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

I have not even seen one, but being a student of small arms for some 30 years, I had some concerns about this rifle.

Your post in conjunction with the member who had hands on live fire experience with the SCAR in Iraq are about the only decent information available about the SCAR.  Rest of it reads like typical gun rag trash (regurgitated marketing hype).

Quoted: The top rail is way higher than that of an M16 type. 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.

We can see that just by looking at pictures of the SCAR.  Not going to be CQB friendly with existing optic mounts in the system.

Quoted: All optics will require lower (thus non-cowitnessing) optic mounts to alleviate this oddity.

You think that optics could be mounted lower while allowing a usuable check weld?  

If so that is the answer, lower mounts, and lowering the sights to maintain cowitnessing.  

Quoted: 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. 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.

Varied ideas on what the weapon is supposed to do, and what the priorities will most probably kill the SCAR if nothing else does.  

We all know who required the SCAR to pass the water in bore test.  A very small element.

And wait till this same element starts blowing the pencil profile SCAR barrels.  FN would be required to beef up the barrel and then the SCAR is a 9 pound chunk.

Quoted: 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.

Don't see how it matters which AR based weapons were entered, none of them can pass the water in bore test.

Now, I have seen HK claims that thiers can because of the hammer forged barrel.  That don't matter though, if the barrel don't give that itty bitty bolt sure will.

Quoted: The XM8 also could not contend since at the time the XM8 was an Army project.

XM8, not sure why you would bring that up?

Quoted: 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.

Yep, well said, and in one sentence.

height=8

Quoted: When were you involved in testing? Perhaps we have met... clintl AT fnmfg DOT com (Edited for SPAM filter)

We have met. I really like you guys, but I am not a fan of the gun in its current state. Maybe becaues it was touted as being the greatest thing ever, when it really is just a decent gun. I think that after a few rounds of improvements the weapon may be, but not yet. Don't fret, the M16 took a long time to get where it is, and it could still use some work.

I don't want to sound wishy-washy (because if I read someone saying what I am about to say, I would raise an eye-brow), but I can only say what I say here with anonymity. I signed a non-disclosure statement, and I will uphold my word and will not disclose any trade information. FN works very hard to keep us equipped with 240s, 249s, A4s, and I am sure something else I am forgetting, and I am not at all bashing the company. If I could buy FN ARs (any plans to release ARs/carbines to the public?) I would.

I just want to make sure that the operating forces get the best weapon possible.

Quoted: I have personally tested the SCAR-L ,H, and EGLM. [...] 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.

A reciprocating bolt handle? Man, that's a big disappointment. Why the hell would they do that? Result of the reversible charging handle requirement?

Quoted: You think that optics could be mounted lower while allowing a usuable check weld?   If so that is the answer, lower mounts, and lowering the sights to maintain cowitnessing.

This is exactly what I suggested at SHOT.  They had one on display with a lower height optics mount and cheek weld was fine, better than the tall sights IMO.  The tall sights are there so as to be the same height over the rail as AR/M16/M4 sights.  I think it's a serious mistake, and they need to move the sightline down to something more reasonable.

Quoted: 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. 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. Varied ideas on what the weapon is supposed to do, and what the priorities will most probably kill the SCAR if nothing else does.

Feedback from users is great, but someone has to filter the feedback in the overall context of the design.  One of the great design elements of the AR series is the safety which is positioned superbly... right where you need it, the only improvement needed is with an ambi unit; to change to a 90-135-180 degree throw (semi only 90-135) instead of the current 90-180-270 degree throw.

We all know who required the SCAR to pass the water in bore test.  A very small element. And wait till this same element starts blowing the pencil profile SCAR barrels.  FN would be required to beef up the barrel and then the SCAR is a 9 pound chunk.

I didn't measure the barrels but they seemed a little thicker than what I'd call a "pencil" profile, under the handguard looked more like the M4A1/"socom" profile.

Quoted: 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. Yep, well said, and in one sentence.

I view the barrel change ability as more for field repair & maintainance.

Just looking at the design (no shooting or testing experience) I was also concerned with dirt/debris intrusion into the open slots on the receiver and the ejection port, as well as the small size of the ejection port.  The reciprocating charging handle would require awareness and training.

The safety/selector as I mentioned earlier did need to be changed but I was told that was already in the works, to change to a 90/135/180 degree throw.  The 45 degree position was just too long of a reach.  I did dry fire it a few times and noticed the long takeup on the trigger... I can see where it might be causing problems with fast semi shooting.

