The deployment package is cool for collectors, but I don't see the point for everyone else. I wonder how well it will shoot compared to comparable AR10s.

>>107795
Yeah, $5500 for a semi-auto 7.62?
You can buy a good used car (or really good lightly used motorcycle) for that money, such as the BMW M3, Audi TT, Mazda Miata, Ford Mustang, Porsche 944, Lincoln LS, Honda Civic, Mazdaspeed Protege, or Dodge Neon SRT4. https://youtu.be/bWTOSh2nCvQ
Sure, the comparison is apples and oranges, but $5500 is a lot of dough.

FN America’s New FN SCAR 20S (MK 20 Sniper Support Rifle) Limited Edition Package
The 7.62 long-range FN MK 20 Sniper Support Rifle (SSR) had only been available for military sales. As FN describes it, the MK20 is a “tailored design for long-range precision fire applications while also providing capability to fight close in. Based on the FN® MK 17, the SSR is capable of sub-minute of angle accuracy out to and beyond 1,000 yards.”

FN’s now making 200 FN SCAR 20S packages — including the upgrade of a factory-installed Geissele Super SCAR trigger — available to the civilian gun-buying public. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/10/daniel-zimmerman/fn-americas-new-fn-scar-20s-mk-20-sniper-support-rifle-limited-edition-package/
https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-mk20-ssr/

Although the FN SCAR 17S (semi-auto civilian version of the SCAR-H and ancestor of the 20S) appears to sell for around $3,000:
https://gunwatcher.com/Search/scar-17-for-sale-link
And the 17S Deluxe Tactical Kit goes here for $4,860
https://www.gunsamerica.com/908392474/FNH-Scar-17s-Deluxe-Tactical-Kit-308.htm

Anyone with actual experience with these FN SCARs to give their opinion if these rifles are worth the price?
The only .30 caliber FN I ever owned was an old Egyptian-contract FN49. It was a monument to over-engineering with thick machined steel and lots of heavy black walnut. Unfortunately, she tore the rims off my 8mm Mauser brass when ejecting and I sold 'er off as impractical.

>>107808
Dude you don't even believe citizens should own firearms. Don't need your opinion, or copy-pasting from wikipedia my guy.

>use a suppressor
>warranty void

I guess they already tooled up for 20 inch SCAR 308 barrels and now they want to get some kind of return on that investment since the big money buyers are enamored with 6.5 Creedmoor lately.

>>107810

I have both a 16 and 17. I only shot the 17 a bit at an indoor range before moving to the least coast and leaving it behind. The concussion off the PWS muzzle brake is tremendous. All I remember is how loud it was.

I've shot the 16 extensively. At the range, at a rifle class, and for 3-gun. So about the SCAR 16:

Pros:
- It's a good fucking design. The upper receiver is a one piece aluminum extrusion with some rails and shit inside. The short stroke gas piston is solid. The stock sights are good. The reciprocating charging handle works great, and gives you a visual status of the rifle. I've never had a problem with the charging handle, though a noob at the range got his thumb smacked on Sunday.
- It's accurate. Never bench rested the thing, but it always hits what you point it at.
- Super SCAR trigger is great.
- I hardly clean it, and it never malfunctions*
- The ugg boot is comfy.

* Except when you leave the gas regulator on suppressed for normal shooting, or accidentally jam a round in the chamber backwards.

Cons:
- Constantly having to defend your ugg boot's honor.
- Tall, chunky receiver. Shooting through barricades can be challenging.
- It's expensive. But if you look at the cost of the ammo vs the life of the gun, whatever.

Deal breaker:
- Bolt carrier reciprocating mass. Muzzle brake or not, the gun is going to buck when you fire. Double taps are slow.

Really what it comes down to is what the gun was designed for. The SCAR is a military combat rifle that specifically works with short barrels. There is no better 5.56 gun with a 10" barrel. But that doesn't really apply to what I'm doing.

So I ended up shelving the SCAR 16 and built up an AR with all the fancy competition parts. A "heavy" stainless steel barrel, adjustable gas block, lightweight bolt carrier, and JP silent spring set. I've probably got $2k in the AR, and it's fucking phenomenal. But that's because the AR has huge industry support, while the SCAR has like 5 shops making parts.

