SCAR-Heavy 7.62mm accuracy?


PDA






Taz
November 16, 2010, 02:50 PM
Does anyone know what kind of groups this rifle gets at 100yds.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCAR-Heavy 7.62mm accuracy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Taz
November 16, 2010, 03:18 PM
I ask because i'm in the market for a 308, I was set on a SA58 fal para carbine until I saw they average 3-4 moa at 100yds. The scar-h is looking more appealing.

nwilliams
November 16, 2010, 03:27 PM
Well since the SCAR-H hasn't hit the civilian market yet I doubt you're going to find a lot of first hand experience from people here unless they have used the military version.

I have the SCAR-16s and it is an extremely accurate rifle so I would imagine that the SCAR-17s will be very accurate as well.

Zombiphobia
November 16, 2010, 03:30 PM
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/scar.htm

you gotta read down a few paragraphs, but they detail the kind of accuracy it's designed for

Al Thompson
November 16, 2010, 03:31 PM
Taz, no direct experience, but the guys at the FN plant (retired military types) really like the SCAR-H. One of my friends had the chance to shoot one and was impressed.

Big issue is going to be magazines. The mag well is too tight for a Pmag, so apparently it will be factory only. That can get pricey quick. :(

Jaws
November 16, 2010, 03:41 PM
The SCAR 17S is already on the market for a while and there are few posts on other forums with some nice groups.

I saw this one on FN forum few days ago and i was :what: :

Zamo,
I wouldn't worry about the barrel life/platform life either. FN seems to have surely done there homework on this one. Speaking of S. African ammo, shot a box weekend before last while working on other stuff. BIL ( 2nd pic) shot a nice 10 shot group @ 2 o'clock. Last 5 rounds I interceded with advice to hold the IOR dot just under the x-dot. Produced this 5 shot group 1.158 center to center, 200 yrds off the rest. Ammo was SA BO7/81 lot 018.
http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL648/2542733/23384037/393331419.jpg
http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL648/2542733/23384037/393331997.jpg

Taz
November 16, 2010, 03:44 PM
I think the SCAR-17s was the one I was looking at (got confused) how accurate is your 17s.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 03:45 PM
Thanks for the pics looks great.

Jaws
November 16, 2010, 03:47 PM
Here's another one from FN forum:

She's plenty accurate for a carbine.

Shot prone, off a bipod with a 3x9 Leupold at 100 yds with my loads. This was the best group of the of the 30 min I spent sighting her in. Most were just a tad bigger.

I am pretty sure I pulled that fifth one up on the top left too. Without it it would be a 4 shot .553 moa group.

Loads are for my SR25: 168gr Nosler CC HPBT with federal brass.

Given the 17S barrel twist, she might shoot even better with 175gr bullets.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3724/17ssf.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/17ssf.jpg/)


PS:I do not own one. I'm in Canada. US State Department is refusing to isue export permits for the SCAR and I don't know if I'll ever get to buy one.:banghead:

Gelgoog
November 16, 2010, 04:12 PM
I want a Scar-17s, but even more so I want the accurzied SCAR-H they are coming out with.

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/wp-content/uploads/iblog/SCAR%20sniper%20support%20rifle.jpg

SpeedAKL
November 16, 2010, 05:59 PM
Gunblast.com recently tested it with various ammo loads and generally found 0.6-0.8 MOA accuracy. This is very impressive for a autoloading rifle designed for combat conditions.

JDMorris
November 16, 2010, 06:03 PM
expect 1 inch.
Do you know how good YOU group at 100 yards? because I see sub minute and most people cannot shoot that without practice.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 06:22 PM
The results I've heard of from this rifles accuracy are awesome, I do like the sa58 para but it seems it cant hold a candle to the scar in accuracy.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 06:27 PM
Any opinions in all around performance between the SCAR 17s and SA58 para tactical carbine for cqc.

