PDA

View Full Version : SCAR 17 discussion



Odin Bravo One
10-18-2012, 12:07 AM
My friend and I each bought one. His didn't run, and it took several months to get Larue's attention to fix it, which seemed very out of character for Larue. Then I read where ten LE guys from a dept showed up at a rifle course, and +/- 8 of them wouldn't run. I had just zeroed mine, but decided to sell it and buy a second H. These were early guns.

Should have been around for the early FNs......... But NDAs prevent any detailed discussion. Your H's are about Gen 7, if not later. Just saying, first Gen anythings rarely do what they were supposed to. Why I never buy a first model car, tv, gun, optic, or other high dollar item. I'll let someone else beta test on their dime.

ETA:

I have no issues endorsing the commercial H either. But in order to achieve any proficiency or accuracy advantage over something like a Pred, the user needs to put in the time to learn the quirks and subtle nuances to it, and understand some of its limitations. Many are unwilling to do that.

Alaskapopo
10-18-2012, 02:45 PM
Do the SCARs still have that reciprocating charging handle like the one that gave me a SCAR last October? Because that sucked hard. (Tore my left thumbnail down into the quick. Owie-stingie. :o )

Yes they still do but that is a self correcting problem. Its only gotten me once and now I know better. Seriously I agree in that I would prefer it be non recipicating but its not a deal killer for me. The only time I have to watch it is if I am shooting from sitting or kneeling where I bring my support hand back. I run my support hand about as far forward as I can reach when shooting off hand.
Pat

Alaskapopo
10-18-2012, 02:49 PM
I can add "try not to get operated on by a doc within his first...".

Seriously, Sean, if you have time a desire, I'd appreciate any insights on running SCAR. I've run my 16 through a number of training classes, and I ran my 17 through one class just like I ran the 16. I didn't do anything special with 17 other than trying to make it choke by putting a gas selector on suppressed setting. Once I realized it, it ran 100%. I think that stock trigger sucks for precision work, but that was pretty much my only complaint.

Get the Geisselle Super Scar trigger its a very worth while addition. Expensive but worth it.
Pat

Odin Bravo One
10-18-2012, 04:16 PM
I'll get something more comprehensive down in a day or two when I have my laptop and not just an iPhone.

As for the trigger, I can manage the factory trigger fine. But for that kind of money, it should come with something better. Pred came with a Geisselle. Still, the H is capable of sub MOA groups at 1k off the rack in "service grade" configuration. Also remember that it was conceived, designed, and built as a battle rifle...... That it has the kind of accuracy it does is a gift of quality engineering and construction......it wasn't until well into about Gen 6 or so that its application as a precision rifle was explored.

Alaskapopo
10-18-2012, 11:14 PM
Things were not always like this. I understand frustration of getting caught up in a shitty product, but still in this thread, SCAR reliability is touted as though they have always run like this out of the box. Not at all he case. Not even close. Fortunately, the domestic gun crowd had Uncle Sam foot the bill for the several YEARS of SCAR testing.

There is a big reason folks are still reluctant to carry them downrange. They sucked. Bad. For a long time.

They get high praise from Larry Vickers and others I have spoken to that have carried them. (SCAR) You're the first I have seen talk about reliablity issues with the SCAR. What kinds of things were going wrong? As for accuracy mine and the others I have seen are not sub moa guns even with match ammo. Most are 1.5 to 2 moa. Are you speaking about the precision rifle version of the SCAR with the heavier barrel thats not yet been released to the public.
Pat

YVK
10-18-2012, 11:19 PM
I'll get something more comprehensive down in a day or two when I have my laptop and not just an iPhone.


Thanks, I'd really appreciate it. SCAR came to civilian market without any particular knowledge base specific to it, any nuances would be great.

Odin Bravo One
10-19-2012, 01:55 AM
They get high praise from Larry Vickers and others I have spoken to that have carried them. (SCAR) You're the first I have seen talk about reliablity issues with the SCAR. What kinds of things were going wrong? As for accuracy mine and the others I have seen are not sub moa guns even with match ammo. Most are 1.5 to 2 moa. Are you speaking about the precision rifle version of the SCAR with the heavier barrel thats not yet been released to the public.
Pat

LAV is correct in that it is the most tested battle rifle in history. I started shooting the first batch in 2005. I can't do details regarding specific issues in those days due to NDAs still in effect. But the guns sucked. It does not surprise me in the least that Vickers likes it. Still, I would lay dollars to pesos that his opinion of it say circa 2006/2007 would be drastically different than it is today. Mine is. I would not have taken one if it came with a free BJ. I will confidently use and carry a 17 now, and did during my 2010-2011 Afghanistan tour. It was among the first to make it to the show, and one of very few that fared well during its initial combat action. They were pulled out of theater for a short time in 2011 due to issues, that were addressed, and returned to service overseas late 2011. But this is the gun Larry is fond of, not the first few generations of guns that suffered such a shitty start to life as a battle/service rifle.

