Aftermarket FN SCAR 17 Lower, Compatible with PMAG

486435_10151017917104219_1328307080_n_580x_378-tm-tfb

Handl Defense has developed an aftermarket aluminium lower receiver for the FN SCAR 17 to replace the factory polymer lower. Their SCAR25 lower (urgh, FN is not going to like their trademark being used in this way) allows the use of SR-25 and M-110 compatible magazines made by Magpul, XS , DPMS and POF. They have also made some modifications that compatibility with a greater range of AR-15 grips.

The price is for the SCAR25 is $300. It is available in tan or black. Handl will begin shipping the lowers this month.

[ Many thanks to Tim for emailing us the link. ]


Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Maximus Hypicus

    A big hell yes to this!!! Sick of modding fn fal mags. Take my $$$.

    • W

      indicating by the pain in the ass it is to mod FAL mags for the SCAR, I wouldnt blame anybody for dropping the dough on a lower receiver that accepts them, all the work with the components aside :D

      I just dropped the fucking money for the factory magazines. After one try that yielded somewhat acceptable results, and a somewhat acceptable Magpul polymer magazine, i came to the realization that I neither had the energy nor the time and just bought the factory mags. With a retail price of 300 dollars, you purchase a aluminum lower receiver (which is a merit of itself to some folks) that can take easily obtainable and cheap Sr25 magazines. for about the same money and some wheeling and dealing, you can spend the same money for a battle loads worth of SCAR magazines. Tradeoffs I guess. Flip a quarter.

  • Murdock

    yes!,perfect SCAR setup would be a SCAR MK.20 with this lower, a VLTOR stock, Magpul PMAG 20R, a bipod grip, and a nice Zeiss ZO 4x30i Combat Gunsight

  • charles222

    Can you buy just a SCAR upper? Might save some money buying this and a separate upper instead of an assembled rifle.

    • Esh325

      I was thinking the same thing too. I tried looking around and it doesn’t seem like they sell SCAR uppers.

      • Flounder

        LOL sorry but there was very little chance of being able to buy complete SCAR-H uppers before this came out (that is an opinion and not entirely grounded in experience). But why in the world would FN now make uppers available after this is out?

        Seems like it would be cheaper/easier to just offer only completed rifles after this and make it so that if someone wanted to use this product they would first have to pay FN the full price of the rifle.

        However you might still be able to buy pieces (as in “replacement parts”) until you have the complete upper…

      • W

        you can find the odd upper sold through gunbroker

        ive seen them before http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=305507551

        As far as a cost analysis goes, its worth something to look into.

        If you are interested in building a SCAR SBR, then I think this is the way to go. (you can find barrel assemblies too through the aforementioned website).

    • WB

      I think the SN for a SCAR is on the upper receiver actually. I had the same thought, but no dice. It got mentioned in a forum somewhere, sorry no citation.

      • charles222

        Damn, well that sucks. Eventually, I suppose.

      • charles222

        http://www.hi-desertdog.com/upper-receiver-group.html

        Seems like you could buy most of the parts here. I’d be careful assembling it myself, but the overall cost would be about thirteen bucks for all the parts listed. Also, it seems to not have a bolt/bolt carrier and barrel, so you’d need to find that somewhere..

      • charles222

        @ W: It’s fairly close. about 2500 for the entire weapon with that site plus this.

      • W

        charles,

        yeah i dont think youre going to find ground breaking discounts, though like i said before, it is a attractive option for those souls that desire a SCAR H CQB :D

    • Jay

      On the SCAR the upper is the main part. The serial number is on the upper. Technically you are buying a new rifle.
      Anyway, the main part in the FN lower is very cheap. Only around fifty bucks.
      A year ago, when the FN mags were hard to find and expensive, this made a little sense, now, FN mags can be had for around 35$ if you look. Why would anyone mess with the integrity and reliability of an expensive rifle, just to be able to use cheap mags?

      • gunslinger

        i was gonna ask about what part is the “gun”. i.e. lower is what needs to be transfered with AR-15 parts…etc.

