DSA FAL vs SCAR 17S

[army-ranger]

DSA FAL vs SCAR 17S

Which one is :
1- more accurate ?
2- more reliable ?
3- has less recoil ?
4- faster fallow up shot ?
5- lighter ?
6- more ergonomic ?
7- faster and easier to clean ?
8- more durable ?

Thank you in advance

 

[gunnutery]

I must warn you that I've only had very limited experience with an FAL (though it's on my list).

Personally, for what the SCAR brings to the civilian market (which isn't a whole lot over other platforms), I'd rather have an FAL and save a bunch of money. For some people money isn't really an issue, but it's a major factor in my firearms budget.

I think the only real difference between the two rifles is that the SCAR has ambi controls and has an adjustable and foldable stock. None of which is a big seller for me. Comparing it that way does make it look a little more versitile, but when you compare it to an AR10, the SCAR hasn't really brought anything new to the market. The best feature of the SCAR, it's quick change barrel to multiple barrel lengths, is lost on the civilian market (or some of it due to states that don't allow SBRs, mine included ). Again, comparing the SCAR to ARs, people can change out AR uppers to different barrel lengths also for a lot less money.

Sorry to be a downer, as well as not answer any of your questions, but those are my outsider opinions based on my observations. Welcome to THR by the way.

 

[RatDrall]

I believe you mean the Scar H, the .308 version?

The SCAR H, in .308, is lightweight and recoils like an AK which is minimal. The only problem with it is the expensive magazines, but if you can afford $3000 for a rifle you can probably afford $40 magazines.

The Scar H is the future of battle rifles.

 

[Quiet]

DSA FAL vs SCAR 17S

Which one is :
1- more accurate ?
2- more reliable ?
3- has less recoil ?
4- faster fallow up shot ?
5- lighter ?
6- more ergonomic ?
7- faster and easier to clean ?
8- more durable ?

Thank you in advance

IMO...
1. FN SCAR-17S
2. both
3. (depends on the muzzle attachment)
4. (depends on the muzzle attachment)
5. FN SCAR-17S
6. FN SCAR-17S
7. FN SCAR-17S
8. both

FAL magazines are less expensive than SCAR-H magazines. ($20 v $40)

 

[Ar180shooter]

You could also have 2 FAL's for the same price as the SCAR, or 1 FAL, optics, extra mags and a ton of ammo. Just saying...

 

[TurtlePhish]

You could also have 2 FAL's for the same price as the SCAR, or 1 FAL, optics, extra mags and a ton of ammo. Just saying...

+1 to this. You'll probably have a lot more fun with the FAL and all the extras you could get on the same budget. Plus, FALs have history, which is cool.

 

[Ar180shooter]

IMO...
1. FN SCAR-17S
2. both
3. (depends on the muzzle attachment)
4. (depends on the muzzle attachment)
5. FN SCAR-17S
6. FN SCAR-17S
7. FN SCAR-17S
8. both

FAL magazines are less expensive than SCAR-H magazines. ($20 v $40)

SCAR-H lighter? Slightly, but not significantly. With 16" barrel lengths, both rifles are around 8 lbs (7.9 for the SCAR-H and 8.3 for the FAL).

Faster and easier to clean? The SCAR may with this one by a hair, but not much more. The FAL was designed to be easy to field strip and maintain, and the only tools you need are your hands and a .308 cartridge.

 

[Inebriated]

1- SCAR
2- Both are going to run all day
3- FAL has less felt recoil for me, but depends on the muzzle attachment
4- Refer to #3
5- SCAR
6- SCAR
7- Both are equally easy to clean
8- FAL is more robust

 

[saskcop]

I have trained on a FAL and carried one while I was in and it is the ultimate battle rifle - over 90 countries thought so. I would go with the FAL, optics, mags and ammo over any other choice.

 

[12gaugeTim]

Faster and easier to clean? The SCAR may with this one by a hair, but not much more. The FAL was designed to be easy to field strip and maintain, and the only tools you need are your hands and a .308 cartridge.

From what I've heard, even if the FAL is easier to clean, it will be a non-issue with the SCAR 17s, which has a reputation for being one of the cleanest operating rifles in the world.

 

[Girodin]

I'd rather have an FAL and save a bunch of money. For some people money isn't really an issue, but it's a major factor in my firearms budget.

When you are talking about a FAL that has some of the same features, railed top cover, railed hand guard, and folding stock, the price difference is not that big.

it is the ultimate battle rifle - over 90 countries thought so.

Of course they adopted the FAL, which is a great rifle, at a time when the SCAR 17s didn't exist.

A FAL does not have and edge over the SCAR in any of the OP's categories. I would agree for the most part with the assements given above. I do think that while the FAL is a very reliable the weapon the SCAR does still hold an edge. The biggest differences are going to be in accuracy, weight, and ergos.

