FN SCAR SPECS - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FN SCAR SPECS (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/14/2005 6:56:11 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I have it on good authority that FN will be releasing a civie version of both the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO versions of the SCAR sometime late next year.

And I see somebody has already mentioned this.......

And that, kiddies, is another good reason to start a piggy bank now.

Posted: 8/15/2005 11:16:12 AM EDT

[#2]

We hope to have a civilian model of the (SCAR-ARM) by sometime in the year 2007.
SCAR is the Program in which the guns are being built for SOCOM.
The correct designation is ARM (meaning Advanced Rifle-Modular)
Yes, both the Light and the Heavy ARM's have a polymer lower.
Don't know how many have been produced.
The correct designation is PS-90 and FS-2000.
You should see the PS-90 after October, 2005 and
the FS-2000 inthe early part of 2006. I hope that I was able to answer all your
questions.

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: FW: FN SCAR entry.

My questions to FN were;

"Do you have any plans to release a civilian SCAR rifle?"

"Does it have an official designation, or is it to remain the SCAR rifle?"

"Is it true you will be using polymer lower recievers?"

"Do you have any current production numbers?"

"What are the official designations for the civilian P90's and F2000's and when are they dated for release?"

So it's official name will be the ARM's rifle. Later today I'm going to e-mail them again and ask about the whole free floating deal. The only way I could see that being possible is if the lower rail exerts pressure on the reciever before the barrel. I'll try and find out though.

Posted: 8/15/2005 6:48:07 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh to have a SCAR-H

im curious lumpy, why an H?

Because Im satisfied with the AR platform in 5.56.

However, a RELIBABLE, SHORT 7.62 NATO gun with AR ergonomics is lacking.

Fuck yeah.

Posted: 8/16/2005 4:23:34 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

My questions to FN were;

""Do you have any current production numbers?"

approximately 125 to SOCOM.... shhh don't tell anyone..

Posted: 8/16/2005 7:27:18 PM EDT

[#5]

Wow. That's alot more than the initial number I heard being thrown around. I wonder if SOCOM has bought any more after the official SOCOM SCAR contracts.

Anyways, I wonder how much it will cost and what options they'll have. I'll take a ARM-H with the forend extended a few more inches, a 16" lightweight barrel, and a 20 inch SS match barrel. Maybe even throw in a crisp 4 pound single stage trigger and a Magpul MIAD grip.

Posted: 8/17/2005 6:56:17 AM EDT

[#6]

Has anyone else noticed how the stock is pointing on that slant? It looks like it would be almost impossible for a right handed person to grip it while it is folded much less fire it.

Posted: 8/17/2005 2:02:27 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Has anyone else noticed how the stock is pointing on that slant? It looks like it would be almost impossible for a right handed person to grip it while it is folded much less fire it.

Glad Im left handed.

Posted: 8/17/2005 2:19:57 PM EDT

[#8]

Looks like it's just the angle to me.

Posted: 8/17/2005 5:35:47 PM EDT

[#9]

I'm perplexed about the 6-o'clock rail mounted on the bbl. It seems an odd approach, & I cannot see what benefit it affords. The "free floating bbl." descriptor seems a bit of a stretch.

Posted: 8/17/2005 6:00:33 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Thanks for the images. Very cool. But is anyone else puzzled by the accompanying cartoon/illustrations?

Yeah I wonder what 8th grader won that drawing contest?

Posted: 8/18/2005 3:26:22 AM EDT

[#11]

Outstanding information.

Posted: 8/18/2005 11:14:54 AM EDT

[#12]

The barrel is truly free floating. The lower (6 o'clock) rail is mounted to the barrel extension at the rear and to a floating support at the front, which also serves to close-off the front of the receiver. There are two screws that hold this element in place, and which must also be loosened when changing barrels (a total of six screws that must be torqued/loosened for barrel replacement).

Hope this helps,
Clint

Posted: 8/18/2005 11:20:45 AM EDT

[#13]

Well, I e-mailed them about the FF issue, and the generous guy that answered actually didn't know. He said he's going to find out the details of the whole system and get back to me when he gets the info. Pricing is up in the air right now.

ETA: Nevermind the first part, see above.

