Armory Sponsor
MK16/MK17/MK20 Clone, Photo and Discussion Thread. (Page 43 of 46)
|
Originally Posted By Callahan: Thank you. I assumed it was an FN can. When I did a reverse look-up of the image, I found the image on “Tyr 1 outfitters” website advertising the suppressor as a B&T Rotex III, which they happen to be the exclusive distributor of for the U.S. market. Yeah tyr 1 outfitters made a mistake |
|
You know, after SOCOM decided to not move forward with the MK16. And fazed it out and only kept the MK17 that gave a lot of SCAR haters 15 years worth of “it doesn’t do anything an AR won’t do for less money..” ammo to bag on the SCAR as a 5.56 platform. Insisting the SCAR is only good as a 7.62 weapon. I cant help but notice more and more photos coming out of SOCOM operators using the MK17 with the MK16 conversion lowers. Essentially running a 5.56mm SCAR in combat. A lot. Something haters say they didn’t want. |
Member
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
268
EE: 100% (3)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Tengo1: You know, after SOCOM decided to not move forward with the MK16. And fazed it out and only kept the MK17 that gave a lot of SCAR haters 15 years worth of "it doesn't do anything an AR won't do for less money.." ammo to bag on the SCAR as a 5.56 platform. Insisting the SCAR is only good as a 7.62 weapon. I cant help but notice more and more photos coming out of SOCOM operators using the MK17 with the MK16 conversion lowers. Essentially running a 5.56mm SCAR in combat. A lot. Something haters say they didn't want. |
Collector, historian, and enthusiast of A.R.M.S. rails, mounts, and accessories.
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
98
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
The SCAR-L is to the M4 what AN-94/AEK-971 are to the AK-74, in my opinion. It's "better", but not better enough to trade out the design, and more importantly, logistics, of the M4. The SCAR-L is, I would argue, an objectively better gun, from an engineering standpoint. It's only slightly heavier, it's more accurate, more compact, easier to maintain, easier to tune/modify, easier to service, and at least equally as reliable. But, none of that really matters when you have a logistics component (i.e. training, maintenance/service, etc.) that is more tailored to the M4 (specifically the training component). And, while I think it's objectively better (again, from an engineering standpoint), even I would say it's not that much of a leap forward. The above does not apply to the SCAR-H, as there was no specific 7.62 platform logistic operation. They had M14/Mk14's, SR-25/MK11's, M40's, etc. The SCAR-H was just one more at the buffet, but unlike the aforementioned, the SCAR-H was a huge leap forward at the time. The SCAR-H as a platform/chassis can replace/substitute for the M4, MK12, MK18, M14/MK14, and SR-25/MK11, while providing the same or better performance. The SCAR-L can't do this. Theoretically, the XM7 could now offer similar/better performance as the SCAR-H does. I'm sure they could also down-convert it too if they wanted. But, also the XM7 maintains the same design language as the M4 which allows them to also maintain the logistics support (especially training), which the SCAR-H only did partially (with the M4 controls). Russians are currently looking at the derivatives of Yevgeny Dragunov's 1979 MA, the AM-17/AMB-17 and SVCh. I think they'd make great replacements for the AK. Huge leap forward from the AK, in my opinion, in the same way the SCAR-H/XM7 are from previous platforms. |
Member
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
269
EE: 100% (3)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: The SCAR-L is to the M4 what AN-94/AEK-971 are to the AK-74, in my opinion. It's "better", but not better enough to trade out the design, and more importantly, logistics, of the M4. The SCAR-L is, I would argue, an objectively better gun, from an engineering standpoint. It's only slightly heavier, it's more accurate, more compact, easier to maintain, easier to tune/modify, easier to service, and at least equally as reliable. But, none of that really matters when you have a logistics component (i.e. training, maintenance/service, etc.) that is more tailored to the M4 (specifically the training component). And, while I think it's objectively better (again, from an engineering standpoint), even I would say it's not that much of a leap forward. The above does not apply to the SCAR-H, as there was no specific 7.62 platform logistic operation. They had M14/Mk14's, SR-25/MK11's, M40's, etc. The SCAR-H was just one more at the buffet, but unlike the aforementioned, the SCAR-H was a huge leap forward at the time. The SCAR-H as a platform/chassis can replace/substitute for the M4, MK12, MK18, M14/MK14, and SR-25/MK11, while providing the same or better performance. The SCAR-L can't do this. Theoretically, the XM7 could now offer similar/better performance as the SCAR-H does. I'm sure they could also down-convert it too if they wanted. But, also the XM7 maintains the same design language as the M4 which allows them to also maintain the logistics support (especially training), which the SCAR-H only did partially (with the M4 controls). Russians are currently looking at the derivatives of Yevgeny Dragunov's 1979 MA, the AM-17/AMB-17 and SVCh. I think they'd make great replacements for the AK. Huge leap forward from the AK, in my opinion, in the same way the SCAR-H/XM7 are from previous platforms. |
Collector, historian, and enthusiast of A.R.M.S. rails, mounts, and accessories.
