Is this thing an example of fn jewery or is there something else

Kys poorfag, its the beat service rifle currently to date and price it accordingly to prevent poorfags like you from putting Chinese accessories on it.

File: 1487978683960-k.jpg (16KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x294px

>>33403592

>>33403545
I'm sorry that FN's prices are tailored towards the quality of their products rather than your woeful economic situation.

I think there is a hi-point over there that's more towards your budget.

>>33403545
Yes.

>>33403545
Not here to be a dick about how much money you make, but if you can't afford it, don't try to buy it/lust after it. Cost of production means jack shit, R&D is expensive. I like FN, I like the products they produce, the customer service they give. It's worth the price of admission for me. That being said, it's the only new production FN product I own, and probably will ever be.

>>33403545
>Reading up it seems to actually be cheaper to produce
And yet it sells at twice the price.
The SOCOM requirements were fulfilled with Cold M4 Type-C but they didnt want to hear it.
This piece of shit was dropped very soon after they realized the heavy barrel M4s they had were just as good if not better.

>>33404800
>Colt*

File: 1467156512908.jpg (673KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1920x1200px

>>33403545
I think FN cares more about their military contracts than marketing to your average civilian

>>33403545
Production costs are not the only costs to consider.

>>33404719
Squishy squishy

>>33403545
It's expensive for the same reason that the AGOG and all gucci shit is expensive. Companies in the U.S. (the largest market for this shit) are not allowed to sell products to the govt for more than they sell to the public. It has to be at market value or cheaper.

Civilian sales of the SCAR are a drop in the bucket compared to .mil contracts. So richfags will pay for it so they can flaunt it, and it really is an exceptional rifle.

If there were no govt contracts involved, the price would probably be around $2500 US, that would easily cover their production costs, R&D and allow them to turn a healthy profit.

>inb4 poorfag

>>33404837
Has the SCAR been adopted outside of the special forces community?

>>33404908
the waffles are replacing their FNC with the SCAR-L for standard issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Land_Component#Equipment

File: import stock.jpg (90KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 960x960px

>>33403545
Civilian SCARs are made in Belgium even though the ones made for the US military are domestically manufactured. They are made in an import configuration that is converted back to normal after they are imported. So consider that it's made where labor costs are higher, it's imported from overseas, has to be converted back to normal, they are relatively low volume sales for what FN does, and that FN likes to charge high prices.

>>33403545
The 17S makes pretty much anything else available to civilians completely obsolete. Its worth spending $5000 all tolled on a 17S as opposed to $1200 or so on a gucci AR (10 or 15), its that much better. Though I wouldn't quite say its a "stop everything. save up and buy it" but if you have the means and you are looking for a true SHTF mauler to rule them all you really cannot do better.

>>33405025
>$1200 or so on a gucci
there is nothing GUCCI about a 1200 dollar AR. Try 2500.

>>33404878
just like your skull.

>>33404800
>realized the heavy barrel M4
yeah no. You're dumb.

>butstock backplate breaks
>butstock latch breaks
>due to polymer lower and barrel harmonic all shock goes straight into the optics causing it to break
>works only with two suppressors due to the fact every other breaks the rear part of the receiver
>proprietary "FAL" mags that are prone to failure at the feed lips and knocked out floor plates

Its trash but fuck poorfags.

>>33405094
>waaaa I cant strap all sorts of cheap dogshit to it like I can my AR

>>33405073
People spending $2500 on anything that shoots .223 are functionally retarded. I refuse to believe this is common.

>>33404929
4500? Damn that's a tiny force. I thought it'd be at least 20k. There is probably 5x that in civilian hands just in America.
Well, that just reinforced my idea that it's going to be awhile before they get enough orders for prices to come down.

>>33405086
>yeah no. You're dumb.
nice argument,I though "no u" was for underage kids not for adult idiots.

>>33405144
hopefully they send their FNC's over here

>>33405181
Maybe as paper weights they will.

>>33404947
>That stock and grip
Why bother making those parts at all and going through the trouble of attaching them to the gun?
Does the rifle fall apart internally if it doesn't have a stock and grip?

>>33403592
>>33405086
>WAAHHH P-POORFAGS MY RAIFUL IS DAH BEST
Hahahahaha

I seriously love how this rifle triggers the shit out of AR-fags. After years of barging into every firearms conversation with "WHY NOT JUST GET AN AR? ITS BETTER IN EVERY WAY" they have finally met their match. Some of these complaints are fucking hilarious:

>due to polymer lower and barrel harmonic all shock goes straight into the optics causing it to break

Literally just nonsense. Some idiot took a cheap shitty optic for his .223 AR and slapped it on a .308 SCAR, got what he had coming for him and then blamed the "harmonics" of the vastly superior rifle. I dont care too much about the SCAR I just love seeing mall ninja operators get btfo this hard.

>>33405249
>Literally just nonsense.
This came straight from the person who wrote Black Rifle 2 and seen more Scars in action then you in your mothers basement.
So yeah nice job going full retard.

>>33405237
Because the ATF says you have to.

