I talked to Alan Handl again today he said the following.

the two optics that broke during the 1000 round test were both old EOTECH 512's (AA batt type). He said they were both over 5 years old, which is why they were on the guns during the test. He said he wanted to see if they would fail, if you now see any of his test videos he does not do them with optics on them.  I do not know if the tests being done by Handl Defense are realistic for the every day user. They took the standards of the CAR-H program and doubled them. They are trying to break their guns. It might make sense that if they are trying to break parts they just might be successful in breaking things they did not expect.

He recommends optics from US optics.

I have vortex and Leupold on mine because if they do break I can get em fixed

All things wear out, motors, suspension, barrels, I would look at this more like that. I put something on this gun it is going to wear at a higher rate than on a 5.56 or even other 7.62 platform.  You might give up a touch of longevity vs. lighter weight or some other property. But so F'n what, the gun is awesome, it's like a dodge viper with tires, its going to wear stuff out a bit faster. It's going to be shit ton of fun making it happen too.  

Shoot the gun, break it, fix, shoot some more.

Kirb929,

You threw out some serious allegations in your previous post in this optics thread that some competitors had rev-engineered Handl's trigger module.  Exactly who are you referring to?  Furthermore, with all of the well-documented QC issues, why would a competitor even consider rev-engineering a Handl trigger module when they could simply do as Handl himself did and design their own product using the FN trigger module as a starting point?  IIRC, a member on another forum was circulating how-to information regarding modding an FN SCAR trigger module to accept PMags back in June 2011, well before anyone had even heard of Handl.  If there was someone in a position to claim IP Rights on the matter, I'd say it is he.

Being that this is an optics thread regarding a material matter, everyone is best served without diversions meant to harm the reputations of competing manufacturers.

Anyway, keeping things on track...as far as optics are concerned, Ironhorse6's statement is 100% accurate.

#1 the word allegation means an unproven assertion, the situation surrounding what happened to Handl Defense would be an incorrect use of that term.

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Intellectual Property Right's Coordination Center had an agent look into the matter surrounding what happened on that site. She was assigned to the FBI field office in Chicago. She said that the Handl lowers specific measurements had been transmitted between several members of that site. She then said that she was going forward the case to the office in Washington D.C.

When the owners of that site were confronted with the evidence of what had happened on that site, they cancelled Handl Defense's sponsorship and refused to take calls.

Some seriously shady shit goes on over there. IWC was treated the same way. Discredit, slander, and libel your competitors, then push your product in it's place.

People in that place have a bad history, that is why they can't be out in the open, because they have screwed over some big fish (not Handl or IWC BTW), who want blood.

#2 QA/ QC issues with Handl Defense are over blown, period. The fact they mostly come form the aforementioned site, lends to questionable credibility. All of these "issues" have yet to be documented in video or pictures. What has been noted is that many people think they can install a Handl lower like an AR lower.  Simply, you can not, it has to be installed exactly like the directions says, especially in initial mating. The FN SCAR is not as precisely built of a weapon, like a Novseke, MEGA, or LMT.  

The lower is atrocious on the FN SCAR, Handl was the first to figure it out (dremeling a stock lower does not count) in mid 2011 Handl had CAD drawings and 3D prototypes, even before people had taken dremels to stock lowers. It is why the competition had to reverse engineer it, they had to get the specific measurements, it is why they have taken so long, they had to wait for some else to figure it out a few critical specifics first, take it, then make their own.

The Handl has been tested to MIL-STD 810-G, It has had extensive testing. It has been tested and in compliance with the Spec sheet for the CAR-H with round counts doubled. The rest of the gun breaks before the Handl lower does. Alan Handl deals with AQ/AI issues personally, as in stops what he is doing goes out to the shop checks the lower, installs it, tests it, shoots it, often videos it. Considering who just got done testing it, and recommended it for adoption, he damn well better.  The only testing the Handl lower has not had is what NSWC Crane is going to do. Even though they have done it all in house

How does the aluminum lower prevent damage to optics?

Sorry for the mild Hi-jack there, but sick of the BS in relation to non-existant / un documented issues with the function of the Handl lower, not saying someone did'nt have an issue, but I have pretty unimpeded access to their program, never seen it.  