GunTech
November 16, 2010, 07:17 PM
FALs are not known for their precision. Have you considered the AR-10 platform? For the price of a SCAR-17S (~$3300) you could have an AR-10 SASS and have money for a really nice optic. The latter can deliver outstanding accuracy - right up there with many precision bolt guns. Who knows what the MSRP on the SCAR-17H is going to be, but probably several hundred more than the 'S' model.

Jaws
November 16, 2010, 08:03 PM
I've seen quite a few people get The 17S at at $2500 and few even lower that that. I heared the MRSP is just $200 over the price of 16S. I'd do some digging, or wait for February-March when the next big batch comes in.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 08:12 PM
I already have a DPMS 308 SASS, its just a little heavy for quick on the move target acquisition, I would like a light 308 with folding stock for home defense (no neighbors), with some what of accuracy in the field better than 3-4 moa.

JDMorris
November 16, 2010, 08:16 PM
for what you are asking a 6.8 spc or 300BLK in an AR platform would work. Carbine length, light, and an aimpoint, you gould get virtually ANY ar with a great optic for less than the EFN expensive scar.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 08:21 PM
I would like to stay with 308, I have an Eotech 552XR308 BDC that isn't cutting it for my SASS, I would like to put on a light 308.

GunTech
November 16, 2010, 08:55 PM
Wow, people are already recommending 300 Blackout. That's some serious marketing considering how long this round has been out.

The OP specifically asked about the SCAR-17H. Yes, there are advertised 17S for $2500 but not in stock. The dealers that have the in stock are charging MSRP or more.

GunTech
November 16, 2010, 09:05 PM
Assuming you've ruled out an AR-10 carbine, there are a variety of stocks available for the M1A and other clones. You should be able to get 2 MOA out of a properly bedded and set up Scout.

Sage, Vltor, CM Manufacturing, Troy. Of course most of these are actually telescoping.

Not arguing against the SCAR, but there are many options.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 09:32 PM
The M1A scout/carbine is a great rifle, and it would suit most me needs, I was just leaning more towards a fal style left side charging, folding stock.

henschman
November 16, 2010, 09:42 PM
While I'm not a big fan of the short-barreled 7.62s (you are cutting the balls off that round if you ask me), I realize that there are different strokes for different folks, and I thought I might give you some other ideas for rifles you may not have thought of.

For one, you might look at the M1A platform. Springfield Armory, Inc. makes a Scout Squad with an 18" barrel and a SOCOM with a 16" barrel. Prices are around $1400-1600 new if you shop around. Both of those models come with a forward "scout" rail that is perfect to slap an EOTech on. If you have to have a pistol grip stock, you can get an Vltor, Sage, or Troy stock for it, and it would still be cheaper than a SCAR, in a more tried and true platform - and would look just as cool, if you care. Typical accuracy is under 2 MOA. Springfield makes a pretty high quality product with a lifetime warranty, but if you want a higher-end M-14 type rifle, look at Fulton Armory, LRB Arms, or 7.62mm Firearms.

I would also take a second look at the .308 ARs. Yes, the heavy-barreled ones are, well, heavy -- but they make some 16" barreled ones with basically an M-4 profile barrel that is a lot lighter than your SASS. Rock River Arms and DPMS make the lower end ones, Armalite makes an OK one, and LaRue and LMT make higher end ones. Typical accuracy on all of the above would be 1 MOA or less.

Oh, and how could I forget the new Kel Tec RFB? It is a really innovative rifle. It is a bullpup 7.62 with an 18" barrel that is actually shorter overall than an M-4 carbine with the stock fully collapsed, and it actually doesn't weigh too much more, either. It has a flat-top rail that would be ideal for an EOTech. If you're looking for something that would handle well in close quarters, this would be by far the best of all the 7.62 rifles, because of the bullpup layout. Initial reports are pretty good... they are apparently a lot higher quality product than some of Kel Tec's other firearms like the SU-16 and the SUB-2000. They are fairly new and hard to find, but there are always several for sale on the online auction sites. $1800 would probably snag you one. They take FAL mags. Also, they have an adjustable gas regulator, which is cool if you plan on getting a suppressor or shooting some high-power loads out of it. Accuracy should be under 2 MOA.

