How is the SCAR-H an improvement over the FAL?

[Z-Michigan]

To me, any magazine that requires the free hand to remove it from the weapon is less than ideal compared to one that clears the weapon at the push of a button. This is standard in just about every combat pistol so why not a rifle too?

Because often times rifle mags that are intended to "drop free" don't if they get a little dirty or if there are imperfect dimensional tolerances between the magwell and the mag. I've had even (the much-worshipped) Pmags get sticky in the magwell of an AR15 from a quality company, and everything was spotlessly clean. All the training I've seen or participated in involves reaching for the mag with your weak hand to pull it out if need be. Of course, you're often retaining the mag and putting it in a dump pouch, and regardless, that left hand is coming off the weapon to find, grab and insert a new magazine, unless you have some magic powers.

But don't listen to me. Name all the new rifle designs of the last 30-40 years that use straight-in magwells with a single retaining point, and are not derived from the AR15 pattern or intended to use AR15 pattern magazines.

 

[Balrog]

I am still curious, how many of ya'll have fired the SCAR-H?

 

[Owen]

I've fired the SCAR-H extensively, but just the .mil version.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Cause its lighter and more compact. At the range it doesn't matter, but on a 20 mile hike in the Afgahn mountains ounces = pounds and pounds = pain.


I look at the Scar 17 as the evolution of the FAL, that started with the FN49.

 

[Robert]

The SCAR and the FAL charging handles are on the same side. The left or correct side. So the SCAR is no better in that sense. The FAL is not that heavy. Really, it isn't. Even with a full load out, it is not that bad. But then again I have not done 20 miles in the mountains with a full load out. I don't have to. Mag changes on the FAL are not that difficult and can be made pretty dang quick. Less chance of it falling out too.

Right now, the SCAR in 7.62 is about the only major player.

In 10 years the SCAR will be an interesting side note in firearms development and the FAL will still be a cult like followed firearm.

Edit:
I stand corrected by Owen, who truly knows more about this than God. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Owen]

SCAR is still going hot and Heavy. They dropped the light because 5.56 conversion kits are right around the corner. The Heavy is being fielded as fast as they can be delivered.

 

[HorseSoldier]

But don't listen to me. Name all the new rifle designs of the last 30-40 years that use straight-in magwells with a single retaining point, and are not derived from the AR15 pattern or intended to use AR15 pattern magazines.

Or name one that can hold its own in competition circles where things like mag change times matter a lot.

That no one is playing with. If I am not mistaken SOCOM dumped the SCAR because it didn't do anything the M4 or M1A didn't already do just as good or better. In 10 years the SCAR will be an interesting side note in firearms development and the FAL will still be a cult like followed firearm.

Issue #1 -- it's M14, not M1A.

Issue #2 -- SCAR-H is still being procured, because it does a lot of stuff better than an M14. Not that the M14 has been overly popular in SOCOM circles for a long time -- the occasional weapon is around, but they're much less common than the internet would lead you to believe.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Or name one that can hold its own in competition circles where things like mag change times matter a lot.

One of the regular winners (and consistent top placers) at the Michigan ACTS competitions uses an AK-74 and changes mags nice and fast. He's in the firearms industry and could definitely afford an AR15 if he thought it would make him shoot better or win more consistently. Does this make the rock and lock system better - no, but it sure isn't the big handicap it's been made out to be.

I've shot competitions with both the AR15 and AKM platforms, and I did not find the speed of mag changes significantly different. So much of the time spent is on grabbing the new mag, moving it into position and clicking it into place, the extra half second (if that) to push a thumb lever and push slightly forward on the mag isn't really significant. I was a diehard believer that this was an AR15 advantage until I saw others doing as well or better with the AKM and then tried it myself.

Anyway, can you name such a new rifle design?

FWIW, I think we've established that the SCAR-H has real benefits for the active duty SOCOM soldiers for which it was developed. But the OP asked about civilian use and after all this discussion I'm not seeing a lot of compelling benefit for the SCAR-H for a civilian.

Also, BSW made the cryptic comment that the SCAR-H was price competitive with an FAL, but you can get a DSA SA-58 in various flavors for around $1500 now, NIB, you can get quality parts-kit FALs (again mostly DSA assembled) for closer to $1000, and since the SCAR-L is well over $2000 for civilians, I am guessing that the SCAR-H will be pushing $2500 or more for civilians?

 

[MCMXI]

Z-Michigan, are you saying that the time required to rock the magazine out of an AK, insert a new mag and then cycle the charging handle is less than the time to drop an empty mag with the index finger, insert a new mag and release the bolt with the index finger (POF) or off-hand on an AR or the SCAR?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Anyway, can you name such a new rifle design?