The FAL is a great gun, but IMHO the SCAR 17s is a better, but more expensive one. Look at what Larry Vickers, a HUGE FAL fan has had to say about the SCAR 17s.

 

[valnar]

The newer SCAR 17S is a better rifle in every way except cost. So if you can afford it, get it.

 

[HorseSoldier]

What was said up thread -- for SCAR H money you should be able to do a DSA folder w/16 or 18" barrel, good quality muzzle brake, put a 3-4 power ACOG on it and have money left over for a big stack of mags and ammo to go into them. If you are looking for a "battle rifle" the FAL honestly doesn't give up much to the SCAR as long as you go with one of the carbine length barrel rather than the full sized, fixed stock format.

If you want a DMR the SCAR may be better, but then again you can probably get equal performance for less money with an AR-10 and for the same money outshoot the SCAR with an AR-10 type rifle.

The main benefits of the SCAR H on the .mil side are that A) it's new and not dug out of three decades of storage, B) it's customizable for different missions (of merit for SOF, anyway, Big Army doesn't seem to grasp that concept as well), C) it's ergonomics and manual of arms are much more compatible with modern combat shooting techniques than the M-14 (but so is the FAL), and D) had we adopted both SCAR calibers, transition from one to the other, as needed, would have been pretty seamless.

It's relevance for a civilian shooter, outside the cool factor, are a little less clear, in my opinion -- though there's absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing for cool factor (and, regardless of optimal value sort of considerations, SCAR H will certainly do anything any other military style 308 will do at least just as well, if not better).

 

[Girodin]

or SCAR H money you should be able to do a DSA folder w/16 or 18" barrel, good quality muzzle brake, put a 3-4 power ACOG on it and have money left over for a big stack of mags and ammo to go into them.

I don't know about that. Every FAL on DSA's website that has a folding stock is at least $1,900. Most if not all of those lack a railed handguard. Adding that will cost you $250 or so. If you add a muzzle brake that is on par with what comes on a scar you will spend at least $50 and likely more. If you get DSA's extreme duty scope mount so you can put the ACOG on the gun it will cost you about $70, ACOGs are $700 and up. You can get a SCAR 17s for $2,500.

In short you are not going to get a DSA FAL with similar features for much less, if any less, than a SCAR 17s. There is no way you are getting a pile of mags, ammo, and an ACOG on such an FAL for $2500.

If you want a DMR the SCAR may be better, but then again you can probably get equal performance for less money with an AR-10 and for the same money outshoot the SCAR with an AR-10 type rifle.

I guess that depends on what you include when you say performance. Sure you can get a MOA or better AR-10 for less. However, when you start including reliability and looking at AR 10s built for hard use they cost as much as a SCAR 17s.

I do agree that an given buyer should look at what they need and decide if what the SCAR adds is worth the extra money.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I may be wrong on DSA's current prices. I paid under $1300 for my 16" Para from them a few years ago. The box included a flyer with dealer prices and cost to the gun store was $200 or so less than I paid (and both prices were well below the MSRP on their web site).

 

[MCMXI]

I may be wrong on DSA's current prices.

I bought my PARA about three years ago and paid $1,900 out the door which included a PARA Extreme Duty scope mount and 4% sales tax. MSRP is currently $1,975.

http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Carbine-PARA-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58CP16/productinfo/SA58CP16/

As an owner of a DSA SA58 PARA I'll be honest and say as far as I'm concerned the SCAR 17S is superior in every way with the exception of magazine cost and availability. Geissele makes a trigger for the SCAR too ... another HUGE advantage of a SCAR over an FAL. The SCAR is very accurate, and sadly that can't be said about the vast majority of FALs.

 

[riomedinamike]

When I look at a main battle rifle for long term use, I also consider the cost of magazines (by all accounts, a SCAR mag is about 2x the cost of an FAL mag), and spare parts in case something breaks.

I agree if one has unlimited funds, the SCAR may be better in some respects, but I have 2 - 2.5 more FAL's for the price of one SCAR -H, twice as many magazines, and several full spare parts kits.

Maybe there are full spare parts kits for a SCAR somewhere, but in my experience I have not seen them available.

Send your FAL trigger to Williams, and it is far less than a Gissele trigger.

Just my opinion.

 

[MCMXI]

When I look at a main battle rifle for long term use, I also consider the cost of magazines (by all accounts, a SCAR mag is about 2x the cost of an FAL mag), and spare parts in case something breaks.

The FAL has been around for decades so naturally magazines and spare parts are readily available. SCAR magazines are gradually becoming available and the price is dropping. I wouldn't be surprised if MAGPUL offers them eventually.

The OP has "more accurate" at the top of the list and if accuracy is really important to the OP then the SCAR is the obvious choice. 3 MOA at 100 yards isn't my idea of accurate. Sure, it's accurate enough for combat, but since most of us won't be using our rifles in that role, the lack of accuracy usually means that once the novelty wears off the rifle tends to sit in the back of the safe.

