SCAR rifle with SOC yet?

[Danger Close]

I was wondering if any of you have heard any further developments on the SCAR rifle that is supposed to be getting tested by SOC.

Here is some background info and some awesome pics! Enjoy

http://digilander.libero.it/g2k/guns/handguns/auto/fn_scar.html

[Blarney]

most likely to be dropped....there is still hope for it though.

[Danger Close]

That would be a D**n shame. That is one sweet shooter!

[ClydeFrog]

most likely to be dropped....there is still hope for it though.
Really? Says who?

[XxDualityxX]

Really? Says who?

It looks cool is what he means.

[Kersh]

I like it with the Crane stock.

[CPLHUNTER]

I was wondering if any of you have heard any further developments on the SCAR rifle that is supposed to be getting tested by SOC.

Here is some background info and some awesome pics! Enjoy

http://digilander.libero.it/g2k/guns/handguns/auto/fn_scar.html

Yes a great rifle. It is serving me well in my mission to save the president in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, which by the way is a great game! p-)

[JVeld]

For some reason, I dont really like it ........maybe it needs to grow on me a bit more, not that it matters or anything.

[Resurrection]

For some reason, I dont really like it ........maybe it needs to grow on me a bit more, not that it matters or anything.
x2. Also, the vertical grip looks a little odd to me. I'd rather see something more "conventional" like this instead.

http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/5184/dsc067714saresized6sh.jpg


Aside from that, it seems to be a pretty nice rifle.

[Spleen]

Not a Crane stock, but a Vltor.

Does anyone know if this is actually a picture of a SCAR (IE the pic with the Vltor)? It looks completely different from the other images. In fact it looks alot like a modified M16/M4 receiver to me, plus it seems to have the M4 buffer tube to be able to take the Vltor...

Also, that forward vertical grip (the big bulky one) is the combination grip/bipod. It has two legs that extend fromt he bottom of the grip in an inverted v-shape to function as a bipod.

[SMGLee]

Blarney....Tell me where you heard this from? SCAR is still alive and kicking and it is going into its second phase with an additional order of 200 units.

Neither Crane nor Vltor will fit the SCAR, they were designed for the M16 system.

the Vertical grip pictured you seen the most are Gripod, they are a bi-pod/vert grip combo. this grip is not part of the package, at least not yet. Tangodown is suppose to get an order for the vert grip for the next 200 rifles.


Don;t knock it till you try it. byu just looking at a gun on web page does not tell you anything. SCAR is probably the best thing since slice bread to the real war fighters. as long as the committee don't bulk it up like they did with the MK23 pistol.

[yiorgo]

the SCAR will not be droped...and actually will be available to civilians in the US in about a year....also 5th pic with the vltor stockis NOT the SCAR rifle...it was COBB manufacturers candidate for the SCAR program...completely different rifle

[RobertStacked]

Fired one at some point. Comparable ergonomics to that of the M4 (M4 still is better), more rubust, seems like it at least. Not as managable (slightly) in full auto as compared to the M4. The best part is the 7.62 round in that compact of a package/ ability to go bang-bang (moreso than the M4 or for that matter the AK/POS (AK aint all that reliable due to cheap manufacture and those godda** pins that seem to creep out and suddenly... smash,:) click- your triger assembly is one with the buttstock)/ and ergonomics.

[Catch22]

Fired one at some point. Comparable ergonomics to that of the M4 (M4 still is better), more rubust, seems like it at least. Not as managable (slightly) in full auto as compared to the M4. The best part is the 7.62 round in that compact of a package/ ability to go bang-bang (moreso than the M4 or for that matter the AK/POS (AK aint all that reliable due to cheap manufacture and those godda** pins that seem to creep out and suddenly... smash,:) click- your triger assembly is one with the buttstock)/ and ergonomics.

There are AK's and AK's Robert, I'm sure you know that ;-)
How was the heat-up with SCAR? You fired both L and H versions? Any stopages?

[yiorgo]

fired one at some point??(can you elaborate more on this please)....not as controllable as an M4??(the SCAR L AND H ) both rifles have a 600 round per minute cycle rate....MUCH EASIER TO CONTROL than the M4s 900 round per minute cycle rate......these rifles and I quote from people who have tested them are ABSOLUTELY stable in full auto.....ergonomics and control are far superior to the M4

[Luno]

I hope the FN Scar have a better system to work the side-folding stock then the original FN FNC. Its damn hard to fold it with gloves

[yiorgo]

side folder is extremely easy to work

[Luno]

side folder is extremely easy to work

So you have experience from the side folding stock from the FN-FNC ?
You must first press a tiny button to the left while the stock is simultaneously pushed down out of the receiver and then folded up against the receiver..
i want to see you do it with thick gloves p-)

[yiorgo]

no dont have experience with FNC you asked if SCAR rifle was easy and I replied that it was

[I love Rachael Leigh Cook]

WTF is the point of having a folding stock anyway? Who the hell actually uses it outside of the movies?

[Ratamacue]

WTF is the point of having a folding stock anyway? Who the hell actually uses it outside of the movies?It makes your weapon a helluvalot easier to handle when moving in and out of vehicles.

[Luno]

no dont have experience with FNC you asked if SCAR rifle was easy and I replied that it was

so you know that the scar dont use the same side folding stock system as the FNC

[ClydeFrog]

It looks cool is what he means.
No i don't dumbass. I want to know where the indication that the SCAR is going to be dropped is.

[Hispeed1]

I "read somewhere" that the SCAR was currently being tested but the whole program is to be held off for about 5 more years. . . Same for the JCP (.45 cal. Joint Combat Pistol)

[Durandal]

Blarney....Tell me where you heard this from? SCAR is still alive and kicking and it is going into its second phase with an additional order of 200 units.

Neither Crane nor Vltor will fit the SCAR, they were designed for the M16 system.

the Vertical grip pictured you seen the most are Gripod, they are a bi-pod/vert grip combo. this grip is not part of the package, at least not yet. Tangodown is suppose to get an order for the vert grip for the next 200 rifles.


Don't knock it till you try it. byu just looking at a gun on web page does not tell you anything. SCAR is probably the best thing since slice bread to the real war fighters. as long as the committee don't bulk it up like they did with the MK23 pistol.

X2 on the bold...

Thought you were going to have a stroke...

[dacanadianbomb]

[QUOTE=ClydeFrog]No i don't dumbass.QUOTE]

No need for that kind of language.

[PvtPyle]

I "read somewhere" that the SCAR was currently being tested but the whole program is to be held off for about 5 more years. . . Same for the JCP (.45 cal. Joint Combat Pistol)

And yet the contract for 85,000 SCAR's has ink on it and the production is going on.

[yiorgo]

production of the SCAR rifle..and not really called SCAR its the ARM rifle is going on...FN has to honor their military contract first before sales to civilians can start which should be 07....latest 08

[SMGLee]

X2 on the bold...

Thought you were going to have a stroke...


Breath Chen, Breath....!!!! :D


Hey people, SCAR is not getting dropped, it is not being held off, it is going ahead as schedule, there might be a slight delay since the gun was so successful from design to prototype, the different brenches are actually looking at it as a possible future replacement.

the ight shoots like an AK, bout 600RPM but with less recoil and much smoother operation. the gun is superbly light and it is very well designed by using the M16 egronomics as the base for where all the controls are placed. if transition to our military the training cycle for war fighter should be min.