If I wanted to buy one of the new "novelty" short barreled 7.62s, I would go with the RFB in a heartbeat over the SCAR. Less money for a cooler, more useful rifle. I will be all over one as soon as they come out with the 24" barreled "sporter" model.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 10:24 PM
I had been looking at the Kel Tec RFBs but like you mentioned I was concerned about KT quality, I have a 1975 AK and used to have a bushmaster m-17 found the reliability of the bullpup trigger sluggish & drawn out and traded it. I love the idea of having a 308 bullpup quality provided, I will probably take a closer look and review response to rfbs trigger pull/reliability.

Jaws
November 16, 2010, 10:30 PM
Is funny, so many people tell O.P. to get an M1A or an Ar10, while the question was not "what .308 rifle" , but "accuracy of the SCAR17S".

You can't find anything out there in .308 to matches the package the Heavy SCAR offers.
-Is exteremely light for a .308,
- well ballanced
-mild recoil
- accurate,
- very reliable,
- heavilly tested in all kind of conditions, including combat
- ergonomic,
- a lot of rail space at just under 8lbs, etc.
-made by a company that makes serious combat weapons for over 100 years

The 17s really hard to beat.

Girodin
November 16, 2010, 10:54 PM
I'm excited about the 17s. I looked at the SCAR in 5.56 but it didn't seem to offer enough advantage over my Noveske to make it worth it to me to purchase at the price it was going for.

The 17s however stacks up very favorably IMHO against the competition in .308. I see a reason to go to the SCAR over the competition. Also if more barrels become available that will be cool. I'd love a .260 rem.

All the FN guns I have bought or used have been top notch as well.

I had been looking at the Kel Tec RFBs but like you mentioned I was concerned about KT quality

The RFB on paper is a cool gun. Unfortunately finding one is next to impossible and there have been an astonishingly high number of reports of problems give the scant number of guns in end users hands and the amount of time KT took bringing this thing to market.

I'd like an RFB, I really wish someone else was making it.

I have KTs and I have FNs there is a world of difference in the build quality (and to be fair the price). People say the RFB is nice than your average KT and it should be since it is so much more expensive. Sadly besides unavailability it seems to have a lot of teething issues. Once they really crank up production I'd probably wait a while for the RFB to become more proven. There is also no chance I would pay $1800 for one.

Taz
November 16, 2010, 11:21 PM
Well put, reliability of a newer product is not something you want to gamble on first hand, I would like to have a rfb but not before I get a proven sub moa cqc rifle. Price aside I dont think I will find anything more suitable for me than the scar. Nothing against the m1a I just want a scar.

GunTech
November 17, 2010, 12:20 AM
Jaws, could you give more background on your experience with this rifle? I've got a more than a few thousand with from M1As, AR-10s, FALs and even the SCAR-16 recently. I have not held or fired the 17. I have not seen it at any 3 gun or sniper matches. Would love to have an evaluation from someone with actual trigger time.

Jaws
November 17, 2010, 01:45 AM
I posted this earlier in this thread:

"PS:I do not own one. I'm in Canada. US State Department is refusing to isue export permits for the SCAR and I don't know if I'll ever get to buy one."
So no. I don't have experience with the SCAR17s.:(

I just read quite a few impressions of owners and millitary users here and there.
I'm not sure i can post links here to other forums and sites. I've seen some interesting things posted by first hand users.

If mods think is not ok to post links to other gun boards, apologise. Please remove them.

Here' are few on the 17:

17S owner:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=64127

17S owner:

http://home.comcast.net/~gunspotz/scar17s.htm

Here's a .pdf with a nice article from "ethos magazine " about the mil versions."

http://www.mediafire.com/file/6fjrvjgz88jh4mc/ethos-magazine-issue-10.pdf

This one is very interesting. MK17 user's impressions after a tour in Afghanistan:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=64988

And this one is a must read. Some technical tests on the SCAR16s, AR15's and AK. (FLIR heat testing, rof testing and other really cool stuf. Not the type of info you can get from just shooting the rifle, orreading a gun magazine):

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889

Things like this:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q153/hootiewho6933/Scar/IR_0576.jpg
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q153/hootiewho6933/Scar/SCARNorNcan1.jpg

GunTech
November 17, 2010, 08:51 AM
Great links. Thanks.