The sightline is a problem IMO.  Trying to maintain the height over rail of the AR series is just too much of a compromise of shooting ergonomics and sightline/trajectory issues. Sightline needs to be lowered.  A simplier flip up front sight like the XM110 or Masada has would probably suffice, but a better rear sight is needed.

I would also suggest extending the receiver/rail/handguards forward to cover the gas block (at least on the sides).  There is not very much rail space there to work with, and frankly I don't think its really going to be usable without a VFG.  A slipover plastic handguard ala the Masada would be a worthwhile addition/option.

ETA: Failure2Stop, since you have actual shooting experience, what was your impression of the stock design?  I thought it had a great feel and really appreciate the taller buttplate so as to allow the stock to get high on the shoulder for "heads up" shooting, but without actually shooting it I can't be sure how well it would work.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't see how it matters which AR based weapons were entered, none of them can pass the water in bore test. Now, I have seen HK claims that thiers can because of the hammer forged barrel.  That don't matter though, if the barrel don't give that itty bitty bolt sure will. Water in bore problem is already solved in the AR.

Since when, and considering the size of the bore and the weak bolt, color me quite skeptical.

Quoted: This is exactly what I suggested at SHOT.  They had one on display with a lower height optics mount and cheek weld was fine, better than the tall sights IMO.

Good news.

Quoted: The tall sights are there so as to be the same height over the rail as AR/M16/M4 sights.  I think it's a serious mistake, and they need to move the sightline down to something more reasonable.

Don't recall specifically, but am sure it was a SCAR requirement to be compatible with current gear.  Considering the higher action the platform is taller, you end up with the tall sights inorder to cowitness.

Quoted: I didn't measure the barrels but they seemed a little thicker than what I'd call a "pencil" profile, under the handguard looked more like the M4A1/"socom" profile.

Am at a disadvantage here having not seen one, but the weight and pencil profile barrel comments go all the way back to page 2.

Quoted: Quoted: I didn't measure the barrels but they seemed a little thicker than what I'd call a "pencil" profile, under the handguard looked more like the M4A1/"socom" profile. Am at a disadvantage here having not seen one, but the weight and pencil profile barrel comments go all the way back to page 2.

I was under the impression that barrel profile/weight had fluctuated during the prototype/product development cycle.

Quoted: .... I am not a fan of the gun in its current state. Maybe becaues it was touted as being the greatest thing ever, when it really is just a decent gun. I think that after a few rounds of improvements the weapon may be, but not yet. Don't fret, the M16 took a long time to get where it is, and it could still use some work.

I would probably say that I am a fan of the SCAR, because I see a tremendous potential there.  I believe though that there are detail changes that need to be addressed to bring it to its potential.

Quoted: I just want to make sure that the operating forces get the best weapon possible.

Absolutely.

I'd thought that having the front sight mounted directly on the gas block would have alleviated the need for re-zero when swapping bbls.  The location of the chargingin handle in combination w/ the fact that it reciprocates has always seemed like an accident waiting to happen.  MASADA does this better.  If FN had implemented an ambidextrous-swappable Izzy FAL-style chargind handle, it would be a non-issue.

As for the bbl, like Gamma, I also thought the original profile had gotten thicker, at least judging from the prototype photos.

Fire selector throw is a no-win situation.  At best, measure all the user hands to find a happy medium, make a lever, & call it done.  There's no way to execute a 1-size-fits-all approach here.

I don't have access to the thing, but it looks about as tall over the bore as my AKs, but I digress.  Unless dual-pistons & lateral vent tubes are employed, there's no fixing this w/o a major re-work.

I agree the MASADA seems to be a nice design in the initial execution.  It just needs a big brother (read: .308), is all.

Quoted: Also, most of the field reports regarding the M249 series in the sandbox equate the failures more in line with the weapons being over 10 years old and desperately needing rebuildings and/or replacements.

Most of the M249 'issues' I have are related to poor design or because (compared to the M16) the weapon is harder to clean & folks don't do it right...

You seriously haven't heard of the FNC, have you?

That would be the FN 5.56 that never went anywhere besides Hollywood... I know what it is - I also know it wasn't really that successful (kind of like the AR-180)...

It certainly wasn't better than the M16...