Posted: 8/18/2005 11:50:04 AM EDT

[#14]

Hey!
Now that sounds like a really fast barrel change system!

That's some advanced stuff right there!

Posted: 8/18/2005 2:05:53 PM EDT

[#15]

What do you guys think about the polymer lowers?

Posted: 8/18/2005 2:36:48 PM EDT

[#16]

I'd prefer an aluminum lower, but if it saves that much weight and can hold up as good/or better, I wouldn't mind.

Posted: 8/18/2005 10:37:01 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
The barrel is truly free floating. The lower (6 o'clock) rail is mounted to the barrel extension at the rear and to a floating support at the front, which also serves to close-off the front of the receiver. There are two screws that hold this element in place, and which must also be loosened when changing barrels (a total of six screws that must be torqued/loosened for barrel replacement).

Hope this helps,
Clint

Clint,

By any chance, are those screws captive?

Posted: 8/19/2005 4:42:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Clint,

By any chance, are those screws captive?

Yes, they are.

Hope this helps,
Clint

Posted: 8/19/2005 5:25:50 AM EDT

[#19]

SCAR-H
I can hardly wait!

Posted: 8/19/2005 5:34:26 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Clint,

By any chance, are those screws captive?

Yes, they are.

Hope this helps,
Clint

That's good. Eliminates the problem of losing them in the field. I still don't understand why the lower rail is part of the bbl. assembly, rather than an MRP/MRS style bbl. & rail, but I suppose it wasn't an accident that Benoit Gridlet chose to go in the direction he did.

Posted: 8/19/2005 9:30:27 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
What do you guys think about the polymer lowers?

polymer lower = cheap ass POS

pound for pound cheaper than aluminum bla blah blah

the only reason to use poly is you want a cheap gun

Posted: 8/20/2005 12:27:24 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you guys think about the polymer lowers?

polymer lower = cheap ass POS

Cost reduction is not necessarily a bad thing. It's sometimes possible to make something that's cheap to produce w/o sacrificing quality. Haven't heard anyone complain about those CavArms plastic AR lowers, nor the many plastic buttstocks on AR rifles & carbines. Plastic has some legitimate applications in small arms design.

Since the SCAR-ARM lower probably isn't going to be subjected to much stress, it makes sense for it to be chiefly constructed from the stuff. Chances are it has a steel or aluminum "skeleton", rather than being made entirely of plastic anyway. OTOH, a polymer upper would be a step down, IMO.

Posted: 8/20/2005 1:58:16 PM EDT

[#23]

A polymer lower is not a big deal. I'd guess the price difference between aluminum is significant, while the durability difference, is not.

I agree with MB that plastic has no place as an upper receiver though.

Posted: 8/21/2005 2:36:02 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you guys think about the polymer lowers?

polymer lower = cheap ass POS

pound for pound cheaper than aluminum bla blah blah

the only reason to use poly is you want a cheap gun

I guess its agood thing FN, H&K, Glock, SIG Arms, Insight Technology, Litton, Beretta, Colt, Armalite, Knight's Armament, Wilcox Industries, Surefire, blah blah blah don't use any in their products, huh?

Posted: 8/21/2005 5:33:17 PM EDT

[#25]

I hope those plastic lowers help keep the cost down. Anyone else really want one of these? I know I do. I wonder how much newly made FN magazines will cost? Time to stock back up on cheap Fal mags.

Posted: 8/22/2005 12:15:04 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I hope those plastic lowers help keep the cost down. Anyone else really want one of these? I know I do. I wonder how much newly made FN magazines will cost? Time to stock back up on cheap Fal mags.

/raises hand.

I'm getting one of the AR15.com SEBRs for a lightweight 5.56 carbine. I MIGHT get a FS2000 eventually (too damn expensive right now). But, as one of the previous posters mentioned...a lightweight FNC/AR styled .308? Oh hell yes. One that takes relatively cheap M-14 mags...even better.

A bit on the heavy side at 8 pounds, but my other .308 is close to 10.

BTW, in order to be compatible, I see no reason why the SCAR-L won't work with the older USGI 30 round mags. Or even the 20. The mag well isn't that deep to make a difference.