FN SCAR-16s or AR15?

[Hal Carter]

It really comes down to what we want and what we can afford. If I were new to defense/ofense carbines and know what I know now, I'd get a bravo co. or noveske di ar and spend what money I had left on ammo, pmags, and training. Also learn to replace your own small parts, and have spares on hand. Good training with the carbine will transfer to any other rifle, and training is priceless. It's really more about the operator than the weapon, though having a good weapon is important.

As I said I have a DD m4, but I have a used old ar I bought that I use/abuse for training. I have confidence that my DD will easily go over a thousand rounds without cleaning with no malfs. That is good enough for me. PS, I also Have an arsenal/siaga ak, if I thought I'd have a reason to have a gun and never clean it, that is what I'd take.

 

[Tirod]

You can buy a proprietary design that lacks industry support, and be held "hostage" by the supplier for any parts you need to keep it running - or to alter it to suit your purposes. The HK91 suffered that a lot.

Local Kia buyers do, too. Best Kia dealer in the US here, supply of parts stinks in the industry because they are a small bit player.

As for "destroying" the competition in the SOCOM trials, it hasn't worked out. They are completely dumping the Mk16. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...cial-operations-command-to-dump-fn-scar-mk16/

The stated reason to no longer buy any more - delivered last year - is that the SCAR doesn't do anything the M4 can't, and doesn't do it better. It also costs SOCOM budget dollars when they get M4's and trained users free. They have kept the 17 because there isn't a better .308 on the market, and the M14, modded or not, isn't capable.

Other governments may buy them, the Improved Carbine trials could select it, but the odds are likely it's already a curio or relic, just like so many guns become. Unless adopted by a major user and embraced by the firearms industry, they become what they are.

I love the HK P7, doesn't make it especially easy to get parts for it. On the other hand, Glock or 1911, you can get practically anything you want.

SCAR? Right now, a collector piece.

 

[Rubber_Duck]

In 5.56, get the AR-15. The SCAR doesn't do anything that much better than the AR-15 to warrant the cost in a 5.56mm weapon.

Now if you're talking 7.62x51mm then the SCAR-17S takes the cake. The only thing better than this is the KAC SR-25 EMR/EMC.

 

[Tirod]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what the SCAR does "that much better." It's a bullet launcher with the same compromised mag design in a limited capacity, shooting the same ammo, with the same optics.

In the strict view of what it delivers - how many more enemy are killed than with an AR?

I've yet to see any SCAR fanboy offer up a scientifically proven % improved guarantee. There is NONE.

 

[JustinJ]

"I'm still waiting to hear exactly what the SCAR does "that much better." It's a bullet launcher with the same compromised mag design in a limited capacity, shooting the same ammo, with the same optics."

By that standard just about all 5.56 magazine fed semi autos are the same.

Increased reliability, easliy changed barrel lenght and/or caliber, folding stock, adjustable gas system for suppressed fire. Those are the features i could think of off hand that it was designed with to improve over the AR platform.

 

[kwelz]

Increased reliability,

Citation please. There are at least 2 threads going on right now actively debunking the false concept that M4s are unreliable.

easliy changed barrel lenght and/or caliber

I see this as an often touted feature that sounds great on paper but doesn't play out well in reality. So you change the barrel length. Then you have to change optics... And re-Zero the gun. So what have you gained? Time? Doubt it. More of a paper pusher/armchair commando feature.

Caliber. Same problem. Are you going to carry multiple types of magazines and ammo with you? A different bolt? All these ideas sound great but don't work int he field.

folding stock,

While no doubt a nice feature it is not near enough to justify a whole new platform.

adjustable gas system for suppressed fire.

Once again not a bad feature. But also an overall unneeded one. Better to refit existing M4s with a switch block style system if you really want this.

Don't get me wrong. I like the SCAR. I would love to have one. But it really doesn't offer much of anything over the M4 platform. It is extremely hard on optics and would be a huge investment for the military in a time they don't have the cash to do it.

 

[JustinJ]

"Citation please. There are at least 2 threads going on right now actively debunking the false concept that M4s are unreliable."

As i said, features it was "designed" to have. However, based on my evaluation of the design i strongly believe it will be more reliable but yes, that is my opinion. Like everyone says "ARs are reliable IF you keep them well oiled". The "IF" kind of makes that statement problematic. And i wouldn't say the threads are "Debunking" anything. They are just people expressing their opinions; often out of some strange felt sense of loyalty to the ar15. I will say reliability issues of the AR system are much greater with select fire and heavy sustained use. I think given the heat transferred to the bolt and carriers longevity also is reduced by the DI system. For civilian use though its not hardly an issue.


