A review of the 17 from a few BTDT types, mostly negative. Some of it is more personal preference, but what caught my attention was the claim the teams found it very unreliable. Heard pro/cons of the 17, but always heard it was very reliable.
deleted
Yeah I cant argue with their experience down range, all I know is my 17S has not had an issue yet. Most of the time I run it with an AAC 762 can. It is a tad over gassed, but that can be fixed by changing gas jets which I’ve yet to do. I dont see what the issue is with the charging handle. AK’s, M14’s, the ol FNC all had charging handles that reciprocated … I typically run Winchester 150 grn ball and 1980’s South African ball through mine, no issue.
Illuminating. First time that I had heard about all those issues. Just saved me a bunch of money as I was looking at getting one.
deleted
I recently came across that video. While I can"t argue with their personal experience, I do know that the SF team we were co-located with in 2011-12 had a couple guys running them. I inquired as to their thoughts and they liked them. No idea as to how hard they were being run, but have to wonder if there were issues from the get go, or if something long term related.
I’m no expert here, but I’d probably spend the extra $ and get a KAC SR25, which seems to be loved by all.
I hate to say it, but…some of the “negatives” they pointed out are kinda, well… sort of “duh” to any .308 battle rifle…
There also seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions in there as well.
TBF, the only critique that I found interesting was the unreliability claim. The range ammo looked like steel, so I’m not surprised there. But given the real-world experience was likely with the usual M80, I wish I could see the whole story on that. I wonder how much was due to combat conditions/moon dust and how much was guys running it accidentally in “suppressed” mode…
Everything else sounds pretty much like the price you pay for a heavier gun set up for intermediate ranges…I’m surprised they didn’t mention the stock, which I seem to hear more complaints about with this gun…
Mine runs 100%, and is my favorite 7.62 rifle.
If you get 3 malfunctions in first 30 rounds with ANY firearm, then that specific rifle has issues and should be returned, not used for further evaluation.
I have talked to more than a few guys that have run them and they had a bunch of complaints, none of them were about reliability.
My only real interest in the vid was the ex SEAL claiming not only did his SCAR give him problems, the Teams wanted rid of the SCAR too due to reliability issues. Their n=1 rifle problems in the vid didn’t really tell me/us anything.
I agree, and was what I was taking away from it. As the one guy in the video alludes to, he wanted the scar for a specific purpose and it shit the bed and he got rid of it. Sounds like others too. Now I am certain that if it was reliable, he would not have dumped it. No, it’s not a cqb gun. Duh! Again not his stated purpose. I think they could have used a lot better optic as well, but that wasn’t the point anyway. I don’t care what you have, if not reliable it’s garbage. This was the first time that I have heard a scar unreliable. Guess I will keep my FAL. Maybe not as accurate, but it’s minute of man to 6-800 yards and stone ax reliable.
In the end, I am mostly AR guy anyway. But .308 is nice in the Wyoming plains…
As pointed pointed out, he was running the bolt on the wrong side for a RH shooter.
Complaints about size/weight, well it is a battle rifle not a subgun. It is not designed for room clearing, just like an SR-25 or M1-Garand is not.
Even the rental ranges I’ve seen post stuff seem to say they hold up well, only real problem I ever heard about was the stocks breaking. Still I’d like to know more about his issues.
That being said most of the issues they listed had nothing to do with the gun. Complaining about the optic or suppressor really doesn’t help, same goes to an extent with 308. Hell they mention clearing rooms, I wouldn’t want to do that with a sr25 either. At some point you have to look at design. The 10.3 inch mk18 is a good choice for small areas, a battle rifle in 308 isn’t. Same longer range shots, the 308 is the best choice, not the short mk18.
Also as someone pointed out it looked like steel ammo. The gun should run it, not sure if I’d really ding it for not.
I never like the SCAR from the beginning when USASOC did it’s testing of it.
I know many SEALs that like them but mags were always an issue. Getting mags and then getting getting the mags to work.
They all had reciprocating handles back at the receiver though, not up where people like to put there hand.
Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
I’ve talked to a couple of guys now who have had the option of grabbing Mk17 SCARs from their arms rooms. They have had nothing negative to say about them, except that they were heavy (as previously mentioned: no, duh) and therefore tended to be left in the arms room in favor of M4/M4A1s, Mk18s, &c.
However, between BFV’s reports WRT PTRs and this, makes me think I might just go PTR-91 for my 7.62mm NATO battle rifle, “needs”.
(On the other, other hand, the Mk16 SCAR made an appearance in the recent Army Ranger recruiting ad that surprised me, given how much I’d heard that SOCOM didn’t seem to care for them that much. And Finland’s SOF have also adopted the Mk16 SCAR - and I find it hard to imagine that the land of SAKO, Tikka, and Valmet would suffer an unreliable rifle for their SOF, especially when they could have probably bought HK416s, instead, like everyone else.)
I too, had heard about the stocks, but not much else. I imagine clearing a room with the SCAR 17, would be about like it was when we were clearing a room with the old M16a2. It was often awkward, but we adapted.
I would be interested in your thoughts as to why you dislike it.
deleted