SCAR worth the $$$ ?
Looking into the future, I want another auto rifle. Every time I see a SCAR, I have to wipe the drool off my face. Is it worth it though? I mean $2500 (give or take a couple benjis) is a lot of money for one gun. Pros and Cons?
IMHO, no. I don't think it's any better than a $1200 Colt AR-15.
Scar 17 yes
Scar 16 no
The 16 doesnt do anything better than a regular lightweight ar15 middy.
The 17 packs more punch is very accurate with just about anything you stuff in it. Its rated for both 308 and 762 nato according to the manual. The barrel is rated for full auto so you can heat it up pretty good and still retain good accuracy.
Nothing cheap when dealing with a scar17. Mags are hard to find unless you replace the lower with a magpul compatable lower. Upgraded trigger groups start at 300$. The fn mags run 40-60$ each.
Ive got a 17 and absolutely love it. Its got the accuracy i want even with the crappy milspec trigger. The scar17 is the only milspec 308 out there for sale.
Biggest drawback to me is the pws brake but its easily replaceable and about the only thing you can swap out that isnt horridly priced. Since it uses a jam nut to hold the device on its easily swapped with simple tools.
The only thing to be wary of is the bottom rail is held on by two screws using red locktite. Its likely other rail screws are the same so take care if your diying.
I love mine and wouldnt trade it off for anything.
Let's see here:
$1000 - Colt 6720
$700 Aimpoint CompM3 in a LaRue mount
$300 SureFire X300 Ultra
$100 MagPul CTR stock
$200 SureFire M73 picatinny rail for the X300
$30 MagPul MIAD grip
$20 MagPul aluminum trigger guard enhancement (a requirement, not enhancement for me)
$20 MagPul BAD lever (again, a requirement for me)
Total Cost - $2370
Price $2300-$2500 from the ones I've seen advertised at the local gun shops
$300 SureFire X300 Ultra
$700 Aimpoint CompM3 in a LaRue mount
Total Cost $3300-$3500
I'm still not sure what it is, exactly, that a SCAR does that my Colt won't do.
Are you going to run a can on it or NV?
If I was inclined to run a can I would at least consider a piston gun. In my limited experience with suppressors AR's do blow some powder back in your face with a can, but it isn't a problem with eye protection. I still find shooting AR's with cans more pleasant than without.
I do have a SCAR 17S. I own a M1, sold a real HK-91 that I owned while I was still in the service, and have shot M14's (service only, can't speak to civilian versions). I've never shot a FAL that I can recall, but have handled them. The SCAR 17S just has better ergonomics and more features than the other rifles.
I have owned a Colt 6920 (sold), Colt 6720, Colt 6721 (sold), and Colt 6600. From a cost and weight perspective I can't justify having a carbine that's 1 pound shy of a battle rifle and costs as much as a battle rifle, but that's just me.
If you want a carbine with equivalent weight, you can always get a 6721.
There are AR manufacturers out there that make better AR's than Colt in terms of features and frills, but it's hard to beat Colt on price for feature set these days. I consider proper materials, maufacturing techniques, and testing to be "features". Almost all of the "better" AR's also weigh more.
I like being able to carry and shoot my Colt. I have yet to have any major issue with one. Sure, parts wear out - but that happens with every gun with enough use and at least you can get parts for the Colt. I just buy spares. Ammunition cost $300 - $500 a case, so I don't complain too much about purchasing $100 or so worth of spare parts.
If I was willing to pay more money I could get a better AR, but I'm not. I like all those listed accessories I added to my carbine too much to pay more for something I can upgrade myself.
I like the fact that there are so many knowledgeable people I can ask questions of who use AR's for a living and who can provide information and even wisdom on their use.
If you want a "cool" gun that's fun to take to the local range, I say rock the 16S.
If you want a plain-Jane working carbine, I say pick up a Colt. I don't care if you can buy Brand X cheaper, all the Colts I have and have had were of demonstrated quality.
I would like to relay that the reason I sold the 6721 and went to the 6720 was weight. After actually carrying it in my hands and running around with the heavy barrel carbine for a few hours, I noticed that my accuracy would suffer and it pretty much defeated the purpose of carrying a heavy barreled carbine. The pencil weight barrel of the 16S makes sense from that perspective. The 6721 had too much weight out front for extended use with a high activity level.
Perhaps you're stronger than I am and that won't matter or you don't run around that much with your carbine. My personal experience with heavy barreled weapons taught me to keep it light and that accuracy is mostly about what you can do, not the weapon. The 6720 with all the listed accessories weighs about the same as a 16S with no accessories.
It's your money and you can do what you like, but I've wasted enough money on supposed capability to know that practicality is more important than possibility. For me good ergonomics, excellent balance, and weight trump any potential accuracy or reliability benefits, both of which have to be put into context.
Weight is an issue for me as well. If I have to prop my elbow up on my belly to hold the gun steady it's to heavy to be practical. I need to be able to swing a rifle like a shotgun to hit a moving target.
One last point I'd like to make is that blowing a bunch of cash on fancy rifle and then not having money left over for a carbine course and a few cases of ammunition is probably not going to help anyone become a better rifleman. Training costs way more than the weapons and I wouldn't put too much faith in the superiority of one weapon over another, even if the SCAR 16S is a demonstrably superior weapon from testing.
That said, economy is useful to a point and then a certain level of quality becomes a necessity. Extravagant quality and materials aren't necessary, but generally the military builds guns with a purpose in mind and the level of quality has to be sufficient to fulfill the purpose. Anything that is of acceptable quality for military use is probably of sufficient quality that no civilian shooter will push the limits of what the platform is capable of.
The reason I threw the Colt out there is for reference purposes only. Cheaper guns, like BCM's, can be just as good as a Colt, but proper manufacturing techniques, testing, and quality materials have a real and inescapable price tag attached to them. To my knowledge, Colt Defense doesn't cut too many corners when it comes to quality.
If you can afford a SCAR 16S, how much better will you be armed with that carbine versus a Colt or BCM?
If you don't have plenty of cash left over for ammo, how much money do you want to part with for your finely machined club?
I like my carbine much too much to turn it into a club for lack of ammo.
I'm going to go the other way with this. In order for you to get a weapon as good as the scar in an AR 15 you need one of these guns LWRCI M6 series (1800-2400) a POF (2200-2600) or a hk mr556 (3295) so any one talking about how there stock AR stacks up doesn't have one of these, and they probably aren't even gas piston AR's like the ones I mentioned are. So they aren't comparing apples with apples. The answer is yes scars are worth every penny, no matter if it's the 16 or 17. They ARE worth it.
One of the desireable things about my Colt 6940 is that it DOESN'T have a useless piston to add weight and more parts to break.:p
Useless now that's funny. Not really funny haha just funny if you catch my drift.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.