The Heavy is also a very light weight rifle with a robust recoil but it is nothing a shooter couldn't handle. the heavy is what really intrigues me. nothing, i mean nothing on the market can match its potential. a sniper version is another very interesting design which is almost unlike the SCAR heavy.

then again.... this is what i read from XX web that some body heard from this guy that knows that other guy so this is all third party to 10th power information.......;)

[Kocur]

Personally I find SCAR a beautiful design in terms of internals, with perhaps slight doubt about using enclosed bolt rotation cam in the bolt carrier wall and therefore need to disassemble bolt carrier group by removing no less but three pins, but thats nothing big really.

But there is an issue that Im confused about, i.e. lower, uderbarrel Picatinny rail. As we can see here http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm in the last pic, the rail is detachable with barrel. Obviously the rail is attached to barrel in the chamber area... and there is this 'band' running from front end of rail around barrel just before gas port assembly. IF that band was a mean of rigid connection of front end of rail and barrel, then the latter is not free floating, which seems unthinkable, especially considering Sniper Variant bipod :(
I have read somewhere strong statement, that barrel is free floating indeed and rail is connected with it in chamber area only. So what do we see in that pic? What is that 'band'? Or perhaps the pic shows early version of rifle, while in later ones we would see nothing looking like second connection between rail and barrel?

[yiorgo]

the ARM H is what I am waiting for...got to fondle one with 10in barrel its weight was 7lbs......yup 7lbs for a 308 rifle...its going to kick like a mother but I dont care, even if they went a 1lb heavier just as long as total weight with mag and ammo doesnt go over 8.5 lbs I am set

[LaoSexMachine]

Breath Chen, Breath....!!!! :D


Hey people, SCAR is not getting dropped, it is not being held off, it is going ahead as schedule, there might be a slight delay since the gun was so successful from design to prototype, the different brenches are actually looking at it as a possible future replacement.

the ight shoots like an AK, bout 600RPM but with less recoil and much smoother operation. the gun is superbly light and it is very well designed by using the M16 egronomics as the base for where all the controls are placed. if transition to our military the training cycle for war fighter should be min.

The Heavy is also a very light weight rifle with a robust recoil but it is nothing a shooter couldn't handle. the heavy is what really intrigues me. nothing, i mean nothing on the market can match its potential. a sniper version is another very interesting design which is almost unlike the SCAR heavy.

then again.... this is what i read from XX web that some body heard from this guy that knows that other guy so this is all third party to 10th power information.......;)

The oracle has spoken. This is the only person in this thread I believe.

[Octavian]

I have heard some negative things about the SCAR...


http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10133&highlight=SCAR

[Adam Wilhelm]

What was so negative about it?
A bunch of guys saying the 416 is better then the FN SCAR without stating reason.
One guy said it was crap and a another said the ergonomics sucked.
Sounded most like grumpy old men.

[Futile Talisman]

What was so negative about it?
A bunch of guys saying the 416 is better then the FN SCAR without stating reason.
One guy said it was crap and a another said the ergonomics sucked.
Sounded most like grumpy old men.

Grumpy old men? Those guys, especially "The Reaper" are in the proverbial "know", The Reaper being a SF senior officer BTW. Regardless of that small fact they state that all they are giving is their opinions. One guy speaking about the ergonomics "sucking" is a SOTIC instructor.

They know their business and IMHO their opinion should be taken with seriousness and all due respect that they have earned. My 0.02

FT

[PvtPyle]

Grumpy old men? Those guys, especially "The Reaper" are in the proverbial "know", The Reaper being a SF senior officer BTW. Regardless of that small fact they state that all they are giving is their opinions. One guy speaking about the ergonomics "sucking" is a SOTIC instructor.

They know their business and IMHO their opinion should be taken with seriousness and all due respect that they have earned. My 0.02

FT


No, a bunch of silly @$$ed kids with no experience in the real world let alone the military or with live weapons know more than the real guys. Just ask them

[Kocur]

Wonder what are reasons for comments on "bad ergonomics", I mean those couldnt be about, say magazine change, since magazine catch and bolt catch are located in the very same places as in M16.

Btw. SCAR in not "jazzed up FNC" by any means.

[ClydeFrog]

Yeah I wondered about that comment too. SCAR is afaik short-stroke. Bolt carrier and bolt remind me of the G36 actually (AR18 respectively).

Those guys virtually praise the 416/417 system. I wonder if those would've become the SCARs had they been available by then. Which they probably would hadn't HK wasted time and resources on the XM8 :roll:

[SMGLee]

But there is an issue that Im confused about, i.e. lower, uderbarrel Picatinny rail. As we can see here http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm in the last pic, the rail is detachable with barrel.

The barrel is not attached to the lower rail, it is just how that picture were taken, they disassembled everything for photo ops and the way the rail was placed seem like the lower rail is attached to the barrel.

No worries, the barrel is free float.

[SMGLee]

The oracle has spoken. This is the only person in this thread I believe.

You are so wrong, my info is from third source that read the magazine that stated they are the special weapon of the future and they said and I believed......;)

There are a group of guys in the military is pushing the HK 416, this would probably the best system for the money since the military can really just purchase the upper and improved the M16 system with longer durability especially for the common troops. the gas piston 416 in the CQB-R format is absolutely amazing, it is flawless and works like a charm with a can.

Reaper is definitely one of the guy in the know, his believe does not reflect the entire military nor SOCOM, his voice does matter but at this time, SCAR is moving forward nevertheless. much like Aimpoint vs. EOTech or LaRue mount vs. ARMS mount, the SCAR vs. 416 is on like a donkey kong. in the end both are very capable system and no matter which design wins, ultimately it is our troops that wins.

never really worry about someone stealing a new concept, usually you have to shove that concept down some one's throat. Look at the Glock in the late 80s, and look at the popularity now. HK is nice but quit heavier and it can NOT operate over the beach like the SCAR. for a ground pounder, the HK might be God, but some one that has to swim, the SCAR will be a better option.

[Catch22]

HK is nice but quit heavier and it can NOT operate over the beach like the SCAR. for a ground pounder, the HK might be God, but some one that has to swim, the SCAR will be a better option.

Chen, could you clarify that statement a bit please? What would be shortcomings of 416 system when used in waterborne ops?

[Kocur]

The barrel is not attached to the lower rail, it is just how that picture were taken, they disassembled everything for photo ops and the way the rail was placed seem like the lower rail is attached to the barrel.

No worries, the barrel is free float.

Thanks - actually I was worried :)
So I understand that what I took for a band around barrel just before gas port is actually U-shaped mounting of rail to the receiver, without contact with barrel. Anyway what can be seen in that pic suggests, that it is necessary to remove lower rail before replacing barrel, and actually it takes disassembling lower receiver too to do that.
Are some other pics of disassembled SCAR available somewhere...? ;)



Yeah I wondered about that comment too. SCAR is afaik short-stroke. Bolt carrier and bolt remind me of the G36 actually (AR18 respectively).

Yes it is short stroke piston operated weapon. Bolt carrier/bolt indeed is based on AR-18 design, i.e. its M16-like multi lug bolt in rectangular bolt carrier with enclosed operating cam milled in side wall.

What I like the most in SCAR is optimal design in area of bolt carrier/piston relation. Bolt carrier has that long bar above, running forwards until near of gas port. Thus the weapon is short stroke operated, but there is no long, thin rod (thin to reduce its weight, as it is wasted from recoiling parts energy POV) running from gas port backwards until chamber area like in AR-18 or SVT.
Since bolt carrier bar is that long, it was possible to have it cover operating handle slot without any additional parts, as it is in, say FAL.