What you have in the 17S is over 5 years and millions upon millions of rounds fired as the guns were shot, abused, broken (often), fixed, tweaked, design changes incorporated, magazine issues addresed, and end user input provided. It did not happen overnight, or even in the first few years. It wasn't until about 2009 that we started seeing progress in building reliable heavy's.

The accuracy of the SCAR was noted during testing of newly modifed guns in late 2008. It was then pondered if it could be built to a precision rifle standard of accuracy. In early 2009, the organization sponsoring the development of the system held a two week test of the Mk16 and Mk17 versus the Mk12 and Mk11 respectively. During this testing, both service grade, off the rack SCAR's roundly trounced the existing precision rifles they were competing against. I witnessed a 9.275" group fired from one thousand yards out of a Mk17, stock, no upgraded triggers, or anything else. Gun came out of the box, scope was mounted and off it went to the range.

It was from this testing that the Mk20 precision SCAR was developed. The accuracy was there before the "accurized" versions began to appear. I'm sure much of that went away as the gun started to become mass produced. Still, I get sub-MOA accuracy out to about 350 where it starts to open up to about 2.5 minutes from my gun shooting Mk316 long range ammunition. Federal Gold Medal Match can only do about 2 minutes out of most guns I have tried with it.

It see s as thought i might be giving the impression that i am anti-SCAR. I'm not. I like the SCAR and would grab one for serious work if it warranted a 7.62mm. But when it came time to spend my money I chose the Pred. I have a 16s, and have come to enjoy it and rely on it. But as I mentioned, I don't see a lot of people getting in to put in the time and effort to learn the gun. It is not an AR, and is not AR simple. It also required proprietary mags, and there is little factory support, spare parts, or aftermarket accessories. They also wreak havoc on optics and lasers not designed to withstand he recoil impulse/energy transfer to the receiver. Keeping all of that in mind........I chose the cheaper overall option, with spare parts available, a few choices of magazine makers, and not have to worry about which optic could handle the rifle.

Alaskapopo
10-19-2012, 05:43 AM
Thanks for the response Sean. A lot of good information in there. I would love to get my SCAR down to the level of accuracy you described. I was really thinking hard about the SCAR and the Predatober. I may get a Predatober in the future when funds allow as a precision semi/three gun rifle. That is unless I can get my SCAR to shoot like the ones you had in the end. Thanks again for your time.
Pat

Odin Bravo One
10-19-2012, 11:44 AM
Sean, as regards optics -- I have a H with a T1 and 3.5 ACOG, and another with a T1 and NF 1-4 (not both on, but use one optic at a time). Any sense how those optics will hold up on the H?

Sitting at DFW, so this will be short. I will start a "SCAR observations" topic when I get home tonight, or sometime this weekend that will hopefully be useful to some. I might even include pictures!

The only optic that might be suspect is the ACOG. I don't know when they beefed up their stuff, or what models, etc. I don't keep up with nomenclature so it is tough to say for sure. If it is recent manufacture, say within the last 2-3 years it will likely do just fine. The rest you mentioned are not cheaply made crap optics so they will not suffer the same indignity the junk optics did.

FWIW I ran a 1.5-5x20 Leupold Mk something or other for about 16 months on my first 17, and it didn't have any issues. It was not the super beefy Mil model, just a regular old Leupold. I'll address this issue in more detail later but for now......things NOT to put on your 17s are:

EOTech(which you shouldn't put an a serious gun anyway)
Bushnell/Tasco quality magnified optics.
Early Gen ACOGs
Early Gen Elcan SpectreDR
Lasers. I found that side mounting the laser did help to prolong the useful life, but these were MilSpec. The majority of commercially available lasers are not going to like being on the 17.

Ed L
10-19-2012, 05:16 PM
Sean,

Thanks for this info. I really appreciate it and am looking forward to your SCAR observations whenever you get a chance to do it.

I'd considered selling some guns that I don't shoot much to get a SCAR 17 but I can't really get excited enough about it or justify it--especially since almost all of my longarms shooting is done at a nearby 50 yard indoor range.