Quoted: Quoted: When were you involved in testing? Perhaps we have met... clintl AT fnmfg DOT com (Edited for SPAM filter) We have met. I really like you guys, but I am not a fan of the gun in its current state. Maybe becaues it was touted as being the greatest thing ever, when it really is just a decent gun. I think that after a few rounds of improvements the weapon may be, but not yet. Don't fret, the M16 took a long time to get where it is, and it could still use some work. I don't want to sound wishy-washy (because if I read someone saying what I am about to say, I would raise an eye-brow), but I can only say what I say here with anonymity. I signed a non-disclosure statement, and I will uphold my word and will not disclose any trade information. FN works very hard to keep us equipped with 240s, 249s, A4s, and I am sure something else I am forgetting, and I am not at all bashing the company. If I could buy FN ARs (any plans to release ARs/carbines to the public?) I would. I just want to make sure that the operating forces get the best weapon possible.

That weapon - except in some VERY limited circumstances...

Is the FNMI M16A4, or Colt M4 (until Colt finally looses the contract - at which point, maybe, we could get FNMI M4s)....

Allright, to hit a few of these topics as they come up-

When I first saw the sight height I was perplexed, until I mounted an IPIM to the top rail. The sight just clears it. What FN had to do was keep the same line over the rails to ensure that the irons could be used in conjunction with IR beam devices.

Now the front sight mounted on the barrel does somewhat alleviate the issue of rezeroing since it can be adjusted for both windage and elevation. The problem is that everyone uses optics.

I made a statement about the charging handle reciprocating, and that it is an issue. I think that it is, but it really isn't a super-big deal. It's kind of a self correcting problem. Pain is the best teacher ever. One thing that concerns me is the potential to nudge the charging handle just enough to bring the bolt out of battery, but not rearward enough to let the op-spring drive the bolt back forward to lock. I am not really worried about an out of battery detonation, but that the weapon will not go BANG when you really want it to. Sure, you can use the charging handle as a forward assist, but that implies that you caught the mistake. Otherwise, it's cant/tap/rack/bang anyway.

The sight height of an AK is 2 inches, M16A2 - 2.5 inches, M16A4/M4 - 2.6 inches. I didn't pay it much mind until I fired my first Mozambique. "What the hell is THAT!", I squealed. Then I did it again. Then learning occurred.

Potential- everything has potential, the neighbor kid that keeps trying to eat pine-cones has potential. No where to go but up. No, just kidding, the gun is ok, and the potential of the current market is what I look to.

Agreed, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all, that's why they make different sizes and adjustable componets. I would hope that a bunch of really smart Belgians could figure out how to make two or three different sizes of the same part. When in a grasping grip the human thumb can only extend upward to a certain angle, this would be a good starting point to determine optimal selector lever placement. It seems like the selector lever was placed in the exactly correct position if we were shooting highpower with a heavily bladed stance. A squared off combative stance forces the thumb into a different position, a position away from the selector lever. Regardless, the proposed 90-135-180 is probably the answer, as long as the ambi-lever on the opposite side is cut down, otherwise it will interfere with the trigger finger.

The newest stock design is pretty good to go, and is pretty similar to the original design. The second stock was awful. It had a shrp drop at the back of the comb that perfectly interfaced with the cheek bone to perfectly replicate the sensation of being punched in the face. The 7.62 was a fucking treat. But it has been remedied. The new version is satisfactory and has a adjustable height to match optics height.

I mentioned the XM8 only because it was touted as having almost identical capabilities. I am not saying that the FN SCAR is inferior to ANY weapon, just that I wanted to see and actual fair and open competition. There are a lot of people pushing this weapon to other places only because SOCOM took it, doing no competition themselves to see if the benefits are actually any benefit to them. See what I am saying? If this weapon is so great, as it may well be, why would they not want it to compete against everything else out there?

Bruce Lee had an open invitation to any fighter in the world to fight him, just to prove that he was the best. Isn't this mentality what our warriors deserve out of their weapons manufacturers?



Edited for clarity regarding bolt.

Failure2Stop,

By any chance, is there anything else you'd like to add?  I think I speak for everyone here when I say we're all ears.

Best Regards,

Justin

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When were you involved in testing? Perhaps we have met... clintl AT fnmfg DOT com (Edited for SPAM filter) We have met. I really like you guys, but I am not a fan of the gun in its current state. Maybe becaues it was touted as being the greatest thing ever, when it really is just a decent gun. I think that after a few rounds of improvements the weapon may be, but not yet. Don't fret, the M16 took a long time to get where it is, and it could still use some work. I don't want to sound wishy-washy (because if I read someone saying what I am about to say, I would raise an eye-brow), but I can only say what I say here with anonymity. I signed a non-disclosure statement, and I will uphold my word and will not disclose any trade information. FN works very hard to keep us equipped with 240s, 249s, A4s, and I am sure something else I am forgetting, and I am not at all bashing the company. If I could buy FN ARs (any plans to release ARs/carbines to the public?) I would. I just want to make sure that the operating forces get the best weapon possible. That weapon - except in some VERY limited circumstances... Is the FNMI M16A4, or Colt M4 (until Colt finally looses the contract - at which point, maybe, we could get FNMI M4s)....

