Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't see diddly. OK. Thanks Ricker. I got it now. It bares a striking resemblance to the Robarm XCR. www.robarm.com/XCR%20Mil%20Fold%20copy.jpg What vert foregrip is that? Falcon Industries.

Nice looking unit.  Anyone have any info?  Did a search here, nothing.

www.cavalryarms.com/accessories.html

What are the odds of getting a civilian version of the FN?  The XCR is looking pretty good.

Now we need pics of the rifles that didn't win.

Looks like an XM-8 stock, an FNC lower, and an XCR upper...

All in all though, I doubt we'll ever get a crack at the FN. I am more interested in seeing what the other competitors offered and whether they are willing to try and recoup some development costs by offering it to us.

i normally lurk but i have something to say here.

well if the xcr is any idication we can expect to atleast see some of the other competitors offer civi versions of their rifles.

honestly the xcr looks more appealing and i am interesting how it would fair against the fn, as to my understanding it was disqualified due to a mistake of the rifles not being sent with a blank adaptor and was not actually tested.

but the new gen of rifles coming about certainly aren't made to win any fashion shows.  maufacturers seem to go out of their way to make them ugly.

disqualified because of no blank adapter? What is this bullshit? The XCR looks like a great rifle and bieng disqualified because it wasn't shipped for testing with a blank adapter is kind of foolish.

Grendelizor: I e-mailed Robinson Arms my ideas for the butt too and he saud there will be a variety of butts availiable for the XCR such as a retractable and a folder, I can post the e-mail if anyone is interested.

id be interested

here is the e-mail I sent to him:

Hello, On your website, you ask for any ideas and suggestions for your product. Here are my suggestions: 1. Due the body armor our troops and law enforcement officers wear, it is very hard for them to get their cheek in a good position on a full length stock. I suggest you add a retractable stock which allows for someone wearing body armor to be able to move the butt into the correct position for them. I suggest a duostock ( www.duostock.com ) because of the shape of the butt which allows for people to use it with and without body armor. 2. If you do not use a Duostock or other similar style butt, please add rubber to the end to the stock because another problem people wearing body armor have, is that the stock will slip off of their Body Armor. This can be fixed fairly easily iwth the addition of rubber to either the butt or the shoulder of the armor. Good Luck with your Product, Ziggy Reim

Here is the e-mail I got back:

Ziggy: We're familiar with the Dustock.  We have a collapsible stock designed.   It will be an inexpenisve accessory.    We are also going to offer a rubber buttpad for all the designs  Thank you for your input.

Good thing its a limited run deal.

Thats all I have to add.

Quoted: One observation I noticed on the XCR, and now on the FN (first time I seen a pic) is that the line of sight above the bore is really, really high.  Looks to be maybe four inches?  You would have to aim over the head to make a head shot at close range, in other words they shoot real low at point blank ranges.  I have personal experience with high sights, and I don't like em. Thanks for sharing the pic Bandit-ExcaliburArms.

That front sight does look way up in the stratosphere. I'm guessing the actual post sits about as low as on a SIG55x, AK74, or similar. I imagine it folds, also. Again ,the photo doesn't make it clear, but the rear BUIS looks like the "mouse trap" Picatinny Arsenal put out a couple years back. The photo doesn't make it clear where the ejection port is - not on the left, is it? Wondering if it uses an AR-style port cover...

Quoted: Cool another fish shaped rifle Carpbine II

Ha, I just showed the picture to my wife, and first thing she said is that it looks like a fish.

Quoted: Quoted: One observation I noticed on the XCR, and now on the FN (first time I seen a pic) is that the line of sight above the bore is really, really high.  Looks to be maybe four inches?  You would have to aim over the head to make a head shot at close range, in other words they shoot real low at point blank ranges.  I have personal experience with high sights, and I don't like em. Thanks for sharing the pic Bandit-ExcaliburArms. That front sight does look way up in the stratosphere. I'm guessing the actual post sits about as low as on a SIG55x, AK74, or similar. I imagine it folds, also. Again ,the photo doesn't make it clear, but the rear BUIS looks like the "mouse trap" Picatinny Arsenal put out a couple years back. The photo doesn't make it clear where the ejection port is - not on the left, is it? Wondering if it uses an AR-style port cover...

