Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| With bad intent |
Anyone here experiences any failures under normal use, or more importantly, under heavy use? Heard a retired SEAL talking about how problematic they were for them and my experience has been trouble free but Ive only had time with 2. Curious as to if anyone here has experienced any issues? ________________________________ | ||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
I have @ 2500rds through mine, at least 1750 suppressed. Only had 2 failures and it was due to a cracked magazine feedlip piece fouling the BCG. A batch of improperly heat treated magazines which were replaced by FN with no drama. My SCAR 16 is similar round count with zero mechanical failures.This message has been edited. Last edited by: RHINOWSO, | |||
|
| Member |
Currently have two 17's and a 16, all are suppressed, never had an issue after 1000's of rounds. | |||
|
| Nature is full of magnificent creatures |
What did he say happened? | |||
|
The Ayatollah of Rock 'n' Rollah |
Curious as to what version the SEAL was using, as a lot of issues with the early SCARs were "ironed out" after initial testing by our guys overseas. I did see some video where a SEAL was complaining that the SCAR 17 wasn't as good as a M4 for room clearing... Now I'm far from being a Navy SEAL but I wouldn't choose a full sized battle rifle as the weapon of choice to clear rooms, but that's just me... Never had issues with my 17S, but I'm just in the 1st Civ Div nowadays __________________________ "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs resistance/For the Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for" | |||
|
| With bad intent |
Failure to feed, double feeds, basically just said it was unreliable and took the M4 whenever it made sense. Even the new 17 they were shooting had a couple failures while making the video(although it looks like they were using steel case ammo, if that matters). I recall him making a comment on how the team they were replacing had been documenting all the issues they were having with them but didn't go into further detail. ________________________________ | |||
|
| With bad intent |
Perhaps this was during that time. I had never really researched the 17 before I bought one. At the time I bought mine I was only hearing positive reviews and praise so I never really looked to see if it was known to have any issues. Might be the same video but he wasn't complaining in this one, just poinitng out pros and cons. ________________________________ | |||
|
| With bad intent |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCp5g4Zki8 ________________________________ | |||
|
Amat victoria curam |
Yikes Warpig, - My IQ went down a few points just watching that video. Did you see the close-up shot where it looks like they are shooting steel case Wolf? Sure looks like it to me. Although I have put a lot of Wolf steel case thru my SCAR 16 I refuse to run that through my 17. I never had any problems though. I quit buying steel case anyway, the "savings" actually evaporates if you reload and figure in the price of once-fired brass. Anyway, here is a very unscientific but extremely interesting "mud-test" on a SCAR 17. Be sure to watch all the way to the end, they tell you what caused the one malfunction they experienced https://youtu.be/uS4uR_7ym6c Here is a much more informative video featuring a former Green Beret and he describes his experience using the SCAR 17 in combat: https://youtu.be/Xc6cdQUL0aQ I am not former military, I am just a guy that likes guns and likes shooting. My SCAR's have worked very very well. I also suggest searching on "Battlefield Vegas SCAR durability" - I think that will give you a good perspective. There are tons of threads on other forums about this, but here is a good summary (SCAR talk starts at about the 8 minute mark) - They have a SCAR 16 with 200,000k rounds. They replaced a broken hammer and the barrel. That's it! https://youtu.be/PApRcRE-ft8 Cheers, -i8mtm | |||
|
| With bad intent |
Ok, for whatever your reason for not liking tyhe the video which there could be many, it doesnt discount his, and apparently many ohters experience with it. What I like about guys who shoot guns who arent realyl gun guys, while they may sound ignorant, they dont have a bias as they dont care. Its truly just a tool to them. Ive seen the Battlefield Vegas Video but I don't see how its relevant as we're talking about he 17. Ive also see the 9 holes review, just because he had a positive experience doesn't negate someone elses experience. None of the videos mean much to me as my experience has been the same as others here, I still carry a VP9 even though it was deemd unrelaible by youtube videos. I was mainly curious if anyone here has had any issues under more harsh condition than what ive used my 17 in which pretty much range to this point. ________________________________ | |||
|
| Amat victoria curam |