The whole gun is the issue, and how we got on the subject of handl, is the gun has to be looked as a whole system. To just focus on the bolt carrier group is the wrong answer, a great place to start but the whole thing beats the shit out of itself. The recoil spikes fore and aft that reverberate through the gun are the issue.

Parts of their Mk.17/ Mk.20 improvement program (phase 3,5,&6) are all parts that deal with durability (recoil) as a system, when used as a whole they mitigate these issues. Just changing a spring or drilling holes in the BCG isn't going to do shit, it may make things worse actually.

One last post on the Handl lower side-bar due to the comment #1 above and the original allegation against Handl's competitors, whomever they may be...

I did a single Google search and quickly stumbled upon a thread on another forum in which you and Handl himself were attempting to assist a member of said forum that was unable to assemble his new Handl lower due to manufacturing issues (tolerances being off, etc.).  If it can't be assembled and attached properly to the host SCAR, it can't function.  This was one of a few members experiencing similar issues at the time (approx April 2013).  As an attempted assist to the two of you he used gauge pins to get exact measurements of the suspected areas of issue and posted them into the thread for you.  He appeared to be a detail oriented individual and was very thorough as he had $300 of his hard earned money invested.  He basically posted the precise measurements of the entire lower.  I noticed by the tone of your follow-up posts that you began to question his motives.  At that point, and with Handl lowers readily available on the open market, why would a fledgling manufacturer or manufacturers need to go into secret-squirrel mode to acquire Handl's measurements?  Again, I re-ask the question why would anyone in their right mind reverse engineer something that was having so many tolerance and fitment issues?  Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to re-design a lower to accept a different type magazine.  Aesthetics and mag-catch aside, the overwhelming percentage of the product itself is standardized and CAN NOT be changed from the factory original.  Out of decency and civility I refrain from posting pics of the issues that people were having.  Hopefully, the issues have been corrected and the product can begin to forge a new positive reputation.  No ill-will here, just defending my original post.

No harm, No foul

But I will start another thread on this matter as there is no need to muddy the water on the issues with optics.  But that person you speak of had his lower inspected, scanned, test fitted, and test fired, all on video, I told him I would ensure this would be done, Not a single issue  found, that story in particular has a lot to it.

Any follow up from Trijicon?  What did they say?

So, I got some inside scoop...
Scar-17s eat optics.





But most civilian shooters won't have a problem because they literally don't have the capability to operate like the military.





Lots of testing has been done and it's a known problem.
Anyone who says they don't, are incorrect.
If it's a worry, buy an aftermarket lower that has been engineered around known issues.

This thread has been an interesting read for a Saturday morning.   I will probably wish I hadn't stumbled upon it sometime next week.

So you're saying by using a certain aftermarket lower, it will minimize or negate issues with optics on the SCAR H?

Pretty much what he's saying. If you read the science/engineering behind it, you'll see how it all works out.

Yes.





I have not shot the rifle with the aftermarket lower, but apparently, and I think as mentioned in this thread too, it apparently dramatically changes the way the rifle handles (for the better) by changing the recoil impulse.



 

How?

Better design and materials.



 

The lower is a trigger module and holds the mag. So again, how does the lower make any difference? It's like saying a forged AR lower mitigates recoil better than a billet AR lower, they don't, if you want to affect an AR you can increase the weight of the buffer, the length of the gas tube, barrel length, recoil spring strength, gas port size, etc.

Well, you say that.
And people that have done extensive scientific testing with accelerometers graphing the recoil impulse to show that the OEM lower contributes to optic destruction while the new aftermarket one does not says otherwise.  
How much testing have you done on the issue to counter their findings?





Never-mind.  It's not even a debate at this point.  You can believe what you want to.  People in the industry that know whats going on can believe what their results show.





 

To be fair to him, it does seem to be far fetched. Also, claiming "scientific testing shows" holds little water as an arguement when there's no proof of the testing or results and it's been conducted by (or with) the manufacturer.

However, when you look at the weapon as a system I can totally see it being the case. Changing the materials can change the stressors on the system. I'd be very interested to see what exactly is going on. Also, wasn't it stated that there's much more to the changes than just he lower?

