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

[Coronach]

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.

Spares will certainly be available, but yes, there would be the question of price.

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.

I understand and agree with your point about the variability of FAL builds. A FAL is only as good as its parts (varying from new to complete beat to crud) and builder (varying from DSA to Century). It is a criticism of the 1911 and AR platforms as well- not everyone makes a good one. However, even taking top shelf FALs (DSA and the like), you are just not going to get consistent 1.5 MOA accuracy from rack-grade rifles. Can you tweak (or custom-make) a FAL to be that accurate? Sure, but look what that does to cost, weight and balance/ergonomics, vis a vis the on-paper specs for the SCAR-H. Can you get lucky and get a box-stock STG-58 that is that accurate? Sure. Even then, however, it is my understanding that most (all?) of the published accuracy tests with the FAL involve single-round loading, to allow for no pressure on the bolt from rounds in the magazine, a known cause of vertical stringing. AFAIK, the SCAR does not suffer from this.

Ergonomics

Subjective as you noted.

True, but the majority of users will find it to be better. If you don't, great, but the OP was asking a general question. Ergonomics are subjective, but you can still measure the impact objectively. Put people on the clock with various systems and the AR-pattern rifle usually wins, assuming equal skill and training. Can you make the FAL work? Absolutely. One thing it has over the straight AR system is the charging handle...a feature retained by the SCAR.

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.

Two words: CQB course.

I have LOTS of friends who thought that their HBAR AR was just nifty and perfect for them until they tried running, jumping, and standing very still with it.

Can you do it with a FAL? Of course, but it is more fun (and you're more effective) with a handier rifle.

As far as plastic vs steel, it depends. I'm unaware of FN using substandard materials in areas that matter. That would fall under "we have to wait and see".

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.

Dunno. I appreciate that it is not "better enough" to merit the upgrade for most people. Heck, I have two FALs and I'm not falling all over myself to upgrade. But for a new user? Assuming the choice was a SCAR at reasonable prices (read: NOT the inflated prices you see when they first come out) and a top-shelf DSA FAL at top-shelf DSA prices...probably worth it.

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.

Are you saying you can fully and reliably actuate the stock STG mag release without moving your right hand from a firing grip? Or are you trying to do some sort of "hold two magazines in my left hand while I also hit the mag release with my left thumb and pray I don't bobble this mag change too badly" maneuver?

Personally, if someone would currently manufacture a mag release like the FSE mag release from a few years ago, that allowed you to hit it with your trigger finger, my main issue with FAL controls would go away.

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

Brazil and several Third-World kleptocracies.

Don't get me wrong, I love the FAL, but it's beauty does not lie in who currently uses it.

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

Ever heard of a SUIT scope?

You can make optics work on the FAL, yes. I use the DSA mount myself, and it is a very good solution. However, the more elegant, robust and lighter solution is to have the rail/mount be integral with the rifle, like the SCAR.

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

No, it's better because it is designed better. However, just because a new hammer is better doesn't mean the old hammer doesn't work.

Mike

 

[Hatterasguy]

As much as I like the FAL I do enjoy seeing new designs come out. Time march's on, what was a very good design in the 50's isn't really as good as it could be if it was built today.

Time will tell on the SCAR but I think its the most interesting new rifle to come out in this century. Its nice to see FN is not resting on its laurels and is trying to make a modern battle rifle.

Other than tweaking the AR10 no other company seems to have a response to this rifle.

 

[fireside44]

Can you get lucky and get a box-stock STG-58 that is that accurate? Sure.

1.5-2.0 moa is pretty much a standard for the STG-58. That's why the STG barrels are so sought after for builds. It's not really an issue of luck.

Even then, however, it is my understanding that most (all?) of the published accuracy tests with the FAL involve single-round loading, to allow for no pressure on the bolt from rounds in the magazine, a known cause of vertical stringing.