        Interesting if this will be useful. but as i’m not familiar with the SCAR, how “changeable” is the upper to go from say 223 to 308? because if you needed a new “upper” and that’s the FFL piece, why not just buy a new rifle?

        i can understand that with a AR lower, if i recall correctly, you can have differend upper calibers with the same trigger group/mag well. the difference is the mag

        unless i’m wrong?

  • Esh325

    It’s legal for Handl Defense to make this? I thought they would need permission from FN or something. Regardless, I think it’s a really cool idea.

  • Paul

    I am not a lawyer but common sense tells me that FN is probably consulting with their attorneys and getting ready to drop the hammer on these guys. Not only is it a possible violation of their patents but I imagine that they might also be worried about non-standard magazines being used in their design and thus bringing up potential liability issues.

    My .02….and worth exactly that.

  • Pepin the Short

    How feasible would a universal lower receiver be for the SCAR series? One that takes PMAGs in both .223 and .308, à la the CM901.

    • charles222

      I believe one is being worked on. It gets mentioned here every now and again.

      • W

        the rumor mill from the SOCOM side mentions a package that allows interchangeability from the SCAR H to other smaller calibers.

        I dont have specifics nor can I verify the veracity of it, so take it for what it is. Perhaps the possibility of a universal interchangeability is one of the compelling reasons why they continue to acquire the “H” and not the “L” variant to a degree.

        just throwing out ideas. That would be very logical at least.

      • charles222

        @W. Pretty much agree. The whole rationale behind the SCAR was trimming logistics and slimming down the SOCOM arsenal to just a couple of weapons. Which has more or less happened already-between the 16, 17, and 20, there’s really no longer a need for the Mk18, M4, Mk12, M14-EBR and M110. Combining the 16 and 17 will get it down to just two, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we got a “Mk 20″ upper receiver/stock kit that can be put on a 17 lower one day. The 17 is a remarkably evolutionary rifle-it’s what NATO was trying to get in the 1950s: 7.62 power and full-auto controllability.

      • W

        That is the beauty of the system, just what you said.

        The SCAR L and H already have a pretty high parts commonality. The H and mk 20 also have a similar commonality. That would be incredible if we can have a carbine, battle rifle, sniper rifle, and IAR adopted from a parent design that is modular enough to do all of the intended jobs the best they can.

        The myriad of M14, AR10, and M4/M16 designs dont have parts commonality. Its time to get with the 21st century.

      • Lance

        Luckily the Navy and USMC disagree.

      • charles222

        @lance: You know the SEALs were the main push behind the SCAR in the first place and are big users of the system, right?

      • W

        the navy purchased more of these weapons, including the “L” variants that were supposedly “cancelled” (internet bullshit).

        I could give a shit less about the Marine Corps’ view on small arms. I consider SOCOM, particularly the Navy side, more credible when it comes to small arms than anybody.

        I dont care if its the SCAR or another weapon made by colt, or whoever. FN seems to be the only ones thinking outside the box and providing a simple, elegant solution to a major problem. I havent seen anything that impressed me worth a damn from HK, Colt, or LWRC, who are just regurgitating existing designs and improving them.

      • FormerSFMedic

        The common receiver multi caliber SCAR is known as the “Objective SCAR”. One common receiver for all calibers and applications/barrel lengths was the initial request back in 2002. However, after the SCAR Industry Conference held in late 2003, SOCOM decided on the development of two receivers, one for each caliber. Obviously, the rest is history, at least until a few years ago when the SCAR was finally adopted and fielded.

        The reason SOCOM reps didn’t want one receiver was because they didn’t want to give up the weight difference. The Operators didn’t want a “heavy” 5.56 or a subsequently “light” 7.62. Of course the heavy 5.56 theory was the driving factor. Fast forward to just a few years ago and new SOCOM reps in charge of the further RDT&E of the SCAR program changed their minds. These guys had a vast level of experience overseas (something that some didn’t have yet in 2002) from which to base their ideas. So, they decided to go back to the original “Objective SCAR Platform”.

        FN has already designed and provided the 5.56 conversion kits for the MK17 SCAR-H. These kits have already went through the environmental and operational testing phases and are in use today. I’m not a huge fan of the way FN accomplished the conversion, however it does work as requested.