My brothers unit has brand new M4s with FN stamped on them.

Quoted: My brothers unit has brand new M4s with FN stamped on them.

What branch of service?  AF in particular is known for updating rifles rather than buying new.  What are the lower receivers marked?  Do the uppers/barrels have FN markings?

I'd suspect they are FN M16A2/A4 lowers with new Colt M4 uppers.  The FN A2 uppers that CDNN was selling had to come from somewhere.

There are brand new looking FN M4 Carbines in US Army service.  I have at least one picture of an example.  They are rebuilds.  The fact the M16A2 marking is ground off and replaced with a M4 CARBINE stamp being the biggest clue.

Army National Guard.

I was told they are brand new.

They also have SAWs with M4 buttstocks and other cool stuff like that.

Quoted: Army National Guard. I was told they are brand new. They also have SAWs with M4 buttstocks and other cool stuff like that.

The newest version of the 249 has a HK-91 style dual-rod collapsing buttstock...

And yes, the military DOES update their M16A2s to M4s...

Where do you think CDNN got their USGI FN M16A2 uppers from?

Someone is converting, and selling off the extra parts...

Anyone know when a civie legal version is coming?

Sorry, I don't have the patience to read the previous 21 pages.

Quoted: Anyone know when a civie legal version is coming? Sorry, I don't have the patience to read the previous 21 pages.

Projected for early to mid 2008.

Quoted: 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.

But once the barrel is zeroed, can it be removed/remounted and retain zero? If so, he could have a magnified optic zeroed to the 18 and a CQB optic zeroed to the 10. As long as everything holds zero wouldn't this work? Yes more shit to carry of course, not to mention the hazards of tearing down your primary weapon in a combat zone.

Quoted: But once the barrel is zeroed, can it be removed/remounted and retain zero?

As much as i love the SCAR concept, i really doubt they'll be able to pull that off.

It retains zero pretty well. This is not really that much of a shock, as the 249 also retains zero after the barrel has been removed and replaced.

The option of having optics tied to different barrels is certainly an option, and one that certain organizations with a lot of money may implement. The concept of having an EoTech/Aimpoint zeroed to the 10 inch barrel, an ACOG zeroed to the 14 inch barrel, and an S&B zeroed to the 18 inch barrel could be an option. However there is the inherant stacking of tolerances that require that each optic's zero be confirmed after the barrel swap. Removal and replacement of the same barrel will cause some shif in zero, let's just assume a 1 MOA shift. Removing and replacing the optic will also cause a shift, once again let's go with 1 MOA shift. The two together stack to cause a possible 2 MOA shift. Good enough for 50, laughable for precision work. This is also assuming a minimal shift, increase these tolerances just a littlebit, and the replacement of barrels and optics in conjunction seems less and less appealing, unless the zero is verified.

I doubt that anyone actually thinks that they will assault the objective with the 14 inch barrel, change to the 10 inch barrel to clear the building, then change to the 18 inch barrel to provide semi-sniper fire. The rifle will be configured prior to the mission execution, and will remain in that configuration for the mission. There exists the possibility of someone breaking their barrel and requiring another to be delivered to them mid-mission (on extended stays in the AO), that they can easily replace, or replace with one of their other barrels. I highly doubt that a spare barrel will be carried by the operator, but I guess that it is an option.

These options are essentially the same as buying three upper receivers for an M16 series carbine, but they will retain their optic's zero regardless of how many times they are swapped. Pull pins, remove upper, insert new upper, push pins. Certainly a more costly option, but not out of the realm of possibility.

Regarding the FN M16A2s.  

I saw an FN stamped M16A2 in a Texas National Guard Armory in 2002.  I was quite put off by it at first, yet I later remembered that FN is a small arms company known for making quality small arms for a long time.  It just doesn't seem to match when you think of the FN Hi Power and the M249 and M240 and all their variants.

