Civilian FN SCAR 16S Pricing
You better sell your first born, get a second job and start saving: the SCAR-L 16S has an MSRP of $2,696.56.
FNH SCAR 16S (actual photo, not the military version)
itstock posted the information at fnforum.net:
They are now available, and allocated to certain distributors at a set number. The MSRP that FN states is still 100% correct at $2,696.56, and EXPECT TO PAY THIS. Your dealer does not have much wiggle room!
They come in FDE with 16″ barrels, and either a 10 or 30 round mag.
If you want one, GO ORDER IT NOW! There will not be a large run as of now, and dealers are ordering for themselves to sell on GB and the like! !
Also, the SCAR-H has not been released in any way, no pricing, and no order information.
It sort of make the civilian Steyr AUG SA seem cheap at a mere $2295.00!
The SCAR-H referred to above is the 7.62mm NATO (.308 Win.) model.
Thanks to Raif for the tip.
Jeeeesus. The thing better be hand-carved from unicorn horn and lubed with angel tears at that price…
Actually the price is not wildly out of line. Factor in these things on top of a premium piston AR:
Hammer forged barrels (swappable in 5 minutes without tools, retains one MOA *if* you use the iron sights). It would be really nice to be able to have both a CQB and a longer barrel, 5.56×45mm needs all the barrel length it can get. (Also, moving to 6.8 SPC someday is doable.)
Multi-way adjusting folding stock. And I gather it’s solid.
MUCH lighter than any piston AR I know of (they all seem to use aluminum forarms which really increases the weight). Achieves it the same way a Steyr Scout does, with fluted hammer forged barrel, aluminum receiver and plastic furnature (I’m *really* interested in the 7.62/.308 H/17S).
And then factor in that this price is the MSRP for the first batch of them. The price will go down eventually as supply meets demand.
Or compare it to what it would take to bring a SIG 556 up to its level in furnature and iron sights, and then it still weighs less and almost certainly has better build quality.
Specified lube is unicorn pee actually, it’s more compatible with the unicorn horn for long-term wear prevention.
I guess they just wanted to have them “available,” to say they were available…sales, they apparently don’t want too many of. Wow. It’s a neat rifle and all but you can get a few M4s and a few dozen SKSs for that kind of price. It is to be hoped that, if they get a .gov contract, the price would fall due to the economy of scale.
this thing may sell better than expected because Obama delayed the ACR. ..I still wouldn’t pay that much for it though.
(i want ACR
)
I would have to sell about 1/3 of my collection to buy that thing. I think I will past. Way overpriced IMHO.
If the SCAR Heavy is within a couple hundred dollars, sorry, I will be at my dealer with a deposit. I’ve lusted after the SCAR-H since I saw it.
This is pure, unadulterated want. There is no need about it. I rarely want to have the newest toy on the block but I’ve saved my “gimme points” for this.
[Ed: Guys, lets keep it friendly]
thank you for moderating that comment. Some people don’t know what a joke is.
[Ed: Just trying to keep the discussion on track.]
I think FN is targeting the “Real Operators” aka game kiddies and mall ninjas with this price range. Then these people that bought it will start posting comments like “pay to play”, “pay for the entrance fee”, and other crap on gun forums.
FN is milking the SCAR for all it is worth. It’s a SOCOM rifle that probably won’t ever be use by US Special Forces. All it needed is a “Real Operators” aka a actor to come out from the water with his scuba gear and the SCAR. In big letter “REAL OPERATOR USE SCAR”. With that kind of marketing I’m sure they’ll sell a crap load and have the SCAR in every Super Ninja Special Operator game.
It is big, heavy, and from what I saw it isn’t free floating. I know that FN said it free floating but when you have the lower rail attached to the barrel then I think we can all agree it isn’t.
From what I understand the ACR won’t be coming next year if ever. Bushmaster is waiting for the requirements from the military for the next infantry rifle competition. Those requirements might not be available until late 2009. I might be wrong tho but that’s what I heard.
I just remember Ar15 posted “Real French Operator” coming out from the water with the SCAR. However those French Operator need to learn how to hold the vertical grip right. hahaha.
http://www.histoireetcollections.com/images/produits/numero_2189_1225391730.jpg
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=791233
Give me a high end AR for that kind of money. Sorry but im not buying one unless it gets to $1500 or less. *disclaimer* and no I wouldnt pay $2500 for a AR, id buy a nice one for $1500 and then finish my 1903a3 sniper dream job.