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
99
EE: 100% (16)
USA
| just a heads up, and I know this will only apply to a max of three people but for those that bought the new run of AAC 18T scar mounts, they don't work on the 18t scar can. They don't fully thread on so if you plan to use them to shoot with one of those 2-3 cans out there, don't. Stick to one of the old gen 18t mounts if you find one until AAC fixes the issue. |
|
Originally Posted By brodband8: just a heads up, and I know this will only apply to a max of three people but for those that bought the new run of AAC 18T scar mounts, they don't work on the 18t scar can. They don't fully thread on so if you plan to use them to shoot with one of those 2-3 cans out there, don't. Stick to one of the old gen 18t mounts if you find one until AAC fixes the issue.  AAC's "fix" is to re work the mount and you'll get it back cerakoted |
IG @bayou_bengal-rifles
|
Originally Posted By LsuJon: Not just the 18T but the 51T also. Which applies to 5 people compared to 3. AAC's "fix" is to re work the mount and you'll get it back cerakoted They fucked up the threads on the 51t. ones also? I’ll just take a refund lol |
Member
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
274
EE: 100% (3)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brodband8: just a heads up, and I know this will only apply to a max of three people but for those that bought the new run of AAC 18T scar mounts, they don't work on the 18t scar can. They don't fully thread on so if you plan to use them to shoot with one of those 2-3 cans out there, don't. Stick to one of the old gen 18t mounts if you find one until AAC fixes the issue. |
Collector, historian, and enthusiast of A.R.M.S. rails, mounts, and accessories.
|
Originally Posted By thatARMSguy: Glad I didn't buy one. $250 for that QC problem is insanity, and the cerakoting for the replacement is absolutely unacceptable Yeah I'm glad I had 4 of the OG 18t ones so I didn't have to dick with these new ones. Just wanted some spares for later |
|
Originally Posted By Tengo1: You know, after SOCOM decided to not move forward with the MK16. And fazed it out and only kept the MK17 that gave a lot of SCAR haters 15 years worth of “it doesn’t do anything an AR won’t do for less money..” ammo to bag on the SCAR as a 5.56 platform. Insisting the SCAR is only good as a 7.62 weapon. I cant help but notice more and more photos coming out of SOCOM operators using the MK17 with the MK16 conversion lowers. Essentially running a 5.56mm SCAR in combat. A lot. Something haters say they didn’t want. The image a customer sent with our 2020 calendars and a Mk17 with conversion was posted earler in this thread, but eventually was able to talk to the Ranger IRL. He said originally the 5.56 was used by em for training purposes since a lot of shoot houses and ranges couldn't accomodate 7.62, but Rangers liked the performance of the gun enough to just deploy with Mk17s with conversion kits if they so desired. Had another customer send me a photo of him in the field with a SCAR-H I didn't realize how great the SCAR-H platform was until I started feeding mine match ammo at the range, and now I have fallen in love with my decade old gun again haha 
|
[email protected]
htttp://www.weaponoutfitters.com
https://www.facebook.com/weaponoutfitters
https://instagram.com/weaponoutfitters/
htttp://www.weaponoutfitters.com
https://www.facebook.com/weaponoutfitters
https://instagram.com/weaponoutfitters/
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
100
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
101
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Member
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
277
EE: 100% (3)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: https://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/3/17/357/17357767_SCAR014.jpg |
Collector, historian, and enthusiast of A.R.M.S. rails, mounts, and accessories.
