My unit is fielding the SCAR starting next week.
This is the full SCAR system (heavy, light, grenade launcher etc.)

I want to do a review on it.
I haven’t followed its development very closely, so I'm not sure what features or aspects I should you might want me to give special attention to.

I had the opportunity to briefly fire the heavy and light versions a year ago.
I was somewhat skeptical going into the shoot, but was favorably impressed in the end.
I believe it has evolved somewhat since then, so I’ll have to give it a fresh look.

If you’re interested, please give me some input on what you want to see in a review and I'll do my best to provide the info.



1st UPDATE..

Thank you all for your suggestions. We are finished with our initial evaluation.
When I solicited input, I didn't yet know exactly what type of "fielding" this would be.
Unfortunately, it did not answer all the questions posted here.

We will keep the rifles indefinitely, but won't have a chance to test them again for some time.
Due to my personal circumstances, I will not be involved in any more testing or evaluation.

I'll post a review as soon as I get a few minutes to type something up....


Review..



We were each given a MK16 (SCAR Light) and a MK17 (SCAR Heavy). We shared two MK13 EGLMs (grenade launcher) amongst 12 of us.

On day 1, we sat through several hours of power-point and learned about the weapon.
We then took them to the range, zeroed and familiarized ourselves with them.
We each put 250 rnds through each weapon.
On day 2, we fired the MK13 grenade launcher.
On day 3, we took the MK16 and MK17 back to the range for further evaluation.
We each fired an additional 750 rnds of 5.56 and approximately 400 additional rounds of 7.62

The MK16 and MK17 are very similar.
Most of the comments made about one apply to the other.
That being said, in this review, I am specifically referring to the MK16 unless otherwise stated.


I tried to remain objective in facts and honest in opinion.
My opinion is my own and does not reflect the opinions of other shooters.
Other shooters have a lot more experience than I do. Some liked the weapon more than I did; some liked it less.
I have no intention of stirring controversy, so keep your arguments out of the technical forum.
I’ll check back later to address further questions as they arise.


- Accuracy
We only used military issued, 62 grn for the MK16 and 147 grn for the MK17.
25 meters (prone, supported).
MK16, iron sights or eotech, groups were no larger than 1/4".
MK17, iron sights: 1/4", Elcan 4X: 1/8" (the rounds were usually through the same hole)
The scope of this initial test did not include shooting for groups on paper past 25M.
We did however engage pop-up targets out to 900M.

The accuracy of the rifle was very acceptable.

Some shooters routinely made hits @ 900M w/ the MK17 w/ 4X optic. I got lucky occasionally.




- Reliability
It is difficult to judge with as few rounds as we put through them.
Not everyone had exactly the same experience with reliability.
This is probably something that needs larger sample size and more controlled testing.
Bear in mind that these were brand spanking new guns. We had to clean the cosmoline off them.
They may have needed a little break in.
MK16:
FTE: I had one FTE at the very end of the 4th mag. It looks like the brass either didn’t clear the ejection port, or deflected off something and ended up back in the ejection port.
FTF: I had 2 double-feeds around 500 and 700 rounds.



I had two other failures that were probably caused by outside factors.
1st: The reciprocating charging handle struck my thumb and caused it the gun to short stroke.
2nd: While shooting with the gun sideways, almost touching the ground (simulating shooting under cover), I had another double feed.
I’m not sure how that would have caused this, but it was under unusual shooting conditions, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.

I also tested function with the gas regulator on the wrong setting.
Shooting non-suppressed with the setting on suppressed, the gun short stroked about every 5th round.

MK17:
FTE: none
FTF: I had 2 FTF with the MK17; a double feed on the second round fired and a double feed half way through the 5th mag.

When testing function with the gas regulator on the wrong setting, I had the same result as with the MK16.



- Durability
Durability was not really within the scope of this initial review.
I will say that I remain somewhat skeptical of some of the plastic parts.

