1. Are you a current member with account or password issues?

    Please visit following page for more information

    Dismiss Notice

FN SCAR versus AR

Discussion in 'Handguns' started by TARFU, Jan 12, 2014.

  1. JHGM

    JHGM Dinosaur Supervisor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,186
    Likes Received:
    11,787
    I wasn't aware you were counting on me for anything...

    I'm touched.

    Well, in that case, are you aware that in your latest review on the MSM Adapt Pack you refer to a "Camelbak RUSH 12" in the paragraph under the first pic in the article???

    You know, just don't want to let you down...

    :rofl:

    On a more serious note (not that your glaring error isn't serious...) I did enjoy the review; good job.
     
  2. ThreeWulfMoon

    ThreeWulfMoon Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    392
    If you buy a SCAR, I don't think you will go "wrong" as it appears to be an amazing rifle. That being said, you could buy an AR-15 from a reputable manufacturer and have plenty of money for a great CQB optic like an EOTech or Aimpoint (or insert other manufacturer here) and extra mags and other goodies. I guess a lot of it depends on your intended use, how much you can/plan to shoot, how many extras you plan on installing. My gut says that since this is your first rifle, get a high quality AR-15 carbine from a reputable manufacturer, get some training, and shoot it a lot.

    I bought a Colt 6920E (with the Magpul furniture). It's been flawless and gobbled up everything I shot from steel-cased Tula to high grain target ammo. I don't regret my purchase one bit. However, my cousin-in-law bought a Doublestar carbine. We pulled the bolts out on our rifle and compared them, and other than the QC marks on mine where it had been magnetically tested, they appeared identical. The staking on his rifle was just as good as mine. The fit and finish on his rifle looked as good as mine. We dumped our steel cased ammo together into an ammo can and started loading mags. His rifle performed flawlessly just like mine--shot everything without a hitch. However, we both keep our rifles maintained. I'm not endorsing any brand, but I think that there are deals to be had from some of the smaller manufacturers. However, I don't think you can go wrong from buying a "Tier-1" rifle either. Knowing what to look for on the parts and assembly--and there are tons of resources out there that can explain that better than me--is essential when buying ANY firearm.
     
  3. RBid

    RBid Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    2,081
    Never underestimate market support as a value point.

    If you never get serious about training or shooting with the rifle, the price tag of the Scar makes it a lot of unnecessarily wasted money. If you do get serious, you'll be wanting spare parts, many mags, you'll try a variety of options within certain part categories (slings, lights, foregrips, etc), and may find yourself with multiple optics and replacement barrels. In that case, the AR is far and away the better choice. For the price of a Scar, you can get a Colt 6920 and a lot of accessories, ammunition, and magazines.

    As an aside, there is no need to go with a piston for HD. A friend of mine was a teams guy for most of the last decade, and says he never had issues with his M4, in any environment (Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else). The DI gunk talk is badly overplayed.

    Sent from my ME302C using Tapatalk 4
     
  4. Mudinyeri

    Mudinyeri Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,142
    Likes Received:
    3,129
    Based on what I've read on the Interwebs ... the SCAR has HSLD factor of 2.40 while a value-priced AR in a carbine length with a lightweight barrel and collapsible stock has a HSLD factor of 2.44. However, on the CDI scale (and also the BGL - Bromance Gun Lover) the SCAR ranks much higher than an inexpensive AR. ;)
     
    HardToHandle, ThreeWulfMoon and JHGM like this.
  5. TARFU
    • In Omnia Paratus

    TARFU EDC!!!!! Junkie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    2,732
    Sonofa.... fixed. Gracias.



    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
     
    Jarhead Greasemonkey likes this.
  6. liljohn

    liljohn Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    35
    Build an AR, it will give you intimate knowledge of your rifle and there are 1000 of options in what you can do. They really are Lego's for men, you can do anything from about $500 to ....