I’m not going to worry, the FN FS2000 was $2700 when it first came out. A year and a half later I got mine new for $1850. If you are willing to wait a year or two after the release (assuming they don’t get banned) they will drop to less than $2000, which may be more expensive than a regular AR but about what you would expect for a Gas Piston AR or Springfield SOCOM 16.
I’ll stick with my XCR.
The Army’s Infantry School basically wants to go to a 25mm gun for a wide variety of reasons, but SOCOM will likely stay with the SCAR (since they developed it and it meets their tactical needs). SOCOM procurement is independent of the Army.
Any new rifle or ammo buy requires years of testing and procurement at a huge cost so the USAIS question is ‘what will a new gun or caliber get me in terms of battlefield performance that is worth the bucks?’
25mm gives them a highly flexible ammunition system that can be tailored to targets (barriers, vehicles, concealed targets, etc.)(flechette, explosive, frangible, AP, API, etc.) and probably more lethal & effective.
The reality is either caliber (556 or 762) with FMJ bullets have limited effectiveness.
Haven’t seen the 25mm rounds, but, as all know, the Army ammo plants are running 24-7-365 and can barely meet demand. Copper, brass, etc. availability is a strategic supply and cost issue.
The interesting question will be the Basis of Issue Plan. Will all get the 25mm or only Combat Arms & MP?
Jim Larsen, I think you are confused about the R&D going on to develop a 25mm platform for the squad grenadier. It’s not practical to give every fire team member a 25mm weapon. My understanding is this is a replacement for the M203 series grenade launchers, not a common personal weapon.
The Army will not replace the M$ as long as Colt still supplies them with weapons. The Army jsut ordered another 8000 or so M4A1 rifles to be delivered this fiscal year, to continue replaceing all the M16A2’s on the battle field. the M16A4 is still going to be around, and be used at the SDMR for quite some time. The reason the Army will not change weapons is because a: most soldiers do not have a problem with how the rifle works in the field, I personally used mine if Afghanistan for 9 months and didnt have a single jam. B: The cost of ammo is already way above budget, and thats jsut for 5.56. For the Army to switch to a new round, like 6.8 SPC. the third and last reason the Army wont change bullits is because a soldier can carry twice as much 5.56 as 7.62 or 6.8 SPC, more ammo, more kills. The 5.56 is not the best round, but its accurate, you can cary a ton of it, and its cheep to make. Personally, i would like to see a better made battle rifle in the hands of our troops, but the M4 is a fine weapon, and as long as the soldier keeps up on cleaning, it will always prefrm…
2-207th ETT, CJTF Phoenix VII, Afghanistan
oh, and SF/ODA operators, includeing MARSOF, are most likely going to be useing the HK 416/417, and already are
Definitely steep on the pricing; given the economy & hopefully supply & demand, the prices will come back in line bit. On the Mil side of the house, its good to see something better getting into the hands of our troops (potentially).
As to the arguements about the caliber; I think its BS that we can’t make a switch reasonably; the excuse is organizational enertia/red tape, and complacency. The cost of retooling & resupply is nothing compared to a lot of the other other programs out there, and this is one topic that affects most troops. I think the switch to something like a 6.8 is LONG overdue. IMO, the 5.56 is “ok” for some roles, but is not a good all-round infantry round. BTW, the difference in weight / capacity of 6.8 compared to 5.56 is not that much different. The 7.62 I can see that arguement having some merit.
I think they’ll keep an M4 type but might modify to piston sooner or later. SCAR is just too expensive in the long run. Civy piston AR’s (and aftermarket kits) are going down in price and can get the job done. I see another 50 years of AR due to budget constraints.