I'd also considered selling my Belgian 50.63 FN para to fund a SCAR 17 because that gun is too long for me and the SCAR's collapsable stock would make sense as well as the SCAR's easy ability to accept modern optics. But again, I can't get excited enough.

If I got the 17 I would probably replace the factory muzzle break with a flash hider, which might exacerbate recoil and optic issues. I remember firing a friend's civi SCAR 16 at an indoor range and the blast was obnoxious despite earplugs inside of earmuffs.



Sitting at DFW, so this will be short. I will start a "SCAR observations" topic when I get home tonight, or sometime this weekend that will hopefully be useful to some. I might even include pictures!

The only optic that might be suspect is the ACOG. I don't know when they beefed up their stuff, or what models, etc. I don't keep up with nomenclature so it is tough to say for sure. If it is recent manufacture, say within the last 2-3 years it will likely do just fine. The rest you mentioned are not cheaply made crap optics so they will not suffer the same indignity the junk optics did.

FWIW I ran a 1.5-5x20 Leupold Mk something or other for about 16 months on my first 17, and it didn't have any issues. It was not the super beefy Mil model, just a regular old Leupold. I'll address this issue in more detail later but for now......things NOT to put on your 17s are:

EOTech(which you shouldn't put an a serious gun anyway)
Bushnell/Tasco quality magnified optics.
Early Gen ACOGs
Early Gen Elcan SpectreDR
Lasers. I found that side mounting the laser did help to prolong the useful life, but these were MilSpec. The majority of commercially available lasers are not going to like being on the 17.

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2012, 04:03 PM
Here is something I jotted down a few years ago that is now available for more public consumption........I have omitted, added, or updated thoughts and opinions at points where appropriate.



SCAR-H look.

First, and most noticeable right off the bat is the color change from the Light. A MUCH better color on the Heavy than the atrocious gold colored anodizing on the Light. I don’t pay attention to what color is what in the latest tactical gear catalog, but I would guess it would be somewhere in the coyote brown/desert tan/flat dark earth realm. Much more useful than the original color scheme.

The handling and ergonomics are pretty much the same as the Light, since the receivers are pretty much the same, just bigger in area’s where necessary to accommodate the larger round. I elected to replace the folding stock with a fixed stock as I still just do not see the point of the folding stock. The fixed stock is much more solid, and the only thing different about it is that it doesn’t fold……..the ergonomics and cheek weld, etc are the same. (This has since changed, and the original folding stock is now back in place. I found out where it shines…….when you have to fit 20 pounds of shit into a 10 pound sack……chopping a good amount of length off the rifle helps it all fit).

Still, the folding stock sucks for shooting. They break on a regular basis, and fail often enough that I prefer to avoid them. I have that option. Last I checked, no one else seems to. For a gun I am paying that kind of money for, it should have a better stock.

The rifle, in general, has proven itself to be plenty capable of match grade accuracy, and the one I am using currently is no exception.

I elected for a 12” barrel used in conjunction with the AAC Suppressor. The AAC can is certainly not as compact or lightweight as others on the market, but since FNH jumped into bed with AAC for this project, it is what it is. Still, I am less than impressed with the Suppressor’s performance. My GemTech Sandstorm provides much better noise and flash reduction, is lighter, and shorter. The Sandstorm also lacks the 8 ports in the suppressor that spits flame 10” in each cardinal direction. Yeah, the AAC can does that. So bad it actually blasted a hole in my bunny ear sand bag that was just hanging out off to the side on the bench. I am quite sure there is a reason for these ports, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed sooner or later.

The latest generation suppressor is a SF, and the attachment method blows. I don't know why it doesn't get fixed right, but whatever. A quality flash hider/suppressor combo should be installed by the user, and don't reference what SOCOM is using as a guide. They sucked in this department.

Still, accuracy is there with and without the suppressor. Some stock, service grade SCAR rifles were tested against some purpose built AR type precision rifles by an organization several months ago, and they more than held their own in the accuracy department during that testing. Certainly the purpose built AR based rifles had better triggers by their very nature, but sub-MOA (True MOA definition) performance out to 1000 was the norm using Nightforce 5.5-22x50mm Mil-Dot scopes in LaRue mounts. As I said, I have seen 9.275" groups at 1000 yards. Not many bolt guns can claim that.

I have fired four different types of ammunition, ball, Mk312 or some shit like that special ball, M118 LR, and some barrier blind ammo. All functioned fine. Interesting note that M80 Ball, Mk whatever the hell it is, and M118LR all printed to the same POI at 50, 100, 200, and 300 yards. The barrier blind ammo shot a wee bit high (about 1.5” @ 100), but I had problems getting hits at further ranges on steel plates, indicating that the shift continues to increase as the distance does. Heavier bullets tend to shoot a little better, but the gun is capable of holding it's own against everything out there.

