imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2009, 04:53 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default Fn scar

I know some of you like the SCAR. Here are some detail pictures of the SCAR on AR15.com. Page 1, 3, and 4 contains images.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=277877&page=1
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-17-2009, 03:49 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

I'm surprised nobody responded to this topic earlier. Thanks for this.

So far, I haven't seen the SCAR 16S at FFLs anywhere. I'm not sure who has them for sale, but I know they're very expensive due to the importation costs (apparently, they can't be made for civvie sales in this country) and the rising costs of AWs due to Obama's presidency. On THR, somebody linked to an auction where a SCAR 16S was going for $4,000, even though the MSRP is supposedly $2,500.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-17-2009, 05:50 PM
Gunmaster45's Avatar
Gunmaster45 Gunmaster45 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 1,779
Default

The only "experiance" I have with this gun is in Rainbow Six: Vegas, so I can't truly give my opinion on it until I hold one. Based on what I've seen I think it is ugly, but I'm sure it works fine.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-17-2009, 10:00 PM
FirearmFan FirearmFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 65
Default

I got to handle one at a special show here in Minnesota. I found it be be pretty ergonomic. I'd like one but it's def. way out of my price range, for now at least. In a way I'm still holding out for the ACR, if it ever comes out that is.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-18-2009, 12:46 AM
ManiacallyChallenged ManiacallyChallenged is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 469
Default

Were I to buy a rifle, I'd probably go with full stock AR type. Not picky other than that, I just like the big long rifles. In fact, M16A1 with triangular handguards are nice.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-18-2009, 01:41 AM
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,297
Default

SCARs are okay, but they look bulky to me, especially when mated with their grenade launchers. Same thing with the army's new UGL.

Part of me suspects it'll go the same route as the Mark 23 and get more use in video games and movies than it will in actual military operations...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-18-2009, 05:29 AM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

SOCOM finally place an order for the SCAR. 600 SCAR rifles for the 75th Ranger Regiment.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0..._scar_051109w/

The SCAR is an AR18/SA80/G36/XM8/etc in a different body. The funny thing is that SOCOM was so terrified of the XM8 (almost 40 million in development) that they created the SCAR program. They didn't want to end up with a rifle that melted. In the end they end up with a rifle that is almost the same but different looks. I would be surprise if the SCAR didn't melt in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Last edited by jdun; 05-18-2009 at 05:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-18-2009, 02:11 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdun View Post
I would be surprise if the SCAR didn't melt in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I agree, and this is something to watch for. That being said...

(1.) The SCAR has been tested pretty extensively already...have there been any reports of melting? The issues with the XM8's forearm melting were noted pretty early on, while the SCAR hasn't had any such issues that I'm aware of.

(2.) The melting handguard wasn't the only reason that the XM8 died; there was also the issue of H&K having no U.S. factory, and the fact that it didn't have Picatinny rails (plus it wasn't designed with them in mind). Not to mention that it would have been quite expensive for us to switch service rifles while involved in two huge, expensive wars.

But we'll have to see. Now that there are SCARs in civilian hands, we'll have a chance to determine for ourselves whether SOCOM made a good choice.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-18-2009, 09:44 PM
jdun jdun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Personally the SCAR isn't a good design. A backward step IMO. There too many negatives in the rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-18-2009, 10:41 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdun View Post
Personally the SCAR isn't a good design. A backward step IMO. There too many negatives in the rifle.
What are the negatives? (Again, not saying you're wrong, just curious to hear.)

As far as the SCAR being a step backwards, I dunno. But it certainly isn't a huge step forward. That is, I think, fairly evident.

I do understand your skepticism towards the design and agree that people shouldn't get excited about new small arms designs by reflex, simply because the weapon is being marketed as "state of the art", or because it appears in the latest "Call of Duty" game.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.