For the entire span of my service in the USAF 1984-1988 and the U.S Army 1989-1996, I fired carried and used a variety of M16 rifles and carbines.  Everything from the M16/no Forward assist and open bird cage/ M16 GAU same set up with no forward assist but with a closed bird cage/ M16A1, A2 when I finished in 1996.

Of all those weapons, only Colt made them.  I guess that is why I own a Colt AR15.  I think that their are rifles AR15/16 made by other companies just as good or better.  I grew up with the Colts and shun anything different for sintimental reasons.

I certainly would not throw an FN made clone of the M16 in the trash if someone gave it to me, but I still won't go out and buy one on my own.

Further, the greatest threat to the FN design was not even tested! The HK416 was not involved at all

Would the HK416 even have been allowed to enter considering it doesnt come close to meeting many of the specs needed for SCAR?

I'm very curious about this weapon, especially the H model. If they extend that rail a bit and beef up the barrel, I will probably spring or one to keep my XCR company.

Quoted: Further, the greatest threat to the FN design was not even tested! The HK416 was not involved at all Would the HK416 even have been allowed to enter considering it doesnt come close to meeting many of the specs needed for SCAR?

Sure, there were other AR's there that did just fine.

Why is this easier than just carrying a seperate upper for the M16 weapons system. With a seperate upper  it isnt a problem to go from an 10 in upper with optics and BUIS to an 18in upper with its optics and BUIS.  Then nothing is an issue.

Everything about these new weapons is an answer looking for a problem that isnt there.

Can't wait to hopefully get one.

Quoted: Why is this easier than just carrying a seperate upper for the M16 weapons system. With a seperate upper  it isnt a problem to go from an 10 in upper with optics and BUIS to an 18in upper with its optics and BUIS.  Then nothing is an issue. Everything about these new weapons is an answer looking for a problem that isnt there.

Nail . . . Head.

The barrel switch is simply a user requirement.  I would be personally surprised it that worked out.  Just don't see packing spare barrels/optics and switching them during a mission.  And if you not going to pack the spares in your "ruck", then what is the point?

Quoted: Just don't see packing spare barrels/optics and switching them during a mission.  And if you not going to pack the spares in your "ruck", then what is the point?

Like TWl said, less parts, lower cost.

Quoted: Quoted: Just don't see packing spare barrels/optics and switching them during a mission.  And if you not going to pack the spares in your "ruck", then what is the point? Like TWl said, less parts, lower cost.

The end user is not going to care about such things as lower cost.  And as far as less parts go, the less in the ruck the better.  I have seen a good argument made by an instructor that he is not aware of anyone that made adjustments to his rear sight during combat, and going along that line of thought, how about a barrel/optic swap during combat?

Quoted: Not a requirement for the "big Army" at this time.

Correct, and imagine a line company with their weapons broke down cleaning.  "Hey, is this your barrel or mine"?  The sling connecting the upper and lower are just about all that keeps uppers from being swapped around by accident now.

Quoted: However, SOCOM has shown interest in that, most directly with the SCAR.

And a cool idea, but we shall see if it works out in the real world.

Quoted: There are some barrel technologies being worked on by some big military R&D companies(NDIA) that could make barrels around a pound, which could make them easily rucked if necessary for a special operation.

That is not part of SCAR though.  And sure, a lighter barrel would make the load easier to hump, but I can think of things I would rather make room for.

Quoted: The end user is not going to care about such things as lower cost.

The end user isn't  paying for the platform either ;)

Just FYI, it would appear as though LRIP deliveries have begun:

For Immediate Release: May 7, 2007 FN HERSTAL MOVES FORWARD WITH INITIAL SCAR PRODUCTION McLEAN, Va. – FN Herstal announced today through FNH USA that the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) program has had marked success in the first phase of pre-delivery, low rate initial production (LRIP) acceptance testing by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane. The first LRIP deliveries will take place over the next month with subsequent deliveries running through October 2007. The announcement came at the opening of the 2007 National Defense Industrial Association Small Arms Symposium held in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

www.fnhusa.com/press/releases_consumer/detail.asp?id=15

UGLY..................

I took a tour of the FNH factory in South Carolina. Got to have my hands on the SCAR-H and L, took them apart etc etc not impressed.
Gas piston upers for the AR make much more sense without changing to much.

Quoted: I took a tour of the FNH factory in South Carolina. Got to have my hands on the SCAR-H and L, took them apart etc etc not impressed. Gas piston upers for the AR make much more sense without changing to much.

I didn't know FN let people go on tours, did you get any pics?

What did you not like about the SCAR?