Looks to be a heck of a lot higher then a SIG or a 74.

I must be missing something, what are the improvments over the M16/AR15 platform?

Yea I saw a pic of the 308 version today at the Army Marksmanship unit here at FT Benning.

LTC Liwanig(AMU CDR) gave me a tour of the place.

Last weekend he let me fire his suppresed 22, it was nice to say the least.

We then fired my SPR at a steel siloute at 500m, all hits, he said it was a 5-6" shot group, who am I to doubt the word of the AMU commander

I am now bewildered after seeing all the cool weapons there, but I did see a SBR FAL with folding stock and EO tech. He had it as a pre scar-L type rifle, therefore its time for me to get a FAL

Too bad FN wont sell it to us, therefore in getting a FAL and SBR it, Its damn close and will probably be cheaper.

FREE

weird..2 things:
-visually, it doesn't look like the stock 'fits' the rifle....just looks kinda strange
-why in the world do the sights look so high? are they wanting to get them up there to work with the Aimpoint or something?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: One observation I noticed on the XCR, and now on the FN (first time I seen a pic) is that the line of sight above the bore is really, really high.  Looks to be maybe four inches?  You would have to aim over the head to make a head shot at close range, in other words they shoot real low at point blank ranges.  I have personal experience with high sights, and I don't like em. Thanks for sharing the pic Bandit-ExcaliburArms. That front sight does look way up in the stratosphere. I'm guessing the actual post sits about as low as on a SIG55x, AK74, or similar. I imagine it folds, also. Again ,the photo doesn't make it clear, but the rear BUIS looks like the "mouse trap" Picatinny Arsenal put out a couple years back. The photo doesn't make it clear where the ejection port is - not on the left, is it? Wondering if it uses an AR-style port cover... Looks to be a heck of a lot higher then a SIG or a 74.

I know, I know, but we're only seeing it from the side. The height of the gas tube/piston body is nothing we haven't already seen before (eg. Sig, AK). It's got to be a sane setup. Sky-high irons make no sense to me, either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: One observation I noticed on the XCR, and now on the FN (first time I seen a pic) is that the line of sight above the bore is really, really high.  Looks to be maybe four inches?  You would have to aim over the head to make a head shot at close range, in other words they shoot real low at point blank ranges.  I have personal experience with high sights, and I don't like em. Thanks for sharing the pic Bandit-ExcaliburArms. That front sight does look way up in the stratosphere. I'm guessing the actual post sits about as low as on a SIG55x, AK74, or similar. I imagine it folds, also. Again ,the photo doesn't make it clear, but the rear BUIS looks like the "mouse trap" Picatinny Arsenal put out a couple years back. The photo doesn't make it clear where the ejection port is - not on the left, is it? Wondering if it uses an AR-style port cover... Looks to be a heck of a lot higher then a SIG or a 74. I know, I know, but we're only seeing it from the side. The height of the gas tube/piston body is nothing we haven't already seen before (eg. Sig, AK). It's got to be a sane setup. Sky-high irons make no sense to me, either.

Well, the gas system looks to be a piston set up, and is high off the bore like a SIG or 74, but then they put tall sights on top of that, bet the reason is so that both the irons and the optics can be at the same height.

Am I the only one that thinks the FN-SCAR actually looks kind of cool?

As for civvie sales, I'm not holding my breath but it sure would be nice!  But looking at the photo of the FN-SCAR next to the Robinson XCR, it occurs to me that if the FN-SCAR sees the light of day and FN still won't sell to civvies then it probably wouldn't be too hard to pimp out the Robarms XCR to look more like the FN-SCAR, since they're actually fairly similar looking overall.