 

[pseudonymity]

They are really two different generations of battle rifle - the SCAR is essentially the updated version of the FAL in most ways. You mentioned the DSA FAL specifically, but if FN thought that the FAL was the superior product, they would not have designed the SCAR.

A bit off topic, but does anybody else think a really refined build of a military rifle is kind of strange? DSA FALs, Arsenal AKs, SA M1As and similar just seem a bit, well odd to me. To me a big part of the charm of military rifles is the quirks of the platform and the unique usage marks on milsurp items.

 

[riomedinamike]

I do not know Army-Ranger's accuracy requirements.

I also sincerely doubt Magpul will gear up to offer a magazine for a rifle that probably has not sold many units in the U.S., and if the election goes poorly, I will take the bet Magpul will not sell SCAR -Heavy mags. Then again, someone else may have inside information with Magpul on their market strategy.

My FAL's are more around 2.0 inches at 100 yds, but maybe I was lucky.

Granted, the SCAR may be a little more accurate, lighter, and more ergonomic if you are left handed.

I do not own a SCAR, although I did shoot one for a few afternoons.

I did not sell my FAL's to buy a SCAR, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Girodin]

but if FN thought that the FAL was the superior product, they would not have designed the SCAR.

As much as I like the FAL I think there is no real argument that the SCAR is a superior, although more costly weapon. However I think the argument quoted above ignores the fact that the SCAR was built to meet specific requirements in an effort to win a govt. contract. They had to build a gun with particular features.

I also sincerely doubt Magpul will gear up to offer a magazine for a rifle that probably has not sold many units in the U.S.,

I think it might depend on whether there are military contracts to be had as well.

If one REALLY wants magpul SR25 mags, there is a lower available from handl defense for the scar 17s that takes magpul mags. However, it is fairly expensive at $250. It also allows for use of any AR grip. Magpul SR25 mags are $20. SCAR 17s mags are roughly $40. Mags are also a wear item and thus one will need to replace mags as time passes. Depending on how many mags one plans to buy or already owns for other weapons that use the same magazine it could still be the best economical choice. I typically like to have at least ten mags for any gun I own. If one is super concerned about mag prices buy a G3 style rifle.

Granted, the SCAR may be a little more accurate,

1MOA vs 2 MOA is not "a little more accurate" in my book. I've also seen FALs that cannot consistently hold 2 MOA. That is a pretty substantial difference. I suppose it depends on the intended use as to how much it matters to a given user but the SCAR is significantly more accurate.

Depending on the exact FAL in question I would argue that the SCAR is more than "a little lighter" as well.

I'm guessing most folks will find things like reloads faster whether they are holding the gun right handed or left handed. I also find it very telling about how one uses their guns when they make a statement like "and more ergonomic if you are left handed." I'm not left handed but you better believe I regularly shoot my rifles off my left shoulder. In the real world it is often expedient to transition shoulders. Thus controls that make it easier to run the gun from each side benefit not just right or left handed shooters but everyone.

One can get a FAL for $1000 and have a great gun it is not the equal of the SCAR. Much as one could buy a BRZ and have a fun cool car that they greatly enjoy, but its not the equal of porsche 911. Sometimes better things cost more money.

 

[Tedzilla]

The FAL was one of the top battle rifles of it's day, the other being the HK91. Although I enjoyed both, I kept my HK91 longer.
FNH SCAR 17S is the best modern battle rifle for a US civilian if you can handle the price. The SCAR is light enough that I'd consider using it for hunting, something I regretted doing with my HK91 and never considered with my FAL.

 

[Ar180shooter]

Depending on the exact FAL in question I would argue that the SCAR is more than "a little lighter" as well.

Given similar barrel lengths and barrel profiles, they're pretty close in weight, less than 0.5lbs difference. The big difference (AFAIK) is the SCAR is better balanced.

 

[Girodin]

Given similar barrel lengths and barrel profiles, they're pretty close in weight, less than 0.5lbs difference.

Probably a bit more when you compare similar features such as means to mount an optic, and railed hand guard. Its hard to know because DSA doesn't list weights for their various models. Over half a pound is notable for certain uses.

 

[briansmithwins]

With a SCAR-17S you also get:

1) A free floated barrel that's easily swappable. Six Torx25 screws and the barrel drops right out.
2) A monolithic upper with a full Picatinny rail top plus rails on the side and bottom for grips and/or bipods.
3) A rifle that was designed to be used with optics. The stock is adjustable to fit even high riding optics and the iron sights fold flat out of the way of scopes and red dots.
4) Gas system is easily adjusted between suppressed use and normal.
5) Rifle is completely ambidextrous. The only control that isn't either duplicated or swappable is the manual BHO.

As far as price and weight goes, I'm thinking once you duplicated all the SCAR's features you could on a FAL (free floated barrel, optics rail) you'd be looking at similar prices and the FAL would weight more.

BSW