Never heard of rounds against bolt causing stringing. Slinging up too tight, as it pulls on the barrel, but had never heard of the mag pressure on bolt bottom. I'll have to look into that. As for accuracy tests, there are many at fal files who post 1.5-2.5 moa targets not using single shot.

Are you saying you can fully and reliably actuate the stock STG mag release without moving your right hand from a firing grip?

Yes, I can actuate it with my trigger finger.

Personally, if someone would currently manufacture a mag release like the FSE mag release from a few years ago, that allowed you to hit it with your trigger finger, my main issue with FAL controls would go away.

Agreed, but I can still do it with the stock one. Then again, I have long-ish fingers.

Don't get me wrong, I love the FAL, but it's beauty does not lie in who currently uses it.

 

[Tirod]

Frankly, how someone hunts doesn't have to meet with the expectations of others. If anyone chooses to "still hunt" - keep slowly moving - the application means carrying the rifle to do it. Lighter is better, just as it would be for any soldier. In the still of day when deer bed down, it's an effective technique to go find them, not sleep under a tree and waste the day. It's called hunting for a reason.

Arrogantly assuming those who can't handle the ergonomics and weight of ancient curios or relics and calling them midgets doesn't address the shortcomings inherent in the control locations. People put up with the older designs because of ignorance and a lack of alternative. There was no other choice. And those old designs were based on engineering that won't hold up. Carbon steel and wood stocks do not endure the environment well. A simple look at the NRA grading system show why the pristine examples get top dollar, most guns rust and rot. Moving to aluminum and polymers will certainly reduce the negative affects, as they simply corrode less and take anticorrosion treatments better. That means less maintenance and down time, military or sporting use.

It's a poor example claiming cell phones are designed for a three year life - but would you prefer the brick phones in a bag that weigh 6 pounds as an alternative? I suppose a dial phone could be jacked in where ever you go. Should we carry that and quit sniveling? No one will even consider it an alternative, why then consider old weapons? The real reason has to do with entertainment, not using one as a tool.

No, new stuff is often better because all the intervening improvements are collected into one design. Had the SCAR been available in 1955, the FAL wouldn't even be considered. What is telling is that as the AR10 was developed, it was - the materials and engineering considered the next step ahead, and made even better in an intermediate caliber that matched actual battle conditions.

The average soldier of the '50s was certainly 2-4" shorter and less developed physically, yet even in the face of todays well fed and taller recruits, military forces still push to reduce the weight and improve the ergonomics of fighting weapons - because it improves hit probability. Like it or not, the experienced experts know when to move on and get better weapons. The Brits and many others have ended the service life of the FAL and made it the popular surplus curio it is. It's inherent design flaws contributed to that, and there's no going back.

For every reason given for the FAL, the same could be said for any other older rifle, like the Krag-Jorgenson. Accentuate the positive, smooth over the deficiencies, and keep looking back until we are all stuffing cartridges down smoothbores in line and drill. No thanks, progress exists, I'll take advantage of it as I can.

 

[fireside44]

And those old designs were based on engineering that won't hold up.

As compared to modern plastic guns that won't hold up?

It's a poor example claiming cell phones are designed for a three year life - but would you prefer the brick phones in a bag that weigh 6 pounds as an alternative?

I think he is correct. The brick bag phones still work. The nokia bricks still work. Newer model phones do indeed have a short lifespan.

So, I guess the end question will become: Do you want something that works fantastically for a limited time, or do you want something that works nearly as fantastic but will almost certainly offer a much greater service life? Bic lighter vs Zippo syndrome.

Had the SCAR been available in 1955, the FAL wouldn't even be considered.

Speculation.

The average soldier of the '50s was certainly 2-4" shorter and less developed physically, yet even in the face of todays well fed and taller recruits, military forces still push to reduce the weight and improve the ergonomics of fighting weapons - because it improves hit probability.

And they decided that SCAR 16 probably wasn't going to improve hit probability vs an AR style weapon.

Like it or not, the experienced experts know when to move on and get better weapons.

And in the case of SCAR 16, not. Regardless, only time will tell for the SCAR 17.