FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
....simple enough. Templar and everyone else who have handled the SCAR clearly state aluminum, others who have never handled state polymer (not me, I believe the people who state aluminum after actually using the SCAR).

Any 100% definitive answer from FN on what they will be using?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
I'll let you know in two days.

I'll be getting some more trigger time on the SCAR-L and this time the SCAR-H should also be there.

The best I can remember, it's aluminum, but I could be wrong.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Thanks for clarification. There was a hefty errornet rumor FN switched to a forged lower to address durability issues.

The one issue I have though is the SCAR is still sorta heavy with a 14" pencil barrel and plastic lower. I plan on SBR'ing my SCAR like I did my XCR so I will get the weight down either way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Alu or Polymer lower frame does play a role...at least theoretical.

The attachment point between the lower frame and the grip is held with aprx. 1,2" long screw like the AR15 layout. If the lower receiver was made of alu the torsional force between lower and grip would be less compared to a polymer lower which is more flexible pr. nature.

Practically, as long as no one has experienced a grip breaking, then it remains theoretical. But from the mechanical point of view, I think IMHO the materials plays a role when its put in context with the grip attachment to the lower frame.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Wow...Did you check the date on this thread?

Alu or Polymer lower frame does play a role...at least theoretical.

The attachment point between the lower frame and the grip is held with aprx. 1,2" long screw like the AR15 layout. If the lower receiver was made of alu the torsional force between lower and grip would be less compared to a polymer lower which is more flexible pr. nature.

Practically, as long as no one has experienced a grip breaking, then it remains theoretical. But from the mechanical point of view, I think IMHO the materials plays a role when its put in context with the grip attachment to the lower frame.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
...if I worked for FN SCAR, I would make the lower stronger than polymer only because I know the grip is connecting to this structure. But again if I worked at FNH I would also increase the length of the frame's base that connects to the grip. In this way when grabbing a rifle, the user actually holds on the frame and not on somekind of a "lever" (grip) that connects to the lower frame (theoretically easier to break).

If you disassemble AI AW chasis and SAKO TRG, you will notice the structural engineering is far superior in AI AW compared to SAKO's TRG. Because the sakos barrel and action bolts to the frame (like scar lower to grip) and the AI AW's barrel is bolted directly onto a rigid structure where the side scales are non-important, even if they break. Not so with the TRG. It is in these engineering details a product shows superiority over another that most people never realize.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top