Well, that's the thing, I'm not arguing.  I know what I know, and while I was not told the info was confidential I'm just confirming some of the things said already said here.   I'm not going into detail because I don't want to goof and talk about things that maybe shouldn't be.





There could be more changes than just the lower, I honestly don't know because I don't really care that much.  What is known, is the old system under military training and deployment broke optics, new aftermarket system doesn't have that issue.





 

Not to exacerbate the situation but to answer the questions I kind of have to change the question.

If you change one thing, you change everything is what my dad use to say. Since he knows WTF he is doing http://youtu.be/jDSwdZNbaGY I have always remembered that phrase.

What it means is you change one setting the relationships are all now different. Be it windage, charge, projectile, finger index, or sight picture, when one thing is changed the solution is different.

How this is relevant to the HANDL lower is a couple of ways. Of all the other SCAR lowers there is one thing that is different about the HANDL than the CAV or the others still in development.

The others are designed to only change the magazine interface. The HANDL changes (trues up) relationships between parts of the whole system. Unlike the FN module and those other metal lowers, the HANDL lower changes the system slightly. Notice occasionally some people bitch about the Handl being tight fitting, it has to be. This in conjunction with other (some unreleased to civilians) parts is what makes the HANDL SYSTEM completely different.

I would love to go into detail but I will not. Handl does not want the competition copying them yet again, or even more so FN knowing. Once the military makes a final decision about the Mk. 17 / Mk. 20 improvement program, I am sure they will uncork a lot more info and products. (they do not want garage shop competition and FN heading them off at the pass)

So does the the Handl Trigger Module effect felt recoil impulse, yes, slightly. I am sorry but I won't explain specifics. Does it completely eliminate it NO , or make the 17 feel like a 5.56 gun NO

Think of it as establishing a stronger foundation for the operation of the rest of the system.

All of this should be taken seriously IMHO from people who are actually interested in the discussion vs just looking for conformation bias.



 

I just had the 4 mounting bolts on the base of my Aimpoint Micro back out. I did not touch them prior to this incident. Approximately 250 rounds through the 17.  

I cleaned all the factory threadlocker off, applied red loctite and reassembled.  Time will tell how this will hold.

Micros don't weigh much either.

My DSA SA58 FAL destroyed my TA31F and loosened the Larue mount it was sitting on.  The ACOG completely lost windage and elevation adjustment. Turned the knobs and nothing (even after the obligatory knocks to loosen the prism). Trijicon repaired the scope.

I'm convinced that the massive bolt carrier group on both designs combined with high round counts contribute to optics failures.

Pics of the optics eaters.  This thread is of great interest.  I need to find an optic that will hold up to these rifles.

What configurations are more proned to the forces (physics)?
13" with flash hider? Suppressed
16" w flash hider? Muzzle brake? Suppressed?
20" with flash hider? Muzzle break? Suppressed?

If I put slicks on my car, I get a 10% increase in horsepower.

If I put the Handl lower on a SCAR, the carrier is going back and forth at the same speed with the same force.

Now Handl doesn't show what their RECOIL MITIGATION SYSTEM, which sounds like it would change the recoil impulse, but again they haven't released what makes up that system. The lower is out, and it only mentions helping to prevent the receiver from flexing.

Scars do not eat optics.  I know this because someone in another thread told me so.

Anyway, having owned and fired a Handl lowered and FN lowered Scar-17 side by side (yes, I have two 17s) I can say the Handl gun "feels" different when it shoots. Obviously this is 100% unscientific, but is a real observation from a person who has been shooting military style rifles for 30 years.

The Handl lower is extremely tight and somewhat difficult to install "onto the upper" as a result.  I have a background in architecture / structural engineering and can completely buy into the concept of the lower creating a "rigid frame" of sorts that prevent deflection.  This is the same concept applied to moment frames used to mitigate seismic forces.  If the bolt carrier mass is creating deflection in the upper then stabilizing (limiting deflection) with a "more rigid" lower that fits very tightly seems logical.

Here's a technical comparison...