I don’t see the Army switching to 6.8. The re-tooling, retraining, and cost of new parts isn’t particularly significant compared to other programs, but what programs are we talking about? Projects like the JLTV, Predator drone, DUKE, JUKE, Warlock, BFT, etc etc.. cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but the result are incredibly effective in this war, and the merits are pretty much undeniable. With a possible switch to 6.8, what are the pros? You do get better stopping power, but the average infantry squad has huge amounts of firepower as it is (2 SAWs, 2 M203s, 1 .50 cal or MK 19 vehicle mounted. Weapons Squads have 2 240s) compared to a truck full of terrorists with AKs. The cons of the 6.8 are a factor as well. Lower mag cap (unless you get longer 30 rnd mags), heavier ammo for SAW gunners (the change is negligible for the riflemen) unless the SAWs stay with 5.56 and we mess up the round commonality that eases logistics. The 6.8 might do well among buildings in Baghdad, but what about in the valleys of Afghanistan? The round really starts to die after about 400 m, just short of that ridge line covered with Taliban. This isn’t the perfect round, there never will be. Don’t get me wrong, I really really like the 6.8 round, and I think that is perfect for urban ops, but the pros won’t outdo the cons, and tomorrows war might be in valleys, the tundra, a desert, whatever. In order for the Army to completely change the round for its primary small arms weapons system, there has to be a SERIOUS deficiency with the current ammo or monumental improvement in a new round. Neither are present.
Back to the SCAR.
There was a soldier in a previous post talking about the reliability of his M4. I wish I’ve had a similar experience, and I do keep my weapon clean, thank you. There are just so many things that can be improved. ARs are soft-shooting and very flexible with optics and other electronics. The Stoner DI system viewed on its own is well engineered and has it’s own advantages. It is smoother operating, doesn’t torque the barrel like piston-op guns do, and is tighter fitting for more accuracy. But the ejector is weak and the ejector claw is sensitive to shell material, the DI system is horribly self-fouling, gas rings get worn out, small bolt lugs crack, and the current trend of short barrels shortens the gas tube and imparts higher pressure on the system while increasing wear and breakage. These aren’t just little, minor problems, they are serious issues that cause the weapon to malfunction and break. Taken as a whole, the AR design is still great, and I don’t feel inadequate or undergunned going on patrol with one, but there are guns out there that leaps ahead. Shouldn’t the best army in the world have the best guns? Name one successful, military-style rifle that also has a DI/Stoner system. You can’t, but piston-op ones are everywhere.
-AUG
-SIG 550 series
-AK/AKM
-L85
-HK 416/17
-G36
-F2000
-Galil
-Pretty much every light machine gun ever made.
But 2,700? That’s a lot, and I know FN is charging a significant profit. More than likely to offset the R&D cost. It is a very nice gun though. I do remember when the FS2000 first came out and that initial price. I’m hoping it will go down like that, and that they have some color besides stupid tan.
stryker,
about the 6.8 SPC, your points have merit and there is an alternative, the 6.5×38mm. This would however rudce magazine capacity to 25. On the up side the 6.5×38 has 90-140 gr rounds with ballistics that mirror the 7.62×51 (or surpass). The Marines are currently using M16A4’s standard but I would love to see a new longer range and heavier round put into play. We literally use the one shot one kill method, well aimed single shots. This isn’t because we wouldn’t like to suppress with our rifles but because our rounds do very little to anything or anyone behind cover without a high volume of fire (M249).
As for this system, I’d love for FNH to put these in the hands of infantry instead of the 16’s and m4’s they currently make. Their IAR idea also has merit, but it would take a lot of dedication to this new system that military brass doesn’t have usually (though the company has a step up by being the incumbent manufacturer). I would love a better system than the adequate weapons we have, ACR or SCAR systems would be more accurate, longer lasting, more reliable, and lighter weight, but these excellent improvements do not make them necessary to uprooting a proven and adequate system.
And as for the choice between ACR and SCAR, the ACR is set to MSRP at $1,400.00 for the kit, and they have a 7.62×51 in the works (checkout shotshow 2009 on youtube, magpul) I’d love to get one of each, but I’ll get the one that hurts my checkbook less, first.
I don’t like the IAR concept. You can’t lay down an effective base of fire if you are constantly changing magazines, and the IAR relies on magazine use. Even if you have beta c mags (which are unreliable and costly), you can only hold half of what you could with a box of linked 5.56. I think the answer to creating a lighter SAW without sacrificing firepower is to lighten the current SAW, the 249. The magazine adapter is garbage since magazines will never feed right, and get rid of these stupid Elcam 145 magnified optics that weigh a ton. Those belong on 240’s, and your team leader with the ACOG will spot for you. Put on a para barrel, an EOTech or a Comp M4, and a lighter skeleton buttstock and you could get that gun down to 14 lbs. The MK 46 is a step in the right direction. Leave it to SOCOM to come up with some good ideas.
