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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by GJM
