaging Crane.  Crane does not exist for itself.  It is given a task and executes that task, If a sponsor tells us to procure X number of rifle scopes with the provided reticle pattern, that's what it does.  It does not check the math involved with the reticle, since it was not funded to do that, only procure the scopes.  Thus when someone on Desert Storm Drive failed to carry a 1 when doing the math for the reticle pattern, that is not Crane's fault.  That is a real world example.  When the reticle failed to do what it was supposed  to do, the sponsor gave more money to determine what the problem was and only then did engineers at Crane discover the faulty math.  A recall of the scopes was made, and the manufacturer graciously agreed to fix the problem for free.  As of 2010 there were still somewhere between a dozen and 3 dozen of the scopes that had not been returned to be fixed.  Guys are out there missing targets, cursing Crane for something that is not Crane's doing.  

See where Im coming from?



So your going to highlight just parts of a phrase?    Are you going to zero in on the "game to play" and try and make an issue of it, all the while ignoring how the ball in court portion makes the entire last sentence a form of an allegory, If I remember my Engrish classes

I suppose my response to the good Warrant Officer above and using "Same sheet of Music" is going to garner a complaint as well?  

All I've asked for is a link saying which optics are breaking and what mounts they were using.
KLRB said he has seen first hand EoTechs go down. So have I. Some EoTech models are well known to be shit.
If it's recoil impulse or the SCAR rifle itself, other optics will be breaking also.

Find the link, present the evidence, and let's see what the issue is. No one has yet to do that yet. Why not?

The relevant parts, yea.





Not your fault you don't know what's going on.
 

Maybe because it's hard to link to actual conversations with real people in the know?



Guess that's what sucks about actually knowing people in the industry, there's no way to use inside knowledge to "prove" yourself right in an internet argument because there's nothing to link to.





Oh well.  Guess it beats not knowing and always having to ask.



 

#1 PSYWAR- tracking with you, If I am coming out of my lane a bit. my bad. I just see the writing on the wall and it is not good. I think that once things go off in the E or W that our advantages will have already been eliminated or mitigated. Our military has become far to reliant on technology, that may very well be our undoing. The next big shooting match we will forced to start off old school, a map, a ruck, a gun, hand and arm signals. Recent advancements in Russian (and Chinese by proxy)  body armor might have very well just made the 5.56 ineffective.

7.62 is the current solution, and will be an immediate stop gap until the next technological jump (6.5 caseless AP or some shit)

The SCAR is the way to go IMO, but to get her to run like an M4 in the house and still be able to post up on a window frame and drop a target @700m is the goal,well  we are not there yet. I think as good as you guys are (I have never been a Crane hater, the Mk.23 aside ) the solutions are just as likely going to come from out of the box.

So if I come across as a handl fan, well I am, they have taken this to heart, and it shows in this Mk.17/Mk.20 program. for the most part they are not bolt on trinkets, they are trying refine the way the gun works.

My Scar has the Eotech and magnifier and the only thing it eats are Oreos. I like turtles.........Pudding...........This thread got way too serious.....Honestly I haven't had a problem with the Eotech and magnifier or my IOR 3x25 CQB scope (also used on a 458 socom )If / when it breaks I am sending it in and keeping it a secret.

Sooo.....

Should I or shouldn't I mount this stupidly expensive S&B PMII with an M118LR turret in a LaRue mount I happen to have laying around here, to my 17S

ROFL...  





So when a tech thread talks about tech things, to include people giving direct answers with inside knowledge it's too serious?





 

The only memo I have seen  ...Complaints about stock breakage in the field .

Would this be a bad time to say "Grendel?"

This thread has all other types of purse slapping. but seriously guys, good info in here on both sides.

FWIW, the last "update" I saw to the SOPMOD VAS Program for phased replacement components (still Increment II) had new items listed with an asterisk that said "CAR Hardened," including many Phased Replacement parts of otherwise seemingly identical existing items with new suffixes that were so marked, so it seems SOCOM/NSWC-Crane is making a clear distinction between "CAR Hardened" and not, which would suggest that there is definitely a recognition and acknowledgement of "something" being different with what is and is not able to be used on the MK 17 MOD 0 and MK 20 MOD 0s.  

I would prefer to not be more specific as it is FOUO, but anyone who wants more specifics (I don't have much) and wants to talk through .mil can shoot me a PM.  

~Augee

I aint got release authority or anything, but the poster that was printed up highlighting that information, If it aint got a distro statement on it, then I guess its public knowledge.  I got one hanging up in the classroom,  I will check it in the morning.

The copy I got, IIRC, didn't have a distro statement on it, but came to me via FOUO channels, so for prudence sake, I'm satisfied keeping it that way, if it can be released, awesome.  

That being said - if you've got access to print versions - any chance of sending an extra my way?  

~Augee

There is always shot placement.  Unless they are wearing it around their face.

None, nor would I find the need to shoot a Scar 17 in full auto very much.  I doubt our SF units use the full auto switch much either.
Unless the target is 2m in front of you, what do you plan to hit in F/A mode?  It's not an M60 machine gun, nor was its designed that way.