|
Originally Posted By thatARMSguy: Interesting to see an AAC can on a Mk 20, I thought those all used the Surefire cans Attached File |
IG @bayou_bengal-rifles
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
102
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By brodband8: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/283538/IMG_8013_jpeg-3400393.JPG No one ever clones the 20's. |
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
103
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
104
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Does anyone know anything about the FN magazine extensions for the SCAR-17? I've seen a few pictures of them, but I can't find any real info on them. They were 25rd extensions. I think they were just prototypes. I’ve never seen one on any H, MK17, nor 17. I’ve seen one picture of a MK17 with a 25rd mag, but I don’t think that was FN OEM from my memory. There was a guy on FNForum that had one of the extensions. I think the only pictures of it are the one he posted. If I remember correctly, he was from Belgium which is how he got it. Other than that I think they’re vaporware. |
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
105
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Here is the thread of the Belgian guy that had the 25rd extension base plate.These are the only photos of it I’ve ever seen online.  Here is the MK17 with 25rd mag. Maybe @brodband8 will clone it for the have-nots. 
|
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: https://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/3/17/357/17357767_SCAR014.jpg The scope on the 20 has a super long eye relief. What is it? |
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: Here is the thread of the Belgian guy that had the 25rd extension base plate.These are the only photos of it I’ve ever seen online. https://i.servimg.com/u/f38/17/90/70/44/dscn5113.jpg Here is the MK17 with 25rd mag. Maybe @brodband8 will clone it for the have-nots. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/75/92/137592703b824590256e738158646617.jpg I'm not sure what leupold optic that is but almost looks like one made for a .22 lol. |
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
106
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: https://www.leupold.com/vx-3i-15-5x20-duplex-riflescope https://img01.militaryblog.jp/usr/h/o/b/hobbyboxblog/20170809-5.jpg Dang, 1.5-5? Ill stick to the 1.5-6 su230b lmao |
|
Originally Posted By LsuJon: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/316069/IMG_6267_jpeg-3175477.JPG The ODA I was with out there had SCARs. Attached File Attached File |
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
107
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By swar15: The scope on the 20 has a super long eye relief. What is it? Originally Posted By swar15: Originally Posted By plaidium: https://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/3/17/357/17357767_SCAR014.jpg The scope on the 20 has a super long eye relief. What is it? S&B Probably 3-20 |
God will not look you over for medals, diplomas, or degrees – but for scars
|
Originally Posted By brodband8: I think they are goofy looking lol Originally Posted By brodband8: Originally Posted By plaidium: No one ever clones the 20's. I think they are goofy looking lol Me too but now that they have the 6.5 20” barrels it’s a bit more compelling from a practicality standpoint. |
Member
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
8140
EE: 100% (3)
IA, USA
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
108
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
109
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
@Combat_Diver @-KentuckyWindage- Curious on magazine placement and how many magazines into the deployment you go with. 1 in the gun. 2,3, or 4 on the plate carrier (4-Seems front heavy) 1 or 2 on the side pouches ? 1 or 2 on the belt? or in the flat pack ? or in a 3 day bag ? I have looked at all of the pics in this thread. It seems to vary on the mission or operator. I have seen as little as two on the PC and 1 on the battle belt. In your humble opinions, what is the most comfortable or best magazine management you use ? |
There are only two rules in life set in concrete. 1. Survival of the fittest. 2. There will always be the “haves” and the “have nots”.
|
Originally Posted By Taft: @Combat_Diver @-KentuckyWindage- Curious on magazine placement and how many magazines into the deployment you go with. 1 in the gun. 2,3, or 4 on the plate carrier (4-Seems front heavy) 1 or 2 on the side pouches ? 1 or 2 on the belt? or in the flat pack ? or in a 3 day bag ? have looked at all of the pics in this thread. It seems to vary on the mission or operator. I have seen as little as two on the PC and 1 on the battle belt. In your humble opinions, what is the most comfortable or best magazine management you use ? Back in 03-06' when I carried a M14 NM in Iraq, 4 spares on body armor. 08' in Iraq with a FN FAL, 2 spares as only had 3 mags for that battlefield pickup. Time I had a Mk17 in Astan my double HSG Tacos for 4 spares on PC. Truck carried M4 and spare ammo. Attached File |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: Back in 03-06 when I Carried a M14 NM in Iraq, 4 spares on body armor. Time I had a Mk17 in Astan my double HSG Tacos for 4 spares on PC Thank you kind sir ! In my LEO capacity, I am thinking 3 pouches on the plate carrier with 2 mags and the third pouch will be for the HT (comms). My 5.11 RUSH 2.0 bag will carry the additional 4-6 mags, if needed. |
There are only two rules in life set in concrete. 1. Survival of the fittest. 2. There will always be the “haves” and the “have nots”.