SpeedAKL
November 17, 2010, 11:08 AM
I can understand being suspicious of a relatively new-to-market weapon. Having said that, the heavy skepticism over the SCAR is silly. This is a weapon currently forward-deployed by USSOCOM that underwent a rigorous multi-year testing program prior to adoption. While reports from the field are limited, the troops seem to be very enthusiastic about the SCAR-H. Guys on M4Carbine who have either used the gun or know people who have used it in the field all have great things to say. Yeah it's really expensive; the question is, are you willing to pay the extra $$$ for it's rather unique combination of qualities?

henschman
November 17, 2010, 03:07 PM
The SCAR design definitely has potential. I like the reliable gas piston operation and the potential for light weight. The stock design seems pretty neat, with adjustable LOP and cheek height, though I could take or leave the side folding function.

However, I do not like the length of the handguard and the sight radius.

The 20" barreled one (which is the only one I'd be interested in for a battle rifle) looks especially ridiculous with that short 7" handguard on that long old barrel.

I had some hopes for the SCAR-H SSR, which is a 20" barreled SCAR with a longer handguard and fixed stock (a pic of which is posted earlier in this thread), but as per FN's website, it weighs over 11 pounds. This is too much for a battle rifle. I don't know what they put on that thing to make it so much heavier than the other SCARs, but that weight figure is a deal breaker for me.

For me, the whole point is to have a rifle that is every bit the battle rifle the M-14 is, but with better ergonomics, a drop-free mag, and better accuracy, all while weighing as much or less. You'd think it would be easily doable with modern technology... however, I haven't seen it yet. I've seen 7.62s that are as light and more accurate, but not with a reliable gas piston system (like the AR-10 variants). I've seen 7.62s that have a reliable gas piston system and better accuracy, but are too heavy (Like the LaRue OBR and LWRC REPR). And I've seen 7.62s that are as light or lighter, with better accuracy, but with a barrel length that cuts the balls off of the 7.62x51 for long range shooting and have too short of a sight radius (like the SCAR-H with the 16" barrel).

An M-14 with a 22" barrel weighs 9.3 lbs., and it's action is made of solid steel for crying out loud. How hard should it be to build a 7.62 with that same barrel length and sight radius that is at least that light, using a frickin aluminum receiver? I think the SCAR design has the potential to meet that goal, but they haven't done it yet. My billfold and I are patiently waiting.

I guess for now I'll just keep on "making do" with my "old and outdated" M1A. :D

Jaws
November 17, 2010, 04:02 PM
The rail lenght is not a problem anymore :):

http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=244&idcategory=4

http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/catalog/PWS_SRX_Blk_L_05.jpg

http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=XBTSCAR2

https://www.aimsurplus.com/EOS/images/product/xbtscar2e.jpg

henschman
November 17, 2010, 09:16 PM
It doesn't get the front sight out any farther, though.

I wish they would make a version with the SSR-length handguards on a light-profile 20" barrel. I could get down with something like that. I bet they put a big honking heavy barrel on that SSR, and that's what makes it so heavy.

I also wish they went with a more modular handguard, so you could put short sections of rail only when and where you need them... kind of like a Troy TRX Extreme or VTAC Extreme or MI-SS handguard for the AR. I don't like how the FN has a rail all the way down the bottom of it. It looks like it might be removeable, but then it's a take it or leave it kind of deal. I guess the SCAR was designed before the modular handguard trend really hit with ARs... and probably before the whole forward grip technique really became widely used.

I also wish they would do sort of an AK-style front sight, attached to the barrel, way out on the end.

taliv
November 17, 2010, 10:21 PM
(fyi, posting links to other forums is just fine. I link to m4c all the time. THR is here to promote the firearms community, not the other way around.)

If you enjoyed reading about "SCAR-Heavy 7.62mm accuracy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!