what went wrong?

>>34680349
The price. About it.

>>34680349
More expensive than all the ar10/15 derivatives already in service without any major improvements to justify the price.

>>34680428
AR-10s are generally unreliable desu

The Scar-16 is fucking dumb though.

>>34680349
>>34680369
My LGS has the 17 on "sale" for 2850

I'm very tempted, but that's how much I was planning on spending on an O/U for my next gun.

Before they were out of stock everywhere, they were regularly going for 2700. I didn't think they'd ever get back below 3000 or 3200 after FN bumped the MSRP up.

File: IMG_0049.jpg (2MB, 2221x3826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2221x3826px

I like mine. Seems accurate enough with irons at 100-200 yds. Could probably do the same thing with a cheaper rifle but I wanted this one.

>>34680369
>>34680428
They're only marginally more expensive than M4s to gov entities, which is their target market. FN charges the prices they do because A) They have to jump through a mile of legal hoops to import them for civilian sales and B) They can because even at almost $3k they're constantly sold out.

>>34680453
I got mine for $2800 with the FN mil/leo pricing.

>>34680437
A cheap civilian ar10 might be but the mk11 mod 0 and sr-25 have been the DMR and sniper spotters weapon of choice for decades now. And yes those are AR-10 derivatives.

The pathetic iron sights

>>34680472
Marginally expensive is still more expensive. Especially considering that it doesn't share parts compatibility with rifles already in service.

>>34680496
They're not expensive enough for that to be the reason for not adopting them though. The fact that M4s (or whatever legacy 5.56mm rifle a nation has in service) shoot bullets just like they do is why they aren't adopted. Weapons tech plateauing combined with a massive cut in defense spending by everyone but the US post cold war means no one is really shopping for a new service rifle.

Before you bring up the Bren 805/6 the Czechs have a domestic firearms industry capable enough that they will never shop outside of it.

> Especially considering that it doesn't share parts compatibility with rifles already in service.
No shit?

>>34680437
>The Scar-16 is fucking dumb though.

So what's an equal quality alternative to the 16S that takes AR mags but isn't an AR?

>>34680472
I have no idea why they still import nearly the entire rifle from Belgium when they have a facility that can churn them out right here in the US.

>>34680532
You literally just proved my point. It's not that the gun itself is that much more expensive it's the fact that most nato nation's already had something that worked well enough. Guess that's my bad for not clarifying.

>>34680349
The 25 different shades of brown trigger me every time.

>>34680602
>So what's an equal quality alternative to the 16S that takes AR mags but isn't an AR?
Not him, but maybe the Bren?
>I have no idea why they still import nearly the entire rifle from Belgium when they have a facility that can churn them out right here in the US.
Moving the tooling over here would be really expensive. I doubt there are many more people willing to pay $1800 per gun than there are willing to pay $2800 per gun.
>>34680619
>You literally just proved my point
No, you said, "marginally more expensive is still more expensive," as if that was a factor at all. It isn't. It's not being adopted because virtually no one is shopping for a new service rifle, period. It could cost the same as an M4 (which it damn near does) and no one would buy them in large numbers because there's no point.

>>34680602

The US facility produces for the government only. They're too busy keeping up with contracts stateside to produce anything for the consumer market. This would probably be rectified if they opened another factory but I don't know why they haven't yet.

>>34680677
I didn't know they had the stuff to make them here. Ignore what I said about moving tooling here then.

>>34680661
As I said my fault for not clarifying that what I meant by more expensive is that it would've been far more expensive to outfit any army with an entirely new weapons platform for little to no gain than it would be to maintain and upkeeo existing platforms. My bad.

>>34680349

Nothing went wrong, it doesn't have any inherent flaws cost aside and it does what it says on the box.

>>34680661
>maybe the Bren?

I've considered it. Would suck to buy the 805 now and have to buy the 806 if they make it into the US in rifle form next year.

>>34680677
>They're too busy keeping up with contracts stateside to produce anything for the consumer market.