A PEMB (pre-engineered metal building - like a Butler Building) is cost effective because it minimizes the amount of structural steel in the system (ie: lightweight like the 17's upper).  It still must meet or exceed building codes which include a seismic provision (lateral force resistance since earthquakes have unpredictable and multidirectional forces).  Therefore, it transfers the majority of its load into the foundation system.  In this analogy, it is logical that the structural system (PEMB or Scar upper) is not capable of mitigating all of the forces so the addition of an adequate foundation (the Handl lower) could create a rigid frame (or create some resistance to the deflection).

ETA: Just some guy's .02 worth.

KLRB 929:  I think you have some explaining to do:  

I ran into one of the main engineers dealing with issues on the CAR program this morning.  While he was aware of the Handl lower, it was only because he keeps abreast of things in the civillian shooting world, not because of any work related interactions with the company.  There is nothing on the table as far as a CAR PIP, and for sure nothing related to replacing the trigger pack/lower what ever you wish to call it.  So as far as Im concerned, everything you have posted here is not worth the electrons that were inconvienced to post it.

If the Handl lower is a legitimate improvement, I would probably get a few.  However, I certainly am not going to do so based on a few obviously biased posts, in what sounds like a pitch from a salesman.  I was hoping to get some verification for these claims.  In for the response.

I was wondering if you'd be along.

question then answers

question- was the engineer part of FN or NSWC Crane?

Proposal submitted to Pat Carley (project lead at USSOCOM) in MAR 2013

NSW had the Handl trigger group tested in SD. They found it to work as advertised and recommended it for adoption.

The 8 shop guys at NSW and USASFC are aware of the program as is the J-8

I think I have said before the only thing that the program has not done is be tested at NSWC Crane, which is the last hurdle I guess. I know Handl Defense has been talking with someone @ NSWC Crane, about what I have no idea.

If you want to PM me your .mil address I am more than sure that Handl would share any and everything with you (after an NDA of course)

I also think maybe some wording might be confusing the "Handl Defense Mk.17 / Mk. 20 Improvement Program" is Handl's program not a directed title for a open solicitation. I do know that the USSOCOM tab on their website is to allow the procurement people access to the data, testing videos, and other information that might get it, or parts of it adopted.

Maybe I missed the memo.  What is your relationship with Handl?  I've seen your posts elsewhere, and that you are banned from the fn forum.  This is all very confusing.  Do you work for Handl?  Are you involved with Handl through the military, or what?

That's too bad, since it's all legit.



 

So Basicly what you are really saying is that you have some Force Mod folks who think your trigger pack is a good thing, and the units have used the regulation that allows for limited RDT&E of new and emerging tech to buy and or shoot some of your lowers.  But they have not yet got that good idea translated into a validated need by USSOCOM.  In turn, USSOCOM has not funded that Validated Need, nor have they assigned it to anyone Crane, Bluegrass, or even Picitinney for action.  If, and when this upgraded trigger pack goes beyond the Willy Loman stage, it might get assigned to NSWC Crane, or it might not.

I am the senior military adviser to Handl Defense, I help with coordinating feed back form others in my community. I am not on their payroll, I am a consultant only.

As for FN forums, well considering that place is nothing but kleptocracy set up for one specific vendor, any direct competition is going to get libeled and slandered, then shown the door when they try to defend themselves. I will elaborate on this later.

Pretty close. The DoD money (for NSWC Crane testing) is the issue right now from what I understand, Handl has tested everything to exceed the spec sheet standards, but we both know that means squat until Crane does it. The program is much more than just the trigger module. The entire gun was looked at, there is alot more going on than just the trigger module. But like I said in an earlier post I dont know if the whole thing is going to get picked up or just parts of it and put on the APL or if it has to be a full blown ECP or what. That is not my realm, I just make sure it is what the guys on the teams say they want or need.

BTW was the engineer @ Crane Brian A., Tony S. or John T.?

The Name of the engineer, yea Im going to just post it out there.    

You still don't  understand the process of how these things work.  Until there is a validated need to make a change, there is only the good idea fairy.  And even then, with a validated need, there is nothing that says that need will get funded.  A good example of that is the MK13 suppressor.  Validated, but unfunded need.  That's why the whole time it was more than just a NSW weapon, it had a suppressor configuration that used orphaned MK11 Mod 0 spare suppressors that  had been bought and paid for, but never used and would have just been destroyed as being obsolete.  

