Have a SCAR 17 and a SR25? Step inside - Page 2

Armory » FN Herstal

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Have a SCAR 17 and a SR25? Step inside (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/28/2019 4:34:10 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:

It a 308 with a 1:12 twist. nobody in their right mind would configure a long range precision rifle with that caliber/twist combo.

View Quote

You seem to be ignorant to the sheer amount of manufactures who produced long range precision .308’s with 1-12 twists for years before 1-10 became the new hotness.

I don’t have a SCAR 17. But I have an FN SPR A3G with a 24” factory 1-12 twist .308 barrel.

I use it monthly in a local precision match shooting 1 MOA steel plates at 530, 740, 850, 920, and 1100 yards.

And I use 175 gr SMK’s almost exclusively. Last match I went 4/5 shots on the 1100 yard plate.

It’s the damndest thing. Watching and hearing the plate slap from a round that shouldn’t go that far, from a barrel that shouldn’t stabilize the round. Hum.....

Posted: 1/28/2019 3:45:21 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

You seem to be ignorant to the sheer amount of manufactures who produced long range precision .308’s with 1-12 twists for years before 1-10 became the new hotness.

I don’t have a SCAR 17. But I have an FN SPR A3G with a 24” factory 1-12 twist .308 barrel.

I use it monthly in a local precision match shooting 1 MOA steel plates at 530, 740, 850, 920, and 1100 yards.

And I use 175 gr SMK’s almost exclusively. Last match I went 4/5 shots on the 1100 yard plate.

It’s the damndest thing. Watching and hearing the plate slap from a round that shouldn’t go that far, from a barrel that shouldn’t stabilize the round. Hum.....

View Quote

Yeah back when 168’s were the gold standard. You’re apparently ignorant to the fact that it’s hit or miss if a 1/12 will stabilize a 175. Some will...others will with degraded accuracy...some won’t.

Posted: 1/28/2019 4:42:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yeah back when 168’s were the gold standard. You’re apparently ignorant to the fact that it’s hit or miss if a 1/12 will stabilize a 175. Some will...others will with degraded accuracy...some won’t.

View Quote

If there was any doubt as to whether 1:12 could handle the 175gr SMK then FN would have changed the twist rate. The MK20 was designed around using M118LR, which happens to use the 175gr SMK. 1:12 is perfectly fine.

Posted: 1/28/2019 5:14:43 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yeah back when 168’s were the gold standard. You’re apparently ignorant to the fact that it’s hit or miss if a 1/12 will stabilize a 175. Some will...others will with degraded accuracy...some won’t.

View Quote

What about a twist rate would make it hit or miss? Your telling me if you have 10 rifles with 1-12 twist barrels and you shoot 175’s out of each some will stabilize it and be accurate, others won’t and will throw out a shotgun pattern??

Posted: 1/28/2019 5:56:52 PM EDT

[#5]

When I was looking, it’s not about which rifle does what better. It’s more of what compromises each rifle makes.

In the end I went with SCAR and a bolt gun for even more accuracy. I get better of both instead of compromises.

Posted: 1/28/2019 8:49:56 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

If there was any doubt as to whether 1:12 could handle the 175gr SMK then FN would have changed the twist rate. The MK20 was designed around using M118LR, which happens to use the 175gr SMK. 1:12 is perfectly fine.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

If there was any doubt as to whether 1:12 could handle the 175gr SMK then FN would have changed the twist rate. The MK20 was designed around using M118LR, which happens to use the 175gr SMK. 1:12 is perfectly fine.

Quoted:

What about a twist rate would make it hit or miss? Your telling me if you have 10 rifles with 1-12 twist barrels and you shoot 175’s out of each some will stabilize it and be accurate, others won’t and will throw out a shotgun pattern??

You just answered the question why the MK20 was outdated before it was released. Fanboys gonna fanboy. You do realize that no two barrels are the same right? I have two Rem 700 SPS Varmints with 1/12 barrels. One gives oblong holes with 175’s at 100 and 300 yds. The other shoots them straight but not terribly accurate 1-1.25 MOA. That’s with a lot of tinkering with the loads to figure something better out. They both shoot 155 Palma’s very well (3/4 MOA or a little better...not bad for factory Remingtons). But I’m done wasting my breath...you can’t comprehend why folks would want a modern twist rate for modern bullets...and neither can FN apparently.