>>33405237
Kind of

>>33403545
I can't speak to the .223, but as for the .308, all of the modern .308 rifle designs with a military contract have inflated prices. When you consider the costs of an MR762, KAC, or LMT, the ~$2700 FN charges is actually on the lower end.

>>33405143
The gun breaks
The gun breaks shit attached to it

Are these not valid complaints?

Prices will go down once someone creates a gun better than the scar

Same with the m14
Same with the ar15
And soon with the scar

The question is what's going to replace it?

>>33405150
>nice argument,I though "no u" was for underage kids not for adult idiots.
you won't understand the "argument" anyway, you stupid fuck, but it has to do with the fact that M4A1 are FREE to SOCOM, scars are NOT.

>>33405244
lol nigga don't be mad cuz u poor.
be mad cuz u DUMB.

>>33405272
TRIGGER AS FUCK.

u mad cuz u dumb, nigga.

>>33405487
>you won't understand the "argument" anyway
Are you fucking serious you dense little shit.
fucking hell

>>33405497
Sure because I assume you have extensive knowledge on polymer receivers.

>>33405459
Or once FNH starts importing as many again. 16s and 17s were 2300 and 2700 respectively for a long time. Kind of wish I had of bought the 17 when I had a chance.

>>33405501
>Are you fucking serious
oh I'm fucking serious you stupid fuck. SOCOM's budgetary constraints during the mid 2000s to early 2010's was very well documented here. If you still can't understand, clearly you never will.

Literacy, it's a hell of a thing.

>>33405514
I probably took a few MatSci courses than you, fag. And definitely more than the guy who wrote that book. Impulse has nothing to do with the material of the lower. Does SCARs produce more impulse from its short piston, yes. Does it have ANYTHING to do with a polymer lower? No.

Education, you lack it.

>>33405632
>does a lightweight poly lower not absorb as much vibration than say an aluminum or magnesium lower
Christmas, you're thick.

>>33405659
holy shit you're fucking stupid.

Do yourself a fucking favor and read up on how impulse is calculated and how peak impulse is determined.

It's like you're TRYING to be as dumb as possible.

Does FN make any current production FAL's

Is there a point to get a SCAR 16 (.223)?

Moving to Tennessee from Jew York and have 10k saved from the last 2 years just for guns/ammo. Looking to get a SCAR among other things.

>>33405723
yes. yes there is. It's to complete your SCAR phamilia.

>>33405732
In terms of ammo weight/cost/effectiveness, what's better for a civilian rifle? 7.62x51 or .223?

>>33405770
223. Cheaper to shoot, easier to stockpile.

But you should definitely own a 17 also. That's where the gun really shines.

>>33405723
No less you want a fun toy to brag about, get a .308 and a Handl receiver.

>>33405692

You're arguing with a two year old that watched a Chris Bartocci video and is just paroting all his "I heard from a guy that knew another guy" tier information while shilling Handl Defense product marketing memes.

The guy didn't even get the SCAR receiver alloy correct for crying out loud. Just add another heap of misinformation to the pile for SCAR haters to repeat as gospel.

>>33406014
Go ahead and dispute anything he had to say, friend. Maybe a pic of the SCAR 17 you know so well.

SCARs are expensive due to finicky American import laws.
"Assault" Rifles can't be imported, and FN doesn't want to sell butchered rifles to an already niche market. They have a stateside factory but per contract the factory can only produce for military demands.
FN's solution, since the machinery to produce cold-forged barrels is pretty expensive, is to manufacture 922(r) import compliant weapons that are shipped to the states then rebuilt into proper SCARs . It's an obvious loophole but not one most companies would bother or could afford doing. This extra labour and manufacturing is what increases the price of the SCAR, ostensibly.

>>33406034
>I-I-I'm not wrong! Sh-sh-show me your gun!

Christ you're fucking pathetic.
I'm >>33405692
Read the fucking post, then open up a fucking book.

stupid cunt...

>>33406165
If you have relevant experience then I'm all ears, all you are until you post proof you can speak from at least a user perspective your 'couple math courses' don't really mean shit to me.

>>33406199
>math courses
>MatSci
you're beyond fucking stupid.

Make sure you don't breed, ok?

File: IMG_2099.png (392KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 640x427px

>>33406034

Well for one, the SCAR receiver is 6061T6, not 7075 as Chris asserted. So right off the bat we can conclude he's not infallible.

Second, changing the trigger modules material construction from polymer to metal would have such a minuscule impact on receiver harmonics as to make it practically nothing.

That's because the SCAR's trigger module, as designed by FN, is a non-stressed part. You could make it out of wet cardboard and the net result would remain the same.

Handl Defense makes the product claims they do not because of the material they use, but because they turn the lower into a stressed part. You probably didn't realize this, because you're just parroting a youtube video, but you literally have to interference fit the Handl trigger module to your weapon with a mallet during installation.

And is any of that necessary? Of course not. The rifle is fine the way it was originally designed to operate. Oh look, what's this? The original SCAR prototype with metal FNC lower that was deemed unnecessary.