- The receiver, stock and op-rod, selector switch, parts of the BUIS, are all plastic.
- I did not attempt “Pogo Stick Clearing”, but am reasonably sure the charging handle would never hold up to that.
- Round count durability: not able to judge yet.
- The Bolt and Carrier group appear to be very solid


- Stock
Telescoping: six positions. The button for adjusting the length needs to be very firmly depressed.
I don't usually make a lot of adjustments to length on the fly, but it was a little annoying.
Adjustable comb: felt very chinsey initially, but I gained a little confidence in it as I used it.
I slammed it with my palm and it had some give. It felt like it might break, so I didn’t try it again.
I was not able to collapse it by squeezing it.
Folding: The stock unlocks from the extended position by means of a large, recessed metal button.
It locks into the folded position on the brass deflector.
The brass deflector is made of plastic and has a groove cut out of it that hooks on a ridge on the stock.
The hinge itself is made of polymer
The stock is apparently designed to very quickly and easily go from folded to extended.
A vigorous shake of the rifle will pop the stock out of its folded position.
The lock into the extended position is much more sturdy and requires deliberate effort to unlock.


- Ambidextrous Capability
The ejection port will always be on the right.
The stock will always fold to the right.
The bolt release is only on the left.
Almost everything else is ambidextrous.
Due to the stock folding to the right, the right side is limited to one sling attachment point whereas the left has two.
The selector switches on either side are different sizes.
They are reversible, but it is set up with the larger switch on the left side.
Shooting left-handed was comfortable and I didn’t get any brass in my face.

Selector Switch:
I found myself using the selector switches on both sides pretty regularly.
I think that is because neither of them are easy to use for all functions.
The current model (MOD 0) has 90 degrees between each setting similar to the M4.
The selector switch either needs to move back ¼”, or have longer paddles, or have only 45 degrees between positions.
I would have to try different configurations to say what would work better, but the current configuration needs to change. That is an easy fix though.



- Gas system
The gas system has two positions: suppressed and normal.
The selector knob is sturdy and easy to manipulate.
It must be removed to access the piston. It is not difficult to remove the knob.
I used a small flat-head screwdriver to depress the retaining detent.
The gas vents through 2 very small holes on each side of the regulator, just behind the front sight.
I didn’t notice any design feature that would prevent excess carbon build up.
I found it interesting that the piston head has gas rings very similar to the rings on an M4 bolt.
The rings need to remain off-set.

The piston is very short, probably 2 ½ inches.
It strikes the face of the BCG on the very bottom at what appears to be the center of mass line.





- How clean and cool does it run?
It lived up to its claim. It stayed cool in the receiver and was easy to clean.
There was no scraping required, except in the gas system.
A simple wipe-down took care of everything else.
The chamber is deep and was not real easy to access.
The barrel removes easily though if easier access is needed.
Even the carbon in the chamber did not require scraping.
The BCG rides on rails inside the upper receiver.
These were not real easy to reach around for cleaning.
The extractor is not removed at the operator level.
With the very limited carbon introduced into the receiver, it is not thought to be necessary.




- Quick change actually quick?
The barrel is secured by means of six star-head screws.
The screws do not come all the way out so they won't get lost.
A torque wrench is supplied with each rifle for proper tightening.
IOT maintain MOA accuracy, a certain sequence for tightening the screws must be followed.
It is very easy to accomplish at the operator level assuming you have a star screw driver and a torque wrench.
I never timed myself, but it shouldn’t be difficult to remove the barrel in less than a minute and to install it in just over a minute.




I did encounter one problem though:
The barrel is free-floating. The six o'clock rail is remains with the barrel.
There is a block attached to the forward portion of the six o-clock rail.
It receives the screws that attach from the forward portion of the handguard.
The block is made of aluminum, while the screws are made of steel.
The threading in one of the holes was already stripped when I received the rifle.
FN is already aware of this defect and is replacing the aluminum block with steel.





- Trigger Pull
The trigger felt very similar to the standard M4 trigger, though probably a little lighter.
It's exactly what I would want in a carbine.
The "trigger module" is analogous to the lower receiver of an M4.
It includes the plastic housing, the internal trigger parts, and the pistol grip.
It is considered a single component.
If anything goes bad in the trigger module, rather than repair it, the entire module is replaced. "It costs $11."

- Recoil, muzzle rise
Some of the guys thought the recoil felt lighter than the M4.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think it was not as sharp though. It was more of a push than a kick.
Muzzle rise was up and right. I think there was less muzzle rise than with an M4.
When firing the gun on automatic, I was very impressed with its controllability.
It was easy to keep a long burst on the silhouette at 25m.
ETA: cyclic rate is only 625. It was nice and slow.


- Charging handle proximity to optics rail
This stuck out to me immediately.
Depending on what optic is used and where it is mounted, it can interfere with manipulating the charging handle.
After a few monkey bites on my hand, I learned to use my finger tips to charge the weapon.
This needs to be addressed IMO.
The top rail is already high over the bore and the charging handle is already close to the lower hand. It may be as simple as redesigning the optics mount.