Posted: 1/28/2019 9:27:01 PM EDT

[#7]

I dont own either but have shot both a decent amount of times (friends have 1 of each).

To me, imo, both are 2 different types of rifles. That or maybe how they were set up. The KAC was set up with a nice 2 stage and a 6-24 optics. The scar was a red dot with 3x magnifier.

The KAC I felt it was "to easy" shooting steel at 200 yards and was ment more as a precision roll type of rifle. The scar I felt was ment more for steel at 50-100 yards with the red dot and more "hit the target" vs "hit this part of the target"

I guess if I wanted to shoot 308 ammo like it was 556 then I'd go scar. For me, 308 is more for precision work so I'd prefer the KAC.

Posted: 1/28/2019 10:21:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

You just answered the question why the MK20 was outdated before it was released. Fanboys gonna fanboy. You do realize that no two barrels are the same right? I have two Rem 700 SPS Varmints with 1/12 barrels. One gives oblong holes with 175’s at 100 and 300 yds. The other shoots them straight but not terribly accurate 1-1.25 MOA. That’s with a lot of tinkering with the loads to figure something better out. They both shoot 155 Palma’s very well (3/4 MOA or a little better...not bad for factory Remingtons). But I’m done wasting my breath...you can’t comprehend why folks would want a modern twist rate for modern bullets...and neither can FN apparently.

View Quote

So because your sample of two Remington 700 barrels don't work well with 175 SMKs, you're going to apply your unrelated experience to the SCAR? Do you have a 20S that doesn't shoot 175s well? Have you seen a 20S that doesn't shoot 175s well, and isn't attributable to the trigger puller? I'm genuinely asking.

Barrel to barrel differences are a real thing, and when it comes to twist rate on cut rifled or button rifled barrels there can be inconsistencies where the twist is less (or more) than what is specified. This is much less of a concern with hammer forged barrels, since every single one is using the same mandrel. And there's a lot more to an accurate barrel beyond the hammer forging, but this is a discussion of twist rate, afterall.

Posted: 1/28/2019 10:34:35 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

So because your sample of two Remington 700 barrels don't work well with 175 SMKs, you're going to apply your unrelated experience to the SCAR? Do you have a 20S that doesn't shoot 175s well? Have you seen a 20S that doesn't shoot 175s well, and isn't attributable to the trigger puller? I'm genuinely asking.

Barrel to barrel differences are a real thing, and when it comes to twist rate on cut rifled or button rifled barrels there can be inconsistencies where the twist is less (or more) than what is specified. This is much less of a concern with hammer forged barrels, since every single one is using the same mandrel. And there's a lot more to an accurate barrel beyond the hammer forging, but this is a discussion of twist rate, afterall.

View Quote

I just present facts. I don’t argue with rabid fanboys over said facts. And yes my SCAR shot 175’s like shit too. Head over to the PR forum and ask which 1/12 barrel is the best on the market for 175/178 gr and heavier bullets. Plenty of folks will help you get it straightened out.

Posted: 1/28/2019 11:20:04 PM EDT

[#10]

Wow this thread went off the deep end. The SCAR isn’t an ideal long range precision rifle. Of course it’s not. It’s a battle rifle, and a damn good one, that can also do more than it’s fair share of precision if necessary. FWIW I’ve owned two 1/12 and one 1/10 FN .308, and all three shot 175’s fine. I don’t know why that’s particularly relevant to discussion of battle rifles, or why there is so much discussion of 800-1000yd sub-MOA shooting.This debate is like arguing which 4-wheeler is ideal for the Daytona 500. Maybe next we can argue which carry gun is better based solely on their capabilities for silhouette shooting?

Posted: 1/28/2019 11:33:26 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
Wow this thread went off the deep end. The SCAR isn’t an ideal long range precision rifle. Of course it’s not. It’s a battle rifle, and a damn good one, that can also do more than it’s fair share of precision if necessary. FWIW I’ve owned two 1/12 and one 1/10 FN .308, and all three shot 175’s fine. I don’t know why that’s particularly relevant to discussion of battle rifles, or why there is so much discussion of 800-1000yd sub-MOA shooting.This debate is like arguing which 4-wheeler is ideal for the Daytona 500. Maybe next we can argue which carry gun is better based solely on their capabilities for silhouette shooting?