What contracts? Didn't SOCOM decide to have all of the procured SCAR-L rifles turned in when they shitcanned the MK16? Exactly how many fucking MK17s does the DoD need and where are they all going?

>This would probably be rectified if they opened another factory but I don't know why they haven't yet.

I'm guessing because they can continue to coast by shitting out cheap polymer pistols that most American gun owners can't stop fucking buying for whatever reason.

>>34680478
no you didnt

>>34680864
not as good of a thread though

File: United_States_Navy_SEALs_124.jpg (153KB, 800x1202px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 800x1202px

>>34680349
The SCAR-H is great because it's the only other rifle besides the gorillion AR-10 derivatives that packs 7.62x51 into a reasonably lightweight gun. The FAL, G3, and M14 are far heavier by comparison.

The SCAR-L doesn't really improve on shit, besides a few little ergonomic bells and whistles.

>>34680349
Poorfags, that's it.

File: darth-vader-i-am-altering-the-deal[1].png (178KB, 368x460px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 368x460px

>>34680349

The Democrats got into power in 2009 and passed legislation that cut funding for SOCOM in general by 15% while also ordering them to train and equip an extra battalion to every group.

SOCOM says to FN:

>"Oops, we can't actually pay for this now. By the way, we won't say anything about the budget cuts and just call it 'limited funds' so people jump to the conclusion that your rifle wasn't good enough.".

FN's US branch was pissed and started to raise a stink about it, but the headquarters in Belgium says to them: "STFU or they'll fuck us over in our other contracts and bids".

File: SCAR-stock[1].jpg (121KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 960x960px

>>34680602

>I have no idea why they still import nearly the entire rifle from Belgium when they have a facility that can churn them out right here in the US.

Gotta give the Belgians something to do. Actually it has to do with the US law that says the tooling that FN uses for the military has to be exclusive. Which is why FN had to build an entirely new line just to produce their civilian ARs despite making M16s for the military for decades.

But yeah, importing them does raise the cost and also makes it less likely you'll get a close match of the polymer grips and stocks that you get from the US side.

>>34680349
MGS4, reminded too many people of the movie.

>>34680349
Price, mostly. Salty niggers can't afford it.

File: FN_SCAR_MK_20_SSR_Rotators_1--1800x600.jpg (96KB, 1800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1800x600px

>>34680349
When the hell are we gonna be able to buy pic related? I've never had any interest in the SCAR 17 or 16, but something about the SSR looks just right.

>>34680921

$46,000,000 worth of SCAR variants, grenade launchers, service and maintenance for the past 5 years.

Not sure about the earlier contracts, but those were indefinite quantity/delivery after the initial run as well.

File: DSC_0172[1].jpg (452KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1500x1000px

>>34681527

Last year they seemed to be building up a stockpile of the receivers.

But once again, these might just be all earmarked for the military and the Belgian SCARs were eaten up by Belgium itself adopting it armywide to replace their FNCs as their standard service rifle.

>>34680602
>So what's an equal quality alternative to the 16S that takes AR mags but isn't an AR?
I heard the bren 805 is comparable.

File: Untitledsfsf.png (2MB, 1536x1152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1536x1152px

>>34680349
doesn't come out of the factory with MLOK

It's an AR-18 that's marginally better and 4x the cost

>>34680349
They know the military will pay for them and because of that, normal people want them.

Supply & demand, senpai.

>>34681445
I always wondered how extensive the laws around technical data packages are. Is anything used in the process "infected" and can't be used outside of that?

>>34680349
Americans touched it

>>34680349
Turns out the Scar 16 wasn't worth the hefty price over the M16. But the silver lining is the Scar 17 which turned out to be a amazing tool.

File: sr-25.jpg (142KB, 1024x457px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x457px

>>34680483
The SR-25 is also $1000 more. That said, the new M-LOK versions look amazing.

File: 1500080857751.jpg (51KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 630x420px

>>34682490
>over $4000 gun
>Comes with shitty grip and stock

>>34682585
You can sell that stock for a pretty penny, buy one you like and still have money leftover. The A2 grip is full retard though.