>>33406218
It's strange how desperately you want to impress people here with contrary opinions that aren't able to be backed up by any source than 'I heard from a guy that knew another guy'

>>33406244
>not 7075 as Chris asserted
wait wait wait, he was quoting a book by Chris fucking Kyle?

Yeah, just throw that shit into the trash.

>>33406247
It's strange how you're trying to pass off worthless shit you heart as knowledge to a bunch of random fags.

It's stranger that you when you get called out, you fall back to "show me your gun lolz" while ignoring the posts of substance others wrote.

You're a fucking retard.

>>33406085
In addition to the small scale of production involved, this is the truth.

>>33404907
Isn't the government great folks?

>>33406244
there is something else this retard is blatantly wrong about.

>The SOCOM requirements were fulfilled with Cold M4 Type-C but they didnt want to hear it.
>This piece of shit was dropped very soon after they realized the heavy barrel M4s they had were just as good if not better.
what he doesn't make clear is that the Type C candidate is a gas piston driven design, and the SCAR family was introduced to correct the original M4's myriad deficiencies.

I'm really not sure why fags like him keep talking. They really should be put down like rabid dogs.

>>33404907
>If there were no govt contracts involved, the price would probably be around $2500 US
If no gov contract existed, this gun wouldn't exist. What kind of civilian end user would require a rifle that was described in the original SCAR RFQ?

It's one thing to be poor, it's quite another to be dumb.

>>33405632
You are a faggot

>>33406503

He may be a faggot, but that doesn't make him wrong. Which is far more than I can say for you.

>>33406244
If the recoil moves back in a line then an interference fit wouldn't cause any more stress than an AR lower, I never argued the stresses it goes through, if there is a heavier receiver with a tighter fit the recoil impulse would be dampened and the vibrations would feasibly be cut down. FN could determine its not necessarily that important because in thier view it's not important because the specific optics they had didn't have a problem and so they didn't see need to go through much more trouble for a metal receiver. And Bartocci's main point is that FN mags are pricy for what they are compared to similar magazine options.

The SCAR is fine stock but if everyone was fine with things stock, FN doesn't shit rainbows any more than Colt did

>>33406528
Nice samefag, try spacing differently next time.

>>33406382
>poor
>doesn't own a scar
Oaky, does anyone in this thread know what the fuck they're talking about?

>>33406244
>>33406285
He probably mixed up AR upper recover material to FN's he was right in that it was extruded so a slip of the though isn't exactly completely discardable, if it were your posts would be already trashed.

>>33403545
>Scar in 6.5 creedmoor, when?

>>33403545
This is capitalism at work. The price they sell for is what the market will bear. If they weren't selling as soon as they got in stock then FN would lower the price, but they are out of stock almost everywhere.

>>33405659
>>33405692
Pretty sure the SCAR breaks optics when its 2lb BCG slams forward, nothing to do with recoil.

>>33405459
Prices are the AR are going down because we've been under a democratic president for 8 years that's been pushing gun control and retards have been buying every fucking semi auto they can get their hands on since he was elected.

Now the bottom has fallen out of that market and there is a larger supply than there is demand. It has nothing to do with the SCAR being better than the AR.

>>33406675
This. They're rare and popular because of their connections to the special operations community. You could get an AR that's every bit as capable and reliable, but if you want true-blue Belgian space magic you're gonna pay that premium.

Hell, just going by their reputation and history FN could probably bring back FALs to the American market and retail them for 3 grand.

>>33406619

7075 isn't even used for extrusions, I thought he was supposed to be knowledgable about these things?

>>33406809
Hence why I said slip, and I would generally say he is though his expertise is more on AR system minutiae

>>33403545
>I shouldn't have to work hard for money but I deserve the same things as those who do

this is how you sound

File: lol u gay.png (70KB, 1869x534px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1869x534px

>>33406581
u mad someone called you dumb?

Get smarter, not madder.

fag.

>>33403545
>MUH SOF
>MUH PRICE GATE FOR PLEBS
>MUH FN
But seriously, I want a fucking SCAR. Maybe next years' taxes. Maybe.

low supply
high demand

>>33406604
so let's play a game.

After I post a timestamped pic of my SCAR, you post "I'm a faggot and I suck cock". How's that?

>>33406865
So I guess upset FN fan boys type exactly the same. Wonder if its a mental deficiency, being this defensive over a gun you don't own.

>>33406619
>He probably mixed up AR upper recover material
>making excuses for his unreliable source.
>can't even type upper RECEIVER

you belong in a trash can in several pieces.

>>33406886
Cool beans, I actually get a kick out of SCARs and think they're worth the cost. I just like arguing.

>>33406686
do you know what recoil is? What about impulse?

I'm very curious.

>>33406765
>get an AR that's every bit as capable and reliable
at what price point? If anything, it's the GUCCI tier AR manufacturers who leverage their "OPERATIONALNESS". You think BCM really makes a rifle THAT MUCH BETTER than PSA?

>>33406890
>being this defensive over a gun you don't own.
1) I own 2 scars, a 16 and a 17
2) I'm not being defensive over a gun I own, I'm being intolerant of your rampant stupidity.

