Well picked up my SCAR's earlier this week, got an ACOG for one and waiting on an optic for the other so this is a general "walk around" review. The review is my personal look at this rifle and in no way might reflect someone else's opinion. However this is based on owning just about every "modern" rifle system that has been introduced at one time or another. No one has produced a perfect rifle just yet.
First thoughts, this replaced the FAL? The FAL was a great design except the lack of a continuous rail mount system which can be addressed in the aftermarket but still not part of the receiver. The SCAR addresses that issue but also brings in several others issues. The FAL's tilting bolt design also doesn't leave much in the way of inherent accuracy which again, the SCAR's AR style multi- lug design does take care of.
Way to much plastic. Overall most of the plastic components can be replaced such as the lower or stock assembly hinge etc. However to me at least, the SCAR doesn't seem that durable out of the box- at least not what I would consider to be "battle rifle" durable- but for range duty it should be fine. It's not FAL or G3 durable is all.
I knew it had a reciprocating charging handle the location of which is in a bad spot being just under the optics mounts etc. Should have honestly stuck with the FAL non reciprocating style or moved the charging handle farther forward on the receiver.
Buttstock of course is ugly, a real afterthought it seems and no real conscience of aesthetic quality. It will get replaced but I think having a buttstock with a flimsy plastic hinge area and weak lock open probably wasn't really meant to be folded that often. Which by the way was my same gripe with the SIG style rifles, I think the FAL/FNC style hinge would have been a much better type to have on the rifle.
The barrel being torqued into the receiver via four torque screws I think isn't that good of design either. One of my barrels on a SCAR 17s is slightly out of alignment, issue I see is that while it can be remedied by re-torquing the screws. However the fact that it can shift right to left via the multi torque screws is a bad design- it should be a near zero loss of alignment to the receiver itself when swapping from one barrel to another etc. No way you could just swap a barrel and optic while expecting that optic to hold zero. Remember one degree of cant is equal to ten inches at 100 yards- so the barrel being off just even a little in any direction is a concern especially when running BDC style optics.
Another flaw I see is the short stroke piston design, the way the piston itself is tapered into the recess on the receiver should debris enter that area I can see causing issues and not letting it fully seat back into battery. It's also not that easy to remove for field cleaning and honestly should have been designed from the ground up as a long stroke piston.
Non static ejector, I own AUG's and AR's so while that issue isn't that big of a deal I have personally felt it to be a flaw of the multi-lug AR esque bolt design. The plunger pin can get debris behind it though it's rarely an issue.
Overall, I plan on replacing some components, run others to see how they hold up. The rifle could be vastly improved upon but I think it would require a redesign of the barrel mounting system, the hinge block area of the stock and the charging handle design specifically.
7n6
First thoughts, this replaced the FAL? The FAL was a great design except the lack of a continuous rail mount system which can be addressed in the aftermarket but still not part of the receiver. The SCAR addresses that issue but also brings in several others issues. The FAL's tilting bolt design also doesn't leave much in the way of inherent accuracy which again, the SCAR's AR style multi- lug design does take care of.
Way to much plastic. Overall most of the plastic components can be replaced such as the lower or stock assembly hinge etc. However to me at least, the SCAR doesn't seem that durable out of the box- at least not what I would consider to be "battle rifle" durable- but for range duty it should be fine. It's not FAL or G3 durable is all.
I knew it had a reciprocating charging handle the location of which is in a bad spot being just under the optics mounts etc. Should have honestly stuck with the FAL non reciprocating style or moved the charging handle farther forward on the receiver.
Buttstock of course is ugly, a real afterthought it seems and no real conscience of aesthetic quality. It will get replaced but I think having a buttstock with a flimsy plastic hinge area and weak lock open probably wasn't really meant to be folded that often. Which by the way was my same gripe with the SIG style rifles, I think the FAL/FNC style hinge would have been a much better type to have on the rifle.
The barrel being torqued into the receiver via four torque screws I think isn't that good of design either. One of my barrels on a SCAR 17s is slightly out of alignment, issue I see is that while it can be remedied by re-torquing the screws. However the fact that it can shift right to left via the multi torque screws is a bad design- it should be a near zero loss of alignment to the receiver itself when swapping from one barrel to another etc. No way you could just swap a barrel and optic while expecting that optic to hold zero. Remember one degree of cant is equal to ten inches at 100 yards- so the barrel being off just even a little in any direction is a concern especially when running BDC style optics.
Another flaw I see is the short stroke piston design, the way the piston itself is tapered into the recess on the receiver should debris enter that area I can see causing issues and not letting it fully seat back into battery. It's also not that easy to remove for field cleaning and honestly should have been designed from the ground up as a long stroke piston.
Non static ejector, I own AUG's and AR's so while that issue isn't that big of a deal I have personally felt it to be a flaw of the multi-lug AR esque bolt design. The plunger pin can get debris behind it though it's rarely an issue.
Overall, I plan on replacing some components, run others to see how they hold up. The rifle could be vastly improved upon but I think it would require a redesign of the barrel mounting system, the hinge block area of the stock and the charging handle design specifically.
7n6