>>34681126
What? Yes I did. How is that even hard to believe? $2800 isn't even that great of a deal.

>>34682591
How much do people pay for that stock it likes like a plain Jane collapsible stock.

>>34682603
Bruh, it's an LMT SOPMOD and it retails for over $200. ARfags, especially clone builders, cream themselves over it.

>>34680483
Really? Why is it getting replaced? KAC products are behind the times.

>>34681161
>The SCAR-L doesn't really improve on shit
FUCKING WRONG. read the socom scar trial results.

>>34680349
You're poor and buttmad because other people have nice things.
>>34680437
>The Scar-16 is fucking dumb though.
No it's not.
The only people who say this are bench queens who think 5.56 is a fad and have never had to travel any distance with their rifle, except for the 10 rounds you bring in your pocket to go hunting.
If you like .308 get .308. If you like 5.56, get 5.56. They are the same design with different calibers.
>>34680428
>reliability
>ergonomics
>manual of arms
>>34680453
The prices went up because FN factory workers went on strike.
>>34680494
They are some of the best irons on the market.
>>34680496
>I don't understand supply and demand so I'm going to bitch about everything that isn't free because I'm a dirty commie
If you don't want something at it's current price, don't buy it.
That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the gun.
>>34681161
AR-10s are still having some problems with reliability, and the SCAR is more accurate than M1As, G3s, and FALs.
And the 16 is more reliable than M4/M16s.
>>34681392
Another good point.
>>34682459
Because so many people hated all the AR-10 builds as DMRs. So they couldn't pass it up.
>>34682707
I'd actually be interested in seeing this, or at least getting a TL;DR.

>>34680602
Bren 805 is better than the SCAR 16 but don't tell the SCAR kiddies that.

>>34682585
A2 grip is goat and the LMT SOPMOD stock is $200

>>34682603
>he doesn't know

>>34683305
No it's not.
It's decent SCAR clone.

>>34680349

You were born poor.

>>34683320
The Bren 805 is nicer than the SCAR 16. The 806 will blow it out of the water.

SCAR 17 is cool, but the 16 is just dumb.

>>34683329
>duh 17 is duh greatist!
>but duh gun wit duh same desine in a difereint caliber is supuh stoopid

>Man, those VEPRs in 7.62x39 are pretty sweet, huh.
>But I can't fucking stand those VEPRs in 5.45! What utter garbage!

Please just stop.

>>34683349
>but duh gun wit duh same desine in a difereint caliber is supuh stoopid
It is when it's just about the same exact size though and only a few hundred less.

Thank god the ARX exists so we can ignore how unnecessarily huge the 16 is for a 5.56 gun

>>34683349
Also, I never said the 17 is the greatest, I said it's cool.

If it was so great, why is just about every nation just ignoring and/or dropping it?

>>34680496
They actually not marginally more expensive. The SCAR-L was built specifically to be cheaper to procure than M4s.

>>34683369
Yet the military gives FN the largest share of the M4 contract and still doesn't want the SCAR

>>34683359
Are you saying the 16 is larger than the AR?
>>34683367
They aren't.
They're budgeting.
Nearly every country in the world gets M4s or AKs at a discount from the US or Russia.
And most 1st world countries use a gun made by a company in their own country.
That doesn't mean the SCAR isn't better than whatever another country is using.

>>34683397
>Are you saying the 16 is larger than the AR?
Yes, larger than a M4

>Nearly every country in the world gets M4s or AKs at a discount from the US or Russia.
Maybe developing nations, but that's wrong. Look at all of the Euro nations using CZ/HK/Steyr and either dropping or ignoring the SCAR. This includes both military and police forces.

I hate to break it to you, but the SCAR is not eternal.

>>34681674
The 805 is heavy

I love how any thread about SCARs is always just people who don't own them hating on them while people that do try to have a conversation, but are drowned out by all the retards.