G36, XM8, the aforementioned SCAR-H/Mk-17, Mossad (.308 ACR), and the CZ S-805, (if the reports of it not using a STANAG magwell are correct)... those are a few I can think of immediately. I'd also note that your list is artificially limited since, at least in the Western world, most new rifle designs of the last 30-40 years use magazines derived from the AR pattern.

 

[JR47]

To be quite frank, there is NO defining reason why one HAS to choose the SCAR-H over an FAL, or vice-versa. Neither of them are going to be used in a scenario that guarantees rapid mag-changes, or even mud and debris. MOST of both of them will be happily used to punch paper on a range.

Take your pick. Although, from a purely civilian stand-point, the ability to change calibers easily does seem pretty neat.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Z-Michigan, are you saying that the time required to rock the magazine out of an AK, insert a new mag and then cycle the charging handle is less than the time to drop an empty mag with the index finger, insert a new mag and release the bolt with the index finger (POF) or off-hand on an AR or the SCAR?

No, I'm saying that the time is not significantly more than with an AR15, and the push-button setup is not the big advantage it's usually assumed to be.

Here is one video of a fast AK mag change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_zgQTic6ds

I do not know this person, it isn't the person I mentioned above as a winning competitor in ACTS, but it's basically the same technique. You can see that the slowest part of the whole thing is drawing the new mag from a pouch. The competitor I know uses nice kydex pouches and doesn't take nearly as long to draw the new mag.

There are a lot of such videos on youtube, just look up "AK mag change" or look at videos of ACTS and 3-gun competition, or go to one of those competitions in person.

And it would be worth considering how many AR jams are due to a not-fully-seated mag vs. how often that problem arises with the AK, FAL, M14/M1A, HK91, etc.

 

[fireside44]

I look at the Scar 17 as the evolution of the FAL, that started with the FN49.

It reminds me of one of those t-shirts where the guy is going from walking upright to cave man to greater ape.

The FN-49 is easily superior than the FAL or the SCAR in terms of build quality. The only thing it lacked was a pistol grip and a detachable mag. Of course it's heavy, it's made from genuine STEEL throughout. The topcover alone has more steel than the AK-47 receiver in it's entirety for crying out loud. lol

FN couldn't afford to produce those for the price of SCAR and then some, not even remotely. So considering they are often less than 1k used in good shape, I think I know what the better deal is here.

The Heavy is being fielded as fast as they can be delivered.

Not surprising. The 7.62 version can fill a serious niche where the 5.56 wasn't enough improvement over M4 to be worth bothering with. Still, I wonder how many will make it to the parts kit market in 20 years for us FN fans to build?

 

[Hatterasguy]

My FN49 has a detachable 20 round mag. The FN49 is a great rifle but its a brick, and wood stocks don't hold up well in a lot of combat environments. Great rifle though, I think its better than the M1A.

I havn't shot a Scar 17, but I plan on buying one in a couple of years when they come to CT. I did however shoot a 16 and I find the Scar's ergo's to be very good. If you can shoot an AR you won't have much of a learning curve going to a Scar.

When I own all 3 I'll be able to properly compare them, but it will be a few years before I can get a Scar 17 for reasonable money in my state. I'm willing to pay around $2,500 for one, which isn't much more than a new tricked out DSA FAL. I priced one out at $2,300 with a camo duracoat job.

 

[HorseSoldier]

No, I'm saying that the time is not significantly more than with an AR15, and the push-button setup is not the big advantage it's usually assumed to be.

The other issue I've seen taking relatively low skilled shooters (SF support guys) and training them on running AKs and Galils is that the AK mag change is not only slower but it's a more complicated, more fine motor skill. Add stress into the process and improperly inserting the mag (or just missing the mag well entirely -- though I don't see that as platform specific) gets relatively common.

One of the regular winners (and consistent top placers) at the Michigan ACTS competitions uses an AK-74 and changes mags nice and fast. He's in the firearms industry and could definitely afford an AR15 if he thought it would make him shoot better or win more consistently. Does this make the rock and lock system better - no, but it sure isn't the big handicap it's been made out to be.

I would say that's an exception that proves a rule. ARs dominate three gun competition because of ergonomic superiority.

Also, BSW made the cryptic comment that the SCAR-H was price competitive with an FAL, but you can get a DSA SA-58 in various flavors for around $1500 now, NIB, you can get quality parts-kit FALs (again mostly DSA assembled) for closer to $1000, and since the SCAR-L is well over $2000 for civilians, I am guessing that the SCAR-H will be pushing $2500 or more for civilians?

I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but he did say SCAR-H compares price-wise with an FN FAL. SCAR-H at $2500 would be comparable with real FN built FALs, or a little cheaper. Of course part of that is the collectible angle since their importation for civilians has been off the table for a couple decades.

 

[powermad]

$3000 seems to be the going rate for one.
I'll pass and just keep shooting my FAL.