>>107815
https://www.handldefense.com/2018/06/suppressors-and-the-scar-part1/

https://www.handldefense.com/2018/07/suppressors-and-the-scar-part2/

https://www.handldefense.com/2018/08/suppressors-and-the-scar-part-3/

I was not aware of this, but according to this guy there's reasons.

> FN only authorizes the use of one suppressor, the FN 701 on the Mk.17. The FN 701 is unavailable to civilians, but there are many commercial options for suppressors. It is imperative for SCAR owners to understand there are effective commercial market solutions.

> The SCAR platform is extremely suppressor sensitive. Other systems are as well, such as the H&K G28/417/MR762 series of rifles. AR variants have very large and robust buffer systems. While the HK MR762 with a certain suppressor exceeded the G rating on our accelerometer, there was little discernable from the shooters perspective. This is due to the fact the HK MR762 buffer system is massive and the MR 762 is probably milled from the armor of Tiger tanks hidden in a bunker under Obendorf, Germany.

> The SCAR on the other hand has a relatively small volume short stoke gas piston system.

> When you put a non-optimal suppressor on a SCAR you can get bolt speed increases as high as an extra 50%. When viewed from a velocity squared times ½ mass perspective, that is huge. That is an immense amount of extra load on the operating system. With the bolt moving up to as much as 50% faster, you can easily exceed the design loads of the system.

> The rifle is fired, the projectile passes the gas jet, gas begins to fill gas block, the suppressor also begins to fill. Due to the suppressor not being optimally designed for the SCAR, the gas in the barrel begins to back up on itself. Sometimes the gas is so backed up it is visible coming from the cartridge ejection port as the weapon operates.

> The gas system works faster, harder and hotter than intended from the pressure. It pushes the bolt carrier group back much faster and harder than intended. The bolt, which is still locked into the chamber, provides for a sturdy support for the bolt cam. The bolt carrier’s accelerated rearward travel causes the thinnest part of the bolt carrier group, the bolt cam pathway, to slam into the high strength and well supported bolt cam. Instead of a smooth unlocking action, the action is more of a ripping the bolt from the chamber. The energy is moving to the path of least resistance.

> Under enough load this might cause damage or in some cases failure of the bolt carrier group in and around the bolt cam pathway.

>>107823
I get it but...I don't know, man. This gives me cognitive dissonance like whoa. I'm not a mechanical engineer and I'm not a gunsmith. I don't have any personal experience with the SCAR platform other than pining after it and living vicariously through the magic of the internet but my understanding is that it has a reputation as being rugged, durable, accurate, all-weather gun. That description sounds like what happens in every gun when you suppress it and the conclusion is that the SCAR just can't take it. That sounds like the SCAR is a machine that's barely operating within it's capacity under normal conditions.

I guess if you can afford a SCAR, you can afford to fix a SCAR. And if you scraped enough ducats together to buy a SCAR, you're also probably the type of guy who pays attention to those little things and either doesn't shoot suppressed or picks a suppressor with as low back-pressure as you can get. Or you'd do what everyone with every other gun does and use heavier springs or something.

>>107838
I'm also not sure what to make of it. On one hand there's the full-auto range report of SCARs being beasts and basically never breaking despite the extreme daily magdump schedules, but then this >>107823 makes it seem like it's a delicate flower.

>>107838
The SCAR gas system doesn't vent after passing a certain point like other piston systems do.

The gas regulator is a cylinder with a couple of different size holes that vent more or less gas to the atmosphere. For normal use, vent less. For suppressed use, vent more.

The gas port drilled in the barrel has a hollow screw called a "gas jet" (like a jet on a carburetor), so that determines how much gas comes from the barrel. The gas plug determines how much it dumps without using.

https://fnforum.net/forums/fn-scar-16s/13469-gas-adjustment-scar.html

I can see what the dude is talking about, how this kind of gas system would be more sensitive to the amount and duration of pressure after the bullet has passed the gas port.

Where this AR-18 style gas piston vents at a certain point.

  There's actually a blast coming out of the gas block. I scorched the left thumb on my shooting gloves by holding too far forward. Now I just park my left thumb on the forward sling loop.

So, I can see how the SCAR would be more suppressor sensitive. It doesn't mean it's a bad gun, just that the engineers who designed it decided to do it a certain way. (Like the FAL, I have heard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J40TE7oiBFg )

And maybe suppressors weren't a focus of the original design.

>>107848
>>107850
I see, quite enlightening.