        An interesting point to take note of here is why SOCOM didn’t purchase the MK16 SCAR-L for standard issue amongst the various SOCOM units. Understand, that individual units DID purchase MK16’s in fairly large quantities while other units kept the MK16’s that they had been given for field trials. With that said, SOCOM units wanted the MK16 and they wanted it now as opposed to later. The question then became, do we buy the MK16 with our funds or do we make due with what we have now while the Objective SCAR program is sorted out and leave the option up to individual subordinate commands? Obviously, SOCOM chose the latter. It wasn’t because the MK16 was no good or because it didn’t offer an advantage over the current M4A1 variants (although some units did stand by this idea) or because they were waiting on the ICC. It kills me when people say this. It was simply because it would cost a significant amount of funds to buy the MK16 only to have to pay more for the R&D of the “Objective SCAR” later on down the road and accomplishing the same goal anyway. By making their decision to not purchase the MK16, SOCOM essentially allowed subordinate commands to “have their cake and eat it too” if they so wished to do so.

        Today, SOCOM units have a state of the art battle rifle in the MK17 which also gives the operator the capability to streamline logistics through a 5.56 conversion kit. They also have a state of the art DM-R in the MK20 AND a lightweight 5.56 assault rifle capable of working reliably with different barrel lengths and/or a suppressor.

      • W

        “The question then became, do we buy the MK16 with our funds or do we make due with what we have now while the Objective SCAR program is sorted out and leave the option up to individual subordinate commands? Obviously, SOCOM chose the latter”

        to paraphrase a certain crusader, SOCOM “chose wisely” in my opinion.

        “Today, SOCOM units have a state of the art battle rifle in the MK17 which also gives the operator the capability to streamline logistics through a 5.56 conversion kit. They also have a state of the art DM-R in the MK20 AND a lightweight 5.56 assault rifle capable of working reliably with different barrel lengths and/or a suppressor.”

        Exactly. That is why I have been a supporter of the SCAR system simply because of the options it gives trigger pullers. More, not less, options are what separates the SCAR from the rest of the contenders for the next rifle in my opinion; a combination of good homework and the burning of midnight oil no doubt have yielded enormous potential for the SCAR. I see it as foolish to adopt a weapon system in the 21st century that is, for all intensive purposes, limited to a singular caliber, be it the 7.62 or 5.56.

    • Lance

      Not really the SCAR failed to unseat the M-4 and Mk-18 still in heavy use the Regular forces still use M-110s and plan for a new M-110 version as well as M-14 EBR. I know SCAR lovers hate it but the SCAR has its place but is NOT going to replace all weapons just supplement a few in SOCOM ONLY.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003407118178 Awilda

        Yo, Jeff. I feel your pain. I am going in for a scope on Wednesday to repair a torn menuscis in my left knee. I also had no structural ligament damage and it was also caused by an awkward jump, albeit a snowboard in my case.I am assured the procedure is quick, easy, and (relatively) painless. I will report back.Hope all is well in the Lone Star State, buddy.Oh, and I think the warranty ran out on my body at age 40. Shit’s just falling apart now.

  • charles222

    http://www.hi-desertdog.com/upper-receiver-group.html

    It seems like you could buy most of the parts here, although IDK about putting it together yourself :p

    • W

      too f–king easy :D

  • Jon

    The reason you don’t see SCAR uppers floating around is because FN decided to make the upper the serialized part.

    • Jon

      Oops, did not see the other comment saying the same thing.

  • Lance

    This is a reasonable upgrade since the military and most of the western world uses AR-15 and AR-10 mags no one uses FAL style mags the FMN uses. But this wont last long since FN will go after them for using there design they did this with better 5.7 mags for the 57N pistol years ago as well they want you to pay for there mags only.

    PS and lose the ugly crappy butstock!!

  • W

    I do like the aluminum receiver and compatibility with SR25 mags (I have a shit ton of those).

    if you dont like the SCAR’s poly lower, then there you go :D Vltor also has a attachment so you can put your M4 stock on if you dont like the SCAR stock.

    • Lance

      Good logic W

      • W

        will you buy a SCAR now lance??? ;) (im just joshing you cuz i care)

        The thing that im waiting for is the Tango Down extended rail for the SCAR. http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/td-scar-rails/IMG_0236.jpg

        I like what PWS did, but i like Tango Downs offering. they did a good job with that angled charging handle (which I didn’t think was important until I mounted a optic on it).