See that 'lug' in front part of bolt carrier bar, below it? Its there that front slot for receiver rails is located, while rear one in in the extreme end of bolt carrier. So area of contact between bolt carrier and rails was reduced. That and proper weight of bolt carrier (0,5kg+) ensures very good reliability.

Location of guiding slots in bolt carrier means that said guide rails, presumably made of steel, run through entire lenght of upper receiver. Upper receiver crossection, fact that its made of aluminium and very long bolt carrier rails suggest, that upper is very stiff, which is crucial for dispersion. That and free floating barrel indicate, that SCAR should be very accurate weapon.


I wonder why they didnt use FNC-like or ever better AK-like locking stops/bolt/bolt carrier arrangement? If they did, for which that bolt carrier is perfectly suitable (bolt carrier bar runs over barrel anyway, it could hold operating cam, exactly like in AK), disassembling of bolt carrier wouldn't take removing all those pins. Not a biggie anyway.

Like I said SCAR is a very, very beautiful design! I dont think I know any better!

[Adam Wilhelm]

Grumpy old men? Those guys, especially "The Reaper" are in the proverbial "know", The Reaper being a SF senior officer BTW. Regardless of that small fact they state that all they are giving is their opinions. One guy speaking about the ergonomics "sucking" is a SOTIC instructor.

They know their business and IMHO their opinion should be taken with seriousness and all due respect that they have earned. My 0.02

FT

I know that they are NOT grumpy old men, i said they SOUNDED like grumpy old men. ;-)

And their way to trash the FN SCAR:
-What´s your opinion on the FN?
-It sucks!
-Okey then... :roll:

[Futile Talisman]

I know that they are NOT grumpy old men, i said they SOUNDED like grumpy old men. ;-)

And their way to trash the FN SCAR:
-What´s your opinion on the FN?
-It sucks!
-Okey then... :roll:

Cool dude, wasn't trying to call you out, sorry if it sounded that way.

FT

[Hullebullen]

I hope the FN Scar have a better system to work the side-folding stock then the original FN FNC. Its damn hard to fold it with gloves

It was horrible, especially if you got one that had seen better days or if you managed to bang it up a bit yourself, in those cases it could be flipping impossible to fold it...

[ClydeFrog]

Yes it is short stroke piston operated weapon. Bolt carrier/bolt indeed is based on AR-18 design, i.e. its M16-like multi lug bolt in rectangular bolt carrier with enclosed operating cam milled in side wall.

What I like the most in SCAR is optimal design in area of bolt carrier/piston relation. Bolt carrier has that long bar above, running forwards until near of gas port. Thus the weapon is short stroke operated, but there is no long, thin rod (thin to reduce its weight, as it is wasted from recoiling parts energy POV) running from gas port backwards until chamber area like in AR-18 or SVT.
Since bolt carrier bar is that long, it was possible to have it cover operating handle slot without any additional parts, as it is in, say FAL.

See that 'lug' in front part of bolt carrier bar, below it? Its there that front slot for receiver rails is located, while rear one in in the extreme end of bolt carrier. So area of contact between bolt carrier and rails was reduced. That and proper weight of bolt carrier (0,5kg+) ensures very good reliability.

Location of guiding slots in bolt carrier means that said guide rails, presumably made of steel, run through entire lenght of upper receiver. Upper receiver crossection, fact that its made of aluminium and very long bolt carrier rails suggest, that upper is very stiff, which is crucial for dispersion. That and free floating barrel indicate, that SCAR should be very accurate weapon.


I wonder why they didnt use FNC-like or ever better AK-like locking stops/bolt/bolt carrier arrangement? If they did, for which that bolt carrier is perfectly suitable (bolt carrier bar runs over barrel anyway, it could hold operating cam, exactly like in AK), disassembling of bolt carrier wouldn't take removing all those pins. Not a biggie anyway.

Like I said SCAR is a very, very beautiful design! I dont think I know any better!I don't quite know what you mean by operating cam (no native english speaker). Care to elaborate?

The long bolt-carrier probably means a lot of weight moving back and forth. Also the charging handle is reciprocating (seeing as how it seems to be merely a pin pushed into either side of the prolonged bolt-carrier)? Not that that's wrong in my eyes (G36 works basically the same) but some might have a problem with that.

[Adam Wilhelm]

Also the charging handle is reciprocating (seeing as how it seems to be merely a pin pushed into either side of the prolonged bolt-carrier)?

It´s the same way with the FN FNC and it works like a charm.

[SMGLee]

Chen, could you clarify that statement a bit please? What would be shortcomings of 416 system when used in waterborne ops?

This is simple, all AR action weapon have a buffer tube, and this buffer tube pretty much act like a hydralic when the entire weapon is submerged under the water, so if you happen to pop up over the beach and need to take a few shots to eliminate some sentry from mostly under the water.. with barely your head sticking out and the muzzle of your weapon above the water but rest of everything else is still submerged, an AR action weapon can get off one maybe two shots before the hydralic effect cause the weapon to short stroke. where as the SCAR doesn't have a buffer tube and the big empty space in the receiver creats min. hydrlic effect. this is one of the biggest reason that FN won the SCAR during the final phase of the testing.




Thanks - actually I was worried :)
So I understand that what I took for a band around barrel just before gas port is actually U-shaped mounting of rail to the receiver, without contact with barrel. Anyway what can be seen in that pic suggests, that it is necessary to remove lower rail before replacing barrel, and actually it takes disassembling lower receiver too to do that.
Are some other pics of disassembled SCAR available somewhere...? ;)



You are reading into the picture way to much.

the chassis if you want to call it is basically a monolithic rail paltform much in tune to the LMT MRP, instead of being machined which can cost an arm and a leg, the FN system is extrude 7000 series aluminum. the rail at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock just bolt right to the chassis. notthing special. it just give the operator a choice in where the rail are placed.

sorry no can do on more detailed strip down photos...a lot of this stuff is still under a semi secret veil.

[Kocur]

I don't quite know what you mean by operating cam (no native english speaker). Care to elaborate?

Operating cam or cam in bolt carrier which affects pin sticking out of the bolt. In counterecoil, when bolt stops on the rear end of barrel, bolt carrier still goes forth and one of cam's surfaces makes bolt rotate, so that bolt's locking lugs get behind locking stops. In recoil, since lugs on the bolt are behind locking stops, the bolt cant move backwards, while bolt carrier does and another surface of its cam makes bolt rotate, and as soon as bolt lugs clear from behind locking stop, bolt can travel longitudinally with bolt carrier.

This is bolt carrier of MP7 with bolt in unlocked position (that of SCAR is very similar).



http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5971/mp7boltcarrier8jr.png (http://imageshack.us)

The long bolt-carrier probably means a lot of weight moving back and forth.

Shape of bolt carrier is irrelevant - it is quite long but also rather thin. I bet weight of SCAR bolt carrier with bolt, i.e. weight of recoiling assembly is around 0,5kg. In case of G36 its ca. 0,5kg, AKM 0,505, AK-74 0,460kg and M16 (surprise, surprise!) 0,460kg too (it is weight of bolt+bolt carrier+buffer moving together, unfortunately weight of steel/wolfram weights inside buffer does not improve recoiling parts KE, until recoiling assembly stops in extrems of bolt carrier travel). In another words ~0,5kg is enough to provide very good reliability (as we hear of AKs) but not too much weight moving back and forth (as we hear of M16).
You do want to have recoiling assembly that heavy. Recoiling assembly has to have certain amount of KE to operate weapon, i.e. do all the works of the cycle. If go too low on recoiling assembly weight, you would have to increace its velocity, which is BAD for reliability, increasing chances of breakages. Too light recoiling assembly with reasonable velocity means low excess of KE over needs of cycle which means that if anything, like dirt of fouling add friction, weapon might cease to function.