It's ok to be poor, it's ok to be stupid, and it's ok to be loud. But it's NOT ok to be all 3.

I hope you stop being such a fag in the future, or just fucking KYS, which would be much easier for you.

>>33406927
Lower Recivers and charging handles? Not really. Things like bolts, bolt carriers, and barrels I would spend a bit more on.

>>33406765
>You could get an AR that's every bit as capable and reliable
In a practical sense, sure. Most people aren't going to push an AR to a point where it starts falling apart while a SCAR would still be running, but the SCAR 16 is objectively a much better rifle in every way.

I know, it's semantics, but this is /k/.

File: IMG_2101.jpg (443KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1600x1066px

>>33406955
>only 2 scars

Get a load of this pleb.

>>33407015
I'd say the fall apart point of comparative M4 and SCAR 16 might actually be comparable if you use both in a logical manner that someone in a particular amount of duress would find themselves in but where you'll see greater diffrence is over time.

Unless I'm arguing the same semantics you are.

>>33407084
>might actually be comparable
not even close.

Check out the mil spec bolt lifespan. There is a reason why LMT and KAC use the rounded profile. Also, there is a reason for the lobster extractor.

>>33407080
I get the SBR one but why do you need with the H unless you have full auto?
>inb4 need
I'm genuinely curious, is it any more accurate for the weight? The standard model seems to already be beefy enough.

>>33407080
that SCAR SBR better be in 556, faggit.

>>33407084
So you're saying raw FA firing schedule like you're in the battle of Wanat vs over the lifetime of the gun like the ones being used as rentals at Battlefield: Las Vegas?

I was going to say what >>33407120 said, but I can somewhat agree in the sense that if you're having to dump magazines through either you'll be dead before either one fails.

>>33407120
That was my point, in a standard situation based on how many magazines someone would realistically carry if you can dump it all without a hiccup in both guns I'd call that comparable. In longevity the SCAR would obviously win

>>33407165
Yes but I already typed out above so I'm not getting rid of it.

File: IMG_2102.jpg (908KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 1600x1066px

>>33407138
>>33407139

Silly noguns, all three of them are SBR's.

>>33407182
>Yes but I already typed out above so I'm not getting rid of it.
Yup, we seem to be on the same page.

>>33407182
>how many magazines someone would realistically carry
because you get a new rifle for every outing, right? Com'on man, just delete your post.

Why are we even talking about SCARs when the SR-25 is a better gun with a longer track record?

>>33407203
silly poorfag using an ATPIAL.

STEINER MASTER RACE HERE.

File: IMG_0446.jpg (3MB, 3896x2558px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3896x2558px

>>33403545
FN magic best magic

>>33407222
>SR-25 is a better gun
haha....hahahahahaha. gtfo.

Someone quote him that passage from the book about the M110 being shit when the SCAR H was first introduced.

File: 1489551465070.jpg (12KB, 109x129px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 109x129px

>>33407222
>Trips of truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-5R-mUg5z4

>>33406912
Recoil is the force going rearwards. What part of the scar impulse kills optics? The only thing I can guess is the negative g forces caused by the massive bcg going home.

>>33407245
>400 dollar muzzle device
>can't help you from being replaced by HK

lol ok

File: IMG_2103.jpg (644KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1600x1066px

>>33407229
>calls L3 poorfag
>doesn't own a MAWL

Look we get it, you make poor life decisions. That doesn't mean you have to force those terrible choices on us. Besides, unless your shitbox is class 3b you can't even compete.

>>33407209
>Armorers don't exist

File: 1479169154308.png (418KB, 600x802px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 600x802px

>>33403545
Another point of discussion.

is it possible to make AR-15 action type of rifle compatible with AR-15 in parts (barrel, BCG, bolt, FCG, gas tube, buffer and stock) but with different upper and lower made using these advanced production methods. Extruded upper, molded lower?

>>33407296
nigga we both know B E Meyers doesn't currently offer a civ version of MAWL.

>>33407313
Not him, but they might as well not. Have you ever seen how shitty the guns in the Army are maintained?

>>33407313
you visiting the armorer everytime you go the the range? Get fucking real. Round count is cumulative.

File: IMG_2104.png (1MB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1366px

>>33407333

That's where you'd be wrong, kiddo.

>>33407321
>extruded upper
That's not really advanced than just different and they do make those and polymer lowers on ARs are... contentious.

The main advantage for SCARS is thier operating system and layout, something that is lost on the AR.

>>33407368
>thousands in laser
>still have to point where the shiny goes

>>33407368
it's time to stop posting other peoples' pictures, sonny.

>>33407386
>polymer lowers on ARs are... contentious.
Obviously this not gonna work well. Polymers have lower strength than aluminum. Geometry of lower need to be adjusted, parts made beefier and thicker. Obviously larger lower requires geometry changes of upper receiver too.

>>33407296
Time to unleash laser power from aliexpress.

File: fnrules.jpg (220KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 600x800px

>>33403545
>FNH in charge of durability standards

>>33407544
oh look it's this butthurt faggot again.

Still crying about your aftermarket parts breaking the pistol? lol.