Will

Quoted: As for civvie sales, I'm not holding my breath but it sure would be nice!   Will

Like the AR-15, once 20 years passes, anybody can make a knock off.  There is also the possibility of a aftermarket FNC conversion kit.

Thankfully it is not available on the civilian market as of yet, or I would feel compelled to go out and buy that piece of crap.

ETA:  Bring back Spellchecker.

anyone know if FN is civilian friendly? I have not heard outright whether or not they are. This is unlike colt and HK who go out of their way to make their position known.

I am interested to hear what the deficiencies were in the AR platform that lead SF to request and receive a new rifle.  They aren't gear queers, so anyone have/know their perspective on this?

Cheers

Quoted: I am interested to hear what the deficiencies were in the AR platform that lead SF to request and receive a new rifle.  They aren't gear queers, so anyone have/know their perspective on this? Cheers

I see a few SCAR specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt. Not sure these requirments can be met with any rifle in 5.56.

So, seems to me that the water in bore is one issue they want addressed.  I really doubt that you can drain a .22 cal. bore without pulling the bolt back, no matter the design.  Also doubt that this FN product will hold together if fired with a bore obstruction.

The FN/XCR looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Quick Change barrels? The M16 family can do that in less than 1/2 second. Just make sure the new barrels are attached to a new upper (not that expensive, about $90 for an upper for civilians, less for large contracts) and swap it over.

Modular Accessories? The M16 family can do that with free-float quad-rail handguards

etc...

The FN/XCR looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Quick Change barrels? The M16 family can do that in less than 1/2 second. Just make sure the new barrels are attached to a new upper (not that expensive, about $90 for an upper for civilians, less for large contracts) and swap it over. Modular Accessories? The M16 family can do that with free-float quad-rail handguards

What insight!  What originality!

You are right of course.  After all this rifle was asked for by SF, and we all know they have their heads up their asses right?

Cheers

Next SEBR/Group Buy???  

Personally I think it looks like a neat weapon.  Would like a longer handguard...

I'd rather have the Rob Arm XCR


Besides, we still dont know if that photo of the SCAR is legit

Quoted:
I'd rather have the Rob Arm XCR

Aesthetically, right?

given the fact that the XCR 'lost' the competition one would seem it was in some way inferior to the FN

(and I have a tough time buying the "forgot to bring a blank adapter" claim. I do not doubt the posters claim to have heard it - but rather the validity of it disqualifying a 'better' submission)

Quoted: Quoted: I'd rather have the Rob Arm XCR Aesthetically, right? given the fact that the XCR 'lost' the competition one would seem it was in some way inferior to the FN (and I have a tough time buying the "forgot to bring a blank adapter" claim. I do not doubt the posters claim to have heard it - but rather the validity of it disqualifying a 'better' submission)

SIG lost to Beretta in the XM9 trials. Means nothing. Politics decides who makes our guns these days, not which gun is better. How else would you explain the XM9

Hell, to be honest, I fully believe our goverment will never award another american arms maker a contract just to make sure no new military style rifles circumvent the import ban and reach civilian hands.

All that said, this is the only rifle I'll be building next year

The XCR was DQ'ed w/o ever being fired. I heard that the missing blank firing adapter was an issue, but I don't know the actual story. I understand that some of the domestic submissions were quite impressive, & am hoping they will go beyond the prototype stage & become public ware. I'd truly hope to see what all the US makers had to offer, & maybe handle &/or buy them.

I hope someone is watching, listening out there...

If the XCR is anything like the two RA's I had...well I'll just say all my FALs work...the RAs didn't.

Quoted: Hell, to be honest, I fully believe our goverment will never award another american arms maker a contract just to make sure no new military style rifles circumvent the import ban and reach civilian hands.

+1

Quoted: Hell, to be honest, I fully believe our goverment will never award another american arms maker a contract just to make sure no new military style rifles circumvent the import ban and reach civilian hands.