[Kocur]

You are reading into the picture way to much.

the chassis if you want to call it is basically a monolithic rail paltform much in tune to the LMT MRP, instead of being machined which can cost an arm and a leg, the FN system is extrude 7000 series aluminum. the rail at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock just bolt right to the chassis. notthing special. it just give the operator a choice in where the rail are placed.

Rgrt, but what I meant concernes 6 o'clock rail only. Assuming, that gas port/front sight base aren't removed from barrel before replacing it (and I really dont think they are), the barrel is removed from receiver by pulling it forwards. Assuming again, that barrel is removed with barrel housing, it would take removing lower receiver and (I thought) 6 o'clock rail. That would caused by that protrusion under barrel housing, where hole for receiver pivot pin is located. After looking at it again I see that it might be very well, that removing 6 o'clock rail is not necessary, because when bolt carrier is out, there is space in receiver to pivot barrel muzzle down before removing it, so that barrel housing protrusion clears above that rail. After rethinking, I belive this is the case.

Dont take reading into pics away from me ;)! I love 'investigating' (and finding out later that I guessed right ;)... or not) how those things work in details. Not to mention not being able to find out by having the weapon in my hands :(



sorry no can do on more detailed strip down photos...a lot of this stuff is still under a semi secret veil.

Rgrt! Wont ask again :( . OTOH what could be secret about automatic small arms design after 120+ years of developement? But its just regulations I guess.

[SMGLee]

Rgrt, but what I meant concernes 6 o'clock rail only. Assuming, that gas port/front sight base aren't removed from barrel before replacing it (and I really dont think they are), the barrel is removed from receiver by pulling it forwards. Assuming again, that barrel is removed with barrel housing, it would take removing lower receiver and (I thought) 6 o'clock rail. That would caused by that protrusion under barrel housing, where hole for receiver pivot pin is located. After looking at it again I see that it might be very well, that removing 6 o'clock rail is not necessary, because when bolt carrier is out, there is space in receiver to pivot barrel muzzle down before removing it, so that barrel housing protrusion clears above that rail. After rethinking, I belive this is the case.

Ok,

I am not sure how to explain this...so here we go.

The monolithic rail platform is one piece tubing that encompass the entire upper receiver from the front to the rear.

The barrel are removed via a few allen screws.

The barrel assembly has the gas block and front sight included, so every time you change barrel, you get a new assembly with the gas block and front sight build into it, a lot like the Minimi.

I am not understand the barrel housing, as far as I understand the barrel housing is part of the one piece receiver. it can't come apart.

[Kocur]

Ok,

I am not sure how to explain this...so here we go.

The monolithic rail platform is one piece tubing that encompass the entire upper receiver from the front to the rear.

Rgrt, as can be seen on pics - upper receiver is one long part.


Ok,The barrel are removed via a few allen screws.

The barrel assembly has the gas block and front sight included, so every time you change barrel, you get a new assembly with the gas block and front sight build into it, a lot like the Minimi.

Naturally.


Ok,I am not understand the barrel housing, as far as I understand the barrel housing is part of the one piece receiver. it can't come apart.

Barrel housing would be that thing:

http://img417.imageshack.us/img417/1711/scarbarrelhousing1sq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Since barrel is of cylindrical shape and receiver more like rectangular, it takes some part to provide interconnection between barrel and receiver. So there is barrel housing of external shape corresponding with shape of receiver, and you mount barrel into it - as it is arranged in AKM.

Now we see there are two holes in the barrel housing (on each side I presume), obviously for allen screws you mention to mount it in upper receiver. And so I concluded, that barrel is replaced with said barrel housing.

My guess is that solid connection (i.e. not disconnectable) is between barrel and barrel housing (say by screwing barrel in or just pushing it into, again like in AKM) rather than between barrel housing and receiver. Those holes in barrel housing seem to be positioned bit too high to keep barrel in barrel housing.

[akmarksman]

x2. Also, the vertical grip looks a little odd to me. I'd rather see something more "conventional" like this instead.

http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/5184/dsc067714saresized6sh.jpg


Aside from that, it seems to be a pretty nice rifle.
LOL that FNC is similar to the SCAR..

[SMGLee]

Barrel housing would be that thing:

http://img417.imageshack.us/img417/1711/scarbarrelhousing1sq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Since barrel is of cylindrical shape and receiver more like rectangular, it takes some part to provide interconnection between barrel and receiver. So there is barrel housing of external shape corresponding with shape of receiver, and you mount barrel into it - as it is arranged in AKM.

Now we see there are two holes in the barrel housing (on each side I presume), obviously for allen screws you mention to mount it in upper receiver. And so I concluded, that barrel is replaced with said barrel housing.

My guess is that solid connection (i.e. not disconnectable) is between barrel and barrel housing (say by screwing barrel in or just pushing it into, again like in AKM) rather than between barrel housing and receiver. Those holes in barrel housing seem to be positioned bit too high to keep barrel in barrel housing.

That is the barrel extension. like an AR the barrel and the extension are two pieces. the barrel are pressed into the barrel extension on the AR. i can't tell you how the barrel are secure to the extension on the SCAR. but by explaining the AR system, it might give you an idea.

yes the entire barrel/barrel extension are replaced along with front sight and gas block. the barrel just slide into the slot macined into the receiver and held together by those allen screw. there is not screwing of any kind on the SCAR barrel assembly to SCAR receiver interface. just simply slide the barrel into the receiver and tighten the allen screws.

[Kocur]

That is the barrel extension. like an AR the barrel and the extension are two pieces. the barrel are pressed into the barrel extension on the AR. i can't tell you how the barrel are secure to the extension on the SCAR. but by explaining the AR system, it might give you an idea.

yes the entire barrel/barrel extension are replaced along with front sight and gas block. the barrel just slide into the slot macined into the receiver and held together by those allen screw. there is not screwing of any kind on the SCAR barrel assembly to SCAR receiver interface. just simply slide the barrel into the receiver and tighten the allen screws.

Rgrt! My thoughts exactly, thanks for confirming.

[Resurrection]

LOL that FNC is similar to the SCAR..
AK5 CF, where'd you get FNC from? They don't look all that similar to me. It's a proposed improvement over the original AK5 in case you're wondering.

[ClydeFrog]

Well they are essentially the same.

[Resurrection]

No.

Thank you, please come again.

[Kocur]

And what is AK5 if not slightly modified FNC (no 3rds burst mode, different hand and trigger guard, different charging handle etc)?

[Resurrection]

A modified FNC, not an "essentially the same" FNC.

The AK5 CF is an even more modified and different platform.


http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/219/fnfnc24yx.jpg
FN FNC

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2395/ak58zy.jpg
AK 5

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1863/img00750sa.jpg
AK 5CF

[Nordmannen]

No.

Thank you, please come again.

SWEDEN STRONG!!!

Ok, green plastic makes it a totally new weapon.

[Resurrection]

OMG YES !

c


Let's try getting back on topic. Sorry for the hijack.

[ClydeFrog]

A modified FNC, not an "essentially the same" FNC.

The AK5 CF is an even more modified and different platform.



essentially
A adverb
1 basically, fundamentally, essentially, in essence, au fond

at bottom or by one's (or its) very nature;
I was reffering to the AK shown above and if that is not "essentially the same" as an FNC then the Diemaco's aren't essentially AR15s and the East German MPiKs aren't essentially AKs and whatnot.