>>33407544
>actually triggered by legal boilerplate meant to protect the manufacturer from civil and legal suits
Haha every mattress must stop working if you take off the tag what pieces of shit right?

>>33408625
It's actually to protect them from having to make good on their warranty, and with the staggering amount of "It was just one!!" issues with the FNX it's clear something isn't right over there.
Personally I think it's a side effect of FN making a cheap gun. They simply can't deliver on their usual quality at that price point while still providing good customer service. Something's gotta give...

>>33407080
>Autism

>>33408681
>Buying a FN product that isn't a P90, SCAR-17, or Five-Seven

Why would you do this thing?

>>33408681
>staggering amount
stop lying. You don't have access to FN warranty info. Trolling forums is not a way to datamine.

File: laughing.jpg (100KB, 425x282px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 425x282px

>>33405632
>MatSci courses

>>33404800

http://www.fnherstal.com/primary-menu/news/press-releases-archives/2010/the-fn-scar-reaches-final-milestone.html

> The FN SCAR submission was the only weapons system to pass all of the Go/No-Go criteria

Better sue FN for false advertising then because the Colt M4 Type-C failed the requirements along with 2 other Colt rifles and half a dozen AR-15 derivatives.

The Obama administration's budget cuts in 2009 hit SOCOM and the rest of the military in 2010. SOCOM always had the option of getting "free" M4s and M16s from their parent service branches and it was only after that 15% budget cut that they had to scale back the program.

Even after the "cancellation" the SCAR passed all of SOCOM's tests and all variants, including the L, are approved for use even if the L isn't currently being fielded.

Shitting on the Obama administration for the budget cuts wasn't going to fly. So SOCOM called it "limited funds" and left out the details that huge budget cut and left FN and the SCAR to take the blame because they wouldn't dare fight back and risk the whole contract.

File: IMG_20170316_074749125.jpg (4MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4160x2340px

SCAR is breddy gud

>>33405722
Nope, haven't for decades.

>>33406382
Post your SCAR poorfriend.

>If no gov contract existed, this gun wouldn't exist.

No shit.

>What kind of civilian end user would require a rifle that was described in the original SCAR RFQ?

People like the best and are willing to pay a premium for it. Also
>require

>It's one thing to be poor, it's quite another to be dumb.

Yep.

>>33405237
Why not read the post the pretty picture is attached to and find out?

File: 14580331_1068757316572166_532001024_n.jpg (48KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 360x480px

>>33403545
Production cost =/= demand
Maybe if you weren't so bad at economics you wouldn't be so poor.

File: file.jpg (88KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x500px

>>33407229
>not having Zenit 500mW pinpoint focusable IR illuminator
It's like you DON'T want to lase someone 5 miles away.

>>33414812
It's not a mawl

>>33414860
Mawls don't have a 500mW illuminator for multi mile range lasing/illumination.

File: Blue01.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

I love my SCAR.

>>33414936
It's okay to be poor.

File: 1423449232539.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33415537
>paying over 2000 dollars for a class I laser

>>33415599

Posting cartoons doesn't make you right, so you bought a used SCAR and put a shitty laser on it, great.

That won't impress anyone that actually owns a SCAR and uses it a lot.

>>33414936
>>33414860

>not owning a dazzler (read : GLARE)

>>33415493
i like anodized aluminum, and matched pairs, but fuck anon, why that blue?

>>33415633
>seriously implying a class I laser is competitive against a class III
I haven't heard a single argument other than brand whoring coming from you.

>>33415685
I've been found out :(. Never got to use one, can you link me some specs?

>>33415633
No one here actually uses thier guns for anything other than pictures and range trips, same with ARs and most AKS, only autists walk around with rifles.

>>33415701

The best brands make the best equipment, stop being stupid and pretending your shitty little hardwarestore laser is 'Class I'

>>33415743
>No really, my cucked 0.7mW laser and 5 mW illuminator is competitive with a 20mW laser and 500mW illuminator adjustable to near infinity.

>>33415701

TNVC sells a variant

https://tnvc.com/shop/glare%C2%AE-mout-visible-green-laser/

They are a bit costly to just run out and buy but if you want the very best in blinding tech its the way to go.

>>33415884
No use if it crops out with actual use. Come back when you don't have slavshit.

Or not. I can run laps around you all day.

>>33415920
>125mW 0.45 degree beam divergence

>>33415945
>his laser unit isn't even 7075 aluminum
C U C K E D
U
C
K
E
D

>>33415599
Sauce?

>>33415920
Sorry meant to include in my earlier post..
>>33415969
that dazzlers seem interesting in that they need to be at a specific intensity of not too high to cause damage but still strong enough to disorient. Seeing as how wikipedia states some dazzlers emit IR, I wonder what those models output is like. I imagine I could emulate it with mine.

>>33415969
You call me a brand whore but you're distracted by the pot metal shell of your shitty scope.

Maybe airsoft more your speed.