View Quote

Nobody is arguing that the SCAR is not a great battle rifle. But criticizing its shortcomings brings folks out of the woodwork to jump on anyone who does not help them reinforce the decision they made to buy X...Y...Z...whatever it may be. The SCAR is generally a 1.5-2 MOA battle rifle that’s more accurate and as reliable as the legacy trio (FAL/M14/G3)...that is compact and the lightest in its class...that cannot be suppressed without throwing the warranty out the window and needs rejetted/a low backpressure can to keep from breaking carriers...and needs a new trigger out of the box (17S anyways), and is hard on optics (not just cheap ones).

Posted: 1/29/2019 1:57:29 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
Wow this thread went off the deep end. The SCAR isn’t an ideal long range precision rifle. Of course it’s not. It’s a battle rifle, and a damn good one, that can also do more than it’s fair share of precision if necessary. FWIW I’ve owned two 1/12 and one 1/10 FN .308, and all three shot 175’s fine. I don’t know why that’s particularly relevant to discussion of battle rifles, or why there is so much discussion of 800-1000yd sub-MOA shooting.This debate is like arguing which 4-wheeler is ideal for the Daytona 500. Maybe next we can argue which carry gun is better based solely on their capabilities for silhouette shooting?

View Quote

I dont know, I have criticism of both KAC and FN. I owned Products from both companies. I dont think the ACC is worth what they go for, but gun for gun, they have far less short comings than the Scar. enjoy better factory and aftermarket support

I dont take anything away from Scars reliability, its a very reliable weapon, one of the reason that I originally bought mine, but come on even bushmaster was able to update the ACR's handguard to make it more shootable, Its available as a pistol, that are alternate calibers.

There are far too many quality AR18 based guns out there at the 3k price range to deal with a rifle that is just "Fine".

come on... A B&T APC 308, Available at the same price point as the SCAR 17, that has Factory Suppressors available, and takes Pmags. I see no reason to go FN over B&T.

Posted: 1/29/2019 9:16:56 AM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

I just present facts. I don’t argue with rabid fanboys over said facts. And yes my SCAR shot 175’s like shit too. Head over to the PR forum and ask which 1/12 barrel is the best on the market for 175/178 gr and heavier bullets. Plenty of folks will help you get it straightened out.

View Quote

Your default position is to call anyone that disagrees with you a fanboy. Now you're adding the 178 amax to your "argument," which is a longer bullet than the 175 smk. And finally, since you are unable to present any real facts/evidence or don't have any, you're telling us to go to the precision rifle forum and talk to other people.

Posted: 1/29/2019 9:43:32 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Nobody is arguing that the SCAR is not a great battle rifle. But criticizing its shortcomings brings folks out of the woodwork to jump on anyone who does not help them reinforce the decision they made to buy X...Y...Z...whatever it may be. The SCAR is generally a 1.5-2 MOA battle rifle that’s more accurate and as reliable as the legacy trio (FAL/M14/G3)...that is compact and the lightest in its class...that cannot be suppressed without throwing the warranty out the window and needs rejetted/a low backpressure can to keep from breaking carriers...and needs a new trigger out of the box (17S anyways), and is hard on optics (not just cheap ones).

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Wow this thread went off the deep end. The SCAR isn’t an ideal long range precision rifle. Of course it’s not. It’s a battle rifle, and a damn good one, that can also do more than it’s fair share of precision if necessary. FWIW I’ve owned two 1/12 and one 1/10 FN .308, and all three shot 175’s fine. I don’t know why that’s particularly relevant to discussion of battle rifles, or why there is so much discussion of 800-1000yd sub-MOA shooting.This debate is like arguing which 4-wheeler is ideal for the Daytona 500. Maybe next we can argue which carry gun is better based solely on their capabilities for silhouette shooting?

Nobody is arguing that the SCAR is not a great battle rifle. But criticizing its shortcomings brings folks out of the woodwork to jump on anyone who does not help them reinforce the decision they made to buy X...Y...Z...whatever it may be. The SCAR is generally a 1.5-2 MOA battle rifle that’s more accurate and as reliable as the legacy trio (FAL/M14/G3)...that is compact and the lightest in its class...that cannot be suppressed without throwing the warranty out the window and needs rejetted/a low backpressure can to keep from breaking carriers...and needs a new trigger out of the box (17S anyways), and is hard on optics (not just cheap ones).