I would  highly suggest that you stop name dropping.  I could peruse the NDIA presentation page and get the names of folks from a certain activity who presented, even get their email addresses and contact info.  Does not mean they are working on this.......

Your heading into Leitner-Wise territory here

I wasn't suggesting that you violate any kind of PERSEC. You can say a first name of a crane engineer and I can tell you if he has been contacted, as I have a conversation or two about this program with one of them personally. I do not know who the leadership of Handl Defense has talked to. Just let me know who you talked to, I will tell you who I talked to.

See you are asking all the questions, which I answer. I ask you a question I get no reply.

I can tell this conversation is getting off on the wrong foot here. I am trying to be a nice guy about this.

I think I have not been misleading in relation to a single thing I have posted. If you think I have please tell me where and how, not being confrontational, I want to be sure I am communicating clearly.

Bottom line your trying to sell something.  What your selling might be a good thing, or it might not.  But there is a process, and that process has to be followed.  Guerrilla marketing like this is not how its supposed to be done.  When the problems with the CAR get documented, and a need is identified and validated, how that need is addressed, there is nothing that says that its going to be fixed by just buying the lower that is made by the company you consult for.  Right now your coming off like a solution in search of a problem.   Great ideas like say the 6.8 got totally derailed because people didn't follow the process thinking they were supporting the troops and backdooring the procurement process.  I think the process is unwieldy, but the fastest way to keep the troops from getting what they need is to try and backdoor it........

Thats...   not the case at all.



 

This man.....he knows what the hell he is talking about.   Spot fucking on.

Between this...



And the alleged AFG location, which combined would signal that he either is or was deployed there in some capacity and thusly on the DOD payroll (I'm sure it would help if he had that little tank icon under his name,)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the guy is trying to sell anything. He hasn't made a single recommendation in this thread that people go and buy the HANDL lower. He's merely been speaking of the T&E process and correspondence between HANDL and DOD/NSWC-Crane in regards to the lower and its formal adoption/funding by DOD, with limited details regarding the engineering that went into it so as to provide insight without compromising HANDL's IP.

What do you want him to say?

LOL no joke, everything he's said jives with what I know on the other end...





Guess some people just like to think they know more about what's going on than they do.
And that's all I have to say on it.  I'm pulling the "I know somethings you don't know" card, laughing, and popping smoke.
The problem is real (and most people will never be at the lever to experience it in full force), a solution is real.



 

The thing is, if there is an issue, its not some outside companies job to fix it.  The Initial fielding of the then SCAR systems did show that the weapons were destroying accessories that were only tested on the M4.  That issue was identified and subsequent procurements of accessories had to be tested on the SCAR/CAR and no longer have the issue.  So now if there are more issue cropping up, it might be FN's problem to fix, or it might be the Accessories peoples problem to fix and to do it out of hide since the tested initial samples worked.  But now we have someone outside of the normal channels presenting a "Solution" to the problem that will only require SOCOM to throw them money and buy their product and doing it by building up demand here on this website instead of just presenting their idea at one of the normal conferences where industry gets a shot at selling stuff to DoD.  And its being done by an unpaid consultant who does not seem to understand the Force Mod process in place currently?  

It just seems strange to me.

That's the craziest drama filled conspiracy theory I've ever heard on here.





The dudes just explaining what's happening.





Unless you're just doing industrial espionage trying to get some deeper inside scoop.



 

At the very least I would call it brand protection.  Prior to my popping into this thread people might have thought that Crane was actually doing something on this.  And if this whole solution to the yet unvalidated need for its existence were to die on the vine, someone might get the idea that it was Crane that stopped it.  But still we are stuck on there not being a validated need, and that need assigned to one of the RDT&E places that the owner of the program uses for support and a solicitation for fixes published, and then samples submitted.......

Sorry folks but SOCOM don't care that a civ SCAR is destroying a NC Star scope.

This is directed pretty much to PSYWAR

I understand that a lot of people go and say product X is loved by tier X and operator X loves it so much and has it nailed above his mirror. That alot of people want nothing more to print "SOCOM APPROVED" all over the product. That if I was coming off as a salesman, that was not the intent. I do this of my own volition, I am not on their payroll.  

I really think what they have developed, we need. Everyone seems to think the wars are winding down, I think we just about to get really started. 1936 all over again. Really don't want to go to war with a gun I've seen break right in front of me.

