SCAR 16: overpriced?
- Thread starter Bernie Lomax
- Start date
- Status
MachIVshooter
Member
Me neither.
But for those who want such a critter, the AR platform is still an option.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
It is for the SCAR because it lets FN get rid of the op rod and cut the bolt carrier so the bolt seals the openings into the rifle (CH slots and ejection port) automatically. The rails the bolt carrier run on are also formed from the same extrusion.
And it offers a long continuous surface for mounting optics and other accessories.
BSW
I'm pretty sure this was in Life of Brian
boricua9mm
Member
It seems to me that the lack of widespread adoption by Uncle Sam resulted in FN passing off the R&D costs to the civilian market. I remember people paying STUPID money to be the first kind on the block. If I remember correctly, people were paying $4k-$5k during the first few months. Imagine that...
I've come to the conclusion that since I don't do any full auto, suppressed shooting with short barrels, the benefits of a gas piston don't come into play in my shooting/training/recreation. My piston selections manifested themselves in the AUG and the FAL, but in both of those cases one-upping the AR wasn't really a consideration at all.
Out of the current generation of .308 battle rifles, I believe that the SCAR 17 is the most tested, most thoroughly engineered offering and it has been showing and proving for the past few years. The weight of the package and its shooting characteristics are impressive. I personally chose the MWS because I wanted something capable of more precision (didn't wanna spend $5k+ on a scoped KAC), but there are several credible reports of the 17s turning in 1 MOA or better groups with regularity using 5+ shot groups. When it comes to cost, an MWS with a stainless barrel is in the same ballpark as the 17.
I've come to the conclusion that since I don't do any full auto, suppressed shooting with short barrels, the benefits of a gas piston don't come into play in my shooting/training/recreation. My piston selections manifested themselves in the AUG and the FAL, but in both of those cases one-upping the AR wasn't really a consideration at all.
Out of the current generation of .308 battle rifles, I believe that the SCAR 17 is the most tested, most thoroughly engineered offering and it has been showing and proving for the past few years. The weight of the package and its shooting characteristics are impressive. I personally chose the MWS because I wanted something capable of more precision (didn't wanna spend $5k+ on a scoped KAC), but there are several credible reports of the 17s turning in 1 MOA or better groups with regularity using 5+ shot groups. When it comes to cost, an MWS with a stainless barrel is in the same ballpark as the 17.
The end result of using the SCAR is that a projectile is directed at a target.
For the expected amount of bullets launched by an owner, will the SCAR be the better value on a cost per bullet basis? Compared to the M4, SOCOM decided the costs were twice as high.
Cost of the weapon, training, parts on hand for repair and maintenance, ammo. They were already invested in the M4 and the system was giving them trained soldiers, weapons, and ammo. Issue them a SCAR and it was a step backward until they were comfortable they couldn't do it wrong.
Since a SCAR isn't going to offer any major benefits in a cost per bullet downrange, the real issue is what else does it offer to the owner?
Pride of ownership. Same as why some drive a Corvette or 3/4 ton diesel truck - to work. It's just a commuter vehicle. A Corolla would do the same.
When someone buys an expensive item that runs tens of times more than the commodity, it's about something besides what it can do, especially when the owner never does it. I will never go to war with my $350 tactical folder. It's just nice to have and impresses some people. I will never cut something in circumstances nearing the edge of it's performance ability, like cutting a communications cable on the side of a drill rig in the North Sea.
I don't expect a SCAR to do anything better than an M4, and its a fact the ammo has more influence. The bullet is the weapon - not the tube it's launched from.
For the expected amount of bullets launched by an owner, will the SCAR be the better value on a cost per bullet basis? Compared to the M4, SOCOM decided the costs were twice as high.
Cost of the weapon, training, parts on hand for repair and maintenance, ammo. They were already invested in the M4 and the system was giving them trained soldiers, weapons, and ammo. Issue them a SCAR and it was a step backward until they were comfortable they couldn't do it wrong.
Since a SCAR isn't going to offer any major benefits in a cost per bullet downrange, the real issue is what else does it offer to the owner?
Pride of ownership. Same as why some drive a Corvette or 3/4 ton diesel truck - to work. It's just a commuter vehicle. A Corolla would do the same.
