I did not like the the way it shot. It just didn’t feel good. Also the reciprocating charging handle is just stupid. It is like having a non QD scope mount today… let’s not use 50 year old technology as the standard when new stuff has been proven.
Also not a fan of the mags and the way they worked.
One should not mistake effectiveness as an aggressive capable combatant with relevant technical knowledge or savviness on small arms writ large. In too few cases do the that X and Y cross.
Obviously there are some depth and breadth of experience-isms and significant knowledge gaps. IE the scar is not truly ambi as mentioned, a SAW is not even close to being as reliable nor same use case as a SCAR… equivalencies are hard for me to see. The charging handle can be moved to the (IMO) right side and is much better for minimizing issues with manipulating, shooting under obstacles, and not getting knocked out of battery against ones kit.
#1 issue with magazine fed weapons is the magazine… and the SCAR-H has a heavy magazine with less than optimal heat treating on the lips = easily damaged (and the USGI ones are worse than comm sales). Early issue years there were not enough magazines fielded for sure. I have yet to see an organization that teaches end users how to test for reliability in magazines. Or even thinks through a process to ensure managing the primary liability, magazines, in weapons systems. For example… rigorously discards magazines used in training cycle then test, validates and isolates the operational/deployment loadout.
The SCAR is a solid weapon and longitudinal stats from the NSW schoolhouse don’t show major issues.
SCAR improvements could certainly be had:
-non reciprocating kit
-a 1/10 or 1/8 barrel twist in 7.62 for better stability at distance and using higher BC projectiles
-the polymer SR25 magazine compatible lower 1) it’s a better magazine 2) compatibility across customer 7.62 offerings 3) decreased mag weight… 5.7oz weight magpul v 9oz FN OEM
-a longer receiver front end or mature add on with functionalities such as the Lancer handguard.
We all have perspective, mine includes lugging a HK417, KAC K110 variants, and SCAR-H around. I prefer the mature KAC K-type offerings but wouldn’t feel under served with a SCAR.
His comment about the charging handle wasn’t based on what happened at the range , but based on what’ he experienced in combat, as he said, he needed to choke up on his weapon as is common in pieing a door or CQ. Not saying it couldn’t be fixed, but it wasn’t a range type comment.
With my very limited time on the gun, I’d agree. This is coming of a lot of LMT MWS shooting… the LMT’s drawback is its 300 lb weight.
deleted
300lbs… and I was going to get one… not now… way too heavy… :jester:
That video was so cringy I had a tough time making it as far as I did. Not everyone that is “btdt” knows what they are talking about.
+1 on the LMT. That’s the only drawback I’ve found with my MWS upper. I believe the upper weighed as much as my complete LR308 (-) optic. When I put my 762 SDN-6 on it, I realized I ether needed a different battle rifle or I need a new can. I’m going the can route because I’ve found the MWS is just such a reliable shooter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I agree with your charging handle comment. Additionally, lacking any sort of operational experience with this weapon system, I am keen on others observations to help develop a broader picture of it. I have considered purchasing the weapon, but at the price point it sells at I want to make an informed decision before doing so.
Well aware of that, plenty BTDT types are not really gun guys per se. What grabbed my attention was the claim the 17 had a bad rep across the board in the teams in combat, which I’d not heard before. Heavy (duh), not the best for CQB (duh), and the stock prone to breaking, etc I’d heard and or made sense, but poor reliability was not one of them. I would also have expected the poor reliability, would have shown itself well before ever making it that far, so I thought it a good potential learnin’ topic to post for me and others who don’t have a lot of experience with the 17.
Dano is completely on point about having relevant competencies.
Dano, or others - have you seen/heard of any third party KAC magazine compatible lower being used/issued in combat as a number of makers make those claims. I own one brand of a .308 compatible lower and its only (major issue) is the need to modify bolt catch. Otherwise, it feeds fine with both KAC and SR-25 mags. Honestly, I would go with KAC magazine if money is no issue as it seems better and drops free easier since it’s not as thick.
If they are commenting based on using steel case ammo, then use, both of my SCAR 17’s are much more sensitive to ammo quality. They run 100% with brass and some steel case (Herters). However, I have a batch of some steel case that would cause the same issues as they had in SCAR, while it worked fine in MWS and LE 901.
There is already a non reciprocating charging handle for SCAR. However, it’s probably not available for civilian purchase.
Personally, if I want a simple, robust .308 carabine, I am a big fan of Colt LE 901 - I own one (if on a budget) or KAC (which I don’t have first hand experience with).
It’s always great to see you post [emoji106][emoji2532]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have no doubt individual users, in looser commands, added aftermarket lowers for magazine compatibility reasons… haven’t heard of a programmatic test.
FN has made SR25 compatible lowers (polymer) and would surely produce them if USG asked. I would personally buy one.
The non reciprocating handle conversion is a bit complicated with new carrier and other parts… I would personally buy one.
Military weapons are built around an ammo type. All the minute dimensional changes or hardness in projectiles, brass, primers matter. The type and weight of charge, pressures, really matter.
We don’t hump the LMT anywhere, so the weight is welcome for prone/fixed position shooting. The gun is bomb proof and takes a lot of abuse (hot bolt gun ammo, etc).
Wrong side for whom? Here’s another video with a right handed Green Beret who makes the point he wants the right side of the weapon clean. He also quotes a SF saying “If it’s stupid but it works, it’s not stupid”.
delete
I really want a 308 LMT 
have heard they are bomb proof etc…
have two 5.56 MRP one gas one piston love those things and they really want a big brother
Compared to “Classic” battle rifles such as the G3 or M14, I would have thought that the SCAR 17 would be more durable, reliable, etc.
deleted
I’m not sure. As I said before, my FAL is stone ax reliable. It may not be the best tool to use, but I would bet my life on it to work when I need it.