FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I’m not sure if it this belongs here but this seemed like the most fitting for this question.
Why are accessories and parts not any cheaper then they were first building them? And why doesn’t another company specifically manufacture different scar parts and receivers upper/lower and stuff like that and sell it for cheaper so then making the scar more viable? Is there lawsuits waiting to happen if they do or is it too expensive to mass produce or something? What is stopping a company from doing that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I asked the same thing. I had found that I had accumulated enough spare parts to assemble another SCAR - just needed an upper receiver (unlikely). Sadly SCAR volume is probably not enough volume to offset the expense of making parts except for demand based batches.

I couldn’t get a serialized upper from FN so I bought an aftermarket upper (married it to the aftermarket lower I had) to assemble a SBR clone 17S. Would have been easier to just buy a new SCAR but I already had a lot of money tied up in spare parts laying around unused. If my FN 17S goes down, I have no qualms about scavenging from the clone until I get replacements.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,726 Posts
It cost the same amount to cast, machine, form, inject or whatever, any part at whatever time.

FN has you over a barrel as do every other manufacturer of any assembly parts item that is sold as a replacement or spare.

I does not cost FN $300 to machine a bolt, it cost them about $30 (if that). But because you the end user needs it to make your assembled parts kit work, they rape you on the price. I have seen spare parts for FN items sell for astronomical prices for simple profiteering.

And because some firearm parts items are single sourced items, the seller can sell items that cost 5 cents to them but charge $5 to you.

As a comparison, you can buy AR15 parts and assemble all the parts and build a quality AR15 for about the same price as a fully assembled factory built priced one.

Capitalism is what it is but if you want to whine about spare parts costs, get rid of the firearm or whatever item you want to whine about.

You bought it. If it cost you too much to maintain, get rid of it. It is that simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I'm assuming the Imperial upper. How do you like it and does it function properly?? Fit/finish up to par?? Thanks
Yes, Imperial. It’s different materials but the fit and finish seem to be equal to FN. Other than barrel length (13” vs 16”), I notice no difference between the clone and FN when firing or handling. Makes sense as everything else is 100% FN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
It cost the same amount to cast, machine, form, inject or whatever, any part at whatever time.

FN has you over a barrel as do every other manufacturer of any assembly parts item that is sold as a replacement or spare.

I does not cost FN $300 to machine a bolt, it cost them about $30 (if that). But because you the end user needs it to make your assembled parts kit work, they rape you on the price. I have seen spare parts for FN items sell for astronomical prices for simple profiteering.

And because some firearm parts items are single sourced items, the seller can sell items that cost 5 cents to them but charge $5 to you.

As a comparison, you can buy AR15 parts and assemble all the parts and build a quality AR15 for about the same price as a fully assembled factory built priced one.

Capitalism is what it is but if you want to whine about spare parts costs, get rid of the firearm or whatever item you want to whine about.

You bought it. If it cost you too much to maintain, get rid of it. It is that simple.
Well that’s not my problem at all but in my head I thought if someone wanted to screw with scar market they could machine the same parts and sell them for cheaper as long as they’re good quality right? So if this one company basically makes reliable decently priced scar parts that are good parts, in theory it could drop the market price of it all right so then people can actually buy a scar by building pieces from the company and then maybe more parts will be build for cheaper and same reliability so it would kinda destroy the market and basically monopolize the scar business bc no one else sells the parts cheaper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well that’s not my problem at all but in my head I thought if someone wanted to screw with scar market they could machine the same parts and sell them for cheaper as long as they’re good quality right? So if this one company basically makes reliable decently priced scar parts that are good parts, in theory it could drop the market price of it all right so then people can actually buy a scar by building pieces from the company and then maybe more parts will be build for cheaper and same reliability so it would kinda destroy the market and basically monopolize the scar business bc no one else sells the parts cheaper
I also get its basic business between the consumer and seller but if you wanted to in theory you could couldn’t you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
The biggest reason is probably that the technical data package isn’t in the public domain and so each and every part would have to be reverse engineered for dimensions, finish, material properties, heat treatment, etc., complete with manufacturing tolerances. It’s not enough to simply copy the parts from a few samples because manufacturing tolerances must be managed so that all the parts work together. Then you would have to create a QC program to check all of those properties. Failure to accomplish that will quickly lead to online bashing similar to what happens to companies like Anderson. That expense would have to be included in the sale price of the parts together with the cost of the various machines needed. It’s possible, but I doubt enough of a market exists to justify it, yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
[/QUOTE]
The biggest reason is probably that the technical data package isn’t in the public domain and so each and every part would have to be reverse engineered for dimensions, finish, material properties, heat treatment, etc., complete with manufacturing tolerances. It’s not enough to simply copy the parts from a few samples because manufacturing tolerances must be managed so that all the parts work together. Then you would have to create a QC program to check all of those properties. Failure to accomplish that will quickly lead to online bashing similar to what happens to companies like Anderson. That expense would have to be included in the sale price of the parts together with the cost of the various machines needed. It’s possible, but I doubt enough of a market exists to justify it, yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Okay that would make sense, I thought by now certain parts could be replicated well since it’s been out for so long but I guess no one would actually try figure out all that just for a possibility of it working, thanks for that I was just genuinely wondering why hasn’t anybody don’t this like they’ve done to the ar-15 platform
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Okay that would make sense, I thought by now certain parts could be replicated well since it’s been out for so long but I guess no one would actually try figure out all that just for a possibility of it working, thanks for that I was just genuinely wondering why hasn’t anybody don’t this like they’ve done to the ar-15 platform
The TDP is key. For interesting insight into how important the TDP is, read this story. The SCAR is even mentioned toward the end:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top