SCAR 17 discussion

[Odin Bravo One]

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]

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. )

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.