When someone buys an expensive item that runs tens of times more than the commodity, it's about something besides what it can do, especially when the owner never does it. I will never go to war with my $350 tactical folder. It's just nice to have and impresses some people. I will never cut something in circumstances nearing the edge of it's performance ability, like cutting a communications cable on the side of a drill rig in the North Sea.
I don't expect a SCAR to do anything better than an M4, and its a fact the ammo has more influence. The bullet is the weapon - not the tube it's launched from.
The SCAR-17's weight is its one advantage. Monolithic uppers enhance accuracy, since the barrel is free-floated, but the tradeoff is that their structural rigidity usually adds weight.
The Brits adopted the MWS MRP as their 7.62 war rifle. I chose the LM8 variant due to its slightly lighter weight, since it allows me to choose where and when to place rails on the forend. Although mine came with the 16" C/L tube, I bought the 18" SS MRP barrel for precision shooting.
Both the 7.62 MWS and LM8, with their MRP design, allow for super-easy barrel swaps, so you can go from a 16" "tactical blaster" set-up to a 18"-20" precision rig in minutes - or switch to a barrel chambered for another (.308-derivative) cartridge. And the monolithic upper gives you more 12 o'clock railage for ease of mounting and positioning your optics.
Admittedly, many do not see the MRP's barrel-swapping capability as an advantage.
Last edited:
boricua9mm
Member
I know. I have one.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Actually, the end result of using any firearm that's ever been invented is that a projectile is directed at a target.
The bullet is the actual weapon bit of any firearm. I could do all my shooting with a single shot break open rifle in 556 NATO and technically, I would be using the same weapon as shooting a SCAR or any other self loading rifle.
I think the SCAR has some advantages over ARs and I've been happy with mine, so it's been worth it for me.
BSW
Sheepdog1968
Member
It's the next generation in weapons and they are charging a premium for them. Rarely have I seen a firearm that folks haven't complained about the price. This,goes back to the early 1990s. If you want it and can afford it buy it. You can find more inexpensive options of you need to.
... and it's made of aluminum which is hot in the summer and cold in the winter with the added disadvantage of not being changeable
The SCAR doesn't bring anything new or original to the table. It's technology is the same that's been available for decades and it's design is borrowed from other rifles. It's a good rifle, just not ground breaking or even a real advancement
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Or you could say: The AK doesn't bring anything new or original to the table. It's technology is the same that's been available for decades and it's design is borrowed from other rifles. It's a good rifle, just not ground breaking or even a real advancement.
Sometimes a syntheses of what's gone before can be better than what was previously available.
BSW
It's sad to see how gizmos with more and more plastic and metal stampings keep going up and up in price. Most of the stuff is grossly overpriced. When it comes to handguns duty worthy Turkish plastic framed one can be had for about half $ vs. that of competition. Rifle wise all civilian needs is M&P or PSA AR 15 for about $650 bucks.
USSOCOM didn't think the SCAR 16 was worth the added cost which is another interesting data point. The SCAR 17 is worth the coin in their view plus you don't buy nearly as many of those.
My personal feelings are pretty much the same, with cash from my wallet, I'll stick to the AR in 5.56, the -17 seems worth the coin.
I wouldn't say it is "overpriced" though, it is an upgrade to the AR IMO and worth the price if it is what you want.
I'm waiting for the next revolutionary breakthrough in small arms technology and so is the military it seems. Nothing current tech is worth the massive cost in changing from the AR platform for incremental gains.
Could be integrated optic-electronic ranging like in the OICW, or something we haven't even thought of yet.
My personal feelings are pretty much the same, with cash from my wallet, I'll stick to the AR in 5.56, the -17 seems worth the coin.
I wouldn't say it is "overpriced" though, it is an upgrade to the AR IMO and worth the price if it is what you want.
I'm waiting for the next revolutionary breakthrough in small arms technology and so is the military it seems. Nothing current tech is worth the massive cost in changing from the AR platform for incremental gains.
Could be integrated optic-electronic ranging like in the OICW, or something we haven't even thought of yet.
bikemutt
Member
Well, what the AK brings to the table is a high level of reliability for $600 or so, the SCAR is certainly as, or even more reliable but at 4 1/2 times the price. And price is what the OP started with.