I elected to use a Leupold MR/T 1.5-5x20 with the German #4 reticle. The scope itself is fine, but Leupold rings for the 1913 rail could use some work. Even the “High” rings sit just a hair short. Makes me wonder what gun with an integral top 1913 rail are the Medium and Low rings for? I had originally gone with the medium rings from Leupold, but they were unacceptable. After acquiring the “High” rings and finding out that the guys at Leupold use a different measurement of “High” than the rest of the shooting world, I ended up with some Burris tactical rings, mainly because they were immediately available locally, and time was a factor. I have no complaints with the Burris rings, but they could be lighter, and less bulky. Whatever, they are much better than the prior two attempts at getting the scope properly mounted, and I am confident they will hold up just fine. (They have)

The eye relief on this set up is generous, but at close range (inside 50), even at 1.5x, it was tough to see what I needed to see, and I found/find myself waiting on the scope and crosshairs to settle a bit. Then I know I am behind the power curve and start rushing the shot. Not sure about anyone else, but I always do much better when I fumble fuck around, then rush the trigger press. Be that as it may, I attribute this to a training issue, and I am confident it will not be an issue after more repetitions. Still, for the up close work, I can’t think of anything the 1.5-5x does better than a quality RDS. Out beyond 50, which is really what the SCAR-H was designed and is currently being used for, it does quite well. Time is not nearly the same factor as it is when engaging hostile threats at bad breath distances so letting the scope settle, and pressing off well controlled shots feels a little more natural at the longer ranges. To me anyway. The 5x comes in handy for locating and PIDing targets without having so much glass that it becomes awkward, or impossible to engage at close range should it become necessary. I am not a big fan of piggy backing the Mini RDS’s onto more powerful glass, so this system, even with it’s shortcomings is still a better solution for me than the other options currently available.

One of the issues I have seen is that the recoil impulse is beating up the optics.. The SCAR-H recoil chews up EOTechs and spits them out like it is cool to do it. (Which it is, especially since EO’s are just plain crap) I did not have time or resources to mount any of my T-1’s to the H, and I no longer have any other RDS’s in the inventory, so the Leupold is what it has. So far, it has handled the recoil without zero shifting or any other issues.

The issue isn't "recoil", so switching to different brakes, or flash hiders does not help the issue with optics. It is recoil energy being transferred to the receiver, which is the bolt/BCG mass impacting, and transferring the energy to the receiver. Felt/Perceived recoil means nothing in this regard. Since this was originally written, I have logged probably close to 5k rounds with a T-1 as a CQ optic, and it does what it does, and well.

Still, support in the world for us mortals is not quite where I would like to see it, but I am kind of greedy like that. Just the same, I like the rifle. It fills a niche and has a purpose. If one has the need, or even the want, you can do a lot worse in a 7.62 caliber rifle, and you would be hard pressed to do better. There are certainly some high quality guns out there in 7.62, but at some point “better” becomes a relative term, and is mostly used to describe particular desirable features for a particular shooter or group.

For the record, I did not care for the SCAR family at first. It took a long time for me to come around. But the results speak for themselves, and you can’t argue with reliable, accurate, ergonomic, and familiar enough to minimize the time needed to become proficient in the manual of arms. I still don’t think the SCAR-L is a monumental enough improvement over the M4 to justify it’s replacement, but the SCAR-H fills a void in some organizations. That said, for those of us who do pay out of our pockets to own our guns, both SCAR variants will do what they were designed to do, do them well, and probably exceed a few expectations along the way.

Magazines and aftermarket support are a concern. Spare parts are tough to come by, and expensive. Magazines are tough to come by, and are expensive.

Hmmmm, I see a trend here.

Another is issue is aluminum vs. steel at some points, notably barrel screws stripping out. One would think that the fix for the barrel stripping issue should be widely available now. Then I stripped my barrel screws on my Light. The issue is the aluminum female end, and the steel screws. The aluminum has since been replaced by steel as a fix from FNH, but is not necessarily available to mere mortals. However, buyer beware.......it is unlikely that the steel fixtures have made it to the civilian guns, as barrel removal/installation is not supposed to be a user level maintenance piece on the 16/17S.