The 17s (civilian) seems to only come with a 16" barrel and the DNTC muzzle brake.
No other barrel options ,listed.
The Mil versions have a 13, 16 and 20 inch barrel selection.

A 16" barreled .308 is loud, with that noise maker on the front it will be even worse.

 

[Jaws]

$3000 seems to be the going rate for one.

There are people that got it with 2300 the first week it was out. This rifle was released three weeks ago. It is normal to be a bit more expensive than the rifle released 50+ years ago and was built by the millions.

The SCAR 17 is third generation combat rifle built by FN since the FAL. They learned a thing or two since then.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not surprising. The 7.62 version can fill a serious niche where the 5.56 wasn't enough improvement over M4 to be worth bothering with.

I would guess it has more to do with budgeting. If Uncle Army will buy you all the M4s you want, or you can buy 5.56 SCARs with your own money, then the M4 is a good deal, even though the SCAR is cheaper in the long term and has some slight advantages.

On 7.62 rifles, there isn't that same good deal to be had in terms of budget money. You have the choice of M14s (and not the cool modernized versions; but the wood-stocked, sitting in a rack for 40+ years, got no optics, versions) or paying for something else with your own money. If it turns out that you can later convert the SCAR-H to 5.56 and the SCAR-H is only moderately heavier than the SCAR-L, well, all the better....

 

[Tirod]

If someone wants to buy a military firearm for just plinking around, then it's a whole different ball game. Economics for the individual is vastly different than an institution.

The cost difference in purchasing, parts availability, and owning something that was once used in combat would tilt the scale for the FAL. It would not compensate the disadvantages of heavier weight, length, and poor ergonomics, but that didn't stop me from buying a HK91 in the day. The $160 price didn't either.

Looking at it now, having carried M16's weeks at a time, and hunted with the HK for over 20 years, size and weight have much more influence on the weapons choice than previously. If the price were the same, I'd go with the SCAR, interesting footnote or not. Krag Jorgensons were mil spec in the day, their cult status doesn't make them more effective as a firearm, or the caliber better.

Right now the issue is price, and you have to ask, in ten years when the FNFALS are all collected up and rusting quietly in closets, what will be on the range and in the field? Likely the SCAR still will be, and by then it could have been purchased by 90 countries as their primary arm.

 

[Coronach]

The SCAR-H or -17S has several advantages, as mentioned, over the FAL. From the POV of a civilian end-user, some of them matter less and some matter more:

Accuracy: FALs have a hit-or-miss (ha!) accuracy potential, once you get beyond "combat accurate". Some are quite good. Some are annoying. The design does not lend itself to easy fixes for accuracy issues. The SCAR has a free-floated barrel and improved bolt design (as compared to the FAL) that improves accuracy.

Ergonomics: While ergos are quite subjective, the general opinion is that AR-style controls and dimensions are an improvement over the FAL's design, with the exception of the charging handle. The SCAR keeps the best of both designs, left-side charging and AR controls.

Weight: It's lighter. Nuff said.

Optic/accessory mounting: Yes, there are ways to retrofit a FAL to have rails in various locations. Yes, they work acceptably well, most of the time. There is no denying that it is a retrofit and that it is less ideal than having rails integral to the design from the get-go. For instance, there are cases of the railed top-cover of the FAL having its mounting plates break...guess where the debris goes? Into the area occupied by the bolt. Same with having mounting screws back out, or turning mounting screws too far in. The rails on the aftermarket forearm are not free-float and are not stable enough for sighting accessories (lasers, RDSes etc), though they are fine for flashlights and veritical grips.

Assuming the SCAR doesn't suck (it's a new design, after all...one needs to be cautious about assuming it does everything it is advertised to do), is it better than a FAL? Probably, yes. Better enough to warrant the increased money? Less clear. Better enough to warrant an upgrade if you already are invested in the FAL system? Even less clear.

Personal opinion: if you have a FAL set up the way you want it, it is accurate enough for you, and the setup works, it is probably not worth the upgrade. OTOH, if you are looking for more rail space on top, or if you're looking for more accuracy than your FAL offers, then yes, it may well be worth the money.

Mike

 

[fireside44]

Assuming the SCAR doesn't suck (it's a new design, after all...one needs to be cautious about assuming it does everything it is advertised to do), is it better than a FAL? Probably, yes.

Depends on your version of better. Only thing I see "better" about SCAR is the ugly stock that has an adjustable comb. That is a pretty good idea for optics users.

Better to me means parts and accessories availability. Can I get spare bolts, spare barrels, mags, firing pins, spring kits, furniture, etc etc without having to auction off an arm or a leg? I can with FAL. I doubt SCAR parts will ever be widely available with the exception of directly from FN.

Accuracy: FALs have a hit-or-miss (ha!) accuracy potential

If there were millions of home built SCAR kits, Century SCAR builds, etc then your point might have more validity. If SCARs were contracted out and manufactured round the world in many different factories to slightly different standards then maybe it would hold more water as a legitimate advantage.