[IRISH RANGER]

I think the scar is a great rifle it looks good and its said to work well that’s what you need 7.62 and an M203 an your all ready for war!!!!

[Adam Wilhelm]

ClydeFrog is right, it IS essentially an FNC.
We made just ca 70 modifications on it.

Oh, and don´t try to hype the Ak 5.
It´s a good rifle but it have its drawback to.
It´s just as good as current issue of M4, M16, C7 and C8.

The Ak 5C is an all different business.

On topic: The FN SCAR looks like it could be very promising.
Sure, an regular infantry guy just don´t need to change barrels all the time but for the technicians 90% parts similarity between SCAR-L and SCAR-H means something.

[Silent_Hunter]

SCAR Similiar to Pindad SS-1 (Indonesian version of FN-FNC)

Pindad SS-1 V1
http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/ss1_v1_k5_56mm.jpg

Pindad SS-1 V2
http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/ss1_v2_k_56mm_A.jpg

Pindad SS-1 V3
http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/ss1v3_k556mm.jpg

Pindad SS-1 V4
http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/SS1_V4.jpg

Pindad SS-1 V5
http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/ss1_v5_k556.jpg

www.pindad.com (http://www.pindad.com)

[Silent_Hunter]

Pindad SS-2

http://www.pindad.com/ind/images/militer/senjata/SS2_V1.JPG

[Kocur]

Now thats an interesting weapon! From pics in the thread:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68359&highlight=ss-2 it seems that SS-2 is basically combo of: new upper, M16 front part of bolt carrier, long piston stroke and FNC-like lower.
Not so SCAR related ;)

[SMGLee]

SCAR Similiar to Pindad SS-1 (Indonesian version of FN-FNC)


Nothing against the Pindad, but similiar to SCAR, can you support that statement?

SCAR is monolithic platform, quick change barrel. complete different gas system, folding collapisible stock, and polymer lower that does not have anything to do with the FNC any longer.

Just wondering.

[Kocur]

Definately agreed! SCAR is completely new design! Apart from the very basics like gas operation, magazine feed or rotating bolt, it has no feature common with FNC.

[REMOV]

Hey people, SCAR is not getting dropped, it is not being held off, it is going ahead as schedule, there might be a slight delay since the gun was so successful from design to prototype, the different brenches are actually looking at it as a possible future replacement.The final contract for SCAR will be sign for about week or two. I've just ask the people from FNMI ;)

BTW - here comes the latest and final (3rd version) of both SCARs: L (EX16 MOD 0) and H (EX17 MOD 0). The internal mechanism are nearly the same only the external details were changed a little bit. Enjoy! p-)

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_02.jpg
7.62mm SCAR-H (CQC) and SCAR-H (S) battle rifles
(shouldn't be the CQC variant called the "subbattle rifle"? ;))

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_03.jpg
With the stock folded

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_05.jpg
The current name: EX17 MOD 0

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_01.jpg
I cannot resist p-)

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-L_02.jpg
5.56mm SCAR-L (S) assault rifle with 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher. By the way, in spite of appearances the grenade launcher mount system does not slower the fast magazine change or make it hard

Regards,
REMOV

[TacoDelRio]

That "Bling Erf" gold finish is growing on me.... damn I'm a beaner.... :)

[PIMP]

Damn, that's hot looking!

[ClydeFrog]

Can you operate the trigger with the stock folded? Looks tight.

[Mr.Armageddon]

While it does look promising I doubt this will be issued. Looks like it's the m16 and m4 for the next 30 years.

[Doomsayer]

most likely to be dropped....there is still hope for it though.

still wondering ...

[Nevins]

more pics

http://aex.fullmetalimage.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=3489

[ClydeFrog]

Thx for pictures. The more I see, hear and read about this weapon, the more I wonder if it will one day replace the M4s and M16s of the regular military too...

[Limeyfellow]

Thx for pictures. The more I see, hear and read about this weapon, the more I wonder if it will one day replace the M4s and M16s of the regular military too...

Its too expensive to service them to the whole military, thats why its only being considered for socom only and designed for their specific requirements, so I don't see there being much chance of it going widespread, not with the M4 and M16 working as well as they do. They rather buy a few F22s with the money it would take instead.

[solidarnosc]

Its too expensive to service them to the whole military, thats why its only being considered for socom only and designed for their specific requirements, so I don't see there being much chance of it going widespread, not with the M4 and M16 working as well as they do. They rather buy a few F22s with the money it would take instead.

How do you know the SCAR is more expensive? I haven't read anything about the price differences between the current rifles and the SCAR. Maybe the Air Force would rather spend money on the F22 but I don't think that if the US ARMY could choose between a couple of F22's or 220.000 SCAR's they would go for the F22's. ;)

[Adam Wilhelm]

I think it was SMGLEE who said that the SCAR is LESS expensive then expected.

[maw]

How do you know the SCAR is more expensive? I haven't read anything about the price differences between the current rifles and the SCAR. Maybe the Air Force would rather spend money on the F22 but I don't think that if the US ARMY could choose between a couple of F22's or 220.000 SCAR's they would go for the F22's. ;)

the army isn't buying f22's, i think you'll find its the air force - different budget. the whole caliber changing feature adds complexity and cost to the platform. look at the price difference between a plain jane lmt ar and a lmt mrp. that's a wide margin for a feature the big green machine doesn't reallly care about.
now the marines on the other hand... especially if they drop the minimi for the ultimax...

[solidarnosc]

the army isn't buying f22's, i think you'll find its the air force - different budget. the whole caliber changing feature adds complexity and cost to the platform. look at the price difference between a plain jane lmt ar and a lmt mrp. that's a wide margin for a feature the big green machine doesn't reallly care about.
now the marines on the other hand... especially if they drop the minimi for the ultimax...

Budgets can change, priorities can change. I don't see why FN should not be able to make a cheaper version of the SCAR for US-ARMY/MARINES if money is the problem. Anyway. FN has plants in the US and I am sure that FN is prepared to do an "effort" to get the contract. A US reference opens a lot of gates and a dollar profit on each rifle multiplied with X hundred thousands is still a lot of money for a small company like FN.

The most expensive parts on rifles these days are the optics and electronic gadgets and those are the same for M4 and SCAR.

[maw]

solidarnosc - you're not following my thought process. here are four steps:

- the caliber/barrel changing capability requires expensive machining and tooling, this bumps the price of the rifle.
- it's a feature/capability that the army currently does not need, so therefore the cost premium is unjustifiable.
- fn could probably build a scar that doesn't have the barrel/caliber change capability, this rifle would be less complex and therefore cheaper and therefore now be price point competitive.
- this new "broken" scar would not represent a big enough improvement over the m4/m16 to justify the switch. the army might as well go with a replacement piston driven monolithic m4/m16 upper.

fwiw, i personally don't mind the whole gas impingment system in the m4/m16/ar15. i have a pair of lmt ar's (16" and 14.5") that have each fired thousands of rounds with no major blips. the 16" in particular has been very good to me.

[Kocur]

- the caliber/barrel changing capability requires expensive machining and tooling, this bumps the price of the rifle.
- it's a feature/capability that the army currently does not need, so therefore the cost premium is unjustifiable.
- fn could probably build a scar that doesn't have the barrel/caliber change capability, this rifle would be less complex and therefore cheaper and therefore now be price point competitive.