Imagine going into an AR thread and then attacking people because "X country doesn't use an AR, they use an AK!"
And that's what every AR thread was filled with until the end of time.
Annoying spergs who have devoted a portion of their ego to not liking a gun they will never own.

>>34683428
Yeah, but so is the m4 with RIS II and sopmod

>>34683436
>SCARfags still not understanding it
Throwing money at something =/= solution

>>34682597
Yea I got mine for $2700 last w/o leo/mil discount

>>34683415
No, it's not. The SCAR is about a foot long while collapsed.
And the receiver is about the same size.

>>34683437
Yea but the 805 weighs as much as my 17s

>>34683436
not an argument

>>34683459
>The SCAR is about a foot long while collapsed.
It's literally not

>>34683445
>creating a more reliable gun with better ergonomics and manual of arms = solution.

>>34683471
I'm just crossing my fingers that the 806 makes it's way over to the US eventually.

>>34683479
>more reliable
Proof
>better ergos
Except no
>better manual of arms
Again, no

File: 9d04c5885c82c3195d66c6f78e86f243.jpg (55KB, 573x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 573x480px

>>34683475
Sorry, less than two feet. My mistake.
Still smaller.
>Proof
https://youtu.be/PApRcRE-ft8?t=8m6s
>Except no
Except yes. Specifically the stock which allows you to use both low and high mounted optics.
>Again, no
Again, yes. Specifically the charging handle, bolt release, and magazine releases.

>>34683572
I also meant to quote >>34683495

>>34683393
I mean they do buy SCARs, so what's your point?

>>34683588
SOCOM has canceled their mk16 program and the mk17 is hardly used and will not be widespread.

>>34683572
>counting folded stock against oal as if that matters
No one is going to firing with a folded stock
>low and high mounted optics, this isn't even an issue, specifically for the non-FSP RIS II and whatever mlok rail system they'll choose next.
>charging handle
I guess, but it's hardly anything to write home about or call an improvment
>bolt release and magazine release
It's the exact same manual of arms as it is on the M4

>>34683650
>will not be widespread.
I want to know why you think this matters? The SCAR-L is cheaper than the M4 to procure. Nothing you're saying can dispute this.

>>34683660
>The SCAR-L is cheaper than the M4 to procure
And yet the military would still rather have FN make them M4s instead.

DESU I'd get a POF Revolution over a SCAR 17 anymore.

They're cheaper, lighter, just as accurate, less recoil, and have the full compatibility of an AR15. Only downside I can see is that they're still DI so will get dirtier, but I clean my guns frequently anyways so whatever.

>>34683650
I hate the ARs charging handle. The SCARs is great and I will never be satisfied with an AR again.

Magazine is ambi and the bolt release can be used while pulling the charging handle back.

>>34683684
Okay, so what? Even with them being cheaper it doesn't make financial sense to retrain armorers or stock new spare parts when they can just continue buying M4s as needed.

>>34683697
>bolt release can be used while pulling the charging handle back.
Why would you do this anyway. This is retarded. Just get a KAC or LMT lower if you want ambi

>>34683706
There was nothing to show any improvement in the mk16/SCAR-L program over the m4/mk12/mk18 program.

The only SCAR worth looking into is the mk17/SCAR 17 because of the cost and weight savings over the SR-25/mk11 program.

>>34683733

It's called manually locking the bolt to the rear with just one hand. Try doing that with an AR... oh wait, you can't.

File: 769721.jpg (39KB, 880x660px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 880x660px

>>34683772
>Try doing that with an AR... oh wait, you can't.
You can just use one hand to pull back the charging handle and keep the other hand in place never taking it off of the grip and away from the trigger/selector with the BAD lever

>>34683796

That's still two hands buddy. People practice how to shoot their guns with only one hand for a reason.

>>34683814
>People practice how to shoot their guns with only one hand for a reason.
Wow! So like how would you hold the gun and work the bolt release and charging handle at the same time with one hand?

I mean I guess you'd have to set it down to do that.