I think several of these are exaggerations. It doesn’t need a new trigger, it’s a mil-spec trigger. But you don’t have to need it to want it, and mine does have the G. I don’t know what scopes it is/isn’t hard on, but my ACOGs always ran fine, and I’d expect my Elcan or other Trijicon optics would do fine as well. This is something I ALWAYS hear about, but rarely see. Dunno, if they eat optics; mine must never be hungry. I do wish FN were better about allowing for aftermarket alterations not messing with their warranty.

All the criticisms about it not being a 1k sub-MOA rifle are bizarre though. By that logic my Glocks are awful carry guns because they aren’t competitive in F-Class.

Posted: 1/29/2019 1:04:38 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

I think several of these are exaggerations. It doesn’t need a new trigger, it’s a mil-spec trigger. But you don’t have to need it to want it, and mine does have the G. I don’t know what scopes it is/isn’t hard on, but my ACOGs always ran fine, and I’d expect my Elcan or other Trijicon optics would do fine as well. This is something I ALWAYS hear about, but rarely see. Dunno, if they eat optics; mine must never be hungry. I do wish FN were better about allowing for aftermarket alterations not messing with their warranty.

All the criticisms about it not being a 1k sub-MOA rifle are bizarre though. By that logic my Glocks are awful carry guns because they aren’t competitive in F-Class.

View Quote

Go back and read the thread.... you’re confused.

Posted: 1/29/2019 1:37:50 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

Go back and read the thread.... you’re confused.

View Quote

There’s a difference between not understanding a criticism, and thinking the criticism is silly. You’re arguing it does poorly with 175’s (my two FN 1/12’s do them fine, though I’ve never tried pushing my 17 towards 1k, because that’s dumb) which are mostly used to push .308 to longer range, and arguing the specific decimal of MOA it achieves. I’m arguing both are largely irrelevant for what it is. I have a SCAR, but don’t really care to have much bias either way. I’m sure the KAC is nice and I hope to pick one up, as well as the LMT. I have zero experience with owning either.

Posted: 1/29/2019 6:31:58 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

There’s a difference between not understanding a criticism, and thinking the criticism is silly. You’re arguing it does poorly with 175’s (my two FN 1/12’s do them fine, though I’ve never tried pushing my 17 towards 1k, because that’s dumb) which are mostly used to push .308 to longer range, and arguing the specific decimal of MOA it achieves. I’m arguing both are largely irrelevant for what it is. I have a SCAR, but don’t really care to have much bias either way. I’m sure the KAC is nice and I hope to pick one up, as well as the LMT. I have zero experience with owning either.

View Quote

Again...you’re missing the point. Nowhere have I said it’s a bad battle rifle. In fact, I’ve previously stated it’s a great battle rifle...and that it’s just not a good DMR. We are on the same page there. But that criticism turned into claims from others of sub MOA 1000yd capable SCAR-17’s. Hence point out it’s flaws when shoehorned into that role...and some of those flaws that were corrected or carried over into the 20S. I don’t see the need for a dedicated battle rifle anymore...but that’s just my opinion at that point.

Posted: 1/29/2019 9:08:51 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

come on... A B&T APC 308, Available at the same price point as the SCAR 17, that has Factory Suppressors available, and takes Pmags. I see no reason to go FN over B&T.

View Quote

Isnt the 13" version of the APC308 over 10lbs?

Posted: 1/29/2019 11:49:53 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Isnt the 13" version of the APC308 over 10lbs?

View Quote

looks like the 18 inch barrel is 10.5lbs, and the 14 inch is around 8.6lbs, not bad, would like to see their plans for the rifle

Posted: 1/30/2019 8:40:40 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
looks like the 18 inch barrel is 10.5lbs, and the 14 inch is around 8.6lbs, not bad, would like to see their plans for the rifle

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Isnt the 13" version of the APC308 over 10lbs?

looks like the 18 inch barrel is 10.5lbs, and the 14 inch is around 8.6lbs, not bad, would like to see their plans for the rifle

Is the only difference 4” of barrel? Because if so those weights have to be off somewhere.

Posted: 1/30/2019 1:02:11 PM EDT

[#21]

Who knows, numbers could be off, 18 could be a dmr. 14 could be a light weight profile?

Time will tell

Posted: 1/30/2019 2:49:23 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
Who knows, numbers could be off, 18 could be a dmr. 14 could be a light weight profile?

Time will tell

View Quote

The DMR has a different stock which is a boat anchor.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Have a SCAR 17 and a SR25? Step inside (Page 2 of 2)

Armory » FN Herstal

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us