For the domestic contracts they put in "no civilian sales allowed", witness FN's M16A2 contracts and Okay's magazine contracts which apparently specify as much.  I think I'm going to have to take that up with my congressman, not that it will really help.

Here are some legit photos of FN's baby.
FN SCAR-L prototype (late 2004), left side view
http://world.guns.ru/assault/scar_l-1.jpg

FN SCAR-L prototype, right side view
http://world.guns.ru/assault/scar_l-2.jpg

FN SCAR-H prototype in CQC (Close Quarter Combat, short barrel) configuration, 7.62x51 mm NATO version
http://world.guns.ru/assault/scar_h.jpg

I first had the oppurtunity to see this rifle at the local FOP range (a picture not the actual rifle). The pistol grip you see on the front of the rifle is acually a bipod that pops out of the bottom when you press the button with thumb. I met the man who designed and patented the grip. He showed me a print out of this rifle that FN want to use his grip with. Any at last talk with him I believe he was at producing 11,000 of those grips for military forces, not to mention FN's order. He told me that the FN went through 42,000 rounds before it's first malfucntion and US SOCOM showed great interest in the rifle.  It's the real deal and trumped HK's beloved XM8, but due to costs the XM8 with its polymer construction and different variants, just lower the overall cost of thier rifle and make them a shoe in for a US army contract, it saves the gov't lots of $$$$$ and we all know how happy that makes them. But weather you dislike it's "looks" or not you can't deny FN's SCAR is one kick ass assualt rifle.
I personally think the M-16 family has plenty of life still left, especially with the introduction of the 6.8 calibler SPC.  [

FN SCAR-H prototype in CQC (Close Quarter Combat, short barrel) configuration, 7.62x51 mm NATO version

FN SCAR-L prototype (late 2004), right side view

FN SCAR-L prototype, left side view

The US Special Operations Command (US SOCOM) issued a solicitation for the procurement of SOF Combat Assault Rifles (SCAR) on October 15th, 2003. This solicitation requested a new combat rifle, specially tailored for the current and proposed future needs of the US Special Forces, which are somewhat different from latest generic US Army requirements, which are being fulfilled by the newest Heckler-Koch XM8 assault rifle. The key difference in basic requirements between XM8 and SCAR is that, while XM8 is a single-caliber weapon system, tailored for 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition, the SCAR should be available in various different calibers. Initial SOF requirements included two basic versions of SCAR system - the SCAR Light (SCAR-L), available in 5.56mm NATO, and the SCAR heavy (SCAR-H), which should be initially available in significantly more powerful 7.62x51 NATO chambering, and should be easily adaptable in the field to other chamberings. These other chamberings initially include the well-spread 7.62x39 M43 ammunition of the Soviet / Russian origins, and probably some others (like the proposed 6.8x43 Remington SPC cartridge, especially developed for US Special Forces). The key idea of SCAR rifle system is that it will provide the Special Forces operators with wide variety of options, from short-barreled 5.56mm SCAR-L CQC variation, tailored for urban close combat, and up to long range 7.62x51 SCAR-H Sniper variant, as well as 7.62x39 SCAR-H, which will accept "battlefield pickup" AK-47/AKM magazines with 7.62 M43 ammunition, available during the operations behind the enemy lines. Both SCAR-L and SCAR-H shall be initially available in three versions, Standard (S), Close Quarters Combat (CQC) and Sniper Variant (SV). All these variants, regardless the caliber and exact configuration, will provide the operator with the same controls layout, same handling and maintenance procedures, and same optional equipment, such as sights, scopes, and other current and future attachments.

Late in 2004 US SOCOM announced, that the winner for the initial SCAR contracts is the FN USA, an US-based subsidiary of the famous Belgian company Fabrique Nationale Herstal. At the present time (Dec 2004) is is still unknown if the SCAR rifles will be made in USA or Belgium, but I suppose USA. The official XM / M designation is also not disclosed / assigned yet.