        I wonder if the FN AC still has the polymer lower? there is enormous potential for making the SCAR a bad ass fucking rifle and hopefully theyll listen to the operators to make those small, inexpensive changes.

      • Lance

        I find it logical I find the H is far more useful than the L which the M-4 can do the job just as well. I prefer a M-110 than a H however.

      • charles222

        @W-I like the extended look.

      • Sam

        SOCOM dose NOT have the say all in small arms since they use what the infantry uses most of the time. The USMC is on the for front of small arms tactics and while SOCOM did adopt the H the L died sorry I know you SCAR lovers having temper tantrums that it NOT the wonder gun you think it is.

      • W

        “SOCOM dose NOT have the say all in small arms since they use what the infantry uses most of the time.”

        It is true that they often use standard infantry small arms, though they have the unique advantage in testing new small arms for possible adoption by the big armed forces because of the unconventional nature of their operations.

        “The USMC is on the for front of small arms tactics and while SOCOM did adopt the H the L died sorry I know you SCAR lovers having temper tantrums that it NOT the wonder gun you think it is.”

        The USMC is NOT on the forefront of small arms tactics. SOCOM is lightyears ahead as far as guns and gear goes.

        Its not a matter of the SCAR being a wonder gun, its the possibilities that the platform has: modular weapon systems based on a common platform and design with largely interchanging parts. The kicker is that specialized weapons like the SCAR H and Mk 20 fulfill their roles very well. Previous attempts for universal weapons resulted in multipurpose weapons that could perform all roles, albeit with mediocre performance (like the Stoner). FN is taking a giant leap with the SCAR platform that Colt, HK, and others seem rather reluctant to partake in.

      • Sam

        Now now

        Its obvious that some have bias against but some here are so blind and pro scar there bias. The L was not a leap over the M-4 or HK-416 there both 5.56mm guns you can switch uppers or barrels with. SOCOM ditched the L because it offered nothing more than a SOCOM M-4. Now the H did offer some new improvements and is used.

        I go with Sam the USMC always have been very good shooters and are always in front with infantry weapons and tactics in past years. IAR give a clue. Time to let this tit for tat war end guys this is old new now.

      • W

        “Its obvious that some have bias against but some here are so blind and pro scar there bias.”

        No. The FN SCAR is the only platform widely available that offers a 5.56, 7.62, IAR, sniper rifle and PDW with a high parts commonality. If Colt offered a similar system, I would side with them.

        “The L was not a leap over the M-4 or HK-416 there both 5.56mm guns you can switch uppers or barrels with. SOCOM ditched the L because it offered nothing more than a SOCOM M-4. Now the H did offer some new improvements and is used.”

        SOCOM did not “ditch the SCAR L”. They are still used. The H became more favorable because of its superior versatility.

        “I go with Sam the USMC always have been very good shooters and are always in front with infantry weapons and tactics in past years. IAR give a clue. Time to let this tit for tat war end guys this is old new now.”

        The Army, Air Force, and Navy ALSO has good shooters. SOCOM is farther ahead in small arms development than the Marine Corps ever thought of being. The M27 IAR is not perfect either; adopting a proprietary automatic rifle that is different than service weapons was foolish in my opinion. The reason why Im so adamant about the SCAR platform is because of the possibilities that do not exist because of the M4/M14/SR25 “paradigm”, such as increased parts commonality and decreased cost.

      • Lance

        W you partily right every service has sharp shooters even the USAF has snipers with M-21s and M-24s in service. Since at Camp Perry and every national shooting match for combat style weapons the USMC marksmanship team is one of the best and most Marine commanders are keen on infantry weapons and tactics that’s why I always mention them ther good.

        The L however is not widely used the gun that killed O.B.L last year was a M-4 and Mk-18s where used too. Overall H in 7.62 NATO are the widely used SCAR in SOCOM Ls not so much. The AR and Colt has the CM 901 can do the sam as a SCAR with regular ARs you change uppers which is better since you dont have to rezreo after barrel change like a barrel changer weapon would. Overall modularity is a bit overrated.

