Some thoughts that I haven’t seen brought up that came to mind while reading the thread.
Mags. There have been reports of the MOE/Gen 2 pmags causing issues due to the rear notch in the mag, have also seen similar notches in other cheap polymer/plastic mags(Though one wonders why you by a 2k+ rifle and use POS mags but that is another discussion.). Obviously not an issue if using USGI mags, Gen 3 pmags, ect. But something worth noting at least in the notes.
True, the SCAR bolt stop may get hung and in the way of the bolt using Gen 2 (ANY Gen 2) PMAGs. SCAR owners need to scrape or dremel the notch larger. But the truth is that the PMAGs are NOT STANAG compliant magazines. They were originally designed to take advantage of the AR dimensionally, not to be STANAG compliant. The SCAR was designed to use STANAG compliant magazines. Is it better to build to a standard or to a Company’s magazines? I like standards.
The brake on the rifle is the PWS 556 if I recall right. A great brake for the shooter, and pretty much a mobile concussion grenade to everyone else around. The fact a friend of mine had one on his AR for a spell is the exact reason I have a hacksaw in my bug out kit. Lose the brake and I think the comments about the rifle being such a super soft shooter may go out the window a bit. Not that the 5.56 kicks a lot, but it is again something I think it worth noting. I have heard through the grape vine that the 17s without brakes were not as fun to shoot for some, but have not confirmed that myself, and truthfully can’t see it being worse than a Armalite AR10 16inch carbine with an m4 stock off hand, which wasn’t really that bad, pushed your ass around but controllable, though the 17 does have somewhat of the rep of beating the shit out of optics, but that is still another discussion.
I’ve seen it written by others that they were able to change the SCAR 16 brake without substantially affecting the feel of the rifle. I have no experience with this, and I totally agree with you about the PWS brake. You are OK if you stand directly behind the shooter. PWS is not a good CQB muzzle device.
With regard to the 17 it truly has a huge blast. I got used to it as a shooter, but people to the sides or in an indoor range will not be happy. I believe there are some good new muzzle devices for .308, but I’ll let someone else do the testing.
Size wise, the SCAR to me is in the same category of the FS2000 in that I feel like I am trying to hump a whale shouldering the damn thing. I know, pure personal feelings here, but damn does it feel bigger than needed. Not saying either don’t work, just that they can be a big bulbous in the ass, but some men like that so who am I to judge. The issues with the stock though do cause concern and is something I still think is one of the week links in the gun.
I’ll have to disagree with you here, but that’s why they make different kinds of cars. Compared to a newer AR with a svelte KMR rail (AR w/KMR right next to me) the 16 is cumbersome, but I really cannot compare it to a FS2000 or an ARX for that matter, it just doesn’t handle that way to me. I like really small asses too, but don’t tell my wife.
As far as the strength of the stock is concerned, I hear about it, I’ve seen maybe two pictures (in Military conditions), but I don’t know anyone who actually experienced it. Anyway, There seem to be some new options coming slowly down the road. I think there would be more options if it were a huge problem.
As far as accuracy, goes. It isn’t a match gun and has been noted already to be combat accurate. Though I am going to side here that for the price I would have liked to see somewhat accuracy, to a point, but again, for the rifle’s role it isn’t a huge deal breaker. The accuracy of the 17 though is of course near legend, and I wonder what causes the difference in the calibers at times.
As far as quick change barrels. This is one area I have always found to be somewhat of a head scratcher. I don’t know anyone who would be carrying extra barrels for the damn things in the field since it isn’t an LMG or anything, and if you are back at base reconfiguring for a different mission I still like the AR and just having different uppers set up for different missions/roles and can swap that without any tools. And lets be honest, most people are swapping barrels or uppers anyway. So the quick change barrels to me are a little gimmicky. That said, if perhaps you have factory options that were readily available I might feel different since then we could argue that a barrel is cheaper than an upper which is likely going to grow a damn lower anyway, since they aren’t I don’t think it is really much of a pro here, at least to me.
Quick change barrels don’t really make any sense to me either. I only pointed it out because some people think it is important. I only found out how fast it is when I bought the torque wrench for the barrel and tried it out. It might come in handy if you want to go from a 16" barrel to an SBR, for fun, but I don’t see carrying spare barrels. I have 4 SCARs and very occasionally I like to disassemble them, hence the dedicated torque wrench. We can’t have SBRs in Commiefornia. Moving in 5 years.
All that said. If you want something that isn’t an AR in 5.56 I think it is an option, especially if you want a side folding option. I do feel that it fails to improve upon the AR in all meaningful categories, and the price if a huge killer for myself since for the cost of the rifle I can put together one hell of an AR with an optic, and possibly more depending what my goal is. If we are talking Aimpoints, then I can do so with ease. If we are wanting an SBR and as short as possible though then the SCAR does start looking attractive with the sidefolder. So that comes down to budget, and buying the rifle that meets your needs/missions/role. The SCAR doesn’t meet those needs for me. If I hit the lottery though I would pick one or two up to beat to hell just to see but until then…
Cost is the problem with the SCAR 16. Parts availability isn’t too bad, but the parts are more expensive. Of course in higher volume the cost of the rifle and parts would be lower. I think that the SCAR is by design inherently more reliable and runs cleaner than the AR, but the AR has decades of small improvements that make it pretty damn reliable. So when you factor in the lower cost the AR looks better. Especially for the vast majority of shooters.
The SCAR 17 is a more interesting weapon in some respects than it’s competitors and that makes it a top choice for some. My first SCAR was a SCAR 16, but I followed it up with a 17. then another 16 and 17. If I had to I could live without the 16s, but the SCAR 17s are a must have for me.