>>33415990
Hyouka

>>33416002
>pot metal
Mine is 7075, which is stronger than 6061 :^)

File: 1475310563138.png (151KB, 474x426px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 474x426px

>>33415991
Well you have dazzlers which you can buy, which are designed to blind and illuminate (also good for minute of man sized targets) They tend to not give out dazzlers anymore because people have a nasty habit of staring into the beam or not "burst" firing it like they are supposed to and literally burning out peoples retinas as a result.

Then you have IZLIDS (which you cant buy) which are a little more precise as they are infrared and used for airstrikes, target designation (late night EOD marking and still the shooting of the peoples)
http://bemeyers.com/product/izlid-200p/

Pretty fun, pretty durable

better than most of the other stuff you see in terms of both construction and intensity

>>33416012
Thnks phamilam,

>>33403545
Back to the topic at hand I think that scars are nice rifles but if I had scar money I'd rather just buy an AR of equivalent ability and use the extra cash to get shit for it like nice glass. I already know the AR system very well and would rather not have to learn a whole new cleaning and use method for no real difference in how holes get put in paper and coyotes.

>>33416055
>Max Output 195 mW
>IR Point Range 39 km
Wew, that's some good shit. I actually don't have an idea of how far my PERST-3 illuminator goes at its minimal divergence, but I'm guessing the Izlid gets a way tighter divergence for a 39km shot with only needing 195mW. Farthest I've tested was over a mile and it showed plenty of extra potential. I'm guessing I should get a 9km shot minimum from the brightness I saw at ~1.5 miles.

Overall I'm pretty satisfied with the PERST-3. It seems to be the best all around and outclasses most of even the class IIIb lasers on the market. It's also easy to buy, too.

Regarding the SCAR, I'm in the same boat. I'm actually more interested in the 5.56 version than 7.62. I feel like if I were to use 7.62 I could make a more accurate AR than the 1 MOA SCAR. For an assault rifle role it seems like its ruggedness is more of a boon for that purpose than a 7.62 rifle would be in a DMR/BR role. I'm in the process of building an m110-ish gun at the moment right now.

>>33416012
Case MATERIAL doesn't matter of the APPLICATION doesn't require it but to add 'heft' for retards like you who buy based off how things feel and not how they function.

You are the lowest class of SCAR owner and you should be disarmed.

>>33416181

In a funny twist the 39km model is actually the weaker of the two models. The ultra ( EOD edition) sports a 990mW and 43km range.) Both the IZLID and Dazzler get some stupid range depending on the originating height and elevation. We have had helo pilots mark target houses for us using them and vice versa marking vehicles and such for them using ours.

PERST doesnt look that bad though i would still opt for a PEQ myself.

Dont buy a scar, get a galil (at least those passed the alaska test.) Besides who can afford to shoot semi automatic .308 casually, you wont be buying any nice lasers dropping that kind of cash.

>>33416266
>who can afford semiautomatic .308
People who drop 8000 on a rifle and base accessories? Go be poor somewhere else.

File: 3e89d231-cf48-46f1-9757-1d947634a706.jpg (452KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1280x960px

>>33416266
>Besides who can afford to shoot semi automatic .308 casually
My .308 Vepr I got second hand shoots 1.5 moa with 65 grain Tula softpoints, which are only $9 for a box of 20. I can't shoot it as much as my AR but I get a decent amount of range time in on my college budget.

File: 1476080097987.png (263KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 600x600px

>>33416295

(its a joke, if you knew hoe expensive Galils, IZLIDS, Dazzlers, and other nice things were you might have caught it)

Its ok anon i will show patience to you and your condition.

>>33404719
Then why is the FNS decades superior to the glock yet it's cheaper? Is glock run by cavern-dwelling jews?

File: 1333551111588.jpg (20KB, 299x338px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 299x338px

>>33407080

Jew York here, how does it feel to have testicles. Also, is sex fun?

>mfw

>>33407080
>>33407203
So are you still in the Chair Force

>>33416577

>implying its not a better job than 99% of other options.

>>33416595
I'm just wondering if Squid is still in.
It's not a critique of his life choices.

>>33416613

Why are you not critiquing his life choices? Do you not want him to better himself?

>>33416266
>Dont buy a scar, get a galil
wtf? You want a jewish AK over a SCAR/

>Besides who can afford to shoot semi automatic .308 casually
people with degrees and jobs.

> you wont be buying any nice lasers dropping that kind of cash
stop projecting, poorfag.

>>33416495
>FNS decades superior to the glock yet it's cheaper
>decades superior
debatable
>yet it's cheaper
about the same price.

it's called MARKET SHARE.it's called PERCEIVED QUALITY.

>>33416187
>thinks I'm squiddo
I don't even own a SCAR, bro.

>>33416266
>The ultra ( EOD edition) sports a 990mW and 43km range.)
Oh wow, that's kinda scary thinking about reflective surfaces. Have you ever had any issues with that? I haven't gone shining my shit at car windows because I'm worried about reflections, though I might be worried a little too much.

>Besides who can afford to shoot semi automatic .308 casually
I would shoot it much like any other precision bolt gun. I've already bought a krieger m110 profile SS barrel and getting a Mega Maten receiver set + parts sent to my house right now.