The military, and LE departments for that matter, are on a budget and it is much cheaper to buy extra bolts and barrels than whole new guns for each mission type. And rezeroing a gun isn't the biggest hardship in the world and doesnt necessarily mean having to change optics either.

The caliber issue may have more value in the future if rounds such as 6.8 or 6.5 become accepted for military use. But if nothing else it allows the military to adopt a different caliber if it so chooses with greater ease.

Is the stock alone enough to justify a whole new platform? Probably not but it is quite valuable to not have to sacrifice barrel length just to fit inside a vehicle. And like i'm arguing, there are far more benefits than just a folding stock.

"It is extremely hard on optics"
How so?

 

[kwelz]

I disagree with you completely on the reliability. despite what it may or may not have been designed to have there isn't really much room for improvement. I have run ARs wet and Dry. Any gun SHOULD be run wet. But a quality AR(or M4) will run dry at least for a time. And the fact is the SCAR will be the same way. It will need lube just the same.

The fact is that the SCAR offers some nice features. But it doesn't offer any actual benefit over the AR platform currently.

How so?

The recoil impulse is causing damage to optics. A number of broken Aimpoints that I know of. For some reason it is lik putting a rifle scope on a BB gun. You would think there is no reason it would cause a problem. But it does.

 

[JustinJ]

Its always better to run a gun with lube but an ak for example will run forever dry as a bone and it is about as reliable as can be. I don't think this is a coincidence. Is the same true of the SCAR? I dunno but i anticipate it to run longer dry than an AR. The other issue i see with the AR is that the carrier essentially travels in a tight tube so burnt powder, dirt, sand and what ever is more likely to interfere with the necessary movement for proper function. Nearly all other military rifles have a piston and with rails for the carrier to move along. I think it safe to say that the AR is the last DI gun we will see for a long time if not ever which is also indicative. But ultimately i think we'll have to agree to disagree on the reliability issue.

"The fact is that the SCAR offers some nice features. But it doesn't offer any actual benefit over the AR platform currently."
I think i made a sound case to the counter but we'll probably have to agree to disagree here also. However you did concede that at least the folding stock was an improvement in addition to the adjustable gas system over the existing AR platform.

I hadn't heard that about the optics issue. Is it with the 5.56 or 7.62 variety? Please reference where you read this.

 

[kwelz]

Yeah we will probably just have to agree to disagree on some of this.
Folding stocks are nice for transport, etc. An adjustable gas block can be nice for running a Can.

As for the optics issue. No internet reading for that info. First hand accounts from people testing the units.

 

[Owen]

The SCAR beats the M4 all over the map on every measure of sustainability. It will never be returned to a depot for repairs, and every single component's service life is significantly longer.

 

[JustinJ]

"First hand accounts from people testing the units."

No offense but i think a little more information is needed here. Which SCAR, what type of optic, mount, etc?

From what i've read the SCAR, both models, have minimal recoil and the optics I know of used by the military are all nearly indestructible.

 

[kwelz]

SCAR-16. They didn't say specifically which type of Aimpoint but I assume M68 which is either an M2 or M3. Although I think they may be issuing M4s with some units. Next time I see one of them I can ask. I have not heard about the problem in any civilian held models so it could be a problem under sustained or burst fire that won't come up in a semi auto version.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

i located a SCAR for a relative recently. there's no question that it's quality, and very light weight for a piston gun. the reciprocating charging handle is rather dumb, but not a deal killer.

get it if you like it. i would, it's quality beats any GI AR on the market that i've seen.

keep in mind though, parts availability will be severely limited, but when i called FN to clarify the warranty the gunsmith said he "doesn't ask when the rifle was purchased, he just fixes it". that's cool, but i'd rather have it writing. also, what happens when they come out with a new model? how hard might it be when parts aren't interchangeable. this is the same issue that applies to all piston driven AR style rifles. there's no standard format for the design.

 

[Hal Carter]

In my experiance, (once only) with a problem with my FN shotgun, their service dept. is 1st rate. The piston in my shotgun cracked and they asked if I'd send the piston in to them, and before I could get the broke 1 sent out, (within 3 days) I had the new piston, on my doorstep. 1 week Later they called to make sure all was good. Thats pretty rare for service in my experiance.

