Armory Sponsor
FN jacks up SCAR parts prices anywhere from 30%-500% (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By thirsty: 15 or even 10 years ago, FN wasn't this expensive. They were an awesome value. The FNP-45 Tactical, one of the first RDS-ready pistols, was what, $650? That's about $820 today. The FNX-45 today is $1200-1300 and guess what? There's little difference to justify such a markup. For whatever reason, FN has developed a really high sense of perceived worth for their products. I've really soured on them, which sucks because I'm really interested in the CC Edge. Just not for $1400. |
|
Originally Posted By dalyman72: It's all so tiresome. I was shooting a FA FAL today. Ya know what? FN knew how to make a non-recip gun many decades ago... It's not like some Belgians after Y2K all the sudden thought reciprocating handles were the second coming. Originally Posted By dalyman72: Originally Posted By Zeebz: Originally Posted By awd_xtc: That was a requirement by socom, i fail to see how fn is at fault for giving the customer what they asked for This. Can't blame FN for it. They were just trying to abide by the requirements in the contract they developed the rifle for. It's all so tiresome. I was shooting a FA FAL today. Ya know what? FN knew how to make a non-recip gun many decades ago... It's not like some Belgians after Y2K all the sudden thought reciprocating handles were the second coming. reading comprehension clearly isnt your strong suit |
|
Originally Posted By LowRez: reading comprehension clearly isnt your strong suit I don't think dalyman's reply to my comment was meant as an insult. I believe he was just piggybacking off our comments on FN adding the RCH as part of the SOCOM contract and adding on that it isn't like FN doesn't know how to make a gun with a NRCH since they did it with the FAL years ago. |
|
Saw this Belgium Like-New 17S for $2749.99 at Thornton, CO Cabelas yesterday: Attached File Probably make a good parts gun if anyone has $3k laying around. Bolt and barrel looked unfired. |
|
Originally Posted By PointBlank82: Saw this Belgium Like-New 17S for $2749.99 at Thornton, CO Cabelas yesterday: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/310106/20221217_140338_jpg-2639881.JPG Probably make a good parts gun if anyone has $3k laying around. Bolt and barrel looked unfired. Thew real crime in this pic is the glock 26 for $599 |
|
Originally Posted By Tengo1: Lol. I always enjoy the guys who spend 10 minutes writing out an entire 5 paragraph explanation of why their AR is so much better and why they would never buy a SCAR. Projection much  As a neutral observer, who stumbled into this thread, I’d say the interesting psychology is more on you since you responded instead of just moving on. Like someone who was unaffected by the post would have. What he said was technically true. You don’t have to justify buying a scar. If you like it, you like it. Just an observation. Not trying to insinuate or start anything. |
|
Originally Posted By Bosif347: The morons complaining about the reciprocating CH Scars that don't know SOCOM specifically asked for that in the original contract lmfao That doesn’t mean it’s a good design feature just because the muhlitary requested it. Plenty of examples of badly designed military gear out there. That reciprocating CH caused enough malfunctions that US Army Special Forces did not select the Mk16/SCAR-L after evaluation. |
|
Originally Posted By Apec: That doesn’t mean it’s a good design feature just because the muhlitary requested it. Plenty of examples of badly designed military gear out there. That reciprocating CH caused enough malfunctions that US Army Special Forces did not select the Mk16/SCAR-L after evaluation. There’s a YouTube video where a retired SF armorer who was on the team that evaluated the SCAR-L for SOCOM goes over the various issues and reasons it was not selected for full adoption. I’m about 90% sure the reciprocating charging handle was not one of them. |
|
Originally Posted By Tengo1: There’s a YouTube video where a retired SF armorer who was on the team that evaluated the SCAR-L for SOCOM goes over the various issues and reasons it was not selected for full adoption. I’m about 90% sure the reciprocating charging handle was not one of them. Originally Posted By Tengo1: Originally Posted By Apec: That doesn’t mean it’s a good design feature just because the muhlitary requested it. Plenty of examples of badly designed military gear out there. That reciprocating CH caused enough malfunctions that US Army Special Forces did not select the Mk16/SCAR-L after evaluation. There’s a YouTube video where a retired SF armorer who was on the team that evaluated the SCAR-L for SOCOM goes over the various issues and reasons it was not selected for full adoption. I’m about 90% sure the reciprocating charging handle was not one of them. I think @Stuka87 is his username. Video below. He’s got some really good content.  Why the SCAR in 5.56 (MK16) was not adopted by U.S. Special Forces to replace the M4A1. |
FN jacks up SCAR parts prices anywhere from 30%-500% (Page 2 of 2)
Armory Sponsor