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: Back in 03-06' when I carried a M14 NM in Iraq, 4 spares on body armor. 08' in Iraq with a FN FAL, 2 spares as only had 3 mags for that battlefield pickup. Time I had a Mk17 in Astan my double HSG Tacos for 4 spares on PC. Truck carried M4 and spare ammo. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32677/IMG_1259__1__jpg-3408160.JPG Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: Originally Posted By Taft: @Combat_Diver @-KentuckyWindage- Curious on magazine placement and how many magazines into the deployment you go with. 1 in the gun. 2,3, or 4 on the plate carrier (4-Seems front heavy) 1 or 2 on the side pouches ? 1 or 2 on the belt? or in the flat pack ? or in a 3 day bag ? have looked at all of the pics in this thread. It seems to vary on the mission or operator. I have seen as little as two on the PC and 1 on the battle belt. In your humble opinions, what is the most comfortable or best magazine management you use ? Back in 03-06' when I carried a M14 NM in Iraq, 4 spares on body armor. 08' in Iraq with a FN FAL, 2 spares as only had 3 mags for that battlefield pickup. Time I had a Mk17 in Astan my double HSG Tacos for 4 spares on PC. Truck carried M4 and spare ammo. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32677/IMG_1259__1__jpg-3408160.JPG Ah yes, the infamous down-range casting couch.
|
God will not look you over for medals, diplomas, or degrees – but for scars
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
113
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: I just don't dig the diving board. I feel like it would work with the SRX though (or nothing at all). Originally Posted By plaidium: Originally Posted By brodband8: I think they are goofy looking lol I just don't dig the diving board. I feel like it would work with the SRX though (or nothing at all). 
|
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
114
EE: 100% (16)
USA
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
115
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
@Combat_Diver Do the factory barrels from FN come with any thread locking compound on them? The civilians guns don’t come with any and are just torqued. Which makes sense since they don’t come with suppressor mounts and the suppressor would void the warranty anyway. Thanks and Merry Christmas. |
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: @Combat_Diver Do the factory barrels from FN come with any thread locking compound on them? The civilians guns don’t come with any and are just torqued. Which makes sense since they don’t come with suppressor mounts and the suppressor would void the warranty anyway. Thanks and Merry Christmas. Don't have a spare barrel on hand, but I don't remember any. |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
116
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: So do you remove the muzzle device and reinstall with thread locker for suppressor use or would they just be run suppressed without the thread locker? Honestly for over a decade, never had to redo a FN flash hinder. I'll have to pull out the TRS tomorrow to double check. One time I replaced a SCAR barrel, just used a factory assembled barrel assembly (long for shorty). Just about midnight here and time for someone to fly around. I'll be in the shop on Christmas like any other day for the teams. Armorers are like firemen, always standing by waiting for something. |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11',14',17',18',19',20'&21'
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
117
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: Honestly for over a decade, never had to redo a FN flash hinder. I'll have to pull out the TRS tomorrow to double check. One time I replaced a SCAR barrel, just used a factory assembled barrel assembly (long for shorty). Just about midnight here and time for someone to fly around. I'll be in the shop on Christmas like any other day for the teams. Armorers are like firemen, always standing by waiting for something. Thanks, CD. |
Joined:
Jan 2023
Posts:
118
EE: 100% (16)
USA
|
Originally Posted By brodband8: Per the TM: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/283538/16_JPG-3415910.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/283538/17_JPG-3415911.JPG Yeah. I’m aware of what’s in the TRS, which is why I asked. I understand the procedure when installing/removing the muzzle device. But, it’s not clear to me whether the current barrels comes with thread locker on it or not. I was guessing no since the civilian (Belgian) ones don’t come with any on them. But, the warranty stuff made me second guess. |
|
Originally Posted By plaidium: Yeah. I’m aware of what’s in the TRS, which is why I asked. I understand the procedure when installing/removing the muzzle device. But, it’s not clear to me whether the current barrels comes with thread locker on it or not. I was guessing no since the civilian (Belgian) ones don’t come with any on them. But, the warranty stuff made me second guess. I personally dont think they do. Any of the factory ones I have got from FN with the 3 prong were just torqued and no rocksett applied. That was my experience with with mil barrels also. |
MK16/MK17/MK20 Clone, Photo and Discussion Thread. (Page 43 of 46)
Armory Sponsor