On the AK;it works because it has very few moving parts and the tolerences are very loose. Generally the price we pay for AK reliability is mediocre accuracy. Still I can make a head shot with mine from a rest at 200 yards. Minute of head; I can live with that.

Is a porshe better than a Ford mustang? Better for what? For crusing the autobon every day at 100 mph, probably yes. At 4x the price of the mustang? For me, no.

My shooting bud has an Lwrc piston gun and shoots mostly wolf ammo, and rarely cleans it. In over 5 thousand rounds of wolf no malfs. To me thats hard to beat. He paid 2300 for that gun. Another bud has a sig that has gone over a thousand rounds of wolf with NO cleaning and no problems. Are these guns worth twice what a DD or Bravo co di gun costs? Not to me, but many people have to have 1, so buy it and keep us posted on long term reliability/durability.

 

[Tirod]

Unfortunately for SCAR fanboys, every single -16 WILL be turned in and disposed of, so says SOCOM. They haven't seen any value in keeping them.

Why is that so hard to digest? SOCOM is dumping the SCAR. In their professional opinion - one based on actual use in combat - the -16 DOES NOT have a better record of "sustainability" for their use. Certainly not worth bothering over.

Accuracy? No, it's still milspec ammo going down a rifled bore with a 2MOA requirement, scopes/red dots give the user all they can, therefore accuracy is effectively no better.

Heat? Please stop repeating the same tired lies about M16 BCG temps. You can dump a full mag and immediately bare hand disassemble a Stoner bolt. Infrared temps only go up 60 degrees as measured by many others in posts elsewhere. Hot carriers and bolts is BS, the lube does not BURN off, it just evaporates. The reputedly best marketed lube for the AR on the market is WATER based, oils typically have much higher boiling points.

You can shoot a milspec M4 dry, to the tune of 2,500 rounds before stoppage. That's ten basic loads of ammo, seven intense days of combat, why wouldn't a shooter pull daily maintenance? The myth of the dry AR is just that - if you have lube you're better off, and it's been standard for US military weapons to use lube for a hundred years. Further, mags and ammo are #1 and #2 in causing stoppages, the "dry" AR is way down the list. Operator error is much more likely than a dry AR to screw one up, mags in upside down, failure to charge the bolt, whatever else goes wrong when insufficient training meets head on with panic.

I asked before, state exactly what % each item the SCAR does better, as tested and proven, still no list. Because it DOESN'T. It has incrementally nicer controls, at least the BCG is designed for piston use, but it still uses the #1 stoppage inducer of all M16's and there clones, the stupid 20 round straight mag well and cheap flimsy magazine.

HOW CAN THE SCAR BE SUPERIOR WHEN IT USES THE MOST INFERIOR DESIGN ASPECT OF THE M16?

We can rehash mythology and lies over and over, why not accept facts and work to make an improvement rather than perpetuate the major weakness that still exists? It's not about DI vs Piston, done right either works reliably. It's about exactly what the AK does best - feed ammo from rugged magazines in an design engineered to do it perfectly.

After all, if the AK does have reliability, there's nothing special about the piston design or even it's manufacture - it's admittedly a low tech design from a semi industrialized nation when it started up. None of it's producers were much into rocket science. It's about those completely uncompromised magazines designed to last much longer than the soldier in battle.

Why would you not want that kind of reliability - and yet the argument keeps getting deflected over and over.

 

[JustinJ]

Hmm, who's the fanboy? I'll never understand this blind loyalty to the AR platform. Unfortunately, there are many more variables than a gun's weapons that factor in to the choosing of weapons by the US military.

"HOW CAN THE SCAR BE SUPERIOR WHEN IT USES THE MOST INFERIOR DESIGN ASPECT OF THE M16?"
You'll have to explain that one.

2,500 rounds dry before a stoppage? That is an unlikely feat for an AR:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

"I asked before, state exactly what % each item the SCAR does better, as tested and proven, still no list."
That is a ridiculous request that proves nothing. You can't make up immeasurable standards and claim inability to provide said data makes you right. Can you provide that for me on the M16 over the SCAR. No, well then that proves the SCAR is better. Sorry, debate does not work that way.

"After all, if the AK does have reliability, there's nothing special about the piston design or even it's manufacture - it's admittedly a low tech design from a semi industrialized nation when it started up. None of it's producers were much into rocket science. It's about those completely uncompromised magazines designed to last much longer than the soldier in battle."