>It doesn't mean it's a bad gun, just that the engineers who designed it decided to do it a certain way.
>And maybe suppressors weren't a focus of the original design.
I would agree with this, along with how "FN only authorizes the use of one suppressor, the FN 701". Seems they really only cared about their own suppressor.

I can imagine that they designed their gas system that way to be reliable even if various ammo loads were used. Cheap shit steel case can cycle a little soft due to the powder used, so having a piston that doesn't vent could help it cycle well without having it cycle too hard using regular ammo. Whereas a high speed low drag operator could use the FN suppressor to operate with, he might have to use ammunition of dubious quality in his tactical operations.

>>107854
> Seems they really only cared about their own suppressor.

I interpreted that another way. It sounds like the suppressor was an afterthought, to support the rifle's gas system.

> Army: Hey man we like the shooty thing but it too loud.
> FN Engineers: What? The superior Belgian design is perfect!
> Army: But money.
> FN: Ok fine we will provide you with a suppressor of our own design.

I don't even know what kind of accent is appropriate for a stereotypical Belgian. In fact I don't know anything about Belgium aside from GVD's posts.

> murica

I'm glad Indy Nidel on the Great War channel does a good job of pronouncing French, German, Polish, etc names and words. Thanks for breaking the American stereotype of not speaking any other languages.

>>107859
>I interpreted that another way. It sounds like the suppressor was an afterthought, to support the rifle's gas system.
Didn't think about that, and it would make sense. Perhaps it's a bit of both, not sure how we'd find out for sure though.

>I don't even know what kind of accent is appropriate for a stereotypical Belgian.
Me neither to be honest, but I do know some differences between Belgian french speakers and other flavors of frog. There's a few clues just in common words used, like if you're counting change in french and have 99 cents, in most of France and Canada it's usually "quatre-vingt dix neuf" but in Belgium they'll often say "nonante-neuf". Counting in french gets kinda dumb sometimes, how it'll often go from counting in "sixty" as "soixante" to seventy as "soixante-dix", literally "sixty-ten". Belgium stayed sane and stuck with "septante" for "seventy".

>Indy Neidell
Yep he's quite a lot better than most. Still not perfect, I've heard him having minor hang-ups on some of the weirder sounds in other languages. Like when he had a go trying to say "Théophile Delcassé", te he he.

>>107808
>As FN describes it, the MK20 is a “tailored design for long-range precision fire applications while also providing capability to fight close in. Based on the FN® MK 17, the SSR is capable of sub-minute of angle accuracy out to and beyond 1,000 yards.”
Considering it's made almost half a century after the PSG-1 and trying to achieve mostly the same thing you'd expect it to do a little better than 1 moa, even at 1ky, but what do I know? Could be they just understate the performance the same way H&K apparently did.

I wonder what the exact difference in barrels is beteen the Mk. 17 and the Mk. 20, other than length, and if they put any work in hand-fitting and lapping the bolt to the barrel extension as you should on any precision rifle.

>>107864
The PSG1 is also twice as heavy.

A better comparison might be the MSG90.

>>107864
From what I see on FNForums, a "6 bolt" receiver to barrel trunion mounting system, probably among other differences.

> if they put any work in hand-fitting and lapping the bolt to the barrel extension as you should on any precision rifle

I don't have anything to base this on, but I would not expect any hand fitting from a company like FN on a product like this. Probably tighter QC standards, but I don't think they'd pull out the Belgian gnomes for this one.

Versus the "4 bolt" mounting. This pic is from my 16, but the barrel on the 17 mounts up the same way.

And by the way, it does return to zero pretty well. Which I was slightly disappointed with since my aimpoint is cranked 3/4 the way to the right. That's right, it returns to zero, way off to one side.

(But then shoots great... so whatevs.)

Damn, back before the 16's receiver had been thrown into many a dump barrel.

Here's my ACOG zeroed for my AR behind the reddot zeroed for the SCAR. The AR zero is probably pretty centered...

>>107848
I guess in that sense the SCAR's gas system sorta represents the twin turbo 4-cylinder of the Ford Focus RS wherein it squeezes as much out of its input as possible but is very highly engineered and necessarily high-precision. Whereas the system I'm most familiar with is direct impingement or other more crude, higher volume or vented piston systems which is basically like an LS1 that is basically old, crude technology at its most refined that you can basically tune to do whatever you want. But it's always going to be less efficient for its output than the new hotness.

But maybe that's a dumb comparison.