FNH SCAR Pics From SHOT Show 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
16S has been out for a while now.

I want the 17S (aka SCAR-H) here in Canada if the US will let them be exported. All black please, non of this desert crap!
 
If it's no reserve, then why can't I bid .01?

It's a reserve all right, because there NEVER was a time when there wasn't a starting 'bid', which wasn't a bid at all - just a BS fake bid set by the seller as a de facto reserve.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's a reserve auction , to be sure. Just clarifiying. :)
 
From viewing the rifle, and from initial reports (word of mouth from users) I'm not terribly impressed. I'd have to put one through its paces though, before I can really say anything about it other than it looks...I can't find the words...just...ugly. But if it performs, than who cares how it looks, right?
 
Skip the overpriced SCAR-308. Instead, look at what LMT is demonstrating at the 2010 Shot show.
 
They look like something from a low budget sci-fi movie...really low budget. I don't know what the bulk of that material is made of, but it looks plastic. I don't like plastic guns even if they do cost 7G or whatever. Different strokes I guess.

Butch.
 
The word plastic is like the word metal. A gun made of metal could be made of pewter -- but none are; they are made of steel, for example. A gun made of plastic could be made of the same plastic used in your grandma's butter tub -- but none are; they are made of a high-impact plastic that is far stronger than than is required for the given part -- just not unnecessarily heavy like most metals are.

The SCAR was adopted by SOCOM; I'm quite sure it is a quality firearm. Frankly, I'd want them to make as much of the rifle as possible out of plastic to reduce weight. Why make of metal what you can make of plastic? (Note: I said what you CAN make of plastic -- thus invalidating the argument that the given piece would last longer if made of metal.)

As for looks, firstly, they should be irrelevant when discussing a tool -- whether it be for driving a nail or for anti-personnel purposes. But, however, since we all, including myself, are influenced by a firearms looks, I will admit I love the way the SCAR looks. The super-tough looking one-piece upper/rail both looks good and, I'm sure, offers great utility. Additionally, it has a complete-looking, rugged, adjustable, folding stock, unlike many ARs that I see which have these dinky spare-wheel-looking stocks.
 
The SCAR stock is fully adjustable, but feels just as "dinky" as a regular M4 stock. I've never pogoed one, but it doesn't feel like it would be hard to break the stock doing so. There have been reports of the stocks being damaged in shipping as well. I'll reserve final judgement until I can spend some time shooting with one.

Also, the upper is not completely monolithic, as the bottom rail is attached to the barrel and comes off with the barrel when it is removed.
 
The SCAR was adopted by SOCOM; I'm quite sure it is a quality firearm. Frankly, I'd want them to make as much of the rifle as possible out of plastic to reduce weight. Why make of metal what you can make of plastic? (Note: I said what you CAN make of plastic -- thus invalidating the argument that the given piece would last longer if made of metal.)

Outside of weight, show me one thing it will do better than an FAL besides cost more.
 
I don't like plastic guns even if they do cost 7G or whatever.

That's awesome - sig line material. :D Have to say, the reports of the *apparent* fragility of the stock hinge do not inspire confidence.



I'll wait for the XCR-M (which is the analogue to the SCAR-H). Or look at LMT.
 
Is FN turning into HK regarding their rifles? I think they dont want civillians to own them with those kind of prices :( Like others have said, I will stick to my current M4gery, thank you, come again.
 
..HK417 for me it would be.

The neww G3 vs the new FAL .... this is.

only at NIB price ...
 
I handled a SCAR. I did not like it and could not understand all the enthusiasm.
Felt like a brick. Forend is absolutely uncomfortable. Reciprocating left-side charging handle is unacceptable and very close to your forward hand. You WILL hit it at some point.
Buttstock is nice.
Rear sight is an afterthought but serviceable.
Overall, just not worth the asking price, not even close.
 
First, I think the rifles are sexy. Dead sexy. However, I also think my wife is dead sexy, and I didn't spend $7500 on our wedding.
 
It is 7500 because it is for one of the first black ones. The highest close on GB when the tan ones came out was around 8500 if I am remembering correctly. One guy won four auctions all around 6500-8500. :rolleyes:

My impressions after handling one were that the sights were very nice, and the stock was the weak point, but overall, it feels very light weight (lighter than it actually is), and shoulders very nicely. Perceptions vary I guess.
 
Is it supposed to cost over $1500 like all of the other new cool gotta-have-it guns? It looks kinda fugly but I'd like to have one, but I have a hard time justifying over $1000 for any rifle, and especially over $1500.

Surely they don't plan on the $2500+ of the Bushy ACR though. That is just an insult, lol.


Then you'll love the 17H - MSRP of $3300. Makes the ACR look cheap now.

MSRP means nothing, and quoting anything that hasn't been through a dealer is the cause of most of the whining on any new gun. Letting the FFL know he's too high for you is ok if you'er polite. Not buying it and still seeing it on the rack six months later can make you feel better. Too bad some flush with credit will buy them anyway and convince the system they were right to price what the market will bear.

All the XCR's and SCAR's first off the production line are sold. The ACR will sell, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top