Are the SCARs any good - They look very nice


January 8, 2011, 02:32 PM
I am waiting for my AR to come in, but I have seen the SCAR's and they look realty neat. Does anyone have one?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are the SCARs any good - They look very nice" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Cal-gun Fan
January 8, 2011, 02:43 PM
Ahh, right section now!

They're very good, somewhat overpriced rifles IMO.

In a .223 platform, Id rather have an AR. In a 7.62 platform, Id probably still rather have an AR or an M1a

January 8, 2011, 05:20 PM
They are good enough to be adopted by US SOCOM.

Yo Mama
January 8, 2011, 05:23 PM
They look ugly as hell, but function does not translate to beauty.

January 8, 2011, 05:24 PM
The "Call of Duty" crowd love them :D........But seriously I saw Larry Vickers show "Tactical Impact" where he went through the 5.56 and 7.62 versions. Refered to as the SCAR light and SCAR heavy. I was fairly impressed.

Cal-gun Fan
January 8, 2011, 05:27 PM
They are good enough to be adopted by US SOCOM.
Yeah, but they get good pricing on them and could actually USE the advantages and features :P

January 8, 2011, 06:05 PM
i've got a whole bunch of them. 223's and .308s. they are extremely well balanced weapons and very accurate rifles.

January 8, 2011, 11:07 PM
Yes they are quite good, I doubt a civilian could hurt one through any kind of range/gun class use. Like modern super cars their are very few places where you can really push one to its limits. In the Scar's case that would be combat, in pretty tough conditions.

I would put the FN Scar up against any top of the line AR any day of the week.

January 8, 2011, 11:18 PM
Tod, the man who sells my Dad and I our more "tactical" guns, said that one of his Spec-Ops buddies had his SCAR's stock break off when he landed from parachuting, it broke in his ruck...
I have handled a couple, and the SCAR-17 feels alot more solid than the 16.. but it might just be my prejudice<--SP? to the .308 round.

January 9, 2011, 12:18 AM
This threads are must read if you are remotely interested in SCAR:

Very detailed technical review:

Operator's impressions after a tour with Mk17:

Have fun. :)

January 9, 2011, 12:26 AM
i've got a whole bunch of them. 223's and .308s. they are extremely well balanced weapons and very accurate rifles.

prefetch, you must be a rich man.

The SCAR is very lightweight and well balanced, I like them, though I find the stock to be ugly. But most users will never need what the SCAR offers over the AR-15 and thus are better served buying an AR-15 and using the money saved on ammo and training. Don't take that as me saying not to waste your money, I want a 7.62mm SCAR-17S really bad myself and there is nothing wrong with buying what you want

January 9, 2011, 09:10 AM
It's interesting that the SCAR has a folding stock precisely to reduce overall length for packing in a ruck or vehicle transport, and that someone jumping in an AO broke their's.

It wasn't folded? Maybe.

SOCOM's search and collaboration with FN to develope the SCAR is well known. Once up and tested, SOCOM cancelled any further purchases of the SCAR -L in 5.56 because 1) it doesn't do anything better than the M4, 2) they already get the M4 for free.

As of now, they only buy SCAR - H in 7.62, not a bad idea as there are almost NO 7.62 NATO rifles available NEW from a major arms maker.

The SCAR does some things a little better than the M4, uses the same mags, ammo, control layout, optics, etc. The reversible charging handle is about it, tho. As said by them, it doesn't do anything better, and that is measured in guidelines the civilian shooter doesn't consider.

Hit probablility. Gov't specs are 2MOA, not 1/4 MOA. Match grade accuracy isn't needed, what is needed is more hits, and the operator is either good enough or not. At the skill level SOCOM shooters work at, they are equally good with the M4 or SCAR.

The SCAR sure looks cool, none of the fanboys can point to one thing that makes it improve hit probability. It just puts bullets down a barrel like all other guns. The target could care less, anymore than a fish knows what rod and reel is on the other end of the line.

Don't expect even an incremental increase in hit probability because it just doesn't do that.

January 9, 2011, 04:39 PM
Below is my analysis of the SCAR posted last summer on another site. In summary, it is a fine rifle, but it is not worth $1000 more than an AR.

Initial impressions
+ I don't know what I was thinking when I first saw it at the NRA show 2 years ago...this rifle is trim
+ Feels lighter than my ARs...maybe it is a center of gravity thing
+ Light and handy
+ Controls are all familiar to any AR shooter - most are was stupid, however, for SOCOM to specify the same stupid ping pong paddle bolt release of the AR though. Ambi selector is nice but needs to be longer. Since replaced with a Magpul lever.
+ Reciprocating charge handle doesn't bother me but its placement is poor...hand hits my optics all the time. Have since replaced with an angled charging handle.
+ The adjustable cheek piece is nice...really well placed. Feels flimsy but so not sure how it would stand up to long term use.
+ Folding stock is a huge plus...seems well made but I think the early ones had a cracking issue at the hinge
+ Trigger is similar to a stock AR but less creep and crisp let off...I'd say 6 lbs or so
+ BUIS sights are well made and positive
+ Field stripping is much different than an AR but very straightforward


I snuck out of work to see if the SCAR was really more controllable than an AR as I've heard the internet commandos say. I haven't really been able to wring the SCAR out as right after I got it, I've been travelling internationally for work a lot. The one time I got to shoot it, it certainly didn't feel that much different than my AR.

As you can see, I'm no high-speed-low-drag operator...just a regular guy shooter. In fact, from the size of my jeans, you can see I'm fairly high drag. Also, for Michigan, it is HOT today...90 deg and 90% humidity. I know that doesn't seem like much to you Southern boys but remember, we break out the shorts and t-shirts here when it gets above 45 degrees.

Take a look at the videos. I haven't edited them to get a back to back comparison. The basic test was...start loaded round in chamber, 3 in mag, safety on. Fire 2 hammer pairs, reload, 2 hammer pairs. Here's what I learned:

The SCAR didn't "feel" more fact, just the opposite. Not sure if that is familiarity or just the big bolt carrier slamming back and forth
The AR felt easier to fire hammer pairs but I think that is driven mostly by the trigger...I've got a RRA 2 stage match trigger in it
The SCAR actually kept a much tighter group. I was very surprised by this so I repeatered the test several times...sure enough, my shots were much more tightly clustered. At this range (7 yards) I think that is nothing to do with accuracy. Probably more driven by the PWS comp on the SCAR and the piston system
The unofficial time on my stopwatch is pretty equal between the SCAR and AR...but the SCAR seems slower
Which do I like best? Don't know yet...I'm not selling my ARs anytime soon

SCAR video (

AR video (


You also might want to consider the Robinson Arms XCR-L. I just got one and am quite impressed.

+ Superior ergonomics to an AR or a SCAR (I own multiple ARs and a SCAR)
+ Rugged construction
+ I have the lightweight barrel and the handling qualities are excellent. Some say the XCR is too heavy...not an issue with the LW barrel
+ Superior charging handle (FAL-like) and bolt release placement
+ Simple AK long stroke piston and 3 lug bolt
+ Folding stock is the cat's meow
+ Shooting characteristics...very smooth, low recoil. Less than the SCAR even though the SCAR has a PWS brake

If you enjoyed reading about "Are the SCARs any good - They look very nice" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!