Good STG-58's are 1.5 moa capable, which is accurate enough to fulfill the DM role that I am assuming the SCAR was designed for. If the SCAR is 1moa capable, great, but .5 moa doesn't seem to be much improvement for a DM or minute man role.

Ergonomics

Subjective as you noted.

Weight: It's lighter. Nuff said.

The extra weight is near meaningless to the civilian user. I'd rather the indestructible steel parts of the FAL than the small weight savings gained by substituting those same parts with plastic in the SCAR.

To me the worst part of the FAL is the sights, which just ain't all that. They function and that's about it. I wish there were better irons for them out there. Still, I have found them completely usable.

Assuming the SCAR doesn't suck (it's a new design, after all...one needs to be cautious about assuming it does everything it is advertised to do), is it better than a FAL?

Well, in fifty years when the results are in and there are SCAR kits everywhere for $129 bucks and receivers for $175 bucks and whole forums develop around the mystique of the rifle and countless foreign armies produce or procure SCARs by the millions then I think we'll be able to draw a conclusion. Seeing as how it's brand new and basically a "refined FAL" I think it has shoes too big for it to ever fill.

 

[Justin]

I was unimpressed with the .223 SCAR. From where I sit, it doesn't do anything that a decent AR15 can't do equally as well, and possibly at a lower price point.

However, I think there's a distinct possibility that the SCAR-H will become a fairly popular choice among 3gun shooters who compete in He-Man division.

 

[Tirod]

It's been clearly listed what is better about the SCAR - shorter, with controls that fall to the hand without removing it from the grip. And it's not meaningless to a soldier or civilian user that it's two pounds lighter. Hump that for 9 hours over rough terrain for a day of hunting two or four legged quarry. A quiet day at the range, sure, no problem, but that's explicitly not where the advantage exists, especially where shooters add weights as they approach gun sled construction to achieve one hole accuracy. Totally different game.

The economics are their own indictment: the old FAL is cheaper, because it is out of date, a less capable firearm for military purposes that has been passed over. It didn't have a design capable of mounting a scope over the reciever that was military tough, was deemed much too long for urban/vehicular use, etc. Those are exactly the deficiencies that make it a "cheap" alternative on the used market. Comparison to the new SCAR is really apples and oranges, just like comparing a 66 Impala to a new one. Old tech, heavy weight, inefficent, and handles like a drunk hog in a snowstorm. New- light, efficient, and drives circles around the old one. Yes, it's more expensive, no, it won't break down nearly as quick as an old one with thousands of miles/rounds under it.

I'm old enough to have used old stuff when it was new, dial telephones and old battle rifles don't impress me one bit in a world where a cell phone could let you log into this conversation and post thoughts. It may be economics that keeps me to having just a tracphone instead of an Iphone, I understand if someone chooses the FAL for the price. It doesn't make it a better rifle anymore than wearing a old pair of 1966 Converses make them better than a new pair of Nike Air's. If they are all you have, wear them. Don't even attempt to say they are better.

 

[ZEN.45]

I'm old enough to have used old stuff when it was new, dial telephones and old battle rifles don't impress me one bit in a world where a cell phone could let you log into this conversation and post thoughts.

Do you know that cell phone manufacturers actually build their products with a 3 year life expectancy because they expect the average customer to replace his/her cell phone every 3 years with a newer model ? I have a 40 year old bakelite dial phone on my desk that will probably still work in another 40 years. Of course I can't be put it in my pocket or take pictures with it, but it's beautiful !

I like both old and modern guns for different reasons. But I appreciate the quality of a gun that was made by engineers and craftsmen instead of bean counters and cheap labor.

 

[fireside44]

It's been clearly listed what is better about the SCAR - shorter, with controls that fall to the hand without removing it from the grip.

Maybe if you are a midget.

And it's not meaningless to a soldier or civilian user that it's two pounds lighter. Hump that for 9 hours over rough terrain for a day of hunting two or four legged quarry.

I've met very few people and been on very few hunts where humping a rifle for nine hours was even remotely necessary. Besides, when I'm hunting I'm not carrying ten or fifteen mags of ammunition and a radio on my back...lol

The economics are their own indictment: the old FAL is cheaper, because it is out of date, a less capable firearm for military purposes that has been passed over.

The FAL is cheaper because millions are available. Supply and demand. FN attempted to create demand with the .223 version and pretty well fell flat on their faces. Looks like this is their last stand for SCAR, a plastic AR-ized version of an FAL.

As for being "passed over", there are still countries using the FAL.

It didn't have a design capable of mounting a scope over the reciever that was military tough

Ever heard of a SUIT scope?

A new hammer ain't necessarily better than the old one just because it's new.