>Dont buy a scar, get a galil
Already have an SGL 31-94 and my own 5.56 AR build, so I'm pretty covered in that department. I just think the engineering, design, and refinement from the SCAR is really interesting and most relevant for 5.56. If I were to get one it would be in 5.56.

>i would still opt for a PEQ myself.
PEQ and PERST are kind of and even matchup to me. The PEQ is probably better for regular use since it's lighter and its illumination is strong enough for normal use, while the PERST is heavier 5mW less on IR laser but quite a bit stronger for the illuminator with much tighter adjustment. Biggest factors for me is that I can get the class IIIb PERST-3 new, very easily, not stolen, and for half the price without the slim chance of DHS looking for it.

File: IMG_0178.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>33403545
SCAR haters
>worthless poorfags
>casuals

SCAR owners
>coolest cats in the room

File: Is this a STAND.png (2MB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x1280px

>>33416676
>wtf? You want a jewish AK over a SCAR/
The scar is nice, dont be mad you cant afford jewish space magicks

>people with degrees and jobs.
Good luck paying off all those student loans (and not buying funs in the process)

>stop projecting, poorfag.
Shit he,she,custom called my bluff, i better do the thing


>>33416836
>Oh wow, that's kinda scary thinking about reflective surfaces. Have you ever had any issues with that? I haven't gone shining my shit at car windows because I'm worried about reflections, though I might be worried a little too much.

>I would shoot it much like any other precision bolt gun. I've already bought a krieger m110 profile SS barrel and getting a Mega Maten receiver set + parts sent to my house right now.

Nice, im a simple man and enjoy my remy memehundred, something calming about bolt guns. (keep us up to date)

>Already have an SGL 31-94 and my own 5.56 AR build, so I'm pretty covered in that department. I just think the engineering, design, and refinement from the SCAR is really interesting and most relevant for 5.56. If I were to get one it would be in 5.56.
I would say personally that you are a bit invested in the 556 at this point then, however i cant knock it if its going to be your "primary" gun (though like many current scar owners it would have been better to buy once cry once in the long term, more power to you though do what you must.

>PEQ and PERST

comment to long, too lazy for part II but do what it most cost efficient and and will get you looked at least. expensive things are just that EXPENSIVE, they garner unwanted attention and prying eyes
I myself have been fortunate enough to not have it happen though i would imagine as with anything shiny a simple mirror coat could defeat it.

>>33404747
Best post /Thread
SAGE

File: 74.jpg (527KB, 1329x3876px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1329x3876px

>>33417041
>remy memehundred
Only reason I didn't buy one is because I'm already invested in all the tools to build an AR-15 so I figured it would be nice to carry over the same armorer capabilities to my precision gun.

>(keep us up to date)
Is /arg/ the right place for that or should I make a precision rifle thread?

>you are a bit invested in the 556 at this point then
SGL is in 5.45, though. It still is a big IF as far as buying a SCAR. The desire is there but it's hard not to get something like my first precision gun, dual tube NVG, upgrade my gaming PC, etc.

>those IZLIDs
Holy shit you actually own two? Looks like one is the 200P, but the one resting near the rear sight looks a little different. Is that an Ultra?

>but do what it most cost efficient and and will get you looked at least.
I already have both the PERST-3 and 4. It's 100% legal to own in the US, since the manufacturer is responsible for not selling directly to civilians, and Zenitco isn't a US company so that FDA regulation does not apply to releasing their products on the civilian market. It also costs the same as the ATPIAL C and their 4mW Red/IR dual slaved unit (PERST-4) costs just under 400 dollars. It just has no illuminator, though.

>>33405249

Except the 17s actually does beat up certain magnified optics. Not really a reason to avoid buying one, but it's not fiction.

>>33406085

>They have a stateside factory but per contract the factory can only produce for military demands.

Is it because the military rifles are produced as select fire or because they wanted the entire production line to themselves like a bunch of assholes with our tax dollars?

>tfw sitting around literal newfag vets

>they never removed kebab

File: 1473895380257.png (3KB, 306x269px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 306x269px

>>33417215
> it would be nice to carry over the same armorer capabilities to my precision gun.

This mindset will take you far anon, most people with the platform in question either A dont/wont have the freetime to shoot and train with it in and of itself making it a waste of money. But having a dedicated tool / skillset in one particular will take you further than most. (i want to cite parts compatibility but thats really a myth of sorts short of the tools used for assembly)

>Is /arg/ the right place for that or should I make a precision rifle thread?

I think a precision rifle thread would be nice but i dont think it would last more than a day with all the tandem gear, political, and shitposting threads that pop up (plus most people want cool not precise)

>SGL is in 5.45, though
Having a SLR104FR i should have caught that, my apologies (I also notice that caliber wise you too are a man of fine taste [TipsFedorov]

{puts on the real talk hat} DO THE OTHER THINGS FIRST! When its all said and done the scar is a trophy gun you will likely see far more use out of new PC components, etc, precision gun,NVG (in that order) and most importantly

>Use your sense, save your cents.
(nice things will come and go but Mr. Murphy is looming, waiting to fuck you up. Be ready.