I’d like to a see a machine gun chambered in 6.5. Imagine a 249 chambered in 6.5, how much more lethal and effective would it be? The 7.62 x 51 is a great round, but if we have a round with very similar trajectories and lethality with a much lighter weight and smaller cartridge dimensions, that is an improvement. Maybe then the 240 gunners could dismount and still be able to move and their AG’s could carry even more ammo. That’s more firepower.
I’ve been interested in the SCAR for a while now & finally found a dealer in the Dallas area with them – but the MSRP of $2,696.56 seems way out of the window now… They wanted +/- $4,500 for one… Way high in my opinion.
Something to think about: For the last 4 years the FN guns have been different in price and design. That has not stopped them from being well sought after. I predict the SCAR will not be as available as the other civilian FN guns, simply because its a military special purpose gun. Just like the SAW. If the SCAR can be purchased for less then 3k dollars, jump all over it.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/army_scar_051109w/
I agree on most of the points stated above. I love the old 7.62 for knock down and penetration. Ditto on the 6.5.
I want one of the scar 17’s………….in a year or so; if the rifle is not banned; then I will have to wait………
RLTW
ASC
I have to say, after having my hands on one…it is a bullet delivery system. Nothing more, nothing less. For the money, there are way better ones out there. If it did something actually innovative like the KRISS Super V then that price could be justified…but alas…it does not. It’s very next-gen looking…but that is about it. I’d use a HK416 or an LWRC any day over this. This is all just my opinion…but…ugliest assault rifle ever.
I’ll second the LWRC any day.
Not just the the best AR, but IMO one of the best carbines in existence.
This may not seem appopriate, but I think many of the European mftcrs have a degree of elitism/snobbery around them, and I don’t feel this with LWRC; for example, the use of MAGPUL accesories & mags, which imho are the some of the best on the market.
The only thing I dislike about ARs is the bolt, which i find unnratural, and prefer a SCAR style bolt, as found on many other rifles, including my 10/22!
Now that would be a funny move. Imagine a Rangers squad kitted with a load of Krinker Plinkers! HAHAHA
The way I understand it the SCAR kept the M16 multi-lug rotating bolt to help with it accuracy. They did however change the bolt carrier to aid in reliability.
It is similar to the M16 multi-lug bolt, but it looks a little more robust and the lugs look a little bigger. That’s a good thing, since the lugs on the M16 bolts are weak and will break easily, especially if you install a piston system that no longer allows gas to flow inside the bolt and bolt carrier, expanding the two.
I’d say they’re overpricing the things because they really don’t want civilians to have them anyway but they can’t out and out say that; they can however price the things out of the budget of the average joe.
I’ll stick with my AK-47s and other basic models; they’re not as sexy and high speed but they get the job done for me.
”I’ll second the LWRC any day.
Not just the the best AR, but IMO one of the best carbines in existence.”
The U.S. military needs LWRC rifles.
I own an M6A2, and M6A3.
The best carbines ever made. IMHO.
LWRC rifles are great, but they are so pricey that military procurement for anything other than SOCOM is a joke. The designs are reliable and the quality is awesome, but the cost comes from designing around the faults of the M4 and DI system. It would be much more cheaper to just design a rifle with a piston system native to the design, rather than adapting and modifying parts. There’s a reason why C. Reed Knight has refused to make a piston AR so far- the only advantage is cleaner, cooler running. The military isn’t going to pay extra money for cleaner weapons when they have soldiers with cleaning kits. At 10″ barrel lengths and below, then the piston is beneficial as far as reliability and operating pressures are concerned, but at those barrel lengths, the 5.56 round has such little velocity you might as well be shooting .22LR. If you really wanted to improve the weapon, it would have to be completely redesigned. Piston design, more robust locking lugs, ejector and ejector springs, a bolt carrier riding on rails, more reliable magazines, maybe a folding buttstock. It just so happens that the SCAR has a lot of these features, which is no surprise it got selected by SOCOM.
Just my two cents… not worth it…and its hella ugly. that’s just personal opinion. The cost of this rifle is outrageous. LWRC is just as guilty…same with the Steyr AUG. Seriously, people, it doesnt cost that much to make a gun…its just perception. This and the AUG, for instance, lots of plastic and steel parts. Novelty sells these guns. The Kriss Super V, for instance, actually does something innovative. The SCAR is just an overpriced delivery system. If you like it, you like it, but FN shouldn’t charge that kind of money. The short-stroke piston technology isnt rocket science and has been around for decades. HK loves to really beat their own drum and FN is kinda guilty of it too.