Warpig, so far, everyone who has answered you on this thread has reported positive experiences with their personally owned SCAR's. I certainly fall in that camp. I am not sure if you are looking for reassurance or maybe you want to unload your SCAR and buy something else? If you post it for a fair price I am sure you will have no problem moving it. Let me share a personal experience that made me realize how well engineered the SCAR system is. I was working with a friend to do *exhaustive* load development and find a load that would shoot accurately and reliably in both my SCAR 17 with it's 16.1 inch barrel and in my full-length Springfield M1A with it's 22 inch barrel. My friend is retired, so he has a lot of time. He cranked out groups of 20 rounds using many different recommended powders. We would ALWAYS try and match M80 ball velocities - I did not want hot-loaded rounds or mouse-fart rounds. I was looking for a military equivalent in terms of velocity and pressure that shot well in either gun. Long story short - it was an extremely hot day. One particular batch of ammo I noticed kicking hard. Then I saw that the empties were just "dribbling" out of the ejection port instead of flying out. I stopped shooting and called it a day. Once I got home and examined the gun, I saw that the roll pin at the back of the bolt had sheared and was no longer compressing the ejection spring. However, the gun still worked. Everything was contained in the bolt because it had no where else to go. This was NOT the rifle's fault. The powder in that batch was very temperature sensitive, and it was so hot, what was a "safe" load became dangerously over-pressure. Once I replaced the roll-pin (not super-easy to do, but I did it) - everything was fine. No cracked lugs, no damage to the chamber, etc. FYI - after this, I started researching coated powders that reduce temperature sensitivity. The load we found that works superbly in the SCAR 17 and the M1A, a load that matches military velocity and yet still has a margin of safety, while delivering excellent accuracy is: 42.6 grains of H4895 powder, over 150 gr. FMJ using CCI primers (as the cups are harder on CCI and you want that on a gas gun). I am keeping my SCAR. My M1A's, FAL's, and PTR G3's barely get shot any more. Oh one last thing. One of the guys that used to work for me was an Iraq war veteran. He was not a "gun-guy" and he was just regular army, not an "operator." I asked him all kinds of questions about what he saw and experienced regarding M4 durability, etc. I also asked if his group used irons, ACOG's or red dots. He told me they had red dots. "But they could never figure out how to zero them" - Now, I do not know if they were issued old junk that would not hold zero, I don't know if because he was in supply that nobody in his group knew what they were doing, or what. What I do know is that just because someone is military or Law Enforcement, they are not automatically a firearms expert. My father was in Law enforcement in the 70's after he came back from Vietnam. He carried a S&W Model 19 and was damn good with it (still is a good shot) but he told me most of his fellow officers "could not shoot for shit" and barely were able to qualify once a year. While I respect the service of those who serve, I do not automatically assume they know what they are doing regarding all the weaponry they may be issued or carry. | |||
|
Member |
I've never shot Wolf through mine. But I haven't cleaned it really. I've had a variety of ammo through it, reman, surplus, and factory. It's never hiccuped, so I can't speak to the reliability issues. There's chances their armorers didn't know the platform, the gas system, lube issues, etc and the rifles suffered. Or they were early models, or who knows. I'd wager the civilian guns aren't the same thing, and likely have improvements based on feedback like noted in the video. I have nothing bad to say about mine. It does mag dumps like a champ, and has been accurate enough for a little hunting and sport shooting. I've had it soaking wet from rain and not miss a beat. I plan to use it in Heavy Steel 3-gun at some point, which will put the round count up a bit more. I just need to put some new glass on top since I stole the Trijicon for another gun. | |||
|
| Ice age heat wave, cant complain.  |
I too saw this video a few days ago. The content of the video can be argued as shit ammo, but the personal experience in Afghanistan was interesting. NRA Life Member Steak: Rare. Coffee: Black. Bourbon: Neat. | |||
|
| LIBERTATEM DEFENDIMUS |
Warping, I'm really surprised as a SCAR owner, you don't realize this simple fact: Some say it's a rule... Some say it's a commandment... But the fact is, it's really more of a moral absolute... That is... Haters Gonna Hate It's so important that it should be etched into the receiver of every SCAR manufactured, including the ones issued to the military. In the video, they were clearly using steel cased ammo. Such ammo is normally significantly under pressured, thus inducing feed malfunctions and the steel case doesn't have the same fluid properties that brass cases do so it doesn't contract after ignition, thereby causing extraction failures. It works fine in AKs with highly tapered cases but not the cylindrical cases we have with NATO ammo. My view on steel cased ammo. is that I simply don't buy it. I NEVER run it through anything but AKs in Soviet calibers. PERIOD. If I ran across a free stock pile of steel cased NATO ammo, I would gift it to someone else. Regarding the alleged Navy SEAL's input in that video, I find his commentary highly suspect. Not every dude with a beard is a real SEAL. Also, Not every SEAL is a genius. There are indeed people who can literally break an anvil. His experiences could easily be attributed to a number of issues including the fact (as he admitted in the video) he can't keep his thumb away from the charging handle, which is funny because he freely admits he can switch all the controls to the other side... So, most people would maybe get their thumb whacked once and switch the handle. Obviously, this guy couldn't quite wrap his head around that concept. Also, as Rhino mentioned, FN's sub contractor had a run of magazines that had brittle feed lips. In the SCAR world, this was a known issue. Another