>>34680437
>AR-10s are generally unreliable
Stop spreading your gay meme faggot.

>>34683825

Or just hold it between your knees, or behind your leg, or prop it off any part of your body and the. there's the ground and what's around you to work with as well. Point being, the SCAR provides a means for one handed type 3 malfunction clearance should that ever become necessary.

>>34680349
Availability and Price.

>>34683864
So at the end of the day, that is what is bringing you to spend $1500 more than what'd cost you to get a m4gery or nice quality AR?

Honestly, you can just say that you like them and wanted something other than an AR without being a delusional asshole about it kek.

>>34683890

Obviously not. I'm just taking a moment to illustrate how wrong you are by calling such a feature "retarded" and equating it to other features that do not compare.

>>34683904
You don't think you're reaching at all, do you? There are still more pros to the AR/M4 than their are to the SCAR

>>34683939

You don't think you're moving the goal posts now? I responded with rational evidence to contradict a very specific criticism you espoused. After which you proceeded to call me an asshole for doing so. I think it's obvious you're a bit flustered so I'm not going to take it personally. Just accept the correction and move on.

>>34683983
>being able to hold gun between your knees to function charging handle and bolt release at the same time with one hand is rational evidence to prove superior ergonomics
Just stop

File: 1477435162216.gif (3MB, 281x295px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 281x295px

>buy $3000 rifle
>still need to buy $2700 of aftermarket parts to make it accept AR10 mags, a stock that isn't dogshit, a good trigger, suppressor compatible flash hider, and MLOK forend
>Still need to put $2000 worth of glass on top of it

I would just rather buy a genuine SVD, or M107

>>34680655
Its the Dr. Pepper of guns

>>34684033

It's a legitimate feature that one might desire when selecting a rifle to suit their needs. To argue anything differently is to literally proclaim "stop liking what I don't like."

>>34684093
>It's a legitimate feature that one might desire when selecting a rifle to suit their needs
kek

no

>>34684099

Special Agent Mireles would like to have a word with you.

>>34684103
Not him, but you could technically use your knee to apply pressure to the bolt release or BAD lever while pulling back the charging handle.

>>34684136

Absolutely. In a situation that becomes necessary you're going to do whatever it takes, however it takes, to survive.

I never proposed this specific feature as "it's better than x gun" but simply as a specific counterpoint to >>34683733 calling it "retarded." I'm not even the guy he originally replied to.

File: 8lbs, 3feet LMT SOPMOD failure.png (103KB, 820x649px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 820x649px

>>34682611
>>34682603
>>34682591

All that for a stock that can't even handle a drop from 3 feet with the weight of a standard M4 with accessories.

Handguard isn't ergonomic

>>34683305
>>34683320

Except that it's been shitcanned by the Czechs who had to come up with the 806 to try and solve the problems the 805 had.

There's no guarantee they will get it right the 2nd time either.

>>34680349
FAL should have been fielded instead

>>34683393

It didn't win the contract initially. Remington won and Colt protested because they didn't calculate in the 5% royalty that every manufacturer besides Colt has to pay when they make an M4,.

So the government asks for a rebid, and FN wins with the lowest bid even with that royalty.

That 5% royalty that other manufacturers have to pay sounds exttremely stupid today since it basically locked Colt in as the only supplier of the M4. But back when the government was negotiating, they thought the M4 was going to be replaced in a few years anyway and it wouldn't matter.

You know Colt's lawyers are good when they can tell the government that the M4 is a variant of the M16 and that's why it doesn't need a new trial... while out of the other side of their mouth they say that it is a new rifle and that the army only owns the TDP for the M16 and not the M4 and that's why it cannot be distributed to other companies and have to pay royalties for its use.

Just another reason we should move on from it.

File: Blue.jpg (4MB, 2848x4288px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2848x4288px

>>34680349
Are we having a SCAR thread? Hang on let me post my baby.

>>34680349
There's cost.

Then there's cost effectiveness

Manufacturers after the holy grail that is the US service rifle contract hate to admit it but the M4 is still the best for the budget right now.