The FN SCAR rifles all based on the well proven 5.56mm FN FNC assault rifle. In all variants FN SCAR rifles feature gas operated, short stroke piston action with rotating bolt locking. Improved action has Kalashnikov AK-type bolt with two large locking lugs and fixed ejector. This system apparently is less sensitive to fine sand, dust and any other fouling inside the receiver, than any system with M16-type multi-lug bolt and plunger-type ejector. The receiver is made from two parts, upper and lower, connected with two cross-pins. Both parts are made of metal (probably lower receiver is made from aluminum alloy and upper receiver from stamped steel). It is still unclear if the SCAR system will have quick detachable barrels for various configurations and lengths (from short-barreled CQC to long-barreled SV), or the barrels will be swapped along with entire upper receiver. The SCAR-H system also will have different type lower receivers, adapted to various types of ammunition and various types of magazines (i.e. 7.62mm NATO magazines and 7.62 M43 AK-type magazines, respectively). SCAR-L rifle will use improved M16-type magazines. The trigger unit with ambidextrous safety-fire mode selector switch will allow for single shots and full automatic fire, apparently with no provisions for limited-length bursts mode. The charging handle could be easily installed on either side of the weapon, so the upper receiver has respective cuts on both sides. Top of the upper receiver is covered by the full-length integral Picatinny rail (MIL-STD 1913); additional Picatinny rails are mounted on both sides and below the handguards. Side-folding polymer buttstock is adjustable for length of pull, and is shaped to proved positive cheek rest. SCAR rifles apparently will be fitted with removable, adjustable iron sights, with folding diopter-type rear sight on the receiver rail, and folding front sight on the gas block. Any additional type of sighting equipment, necessary for current tasks, including telescope and night sights, can be installed using MIL-STD 1913 compatible mounts. Current prototypes of SCAR rifles do not have bayonet mounts, and, probably, will never have one.  


~~ Click Here for Specs ~~

Expect to see the SCAR with a Vortex.

tagged

I still can't tell if the charging handle features a forward-assist like the Izzy FAL charging handle, or if it reciprocates like the AK. Then again, it may have no FA at all.

Guess I'm in the minority, I like the looks.

Quoted: Guess I'm in the minority, I like the looks.

Freak

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd rather have the Rob Arm XCR Aesthetically, right? given the fact that the XCR 'lost' the competition one would seem it was in some way inferior to the FN (and I have a tough time buying the "forgot to bring a blank adapter" claim. I do not doubt the posters claim to have heard it - but rather the validity of it disqualifying a 'better' submission) SIG lost to Beretta in the XM9 trials. Means nothing. Politics decides who makes our guns these days, not which gun is better. How else would you explain the XM9 Hell, to be honest, I fully believe our goverment will never award another american arms maker a contract just to make sure no new military style rifles circumvent the import ban and reach civilian hands. All that said, this is the only rifle I'll be building next year www.colt.com/law/images/m4commando.jpg

You're going to build an m4 with an auto-sear? Might wanna keep that on the down low....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd rather have the Rob Arm XCR Aesthetically, right? given the fact that the XCR 'lost' the competition one would seem it was in some way inferior to the FN (and I have a tough time buying the "forgot to bring a blank adapter" claim. I do not doubt the posters claim to have heard it - but rather the validity of it disqualifying a 'better' submission) SIG lost to Beretta in the XM9 trials. Means nothing. Politics decides who makes our guns these days, not which gun is better. How else would you explain the XM9 Hell, to be honest, I fully believe our goverment will never award another american arms maker a contract just to make sure no new military style rifles circumvent the import ban and reach civilian hands. All that said, this is the only rifle I'll be building next year www.colt.com/law/images/m4commando.jpg You're going to build an m4 with an auto-sear? Might wanna keep that on the down low....

I will never understand why people nitpick or take stuff like this seriously.