So if the Handl Defense Mk.17 / Mk.20 improvement program becomes a full ECP or just a list of parts on the APL like I said not my realm. That is between Mr. Handl and DoD. If it is just a few of the parts or all of them, I'd run any of them.

What the intent was push the fact the system has had issues, and that Handl Defense all on their own had identified and resolved those issues. Even though intended for the military it is even more relevant for civilians IMO.

Guys who just dropped $3000 and who have to pay out of pocket for fixes. who might not be able to afford a $2500 hardened optic, who might have multiple AR-10's, who dont have Gov't funds and NSWC crane at their back to fix it.

Now other people brought up other things that turned this thread into a Handl vs. the world event. I know their shit works, really well, some people have turned slandering them into a sport. So if people drew other information out of me, or I offered up information, I do not see the issue.

what I have asserted is the following

HANDL Defense ran into a few SF guys in early 2011 who told the stories of the how the Mk.17 had issues. HD went about analyzing the whole gun, they developed a line of products and submitted a proposal to the J-8 in MAR of 2013. Force modernization @ NSW tested some of those parts, they recommended it for adoption. All of this is provable, all of this is true.

The rest is some details I saw or overheard. Where it all goes IDK. But me trying to back door the Gov't procurement process NO, hell NO. Showing guys in a thread about optics breaking there are solutions, hell YES

If I miscommunicated anything, or gave the impression I meant anything else then I apologize for not being clear. I do no BS appreciate your input, I want to be sure I am not being belligerent

I don't understand why it is so difficult to admit there may be an issue with Scar-17's killing optics.  This is headed toward an "AK vs AR" debate were the "SCAR-H's won't even damage a Tasco on Full Auto" vs "SCAR-H's broke my Elcan Specter before I mounted it on the rifle!!!" argument that will never end.

There is proof that top quality optics have been broken on SCAR-17S rifles.  Whether the SCAR broke them is the real subject of debate.  

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but this is enough to concern me as I have mounted a $1320 ACOG rig on my SCAR-17 ($1200 ACOG and $120 LaRue mount).

I, frankly, don't give a crap if Crane looks at the problem or not.  I just want to know what I can do with my rifle-system (rifle, optic and mount) to make it as durable as possible without spending $2000 - 2500 on a Elcan SpecterDR.  The SCAR-17 is a substantial investment without having to spend $2000-2500 on optics.  I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I thought adding a $1320 optic rig to a $2600 rifle was already pretty spendy.

I think this is the real issue.  He said / She said and I'm a Secret Ninja from Project Blue Book (UFO crap) with esoteric knowledge given by Capt Poptart really doesn't help guys like me that are looking at our substantial investments and wanting to make the best choices we can.

Trijicon told me directly that their TA11H-308 was designed SPECIFICALLY for the Scar-17.  This was a one-on-one call I made to Trijicon.  They also said they've not heard of the Scar-17 breaking ACOGs.  Therefore, I bought the TA11H-308G.  Since I prefer throw lever mounts I added a LaRue. I'm not looking for validation (like most people on the internet).  I want to know if this is a bad choice.  I've sold off (or am in the process of selling off) my collection to fund the SCAR as I viewed the design as the pinnacle general purpose rifle available to us non-JSOC civilians.  I don't want to be worried about my ACOG being DRT when I most need it.  If this means I have to sell more blood and buy the Elcan then I guess that is what has to be done, but if I can "get by" with my $1320 ACOG rig then that's $1000 worth of ammo!

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get any real information in these threads.  People will post their SCAR-17 broke XYZ and then people will respond that it was a factory defect scope / improperly mounted / act of God.  

Edited to make a point:  this isn't going to be resolved here.  People like myself are still worried that they've made a bad choice, and everyone else is still ignorantly blissful or waiting for the Government to make an iron clad statement and/or act that incontrovertibly states there is an issue.   This is all an "issue" they probably don't care much about.  I read last night that SOCOM only has 6700 SCAR-H in inventory.

Elcan is the only optic tested by the .mil to survive on a SCAR17.  Talked to an Elcan engineer and he said the Specter DR has survived 2000g tests on the bench and 400g tests on a gun.

WDS