So, what you are saying is that all future SCARs will be made with mismatched color on upper and lower receivers.mgpatty said:Sorry to disappoint you, it's just a rumor. This will be the actual color of all future production scars. If you're waiting on a different color, it may be a while
I heard it from a unnamed source within FN who wishes to remain anonymous.....
Meh...Nraman said:So, what you are saying is that all future SCARs will be made with mismatched color on upper and lower receivers.mgpatty said:Sorry to disappoint you, it's just a rumor. This will be the actual color of all future production scars. If you're waiting on a different color, it may be a while
The military SCARs have the same color on upper and lower, so, the technology is available to them. I have to assume that they purposely make the civilian SCARs look like crap.
I wonder why.
I would have still bought one if it came in Fuchsia. :-D In reality, the anodizing on my SCAR and the other rifles I've handled isn't gold or bronze in color. I think part of the problem is the effects that lighting/camera quality/camera flash have on anodized aluminum. I've seen ARs that look beautiful to the eye but look like crap when photographed. However, the finish of the firearm is the one of the most easily correctable 'problems' (if you could refer to the color as one) that a firearm could have. There are many durable aftermarket finishes on the market that could be used to satisfy anybody. Most folks finish their ARs in every shade of color imaginable before they even fire a case of ammo thru it. Why is this acceptable but the thought of Duracoating the Scar objectionable?. I guess the easiest way to look at this is that I paid $3000 for the functionality and performance of the rifle itself, not because I expected it look a certain way. Why? Because ‘looks’ doesn’t equate into performance in the real world.spartanranger said:Personally, I am buying the rifle to shoot it and not to be a safe queen. Does that mean I want an ugly gold color on the rifle? Of course not. There are some things you have to compromise on but not on this. I have no problem paying $2,700 for the SCAR seeing how bad ass its going to be (already have it saved up, just trying to find one), but when I pay that much, getting the color I was told it was going to be would sure be nice.
Would you still buy the SCAR if it came in neon pink? Or orange? Life is too short to have an ugly rifle.
I am a civilian who loves firearms and enjoys a good quality rifle. My life is not dependent on it in a foxhole and I will not drag it through mud. I will put thousands of rounds through it and I don't want to look at it and feel that after paying big bucks I got a second rate rifle.mgpatty said:Personally, I am not into buying 'safe queens' so the color of the rifle is a low priority for me. Furthermore, it is something easily remedied. If you are able to buy a SCAR and are disappointed with the finish once you actually see it in person my suggestion would be to buy a can of Krylon. Krylon seems to be a popular item among the large number of folks who are unhappy with the color of their Black Rifles (M4....).
How many .mil SCARs have you actually seen? Have you even seen the pics of the real .mil SCARs that have been on display @ Shot for the last 3 or 4 years? I can assure you that they look almost identical to what you feel is "mismatched" "screwed up" civvy SCARs. But don't take my word for it, look at the many dozens of pics of .mil SCARs out there.Nraman said:They are making the Military weapons correctly, all they have to do is fire the idiot on the civilian side that cannot follow instructions and get somebody who can.
There is a small variation between upper and lower in the picture which is understandable considering the different material, one being aluminum and the other plastic and I have no problem with that, I would buy it in a NY minute.mgpatty said:FNBlack, thanks for the pic and info! Here's one more pic .....