  • BushWacker

    Dilemma: to use reliable FN lower with their shitty mags or use reliable and more common mags with lower of unknown reliability? Well, I thing I’ll just wait for the FN’s reaction before making any choices.

    • Jay

      What’s “shitty” about the Scar mags and how do you know the .308 Pmags are more reliable?
      The only reason this would have made sense, a year and a half ago, was expensive and hard to find SCAR mags. Now if you really want to, you can get them for about $35 a piece.
      With this lower costing $300+, you would have to buy over twenty Pmags to save anything.

      • W

        they’re not “shitty”. they’re very reliable magazines.

        I remember the magazine shortage last year too. Everybody was pissed off at FN because “FN didn’t adequately supply enough magazines” but you have to consider that they had to supply the entire USSOCOM arsenal that recently purchased these weapons. If you have to wait a year so for our fine gents in uniform can get the magazines they need for their weapons, then that is too bad. Tough shit.

        They seem to be available now. it is amazing that a recently fielded rifle like the SCAR already has so many aftermarket accessories. After the M16 was adopted by the US Military and the Colt civilianized “sporter” was introduced in the 60s, it took until RECENTLY to get the wide selection of aftermarket parts and accessories. My my times have changed for the better. If there was anything good that came from the war on terror, it is the decades worth of development of small arms accessories and parts.

      • JC

        Weight. Try holding ten .308cal PMAGs, and then hold ten SCAR.308 mags. No comparison. Even with the added weight of the aluminum receiver, the load with the PMAGS is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter. If you shoot and load one mag at a time, the weight of the SCAR mag will not bother you, but try humping the difference in weight with ten mags.

  • tony

    Hope in the near future people can build SCARS like they do with ARs

    • Flounder

      WHAT1!!!!! MORE LEGOS!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Oh my…

    • Alan

      I would agree. The SCARs seem like interesting weapons, and a market with the availability of whatever you want could make it a very nice basic platform.

  • john

    nothing bad with more options

    adds vibrancy to the ecosystem imho

  • Lance

    Id say your mostly right the Mk-17 is a nice large caliber CQB weapon but most SOCOM units in 5.56mm use M-4 and Mk-18s its not going to change on that. Over all the SCAR will stay a specialist weapon in SOCOM be happy for that but wont be much more than that.

  • http://google Ron

    I’m a 20 year law enforcement veteran. I’ve owned the Scar-17 since it came out. It replaced my trusted HK-91 that rode around with me on duty for the first 15 years. The 17 is the only rifle that matched the reliability of the HK-91 for me. I extensively tested the Scar-17 and put it through multiple combat & qualification drills. Not one hiccup with the factory mags and quality ammo. I never had a problem purchasing the mags. I don’t understand why some men complain about the weight of these guns. It is light compared to the HK-91. I’m 6-02, 235, and work out frequently. It is comical to hear men say its heavy. I have 6 loaded mags on my active shooter vest, along with poly plates, Glock 21, 4 pistol mags, radio, cuffs, etc…The Scar-17 is for Law enforcement/military professional use. Which would mean for the specialty units, which means you gotta train and be in shape. For an active swat or special forces operator, this rifle is not heavy. Its a light weight, very accurate & dependable rifle. No concerns if it gets submerged, unlike a D.I. rifle, or if it gets dirty, it’s gonna fire. the price is right too. Don’t get me wrong, I still love my HK-91, but the Scar is a wonderful update to have in critical missions.

    • Mel

      Looks like someone’s got a power complex. Don’t worry, you’ll get knocked back into the dirt where you belong before this decade is through.

  • Rijoenpial

    I would rather spend a lot less on the new Molon Labe Mag for the SCAR 17S… And an alluminum lower, greatly increasing the weight?! I don’t think so!

    • Mel

      The weight of aluminum added vs polymer is made up by the cheap and proven polymer magazines from Magpul.

      It just adds versatility, rigidity, and durability to your SCAR-17.

      If you’d rather have expensive, incompatible mags than a slightly more expensive lower, then go ahead.

  • rleonard

    I have the HANDL Lower on my SCAR 17. Fit finish and function are all done very well. I went this route to have magazine interchangeability across several of my firearms. Now looking for a lower parts kit to complete the OEM lower and have it ready to go.

    Bob