thing, there were a number of iterations of SCARs released in military usage. The first ones had single ejectors and at some point FN switched to bolts with dual ejectors. At the end of the day, firearms enthusiasts tend to be pretty opinionated and a lot of AR fan boys flat out hate SCARs simply because they aren't ARs. I remember when the SCAR was introduced to the civilian market. The haters were out in force. They'd say... "Oh yeah, the SCAR sucks because there's no aftermarket support." Then, when aftermarket accessories became available for the SCAR, the same people would say... "Oh yeah, the SCAR sucks because it needs all kinds of aftermarket accessories." My favorite is "Oh yeah... The trigger really sucks on the SCAR. You need to plan on putting in a Geissele trigger." I say, "Have you ever pulled the trigger on a 6920?" They're all... "Hey man, that's a stock trigger on the Colt, and it's Mil-Spec! If you want a better one naturally you have to upgrade." I admit to being biased... I am a HUGE SCAR fan and decidedly NOT a big AR fan. I much prefer SCARs. In the end... Haters Gonna Hate | |||
|
| Member |
In the personal experience category. I've a bunch of them, I've shot them a bunch. I use appropriate ammo. I've never had a failure that wasn't ammo related. No I don't throw them in the dirt, drive over them, or do stupid stuff. But I do shoot them in the rain, snow, sleet or whatever we have around here. And I don't clean them very often either. Sometimes for thousands of rounds. In the .308 category there is nothing better IMO. I've a bunch of other .308 battle rifle type guns and I can't see any area where they are better, and lots where they are worse. “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.” | |||
|
| With bad intent |
I didnt so much care about the failures in the video. Was mainly curious if any one here had issues under conditions oteh than basic range shooting. I have no reason to doubt hes a real SEAL, in fact, I know he is(was). None of that matters to me except that hes used the 17 in less than ideal conditions, and apparently wasn't alone in his findings. I really attribute this to maybe being an early gun? I don't care about the armorer's ability or lube techniques etc, etc. I have just around 500 through mine, suppressed with no cleaning. Id like to say it was flawless but when I was getting my scope on paper I did have issues with some surplus 147gr ammo. Brass cased. I think it was MEN. No issues with my handlaods or otehr factory ammo. I know lots of guys who dont know anything about gun maintenance or cleaning and manage to keep their Glock running just fine.....even with steel cased ammo. So yeah, im sure it was nothing more than the time period or the guns that were issued back then. I dont beleive its "haters" just some guys with different experiences than our own. I know I have had experiences with some popular guns that I will never vouvh for again, even though some guys here have had nothing but prasie for them. Doesnt make us haters, its real world conclsions. ________________________________ | |||
|
| LIBERTATEM DEFENDIMUS |
I don't know. The whole tone of that video really seemed a bit wonky to me. They complained about it being heavy, while it was loaded down with everything but the kitchen sink attached to it. While there may be a few, there certainly aren't a lot of .308s that are lighter. What was that zip tied to the stock? Whatever. Then, they complained because it's loud. Really? How do you make a .308 rifle not loud without adding a suppressor? (which they'd complain makes it heavier still) The one guy without the big beard just seemed pretty condescending, to me anyway. My thought is that all platforms have detractors. The SEAL guy in that video mentioned he'd rather have an M249. There are plenty of horror stories about M249 reliability or lack thereof. For that matter, the same can be said of the M4 as well. In fact the whole reason the SCAR exists is to rectify reliability issues (real or perceived) in the M4. People have problems with just about everything on the market. I consider the opinions expressed in that video to be counter to what most SCAR users have reported. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
That dude's beard is WAAAAAY too well groomed to be a SEAL...  | |||
|
| Nature is full of magnificent creatures |
So having watched as much of that video as I could watch, I have a few comments. I mean no disrespect to Warpig, these are directly from what they said. The first minute or so, the seal team guy talks about how accurate the 17s is. He says he could easily hit targets at 800 yards with a 4x optic. Then he says maybe out to 1000 yards, and says it was a great weapon for Afghanistan. Later he complains about getting hit with the reciprocating handle in combat. Then both guys complain about how long the rifle is, how heavy it is, how loud it is, and how heavy 7.62 ammo is versus 5.56. The Scar 17s is, for them, too long for clearing houses. The M249 those two operators used is apparently lighter and more maneuverable than the 17s. Yes, the 17s is loud. Maybe in the future, the Pentagon should consider issuing suppressors to our warfighters in the field.  | |||
|
| Member |
They covered that, just adds weight to a heavy gun. What they really want is a subsonic-capable load that weighs as much as a 5.56, but has the range of a .308. And a rifle with a side, ambidextrous, non-reciprocating charging handle. Guess what all of the recent cartridge and rifle replacement programs have been requesting? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024