Are you seriously trying to say that the AK's reliablity is just because of it's magazine? The loose tolerances and small number of parts have nothing to do with it, i guess? If you look inside an AK, one thing you will see is lots of open space. There is no place for crud to build it up where the carriers action won't be able to push out of the way. Plus, the bolt and carrier are one giant, solid piece to make it a long stroke system. There is no tiny little piston trying to fit through a hole designed for a gas tube.

 

[kwelz]

Are you seriously trying to say that the AK's reliablity is just because of it's magazine?

Actually yes. The single biggest contributor to the AKs reliability is the magazine design.

 

[JustinJ]

"Actually yes. The single biggest contributor to the AKs reliability is the magazine design."

So then tell me, what is it about the magazine that you believe does this? And ecspecially how this is more important than loose tolerances, fewer sturdier parts, and method of operation? And, do you really believe the AR would be as reliable as the AK with the same magazine?

 

[kwelz]

Actually I would argue that the AR and AK already have comparable reliability.
ARs run dirty despite the hype otherwise and AKs can and do fail. Both method of operations work just fine and honestly there are about the same number of parts in an AK and an AR. The only single part on an AK I think think of that is really sturdier is the Bolt and extractor. Mainly the extractor.

 

[JustinJ]

You and I (plus almost everybody else) will have to disagree about the AR being as reliable as an AK. I'm sorry but that is just far from the truth. The total parts probably comes down to how we define a seperate "part". But the bolt and extractor (plus carrier) are arguably the most important part to reliability and the AK's are far sturdier and simpler.

 

[kwelz]

Justin, I think you will find a number of people that will tell you the M4 platform is as reliable as the AK platform. When you talk about tolerances I assume you mean that the gun is built loose. This is true. But it doesn't mean that the gun is inherently more reliable.

It could be argued that this just allows more dirt and junk to get in there. The fact is that both platforms are extremely reliable with about the same number (although different) problems. Every platform has fleas. The M4s is mainly the magazine. In the M16 the magazine was almost an afterthought. In the AK the gun was essentially built around it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmm, who's the fanboy? I'll never understand this blind loyalty to the AR platform.

I think people who dislike the AR platform often mistake being corrected about how the platform actually works as "blind loyalty." I personally don't think the AR is the best design out there, though it is certainly at the top of the list; but it just irritates me to see all of the various myhtologies and nonsense repeated about the AR - and there are a bunch of misconceptions.

"HOW CAN THE SCAR BE SUPERIOR WHEN IT USES THE MOST INFERIOR DESIGN ASPECT OF THE M16?"

Well, one way the SCAR is superior is that it was designed from the ground up to be a multi-barrelled 5.56mm platform for Special Operations troops and extensively tested in that role. The M4 is a modification of a 50+ year old design, with modification upon modification layered on top of that. The main place you

2,500 rounds dry before a stoppage? That is an unlikely feat for an AR:

2,540 rounds through an M4 rifle that has been completely stripped of lubrication. First stoppage was at 2,440rds, author replaced "upgraded" H3 buffer with original H-buffer and rifle ran reliably another 100 rounds.

Are you seriously trying to say that the AK's reliablity is just because of it's magazine?

I'd say it is a bigger contributor than most people appreciate. After all, if you line up pretty much any semi-automatic weapons system in existence, the big failure points are almost always: magazines, ammo, user error - in that order.

For all the talk about sand being a problem for DI, I'd bet sand in the magazine is a source of more problems.

Having said all that, if you look at the engineering of the SCAR, it is pretty impressive. It is the first rifle I've seen that is so-thoroughly desgined from the ground up for heavy duty use and long service life.

Unfortunately for FN's civilian sales, I already have an AR15. The service life for that rifle is going to last me quite a while, even though I shoot quite a bit compared to the average shooter. In addition, while the SCAR has a lot to like, it has a short handguard and the reciprocating bolt handle and I'm not a fan of either. At the end of the day, the SCAR isn't more reliable than an AR for my use. It isn't more accurate than an AR for my use. And since I've already got the AR, there isn't a lot of incentive to go spend $2,500 on a rifle just because it has a better service life.

Now, if FN starts selling a 5.56mm conversion kit for the Mk17... that will start being a package that is hard to resist, even at the high price.

 

[kwelz]

In addition, while the SCAR has a lot to like, it has a short handguard and the reciprocating bolt handle and I'm not a fan of either.

Don't think you can do anything about the CH but there are a number of companies including Tango Down that are now making very good rail extensions for the SCAR.

 

[Owen]

USASOC is dropping the MK16, because they get their M4's for free, and funding decisions were moved to the units. Units don't pay for overhaul, etc. In the long run its a mistake.