>>34684378
There's really no reason to move away from the AR platform. Rumors of the Army going back to 7.62 would completely undermine the battle doctrine that has been drilled into minds since the 1960s.

If anything, they should adopt the AR-10 because of similarity of parts and similarity in training. The AR platform is simply the best we've got and probably the last rifle the US Military will want during this half of the century unless we get into another full scale war.

>>34684378
You do realize that Colt's hold on the royalty only lasts just a little bit longer after this current contract win, right?

Well, frankly, the problem is that it's FN and not HK.

>>34684643

No. The AR is holding back development of LSAT and other technology that would be more effective. We should have had smart munitions decades ago but instead we've had the Cold Steel of rifle designs that didn't get the clue when told that it should be a boat anchor on the sea floor and not the development floor.

File: xnriebnoka4z.jpg (374KB, 1520x2688px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1520x2688px

>>34684222
Could you link this test please? Would like to see what else they mess with.

>>34684770
Oh bullshit. There have already been efforts made into plastic cased .223 that would be totally backwards compatible with existing inventory; and there's no reason telescoped LSAT ammunition would not be usable in an appropriate caliber AR with some modification to the feed ramp. At the end of the day, the lighter muntions is all the LSAT program brings to the table, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking or innovative about the rifle itself that really sets it apart from anything else already on the market, at least not the the extent that it is worth completely mothballing all current service rifles. The LMG admittedly seems to have useful weight savings, but that's an entirely different chain of procurement.

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

3MB, 4288x2848px

>>34684260
One of the few points that hold any water in this poorfag tantrum thread kek. I have gorilla arms so it might be worse for me than others, but an extended rail is a necessity for me.
Also A2 grip a shit, and it's stupid that they made it just a bit off from taking AR grips. Didn't feel like fucking around filing one down so I grabbed a K2 from PMM.
Other than that it's been a fantastic gun.

File: Blue2.jpg (55KB, 728x484px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 728x484px

>>34685052
:o Hey thats my rifle

>>34680349
>What went wrong
Op is a nigger shitposting

File: tumblr_mpssxtCptq1qg8bcmo1_1280.jpg (129KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1280x851px

>>34685283
Prove it, homolord

File: Bad SCAR.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>34685873
Proof that I am the homolord. Keep your firearms clean and lubed.

File: Based_FNH.jpg (260KB, 1226x834px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1226x834px

>>34685929
Needs a timestamp gayboi

>>34683689
DESU you're a dumbass.

>>34684078
Protip: most scar haters are too poor to own a scar, and have no experience with it. You included.

>>34682585
>lmt sopmod is shitty

Shut your whore mouth

>>34686355
>most scar haters are too poor
this.

>>34680349
US wasted Millions of dollars to replace M4.
But M4 improve in so many ways that even some
programs cant even replaced the M4s.
Spec Ops and US Rangers Unit like SCAR-H
due to 7.62x51 Round.

>>34686355

But those are valid points.

>>34684078
>turning a shit kicking battle rifle into a marksman rifle is expensive

no shit

>>34686413
>you're just too POOR to pour money into an inherently inaccurate rifle
Never looked at it that way.

>>34681696
>buys nonstandard rail replacements
>drop them in and immediately put covers on
fuck you

>>34686868
>inherently inaccurate rifle

you fags say this about anything that doesn't shoot sub MOA at 500 yards

>>34686908
I thought it was the bestest rifle ever, why so mad?

>>34686921
>bestest rifle ever

among 308 battle rifles it's very good, yes

File: 1436318818818.jpg (188KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1280x854px

>>34686908
I'm getting .8 to 1.2 MOA 5 shot slow groups with SMKs at 575. Maybe it's just you? The other 2 frequent visitors at my range are right about there too, but one is a 6.5 conversion. You sound like you've never shot one though.

File: 100_0178.jpg (3MB, 3456x4608px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x4608px

>>34687013
Meant for
>>34686868