From the limited knowledge most of us have know it seems that all the complexity of both the weapon itself and its production, that is related to barrel change is... threading holes in barrel extension for screws holding it in receiver.

[maw]

From the limited knowledge most of us have know it seems that all the complexity of both the weapon itself and its production, that is related to barrel change is... threading holes in barrel extension for screws holding it in receiver.

a barrel/caliber change system is a little more complex then that, especially if you want consistant moa accuracy.

i'm not anykind of industry insider. but i assume that if you want consistant minute of angle accuracy in a caliber/barrel change system then you're talking about very specific manufacturing tolerances. i don't belive that this is the only reason for the rifle's cost. i'm sure that once the economies of scale kick in the price will come down. but you'll always need that expensive tooling if you want repeatable and consistant accuracy. accuracy costs money.

[Kocur]

Accuracy requires tight fit between barrel and receiver - regardless of quick barrel change capability. I dont think that replacing barrel some reasonable number of times and done with reasonable care can cause enough wearing to cause "tight" turn in "loose." In another words: all weapons are manufactured with tight tolerances, and those are more costly. Or perhaps "were"...? When it was still manufactured with manually controlled machinery, there always was some rate of rejected parts, due to exceeding tolerances. Today as CNC machinery seems to make standard, tight tolerances are becoming like... standard, both dimensionally and money-wise? Hopefully we have someone involved in small arms manufacturing to say something about that?

[Doomsayer]

Also the receiver has to be exactly in line with the receiver so this requires machines of the highest quality so that would be very expensive.

you need a better system like which is on the MAG/M240 but that one isnt wear-proof either.

Thats what came up in my mind.

[ClydeFrog]

I really don't see what would make the SCAR much more expensive than other assault rifles. At the moment it may be quite expensive, but economies of scale could cut the costs down significantly if they ran it on full scale production. I mean afterall it's just a cleverly thought out amalgamation of existing technologies.

The barrell change thing is a point, but consider the fact that both systems (SCAR L/H) share 90 per cent of the parts (everything apart from barrel, bolt-head, ejection port and the plastic lower... even the springs and the bolt carrier are the same)! That should save quite some money, not only in production, but also in logistics.

[SMGLee]

FN SCAR has to come in at an incredibly low price. the militaryis looking to set the SCAR pricing at about the same as a standard M4. not more then 700-800 dollars.. of course the actually price i can't discuss but you get the idea. LOW PRICE

This is why the SCAR utilize Aluminum extrusion process for the monolithic upper. the 7000 series extrusion is strong, light weight and very inexpensive. also by using the polymer lower, you can save a to9n of money by investing in the die from from the beginning and just injection mold all the parts.

SCAR will not be expensive and if it is successful, it can replace the M16 easily.

Right now... there are very high powers to be wanting to replace the M16 with the SCAR...we will have to wait and see for the next 12 months.

We live in an interesting times... indeed we should be excited that we have so much to play with and discuss.

This does not take away from the longest serving rifle in the US history, the M16 will go into the sunset with grace and a proud histroy.

[maw]

SMGlee: excellent post. thanks for the clarification.

[REMOV]

more pics

http://aex.fullmetalimage.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=3489Note, this is the second version of the SCAR not the third.

[SMGLee]

Note, this is the second version of the SCAR not the third.

I have not handle the 3rd gen version, but from your pics, it seem to be very little difference. we are suppose to see the 3rd gen next week during a demo.. I am excited.

the AAC suppressors are a disappointment... then again.. my friends work at gemTech and Surefire.. :(

nice pics bro....

[Redguy]

I have not handle the 3rd gen version, but from your pics, it seem to be very little difference. we are suppose to see the 3rd gen next week during a demo.. I am excited.

the AAC suppressors are a disappointment... then again.. my friends work at gemTech and Surefire.. :(

nice pics bro....

what is your job that allows you to see the 3rd gen? he asked him knowingly

[REMOV]

I have not handle the 3rd gen version, but from your pics, it seem to be very little difference. we are suppose to see the 3rd gen next week during a demo.. I am excited.Yes, I'm also a big fan of the SCAR, in my opinion this is the most well-thought-out assault rifle I've ever met (just take a look at this beautiful shape of the bolt carrier or this little screws everywhere).

But there is a fly in the ointment - the dismantling. The whole idea of removing the whole stock to pull the bolt carrier/spring assembly away is in my opinion unnecessarily complicated (comparing to the G36, which has the most intuitive and easy way of the stripping I've know - just removing three pins and floding the stock). I understand why it is made in such way but still - I don't like it. It is the only weak point of the SCAR.

[maw]

have you played with the robinson xcr yet? you should, on the topic of disassembly and field maintenance its very slick.

[SMGLee]

Yes, I'm also a big fan of the SCAR, in my opinion this is the most well-thought-out assault rifle I've ever met (just take a look at this beautiful shape of the bolt carrier or this little screws everywhere).

But there is a fly in the ointment - the dismantling. The whole idea of removing the whole stock to pull the bolt carrier/spring assembly away is in my opinion unnecessarily complicated (comparing to the G36, which has the most intuitive and easy way of the stripping I've know - just removing three pins and floding the stock). I understand why it is made in such way but still - I don't like it. It is the only weak point of the SCAR.

Good point... never really look at it that way...I will have to try to take on apart to see the process. usually I just pull trigger....:) and don't ask too many questions.

[ClydeFrog]

Yes, I'm also a big fan of the SCAR, in my opinion this is the most well-thought-out assault rifle I've ever met (just take a look at this beautiful shape of the bolt carrier or this little screws everywhere)
Yes I agree. I'm especially impressed how the system can handle 5.56mm and 7.62mm without replacing either the bolt-carrier or the spring.

I wonder though how you're supposed to switch from one the extraction port to another. Aren't they just "holes" in the upper receiver (thus requiring to change the whole upper)?

[andreen]

I se that the sight that Aimpoint did on order for swedish armed forces is spreading interest around the globe. :)

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_02.jpg
http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_01.jpg

[akmarksman]

FN SCAR has to come in at an incredibly low price. the militaryis looking to set the SCAR pricing at about the same as a standard M4. not more then 700-800 dollars.. of course the actually price i can't discuss but you get the idea. LOW PRICE

This is why the SCAR utilize Aluminum extrusion process for the monolithic upper. the 7000 series extrusion is strong, light weight and very inexpensive. also by using the polymer lower, you can save a to9n of money by investing in the die from from the beginning and just injection mold all the parts.

SCAR will not be expensive and if it is successful, it can replace the M16 easily.

Right now... there are very high powers to be wanting to replace the M16 with the SCAR...we will have to wait and see for the next 12 months.

We live in an interesting times... indeed we should be excited that we have so much to play with and discuss.

This does not take away from the longest serving rifle in the US history, the M16 will go into the sunset with grace and a proud histroy.
You think the SPR will stay in as a DMR? What about a SCAR DMR? Would that be in 5.56 or .308?
Any chance of a SCAR H in 7.62x39mm?

[akd]

You think the SPR will stay in as a DMR? What about a SCAR DMR? Would that be in 5.56 or .308?
Any chance of a SCAR H in 7.62x39mm?

7.62x39 is part of the plan, I believe.

[SMGLee]

You think the SPR will stay in as a DMR? What about a SCAR DMR? Would that be in 5.56 or .308?
Any chance of a SCAR H in 7.62x39mm?

7.62x39 will be part of the H package...

The SCAR sniper will be a DMR type of system

[Kocur]

Yes I agree. I'm especially impressed how the system can handle 5.56mm and 7.62mm without replacing either the bolt-carrier or the spring.