>Holy shit you actually own two? Looks like one is the 200P, but the one resting near the rear sight looks a little different. Is that an Ultra?

The skinny is the ult the big is the green

> It just has no illuminator, though.

Being realistic the illumination inst necessary unless you have night vision optics, so saving money by not having one is a plus. And TNVC has similar sales policies in regards to the sale of fancy laser and night eyes, the grey area hits if you go from mil at time of purchase to civie later in life however.

>>33417368

So help them anon, there is currently a big recruiting push right now as we "hypothetically" amp up for WWIII

>>33404747

>It's worth the price of admission for me.

That's the most important thing to remember about the SCAR. It's not $3000 worth of rifle. Nothing in this segment is priced based on anything other than magic and hand waving. Either pay for one or move on. They aren't going to get cheap any time soon and FN clearly doesn't care about making them more available to the civilian market because limited availability helps them sell batches faster.

If you think the SCAR is expensive, go look at what people are spending on piecing together HK G28 clones.

>>33403545
I know it was inevitable, but fuck did this thread go to shit.

Just a bunch of mouthy, insecure goshites trying desperately to out smug each other.

>>33417041
>Good luck paying off all those student loans
confirmed for poor and degreeless.

Good luck in the new economy, poorfag.

>Nice, im a simple man
no, you're a SIMPLETON

>>33417393
I do try, I dunno how to reach them.

File: 1464384040053.jpg (115KB, 834x556px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 834x556px

>>33417579

In 10 more years when the retirement kicks in and uncle sam leaves me to the mercy of the VA I will be to senile (and likely near death to give a fuck)

> spends life buying things he wants and dies confused and happy getting taken care of by robo waifus

I can deal, enjoy being a different form of cog in the machine anon.

>>33417601
Youngins these days want shiny things with as little labor as possible, offer them "shorter hours" with more benefits. Just dont tell them they will work longer days and drown in pussy and or trap pucci

File: amazingrace.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33417371
>The skinny is the ult the big is the green
Got dayum. Do you happen to live in the southwest US? I live in Nevada. I'd love to do some night time operations and see your lasers in person, just you and me, anon :^)

>[TipsFedorov]
>{puts on the real talk hat} DO THE OTHER THINGS FIRST!
Good God, I don't know if you're being ironic or you're actually from leddit.

>>33407242
>Someone quote him that passage from the book about the M110 being shit when the SCAR H was first introduced.
What's the source? I'd love to hear about that.

Also the only thing I never understood about the SCAR is why did they go with a reciprocating handle when the SCAR solicitation never stated it as a requirement? I understand the benefits of it, I just never heard the rationale of why FN specifically did so.

>>33417702
And?

>>33417742
>just you and me, anon :^)

Sorry babe, im more towards the sunshine and oranges section of the US, though if im ever passing through for training or something I will start a laser thread and look for you.

>Good God, I don't know if you're being ironic or you're actually from leddit.

In a twist neither, ( i keep meaning to go and see what eddit is about but i never do.) Just good wholesome advice from a "old" person

>>33417767

And what? Why cant people just leave well enough alone.

>>33403545
OP is a fucking nigger lover. Yes I am fucking triggered.

>>33417847
Maybe I enjoy destroying the fucking enemy.

>>33417895
Personal satisfaction cant be part of the equation anon. If you enjoy destroying things you will join of your own accord in pursuit of it. You have to market to the ones who want something "more"

>>33404811

>>33417742
>SCAR is why did they go with a reciprocating handle when the SCAR solicitation never stated it as a requirement?
operator feedback. SOCOM wanted it.

>>33417974
Oh so it was feedback that occurred as part of the trials? I believe you, but is there a source for this that I can read. I'd like to see the details about it and if there are other neat engineering/design details like the charging handle thing.

>>33404747

I like this reply. I was thinking about buying one (17), a friend of a friend let me shoot his, I didn't like it.

Quality piece, worth the money, shoots well. I just didn't quite like the ergos - especially the foregrip - as much as I liked what I already had (Armalite AR10).

Had I bought it cold, I would have been kind of upset with myself. Good gun, not GOAT-tier, though.

>>33418343
>foregrip
why? because your baby hands can't C clamp the quad rail? Nigga get real. SCAR17 is GOAT.

>>33415695
it is not a lovely colour?

What makes the scar so great? I like my gucci AR10 better, but have only put twenty rounds through a scar. Mine has sexy carbon wrapped barrel and rail and doesn't look like its father was an aluminum window frame. Mine is pretty damn light, too.
t. non-military user (use mine to kill cans and shit)

>>33419562
>gucci AR10
your M&P 10 isn't GUCCI. Neither is your DPMS.

What a butt ugly gun

>>33405025
>reciprocating charging handle

>>33420542
>reciprocating charging handle

Discounting everything the scar offers with one "non" flaw feature specified by a military customer.

Stay mad.

File: IMG_0631.jpg (37KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x550px

>>33420613
Kek that's my only real criticism of the rifle. It's a good gun--especially since I can never own an XM8

>>33420542
>...is a good thing

>>33420737
It's not a real criticism