- Reciprocating Charging Handle
I remembered to keep my thumb down most of the time, but while practicing switching back and forth between strong hand and week hand, the charging handle caught me.
My thumb slowed it down enough that it caused a FTF.
It was not painful enough with 5.56 to learn my lesson.
I did it again with 7.62. That hurt.

Apparently, it was one of the design criteria put forth by SOCOM.
The tec explained that it is the simplest system and gives the most direct control over the function of the weapon.
Because it is directly attached to the BCG, it can be used as a forward-assist.
If I ever rode the bolt forward, it would not lock.
I tapped on the charging handle to no effect.
I smacked the charging handle forward and got it to lock the bolt. It was the same each time I tried it.
I had to hit it hard enough that it was a little painful.
I am not sold on the reciprocating charging handle.
If it were not reciprocating, they might even be able to lower it enough that optics mounts would no longer interfere.
As demonstrated by the FTF, it is potentially a liability in the reliability of the weapon.

- Flash signature with gas regulator
In these first 3 days, we only shot in daylight.
I never noticed any flash signature from the gas regulator.
The ports where the excess gas bleeds off are located very near the regulator knob, below the front site.
With the MK16, I only used the 10" barrel.
The gas ports were inches from the muzzle.
I don't think I would notice them separate from the muzzle flash.


- Running it dry
On the first day, it was well oiled.
On the second day we took the rifles out, I wiped off all the oil I could.
There was still some oil in the cracks, but overall it was fairly dry.
The little oil that remained did not cook off or dry up because the gun stays cool.
I did not notice any problems due to lack of lube.

- Ejection
Both models ejected pretty consistently to the 3 o'clock.
There was an audible ring at each shot.
I am fairly certain that the ring can be attributed to the AAC flash hider.
My AAC flash hiders do the same thing.


- Mags (drop free, fit, bolt catch, reliability)
I used a variety of mags: Aluminum GI, H&K steel, FN steel, P-Mag, Lancer polymer mag and 40 rnd Precision Mag Industries mag.
Neither of the polymer mags dropped free.
All of the metal mags dropped free.
All of the 30 round mags fed reliably.
The BCG hung up on the rear of the 40rnd mag.
All mags except for the Lancers activated the bolt catch.
The MK17 uses FN FAL mags. They worked fine.

.
- Reloads
Reloads were quick and easy. Switching mags felt very natural.

- "Softness/Brittleness" of plastic
The polymer is very dense.
It is a little on the soft side, so it is not likely to crack very easily.
It is not so soft though that it bends or deforms easily.
It feels like a pretty good balance in strength and rigidity.

- Clearing Failures
With the charging handle and the bolt catch on the same side, it was a bit tricky locking the bolt back.
None of the failures I had required that, but I can see how it could be an issue.
Otherwise, it was exactly the same as with an M4.

- Shooting with folded stock
Not a good idea. It was not very controllable.
The MK17 was especially difficult to control with no stock.

- Sling attachment points and slings
There is a sling attachment point on the very front on either side of the gun.
It is a hook designed to accept HK or similar hardware.
I don’t like my sling to attach that far forward, so I bolted on a provided sling attachment point to the rear of the 9 o’clock rail.
I would have preferred to mount it further back, closer to the receiver, but it worked fine.
For single point sling, there are two attachment points on the rear of the receiver and one on the right side.
It was easy to switch between 2-point and single-point configuration with these attachment points.
I never used any points on the right side.
In single point configuration, when I fired weak-side, I had to point the muzzle upward so the stock would clear the sling before I could seat it in my left shoulder.




Overall:
I liked it more than I thought I would. I am confident that the weapon functions reliably.
It is comfortable to handle and shoot.
The durability of some of the plastic parts is questionable.
It could use several minor modifications to improve function.

Compared to M4:
Feel of the rifle:
I prefer the ergonomics of the M4. That is probably largely due to my familiarity with it, but the M4 feels better to me.
The SCAR felt a bit clunky.
The 12 o’clock rail is higher over the bore.
The front hand guards are taller.
The butt stock is quite thick.
I don’t like the way the butt stock slopes down off the receiver as compared to the straight buffer tube on the M4.
It causes you to absorb a little bit of the recoil in your face instead of your shoulder.
With the 7.62 version, this got pretty old after several hundred rounds.
The balance is very good.