Recoiling group "doesnt care" about different rounds as long as their weights are as small compared to bolt carrier/bolt weight (my guess for SCAR: at least 0.5kg) as it is in case of both 5.56 x 45 and 7.62 x 51.


I wonder though how you're supposed to switch from one the extraction port to another. Aren't they just "holes" in the upper receiver (thus requiring to change the whole upper)?

I dont think changeable left/right ejection was ever requirement in SCAR program - neither it makes much sense in weapon of "classical", i.e. not-bull-pup layout.

On a general note: there is problem with left/right changeable ejection in any weapon with bolt carrier/bolt based on AR-18 - bolt rotation cam is located on the left wall of bolt carrier, so its internal would be not only visible but also accessible for dirt if was exposed in left ejection port. Also since premature bolt rotation is prevented by contact of bolt pin and a rail on the left side of receiver, switching from right ejection to left and vice versa would take replacing not only bolt and ejection port cover (like in say AUG) but also upper receiver and bolt carrier. Thats why SA-80 (which is little more than 'bull-puped' AR-18) has 'right' version only.

[ClydeFrog]

Hi Kocur. What took you so long this time :)

With "switching" i meant from 5.56mm to 7.62mm and vice versa (not left to right side extraction). Don't cartridges of different sizes require extraction ports of different sizes? I read an article on AR15.com that said "The only parts that are different for each SCAR variant are those that are calibre specific, namely the polymer lower, which must accept the 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm magazine, the barrel, the bolt head and the ejection port."

But how can you change between ejection ports when it's just a hole in the receiver. Wouldn't you have to change the whole upper receiver? Or do you change some of these small black plastic parts next to the ejection port? Do you really have to change it anyway? Wouldn't a port big enough for 7.62 also go well with 5.56mm?

Hope you get what I mean.

Here's the AR15 article btw:
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500

[Kocur]

Ah sorry! I hope that both delayp-) and my misunderstanding:oops: will be excused: I've been away and just returned home after three busy days which ended with like 5 hours in trains :-(

Clyde! The only way to 'adjust' lenght of ejection port I see would be replacing that brass deflector, which (like everything else :)) is mounted by screw(s) with longer one in L. But I agree with you, that it wouldnt make much sense - if bolt carrier is long enough to cover ejection port in H, why change anything in L?
Heck! Im not sure about lenght of uppers of both versions, I mean at first glance it seems like it would be doable to have common uppers for both... Data of minimal total lenghts, some relations between dimensions of upper/lower/bolt carrier and this: http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FN%20SCAR.jpg suggests that H's upper is longer. I guess "different lenght of ejection port" sounds better than "(...) of receivers"... ;)

[Hollis]

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_SCAR-H_01.jpg

Notice anything wrong in this picture?

[ClydeFrog]

Looks like without a forgrip your fingers might "interfere" with the charging handle (if you mount it on the right side which i wouldn't)

[Daga]

Is that aimpoint mounted the right way? looks like a new one.

I swear that's a troy medival muzzle brake on the end. Needs a bayonet mount before it can be adopted by the other services :P

Charging handle probably wouldnt be too big of a deal - looks high up enough and other rifles has similarly placed operating rods - m1 garand and m14 come in mind. A misplaced hand is annoying and maybe painful but easily solved with different technique.

[Adam Wilhelm]

The aimpoint is mounted the right way.

[SMGLee]

Hi Kocur. What took you so long this time :)

With "switching" i meant from 5.56mm to 7.62mm and vice versa (not left to right side extraction). Don't cartridges of different sizes require extraction ports of different sizes? I read an article on AR15.com that said "The only parts that are different for each SCAR variant are those that are calibre specific, namely the polymer lower, which must accept the 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm magazine, the barrel, the bolt head and the ejection port."

But how can you change between ejection ports when it's just a hole in the receiver. Wouldn't you have to change the whole upper receiver? Or do you change some of these small black plastic parts next to the ejection port? Do you really have to change it anyway? Wouldn't a port big enough for 7.62 also go well with 5.56mm?

Hope you get what I mean.

Here's the AR15 article btw:
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500


This is why we have SCAR-H and SCAR-L, H handles the 7.62 and the L handles the 5.56, those system is not interchangeable at this time.

beside the mag well would be different so you can't use a common lower unless we go to sometype of modualr mag well design.

For the price the gov't want this system to come in at, you really don't want to add too much technology to it. this is a light compact package designed by the war fighter, don't get too much stuff add to it to increase its capabilities and turn it into another MK23

[REMOV]

beside the mag well would be different so you can't use a common lower unless we go to sometype of modualr mag well design. ;)

http://www.mgimilitary.com/images/000_0190.JPG

[ClydeFrog]

This is why we have SCAR-H and SCAR-L, H handles the 7.62 and the L handles the 5.56, those system is not interchangeable at this time.

beside the mag well would be different so you can't use a common lower unless we go to sometype of modualr mag well design.

For the price the gov't want this system to come in at, you really don't want to add too much technology to it. this is a light compact package designed by the war fighter, don't get too much stuff add to it to increase its capabilities and turn it into another MK23
Are you certain about this? From what I've read it really is that the upper receiver, the gas system, the spring, the bolt-carrier and the bolt (apart from the bolt head) ARE identical with the two versions.

Only the mentioned extraction port, bolt head, the polymer lower and obviously the barrel are different in each version. That sums up to 90 per cent shared parts. Well at least that's what most articles (see AR15 link above) tell me.

[REMOV]

Are you certain about this?He should be ;)
From what I've read it really is that the upper receiver, the gas system, the spring, the bolt-carrier and the bolt (apart from the bolt head) ARE identical with the two versions.There is a plan of future developement of the SCAR assault/battle rifle to create common upper receiver, but currently upper receivers are different.
That sums up to 90 per cent shared parts.Unfortunately, the SCAR-L has only 60% common parts with the SCAR-H and vice versa. The 90% parts commonality is between SCAR-L/H subversions i.e. CQC, STD and SV.

[ClydeFrog]

Oh I see. Thanks for the information!

I have to say that dampens my excitement with the system somewhat. Wasn't that part of the deal or just a "possible future option"? I was wondering because if the final contracts are just around the corner (or even signed already) than it really should meet all the requirements.

[twominds]

Remov, is that pic of the 416/417?

[ClydeFrog]

No, it's the MGI modular lower receiver:
http://www.mgimilitary.com/Lower_Receiver_Mult_Mag_Wells.htm

[Hollis]

I have some modular stuff, They really seem like a great idea, especially when you only have zero to a few firearms. WOW interchangeability you say, no extra work I say. Todays great idea after time passes is not so great. Eventually what happens you will pick up a second firearm and leave it rigged one way, the old one rigged the other way.

I have seen interchangeability in clothing, and most people just don't use it.

For some people keeping it simple is the best choice, though there are a few people out there who would really use the Modular features. I am not one of those people. My experience is most people are not.

I have seen guys buy a AR, then a extra upper, then a lower for the extra upper to make a complete rifle. Reason it is just easier, over time than making the conversion and it is always nice to own another firearm.

[ClydeFrog]

I'm not hyping modularity, I'm hyping similarity.

Having only one type of receiver for two guns means having to produce only one type of receiver, having to order only one type of receiver, having to learn the quirks of only one type of receiver and having to keep an eye on the stock of only one type of receiver.

Lots of costs to minimize (economies of scale anyone?) and braincell capacity to safe. It just makes logistics a whole lot easier especially when it comes to spare parts etc...