The side charging handle is a design feature that just plain pisses me off. There is no need for it, yet there it remains. As for being a "self correcting" problem, well.......it is, for those who hit their hand on it once. But there is shit in the real world that doesn't exist on the range. Shooting from underneath a car flat out sucks with the SCAR. If the handle doesn't hit the ground, the car, or your gear, you probably aren't hitting your intended target either. I semi-solved the issue by cutting it in half, and stippling it up with a soldering iron. Still, there exists a SCAR with a captured charging handle.

But we won't see it. Since I didn't sign an NDA regarding that tidbit of information, I'll spill the beans. It exists. And it solves the issues.

If I missed something, I will try to answer what I can. If I don't know, I'll just tell you I don't know.

Vinh
10-20-2012, 04:53 PM
Sean,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Ed L
10-20-2012, 05:59 PM
Thanks, Sean.

Your post was nothing short of amazing.

SteveB
10-21-2012, 07:46 AM
Great post, Sean, thanks. Not much to add here, except a couple of thoughts on optics for the 17s. After screwing around with a variety of combo optics, dots and variables, I settled on a Nightforce 1-4X with the FC-2 reticle, and a T-1. Even the best variable doesn't give you the FOV and speed of a T-1 up close. Recently got a Leupold VX-6 1-6X German #4 with red dot, which is great glass and is sitting on my .375. As good as it is, I still don't think it beats a T-1 for close stuff. I got a Larue LT-104 mount, put the NF on the rifle, and immediately tried to remove my thumbnail while charging the rifle. Nothing beats Larue mounts, but on the 17s, you need to reverse the mount so that the QD levers are on the opposite side of the rifle from the charging handle. Trust me on this.

JMS
10-22-2012, 09:54 AM
Nice to see somebody note that there's a difference between the recoil felt by the shooter, and that being applied to the system; related, but not the same thing. Swapping muzzle devices does precisely ZERO to alter the latter, which is what breaks optics/lasers.

Related SCAR Vignette, RE flipping a scope mount:

Guy That Should Know Better: "*BANG* What the hell....*BANG*...POS...*BANG*...dammit...*BANG*... .can't hit...*BANG*...$(*^&$^&!!!"

Me: "Hey, Special Needs, doesn't the LT158 have a 10MOA bias on it...?"

GTSKB: "... Oh, my god..." *facepalm*

:p

GJM
08-06-2022, 11:55 PM
Sorry to bring this up ten years later, but this seemed to be the thread to ask this question on the 17 and optics. The SCAR has the reputation of being hard on optics. Today I zeroed an Eotech EXPS on a 17, which I prefer shooting over the Aimpoint micro I had on.

Should an Eotech EXPS and magnifier hold up on a SCAR? If I wanted a LPV, would a Leupold Mark 6 1-6 be a good choice in terms of durability?

MandoWookie
08-07-2022, 05:41 AM
"Still, there exists a SCAR with a captured charging handle.

But we won't see it."


Well, it took them almost a decade, but they proved you wrong there.

Speaking of which, how much has the SCAR world changed in that same timeframe?

JMS
08-07-2022, 12:47 PM
“Should,” yes. Will…? Nah. They’re EOs are still EOs, still take more care and less impulse, suffer the same (if lesser) zero shifts described is the SOU message.

Within the Corps, use of the M27 is prevalent. Within the units that have and use EOs…they have 150% as many EOs as guns to put them on…and that ain’t SCARs.


I’d advocate the Leupy over that, though under significant use, that SCAR’ll eat that, too. Just not as fast.

Throughput-dependent, with those things.

ale
08-08-2022, 11:35 AM
Sorry to bring this up ten years later, but this seemed to be the thread to ask this question on the 17 and optics. The SCAR has the reputation of being hard on optics. Today I zeroed an Eotech EXPS on a 17, which I prefer shooting over the Aimpoint micro I had on.

Should an Eotech EXPS and magnifier hold up on a SCAR? If I wanted a LPV, would a Leupold Mark 6 1-6 be a good choice in terms of durability?


My Leupold mk 6 1-6 has been going strong on my 17 for 10 years and thousands of rounds. May need to replace barrel soon...

Make sure your optic mount can also handle a beating!


Ale

GJM
08-08-2022, 11:37 AM
Any thoughts as to whether the NRCH models will be easier on optics? I have never heard why the 16/17 is so hard on optics, just that they are.

ale
08-08-2022, 11:54 AM
I haven't upgraded to NRCH yet, but why SCAR 17 optics take such a beating is generally attributed to recoil impulse of the heavy mass of the carrier. I venture that the NRCH would not fix this problem unless it reduces the carrier impact to a significant degree.