- PRO: Tons of groovy features and adjustments are built right into the gun. Handles nice.
- CON: Aftermarket is near nonexistent. Not a whole lot of juice for the squeeze.
(And the "lot of money" isn't necessarily the one gun. With careful shopping or buying used, a SCAR isn't priced that much more than a lightly-pimped BCM/DD/et al AR, assuming you're just buying one for a range toy. If you're replacing a carbine and a backup carbine and buying a rimfire trainer and stocking up on spare parts and tools... that's a significant investment.)
15 comments:
If you're talking SCAR 16, then I agree wholeheartedly. The Scar 17, on the other hand, fixes a who lot of issues with its competitors, and its price is much more attractive in relative terms.
That's the one I'm jonesing for.
Scar 16? No interest whatsoever.
When I was a young man, nobody ever plugged a rifle for its "tons of groovy features."
We live in a wonderful world. Strange, but wonderful.
I'm with Michael on this one. SCAR-17 = hell yes. SCAR-16 = meh.
I've got a the 16...and it works great for running a can on it. Cleaner system than the AR is, and since the charging handle is on the side, I don't get a sooty face from a long day at the range.
I've come this (>.<) close to a 17, but the FAL in the safe gathers dust.
Yummy pic.
Joel: Circassian walnut, controlled round feed (or in the alternative, "three rings of steel!"); groovy features, eh?
Every so often my BRD will flare up and I'll get interested in something unusual, like a SCAR or an ACR or a Robinson XCR (I like to think I get extra points for relative obscurity with the XCR), and then I bump up against Brute Reality.
Here's what Brute Reality says: If you're in America, go with the AR. If you choose a different modern self-loading rifle, you're doing it just to be different.
The AR is basically the Glock 9mm of American rifles: it's the default standard, for a host of reasons.
But yeah, the exotics can fling a craving on you something fierce.
I've fired Old NFO's SCAR 17, and it is VERY NICE.
But unless one is in SOCCOM, we'll be using the AR for years to come.
And since it's been around long enough that Grandpas are telling their Grandkids " When I was in "Nam, and I was able to get rid of that old M-14 and use the much lighter M-16....", I think we should all get used to it and have a couple on Standby, "Just in Case."
After all, I don't see the Federales issuing M1 Garand clips to their EPA TactiKool Water Pollution Enforcement SWAT Teams any time soon, do you?
More agreement on the SCAR-17.
The 16 is really nice, but not that much nicer than the AR.
On the other hand the SCAR 17 is a bunch nicer than my FAL...but I HAVE an FAL, and can find magazines for it, and while not nearing the AR-15, the FAL does have a ton of aftermarket stuff....not that I'm running my anything but stock.
Anyone with any experience with the Tavor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21
Ed,
Oleg's played with the US version some.
I personally have found that the whole bullpup concept is a lot more popular with engineers and gun nuts than shooters.
(I know a few people who have put in the effort to get good with some of the less sucky ones, such as the AUG, but even then the engineering concept is a long run for a short slide. Modern optics do render one of the bigger objections to the concept superfluous, though, but mag changes will necessarily be slower and the trigger linkage and ejection issues will always present engineering problems that rarely have elegant solutions.)
Not all engineers like bullpups: The AnarchAngel : Why bullpups aren't a great solution
The link that Drang provided on the Tavor makes for an interesting read, especially for the counterpoints raised in the comments section.
I've been itching for a SCAR17 for a couple of years. It'd do a couple of things better than my STG58 (hit things with more repeatability at longer distance and allow for optics I wouldn't want to weld on to hold zero) but that initial cost of ownership thing leaves me cold. Still, it wouldn't kill piggies any more dead quicker than the FNAR or FAL. Sure is nice, though. FN has the ergonomics worked out as close to perfect for me as if it were bespoke.
Post a Comment