And if we can maximize the common ground without sacrificing the quality of the guns then let's do that.

[Hollis]

And if we can maximize the common ground without sacrificing the quality of the guns then let's do that.


But I don't want to own just one firearm, or one type.

[Silent_Hunter]

http://www.gun-world.net/usa/r/scar/2nd_scar.htm

[Silent_Hunter]

Remov, is that pic of the 416/417?

http://www.gun-world.net/german/hk/hkm4/hk417.htm

[AC434]

1. The original design criteria of the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) was to have stand alone calpability does anyone know if this is still true?

2. Does anyone know if the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) is breach or side loading?

3. What happed to the HK order of the XM320 of 11, 000 units for replacement of the M203 system, did SOCOM have to request another design into the mix?

[solidarnosc]

1. The original design criteria of the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) was to have stand alone calpability does anyone know if this is still true?

2. Does anyone know if the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) is breach or side loading?

3. What happed to the HK order of the XM320 of 11, 000 units for replacement of the M203 system, did SOCOM have to request another design into the mix?


http://www.gun-world.net/usa/r/scar/eglm2.jpghttp://www.gun-world.net/usa/r/scar/sofcar0090.jpg

[thatguy96]

1. The original design criteria of the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) was to have stand alone calpability does anyone know if this is still true?

2. Does anyone know if the EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) is breach or side loading?

3. What happed to the HK order of the XM320 of 11, 000 units for replacement of the M203 system, did SOCOM have to request another design into the mix?
1: Yes
2: Side-loading. That was also part of the EGLM requirements.
3: The US Army placed the contract for the XM320s I had thought. The US Army and USSOCOM are two different entities with seperate budgets and procurement priorities.

[DE_Six]

It's side-loading?
http://www.gun-world.net/usa/r/scar/img_0202.jpg

Doesn't look side-loading to me, more of a pump action breech loader like the 203.

Is there something this picture doesn't show (ie. the barrel can tilt sideways once the breech is open)?

[solidarnosc]

It's side-loading?
http://www.gun-world.net/usa/r/scar/img_0202.jpg

Doesn't look side-loading to me, more of a pump action breech loader like the 203.

Is there something this picture doesn't show (ie. the barrel can tilt sideways once the breech is open)?

The barrel can be opened left, right and forward. cf slide 9

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf

[DE_Six]

The barrel can be opened left, right and forward. cf slide 9

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf

I see, thanks.

[REMOV]

Is there something this picture doesn't show (ie. the barrel can tilt sideways once the breech is open)?Hmm...

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/_EGLM_02.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/_EGLM_03.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/_EGLM_04.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/_EGLM_01.jpg

[AC434]

Thanks for the all the information and education. I hope for SOCOM, it's more than they need - nothing but the best for our troops.

I sent information concerning SCAR to my brother-n-law, and asked if being issued one of these was worth getting back to the Rangers. For myself, I'd have to go a longer way of being issued one, get back into the Marine Corp and then apply for SOCOM. Oh well, let's hope FN puts out a civie version.

[Rypht]

7.62x39 will be part of the H package...

The SCAR sniper will be a DMR type of system

Hi, I'm brand spankin new to the forum, but I just wanted to comment. I was talking to one of the reps at FN the other day (was talking to Bob Ailes about five-seven related issues but I just couldn't resist trying to get some SCAR info). He told me the 7.62x39 was going to be under the L package. I asked him to double check that because I'd always heard it was under the H package <insert grumbling from bob about the rumor mill of the internet>, but it seems the 7.62x39 magazines are better suited to fitting in the L's 5.56 magazine well than the big H's 7.62x51 magazine well.

So, that's one more for the rumor mill, from the horse's mouth. I realize new guy with contradictory information isn't the best way to settle into a well established place like this, but wanted to share what I had heard. I'll accept my floggings if it turns out that it was "not according to plan" ;)

[solidarnosc]

Hi, I'm brand spankin new to the forum, but I just wanted to comment. I was talking to one of the reps at FN the other day (was talking to Bob Ailes about five-seven related issues but I just couldn't resist trying to get some SCAR info). He told me the 7.62x39 was going to be under the L package. I asked him to double check that because I'd always heard it was under the H package <insert grumbling from bob about the rumor mill of the internet>, but it seems the 7.62x39 magazines are better suited to fitting in the L's 5.56 magazine well than the big H's 7.62x51 magazine well.

So, that's one more for the rumor mill, from the horse's mouth. I realize new guy with contradictory information isn't the best way to settle into a well established place like this, but wanted to share what I had heard. I'll accept my floggings if it turns out that it was "not according to plan" ;)

Well.If everybodies first post would be that kind of rumors the world would be a better place. ;)

[Spartan XV]

Whats with this color that all the new stuff seems to be coming in, its almost like gold, what happened to black?

[Ratamacue]

Whats with this color that all the new stuff seems to be coming in, its almost like gold, what happened to black?Black sticks out too much in a natural environment, hence why the Army and Marines have replaced black boots and alot of units camouflage their weapons. A brownish or tannish color works alot better.

[Seraphim]

Whats with this color that all the new stuff seems to be coming in, its almost like gold, what happened to black?

Its called Flat Dark Earth (FDE)

[akd]

Black sticks out too much in a natural environment, hence why the Army and Marines have replaced black boots and alot of units camouflage their weapons. A brownish or tannish color works alot better.

I think he means the gold/bronze upper. I don't think the metal has had its final finish applied.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/_EGLM_03.jpg

[Spartan XV]

Black sticks out too much in a natural environment, hence why the Army and Marines have replaced black boots and alot of units camouflage their weapons. A brownish or tannish color works alot better.


Its called Flat Dark Earth (FDE)

I see, this does make sense, thanks.

[D.E. Watters]

Hi, I'm brand spankin new to the forum, but I just wanted to comment. I was talking to one of the reps at FN the other day (was talking to Bob Ailes about five-seven related issues but I just couldn't resist trying to get some SCAR info). He told me the 7.62x39 was going to be under the L package. I asked him to double check that because I'd always heard it was under the H package <insert grumbling from bob about the rumor mill of the internet>, but it seems the 7.62x39 magazines are better suited to fitting in the L's 5.56 magazine well than the big H's 7.62x51 magazine well.


The "Performance Specification SOF Combat Assault Rifle Heavy" posted by USSOCOM back in Spring 2004 indicated that the 7.62x39mm conversion was to be done under the SCAR-H. Now this may have changed since, but that was what was released to the world prior to the SCAR competition.

From the published "Performance Specification SOF Combat Assault Rifle Heavy" of April 30, 2004:



1.2.1 SCAR Heavy. The SCAR H shall possess the ability for caliber modularity (open architecture platform), while demonstrating an optimized design for the baseline caliber of 7.62x51mm (alternate calibers are known to be 7.62x39mm). Future enhanced calibers will also be considered.


To quote from the RFP Conformed Copy of June 10, 2004:



Pricing is hereby requested on an eight (8) year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) of Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) in light (5.56mm) and heavy (7.62mm) variants. The contract will contain standard (S), close quarters combat (CQC) and sniper (SV) variants on both light and heavy platforms. The contract will contain a CLIN for a future SCAR H in a 7.62mm x 39mm caliber configuration.


Further down in the same document is the following:



7.62MM x 39MM SCAR-H (S) in accordance with (IAW) specification entitled "Performance Specification SOF Combat Assault Rifle Heavy."


Judging from the NDIA briefing given by NSWC-Crane this year, it looks like they are now considering going with a common upper receiver with caliber specific lowers.