SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    SCAR 20S OR 17S
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
SCAR 20S OR 17S Login/Join 
Member
Picture of onpointgun
posted
Ok I have been thinking for sometime of adding a battle rifle in .308. The SCAR has been what I have been thinking I haven't decided on which one. If you have experience with them let me know the pros vs cons on the two, or if you guys have any suggestions on something else I should consider I am all ears. I know I am late to the table and will pay a premium but I think today or tomorrow will be better than a month or so down the road.


I will be swift in my attack. My venom is packed with enough pride and gun powder to take down
any adversary that attempts to tread on my freedom. You've been warned, but if you
still want to test me, take a step forward.
 
Posts: 2033 | Location: ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD | Registered: February 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
I mean, they’re completely different rifles for different purposes. Pick the rifle that fits the role you want the gun for.
 
Posts: 7548 | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of creslin
posted Hide Post
To me a "battle rifle" is basically a carbine style rifle. 16" barrel.. somewhat lightweight... etc..

A scar17 is this.
A scar20 is not.





This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 1541 | Location: Kernersville, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
The 17s is more battle rifley. Hard to beat for a do it all 308. The 20s is precision oriented (Sniper Support Rifle). Long range minded. 11.5 lbs naked is no joke. The 17s makes it's money by being just under 8lbs, and exhibiting the performance it does.

The 13.7 barrel is pretty sweet too.


------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6968 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of GroundedCLK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
The 17s is more battle rifley. Hard to beat for a do it all 308. The 20s is precision oriented (Sniper Support Rifle). Long range minded. 11.5 lbs naked is no joke. The 17s makes it's money by being just under 8lbs, and exhibiting the performance it does.

The 13.7 barrel is pretty sweet too.



Ditto.


The 17 is a battle rifle.

The 20 is a DMR
 
Posts: 1843 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: January 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well depends on what your envisioning doing with it. More longer range DM gun I'd go 20. 20's probably more collectible if I had to guess.

If you need a good multipurpose Battle rifle that carries like a large carbine with thumping power that can still reach out, I'd go 17. I have the 17 and like it quite a bit.
 
Posts: 3044 | Location: Pnw | Registered: March 21, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've got both just because I like all things SCAR. And the 20S is really nice for what it is. But I can't imagine any scenario where if you are only getting one of them that I would pick the 20s. not a one.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11002 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
LIBERTATEM DEFENDIMUS
Picture of Belgian Blue
posted Hide Post
Like hrcjon mentioned... If only one, go with the 17s. The 20s is really more of a dedicated bipod mounted stationary platform. The 17s offers more flexibility.
 
Posts: 5415 | Registered: October 18, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by onpointgun:
Ok I have been thinking for sometime of adding a battle rifle in .308.
SCAR 17
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I’d spend half the money on a pretty nice .308 AR that has a better trigger and non reciprocating charging handle. The scar is nice but I don’t see where they justify the price. But if you must go scar I’d get the lighter one, weight doesn’t seem that bad for a little while but when you combine it with hauling around the ammo and the rest of your crap+moving around you’ll wish you had a lighter gun
 
Posts: 3371 | Registered: December 06, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Save today, so you can
buy tomorrow
posted Hide Post
I agree. Decide on what really you want/need the rifle for. Then pick either (or get both).

quote:
Originally posted by esdunbar:
I mean, they’re completely different rifles for different purposes. Pick the rifle that fits the role you want the gun for.


_______________________
P228 - West German
 
Posts: 1886 | Location: Las Vegas | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have both. Buy a 17. Both of my 17's are just as accurate as my 20, cost less and weigh a whole lot less..........DJ


Remember, this is all supposed to be for fun...................
 
Posts: 4123 | Registered: April 06, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Both of my 17's are just as accurate as my 20

I'd be stunned by that conclusion and it doesn't match my experience and I bet FN would be too. Care to elaborate.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11002 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
I'd wager it has to do with the fact that I can take my SCAR and shoot the first 5 rounds into a inch. Dam near everytime with FGMM 168s. Problem becomes once it gets warm that opens up.

I think the 20 probably just keeps it going after it gets warm.

So practically speaking the 17 does one hell of a job all around. Where the 20 seems to be more dedicated.


------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6968 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Lt CHEG
posted Hide Post
I’ve got both and unquestionably the 17 would be first. The 17 is a game changer and unique with its weight and balance. The 20 is an excellent rifle but isn’t nearly as different as other guns in its class. There really is nothing that compares to the 17 in my opinion.




“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
 
Posts: 5576 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: February 28, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon:
quote:
Both of my 17's are just as accurate as my 20

I'd be stunned by that conclusion and it doesn't match my experience and I bet FN would be too. Care to elaborate.


So far I've been disappointed with my 20S. My 17's have shot BETTER Groups than my 20 has. Maybe not consistently but I've had more sub 3/4" groups out of my 17's than my 20 so far. I haven't shot the 20 as much yet so it may round into shape. And it also has a different twist rate so it may prefer lighter bullets than is my standard load for the 17's.

If I had a consistent 1/2 MOA load for the 20 I would still recommend the 17 as the first to buy. As Lt CHEG mentions it's combination of weight and balance puts it about other guns in it's class. The 20s isn't particularly more accurate than AR-10 Platforms in the same weight class and some of the AR-10's are significantly less expensive.......dj


Remember, this is all supposed to be for fun...................
 
Posts: 4123 | Registered: April 06, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I was hoping for a bit more info. What load, what bullet, what distance. Using GMM my 20 is always better than my 17. so curious mostly. I already agreed the OP should get a 17.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11002 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
LIBERTATEM DEFENDIMUS
Picture of Belgian Blue
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by djpaintles:
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon:
quote:
Both of my 17's are just as accurate as my 20

I'd be stunned by that conclusion and it doesn't match my experience and I bet FN would be too. Care to elaborate.


So far I've been disappointed with my 20S. My 17's have shot BETTER Groups than my 20 has. Maybe not consistently but I've had more sub 3/4" groups out of my 17's than my 20 so far. I haven't shot the 20 as much yet so it may round into shape. And it also has a different twist rate so it may prefer lighter bullets than is my standard load for the 17's.

If I had a consistent 1/2 MOA load for the 20 I would still recommend the 17 as the first to buy. As Lt CHEG mentions it's combination of weight and balance puts it about other guns in it's class. The 20s isn't particularly more accurate than AR-10 Platforms in the same weight class and some of the AR-10's are significantly less expensive.......dj


In the coming months, we should be able to get a 6.5 Creedmore barrel for it if you're so inclined. Maybe that will be the sweet spot for the 20S.
 
Posts: 5415 | Registered: October 18, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of onpointgun
posted Hide Post
I ordered the Scar 20s and have a Nightforce scope on the way. I am excited to try and stretch the distance and see how it does.


I will be swift in my attack. My venom is packed with enough pride and gun powder to take down
any adversary that attempts to tread on my freedom. You've been warned, but if you
still want to test me, take a step forward.
 
Posts: 2033 | Location: ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD | Registered: February 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Green grass and
high tides
Picture of old rugged cross
posted Hide Post
So if you need to shoot say 20 rds in say 45 seconds on targets at 300 yds. The last 15 rds you could not hit anything with any accuracy on the 17s due to the barrel heating up? Razz



"Practice like you want to play in the game"
 
Posts: 19186 | Registered: September 21, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    SCAR 20S OR 17S

© SIGforum 2024