This is just a guess but I'll wager if the SCAR had a selling price of $1200, very few would buy one.
Today, that is quite true. The AK does not bring anything new to the table that it hasn't since it's introduction. The AK was built on technology previously available and there is no denying the AK was "Old School" from the first. I would even go so far as to point out that the AK was poorly executed in certain aspects, particularly in certain aspects of its ergonomics.
What the AK accomplished that no previous rifle had, was combine the robustness of a main battle rifle, intermediate power rifle cartridge, the magazine capacity of a sub-machinegun with mass production and adoption as the primary infantry rifle on a large scale and it changed the world
Last edited:
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
About the AK:
We get $600 AKs because there were 100 million (literally) made at government arsenals since 1948. Since many of those governments decided they wanted hard currency more than a stash of Kalashnikovs, the parts were broken up and sold here.
People making AKs from scratch don't seem to be able to do it for under $1000, and that's with a factory that's already set up full of equipment that was paid for decades ago (I'm thinking Arsenal Bulgaria for that example).
As to ergonomics:
The AK is actually pretty good. I'd rather teach a new shooter how to run one than an AR. With a AK the control is attached to the thing that's manipulated: Charging handle is attached to bolt carrier, mag release is touching the mag, the safety prevents the CH from being operated in an obvious fashion that's easily understood. With an AR the controls are separated from the thing they manipulate. The charging handle isn't obviously attached to the BGC (and has to be returned manually), the mag release just sticks out of the side of the receiver and isn't obviously attached to the magazine, the bolt release is a small lever that sits on the side of the receiver and its function isn't obvious until it's been explained to you. And don't get me started on the 2 handed goat rodeo that's required to lock the bolt open manually.
We tend to think the Stoner pattern rifles are ergonomic and easy to use because we've been using them for decades.
BSW
We get $600 AKs because there were 100 million (literally) made at government arsenals since 1948. Since many of those governments decided they wanted hard currency more than a stash of Kalashnikovs, the parts were broken up and sold here.
People making AKs from scratch don't seem to be able to do it for under $1000, and that's with a factory that's already set up full of equipment that was paid for decades ago (I'm thinking Arsenal Bulgaria for that example).
As to ergonomics:
The AK is actually pretty good. I'd rather teach a new shooter how to run one than an AR. With a AK the control is attached to the thing that's manipulated: Charging handle is attached to bolt carrier, mag release is touching the mag, the safety prevents the CH from being operated in an obvious fashion that's easily understood. With an AR the controls are separated from the thing they manipulate. The charging handle isn't obviously attached to the BGC (and has to be returned manually), the mag release just sticks out of the side of the receiver and isn't obviously attached to the magazine, the bolt release is a small lever that sits on the side of the receiver and its function isn't obvious until it's been explained to you. And don't get me started on the 2 handed goat rodeo that's required to lock the bolt open manually.
We tend to think the Stoner pattern rifles are ergonomic and easy to use because we've been using them for decades.
BSW
fanchisimo
Member
I think he meant ergonomic in that the controls may not be attached to the thing they operate, but they are in a place that is easily accessible. For instance, to operate the AK charging handle, you either have to turn the AK on it's side or reach your left hand all the way under in an awkward position. Add to that the safety you almost have to take your hand off the pistol grip or at the least stretch out your trigger finger to operate it, I do think the AR has the AK beat in control ergos.
ETA: Also quick mag changes are far easier with the AR. In the AK you have to catch that lip right or start over. It takes more practice to get good at seating it on the first try than slamming home an AR mag.
ETA: Also quick mag changes are far easier with the AR. In the AK you have to catch that lip right or start over. It takes more practice to get good at seating it on the first try than slamming home an AR mag.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Or you could run the AK with your right hand...
BSW
BSW
fanchisimo
Member
I have never before heard of anyone advocating taking your firing hand off of the pistol grip, control operation is done by the support hand. Or do you mean shooting southpaw?
fanchisimo
Member
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Would you run a Garand w/o taking your right hand off the grip?
The 'strong hand always stays on the grip' dogma is fairly recent as applied to rifles. But, some rifles work better using your right hand to manipulate them and I'd argue the AK is one. Ever notice how all the AK's controls are within inches of your right hand?
BSW
- Status