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
     
  7. 84Carrera32

    84Carrera32 Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have a SCAR 16 and 17 as well as a couple of AR's. The answer to the OP's question is the same one as always. What is the purpose of the rifle? Also, what is your budget? A nice Windham Arms AR can be had at Sportsmen Outdoors on sale for $450. This is a great starter rifle, and do well for plinking and home defense.
    The SCAR 16 is a dramatically higher quality weapon in most ways. It is smoother, has less recoil, easier second shots, and is more accurate. The biggest advantage is the folding stock. It is only 26 inches folded and shootable. If you want to be able to carry your rifle with you covertly, the SCARs both make sense.
    The 17 is a completely different animal. For a .308, the recoil and weight are critical to me.
    There is no other .308 on the market that meets those requirements. Also, although I was Army for 8 years, I never shot anyone. I imagine, however, that it will take a lot fewer .308 rounds to stop a threat than .223 or 7.62x39.
    I am not an expert, but I've had these weapons for several years, and those are some of my observations.
     
    HardToHandle likes this.
  8. tirod

    tirod Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    27
    Range and target need to be defined first. At best we are talking learning how to shoot, and then having it for self defense. That puts it at closer ranges - out to 300m max, and with 150+ pound live targets on two or four legs.

    So you could consider the rifle to be equally adept at deer hunting as much as one capable of dispatching human aggressors.

    To start, costs are important. Not only acquiring the gun but also in training to learn how to shoot it. When you pay double for the firearm and then add at least 50% more cost for the ammo, you will affect your learning curve simply because for the same amount of disposable money, you will be getting less time shooting on the range. The more you shoot, the better you are.

    Add in the effect of recoil, which was one of the major considerations in fielding 5.56 in the first place. It was studied extensively by the military and it was shown to them that the smaller cartridges were as effective on the battle field as the larger ones. The soldier was more accurate, because there was less recoil he was more likely to fire again, and he could carry more ammunition. More bullets flying means more hits means more enemy incapacitated.

    There is NO rule that says you need to kill your opponent and have him drop dead in the dirt right there. A hit is a hit and shot placement is more important than caliber. Poachers take all the deer they want with .22, not .30 magnums so earnestly shilled in hunting magazines. In Africa, the .308 is the most notorious round used on rhino and elephant, not a bespoke doubles cartridge handloaded by workmen in tiny English shops. When you look past the Great White Hunter heritage of the '50s and see what people really use, it's not a larger cartridge in many cases. That is just what is promoted in popular literature for marketing purposes.

    5.56 will do the newer shooter a better deal, not only learning how to shoot, but also shooting more and accelerating their skill curve.

    The AR is far more available, less expensively, with a variety of configurations, aftermarket support, and innovation. The SCAR is a one size take it or leave it no options choice with magazines costing 3X more. I see no choice at all between them for a new shooter who is wanting to learn and have an effective weapon and skill set quickly acquired. I also see no choice when it comes to buying panache - if the real goal is to show off an expensive weapon few own, SCAR is the one.

    But, it's like wanting to go skin diving in the Bahamas - and if you make owning a Rolex Submariner one of the options, then you have just doubled your costs. Buy a Seiko Dive watch and the money saved will buy the tanks, equipment, airline tickets, and two weeks there.

    What's the real priority? Learning how to shoot, or looking good doing it? AR or SCAR?

    Oh, and btw, I have built AR's for less than $700 and didn't need a red dot to hit out to 300m. All the red dot does is make it faster to acquire the target and put rounds on them, not more accurately. Goes right back to Range and Target - a red dot for learning how to shoot and self defense is money wasted. Iron sights will do a better job in acquiring skill first.
     
  9. Jammer Six

    Jammer Six Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    22
    I don't care what other people think; I don't care what other people buy. I'll never own a direct impingement AR.
     
  10. E.D.C

    E.D.C Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    77
    I feel like the scar is over priced , and not as modular as a ar 15 you can even make a ar15 308 or 9mm if you wanted , you can have the ar 15 be bolt hold on last round also and with side charging handle on the side, there's so much to do with ar15 that the scar's price tag and modular system isn't capable yet.