The action feels very smooth.
It doesn’t have that hollow scraping sound like the M4 when you charge it.

Durability:
I am more confident in the durability of the M4.
I think FN went a little overboard with trying to make everything plastic.

Reliability:
This is tough to compare with as little experience as I have with it.
There were a few failures. These could be attributed to the break-in time or other factors.
Anecdotally, I don’t think it is any worse than the M4.
I would not be at all surprised if controlled testing showed it is more reliable.

Accuracy:
I think it is very comparable to the M4 in accuracy.
We didn’t test for groups on paper past the 25m zero target.
My groups were at least as tight as I usually get with an M4.
Engaging targets out to 300m was pretty easy.

User Friendliness:
I prefer the M4 selector switch. This is an easy fix for the SCAR.
I don’t like the reciprocating charging handle.
I think it creates more problems then it fixes.
It is more limiting in sling attachment.
The M4 does not have a problem with optics interfering with the charging handle.

Bottom Line:
The SCAR is a good system. I’m not ready to give up my M4.
As the SCAR evolves over the next couple years, it will be a top-of-the line rifle.
I’m not convinced that it is worth the cost to purchase and train on a completely new system.

comparison of the stock systems with existing collapsable/folders
ejection for left/right handers
etc, etc, etc

A. What kind of groups are you getting with various loads? 55 grain, 62 grain, 75 grain, and so forth.

B. Ease of adjustment of the gas system. Is it a pain or is it easy?

C. Inspection of the internals after firing. How clean and cool does she run?

D. Securing the barrel. Is it really as easy to quick change out as FNH claims?

E. The trigger. What AR trigger would you compare it to?

F. Recoil, muzzle rise...how does it compare?

G. Charging Handle. Too close for comfort to the optic rail or just right?

It must pain you in the ass so bad that SOCOM wouldn't even consider the XCR for trials and that a cheap airsoft crap rifle of which you couldn't operate the stock on won.

The only thing that pains me in the ass so bad is little tacticool airsoft girls like yourself crying when someone calls it like they see it.

FN has a much greater production capability than robinson arms so your argument is a moot point.

Steers? queers? Well we all know that cows cant type.

As soon as this this SCAR thread popped up the first airsoft tacticool girl that started crying was you.
Kel Tec has greater production capability than Robinson arms...there is nothing to argue.
Steers and queers? AZ at least has queers, thank you for dong your part maybe you'll get steers eventually.


My apologies to the OP, I will not continue to let a newb troll goad me into going off track in this thread.

Looking forward to the results in your test.

Me too, me too.

Buy lots of beer for the fielding team and the armorer course instructors..........

I had the chance to handle one recently and the plastic lower looks and feels REALLY cheap.

- Could you run it dry?
- How perform the screwed on plastic safety levers? Seemed a bit wobbly to me. Will the screws come loose?
- Firing (esp. ejection) - even if unusual - and handling with stock collapsed. Does the collapsed stock keep it’s position? The one I’ve seen “locked” the same way like the G36 at the shell deflector – relying on the flexibility of the polymer material. Easily comes off (G36) when you move.
- As mentioned before – could you test as many different sorts of mags if possible? Do they fit, lock, fall free, activate the bolt stop and yeah – not to forget – feed reliably?

Thanks in advance.

Jump to conclusions much?

Never said the XCR was 'ubertacticool goodeness' or the SCAR 'suxs', all i said was that first impression i had of the SCAR was that it had so much plastic and was so light it didnt feel like a real gun.

Kinda like holding a 1911 TRP in one hand and a glock in the other. The 1911 is going to feel more solid every time.

It's obvious who the fanboys are on this site. They are the one's who feel the need to criticize other weapon platforms in order to justify their own flavor of koolaid. Nowheare in this thread did the OP ask for opinions from someone who has experience with airsoft rifles about what they thought about the rifle. He is soliciting questions that he might be able answer later on. The SCAR won't appeal to everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy. Stick to the XCR. Problem solved. It seems as though every time a SCAR thread pops up, regardless of what is being discussed, some XCR owner fanboy will feel the need to jump in and interject his opinion on the SCAR based on what he 'feels'. You said it felt like a 'airsoft' rifle....I wouldn't know because I'm not into 'airsoft'. It would seem you are rather knowledgeable about them, though.

Optics Compatibility - does the charging handle cause any problems with an EOTech if it's mounted over it? I know this was an area that was changed in the Massada/ACR. Looks like the SCAR's lever is lower, though.