.260 Remington Conversion for FN SCAR Mk 20 Spotted in SOFIC 2017

According to SoldierSystems.net, FN America has shown a .260 Remington conversion unit for FN SCAR Mk 20. What makes this news even more interesting is that it happened shortly after the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) announced that they are exploring a possibility for a .264 caliber cartridge (6.5mm Creedmoor or .260 Remington) for the semi-auto sniper rifles.

Images by SoldierSystems.net

Although there is no official information released by FN yet, I think they are most likely developing it in response to the US SOCOM interest in this caliber. The mentioned .264 caliber cartridges both will give more flexibility to the special operations snipers. To me, a DMR in this caliber is an improvement over a 7.62x51mm NATO one. The 6.5mm CM or .260 Rem both are adequately capable within DMR ranges and beyond with more moderate recoil (good to make a quick follow-up shot) and flatter trajectories of high BC, high MV projectiles. Also, they have sufficient terminal performance for the military use.

Of course, it is less likely to see in near future the adoption of these calibers in any larger scale than special operations use. Nevertheless, should SOCOM adopt any of the calibers, it will at least generate some legit data concerning the combat performance of the mentioned calibers, which will be extremely useful for the development of .264 caliber cartridges for military use.

Interesting note: a company called Handl Defense makes both 6.5mm Creedmoor and .260 Remington conversion barrel assemblies for the SCAR platform. So if you have a 7.62 cal SCAR, you can get one of these conversion units and conduct your own tests!

Hrachya H

Being a lifelong firearms enthusiast, Hrachya always enjoys studying design, technology and history of guns and ammunition. His knowledge of Russian allows him to translate and make Russian/Soviet/Combloc small arms related information available for the English speaking audience.
Should you need to contact him, feel free to shoot him a message at TFBHrachyaH@gmail.com


  • Joshua

    As far as SOCOM goes. CRANE has shut off SCAR funding.

    It’s only to remain supported until parts run out.

    No new parts will be ordered.

    • Rob

      Yup. Looks like this is too little too late to save the SCAR is USSOCOM service.

    • Anonymoose

      RIP in Piss. ;_;7

    • Joshua Graham

      What’s your source on this?

      • Joshua


        • Kyle

          Do you have an actual source stating this other than just saying CRANE? I have not read ANYTHING regarding your claims about the MK 17… maybe you are confusing this with the MK 16, which was indeed abandoned when they determined it was not a significant enough of an upgrade to replace the M4.

          • Joshua

            They haven’t released a public statement and they likely won’t, because they have no reason to.

            And no…I’m not confused. This was a recent decision, made this year.

            CRANE also didn’t publicly release that the PSR contract was cancelled, but it was.

  • Mike N.

    I have been wanting to buy a civvie Mk20 for a long time. If it came in a 6.5 caliber that’d just be icing on the cake.

  • Tony Williams

    Any info on the barrel length of that conversion?

    • The Mk 20 Mod 0 SSR has a 20″ barrel. While the muzzle device on the .260 barrel is different, it looks to be very close in length to the standard item.

  • Sledgecrowbar

    That stock makes the SCAR look considerably better than the Ugg boot stock. Does the SCAR have an upper/lower receiver setup like the AR, that you can just pull off the top and set another onto it? Once the copyright expires I hope we see this gun come into the market the AR has now.

    • Anonymoose

      You can get ACR stocks and AR stock adapters for the SCAR.

      • Juggernaut

        Because when people pony up $3500 for a rifle everyone should totally expect to plunk down $400 on a decent stock and another $300 to get an acceptable trigger

        • Joshua Graham

          The factory stock is fine. If you don’t like the rifle, don’t buy it.

        • Anonymoose

          And another $1200 for a barrel. 😀

        • John

          Paid 2403 for mine last year, the “OMG it’s so expensive!” crowd keeps moving the goal post. $3500? C’mon now. And the OEM stock has a higher sitting cheek rest than the ACR stock from KDG. I went back to the OEM.

      • They also beat the gun up. The SCAR 17 stock is essentially a wear part.

        • Anonymoose

          Plastic hinges, bruh.

          • On the Scar 16 that’s fine. On the 17? Sacrifices were made. Still beats the whole “replaceable” hand on the Python, though.

          • ostiariusalpha

            No, it really doesn’t.

          • John

            That polymer hinge snugs up on an aluminum plate on the back of the receiver. If it were metal, this would create wear and potentially wear down the receiver plate which is harder to find than a stock. I have yet to see a stock worn, I assume people said they same thing about Glock when they came out.

    • Rob

      The “upper” is the serialized component that is considered the firearm. You can swap the lowers around at will. That is why you can find aftermarket aluminum lowers that take different magazines. The barrel is easier to swap than an AR but it is not as expedient as changing uppers and you have to rezero or swap optics when you do it.

  • Spencerhut

    I could care less about the SCAR . . . switching over to a 6.5 in .260 Rem or Creedmore would be awesome. The military was 10 years late on the 9mm striker fired handgun, may as well be 10 years late on the switch to .264/6.5mm.

    • Anonymoose

      It wasn’t “10 years too late.” They could have adopted the beloved Glawk 17 Gen 3 20 years ago. They’re 10 years too late on the modular train, but the P250 was a DAO and not many people liked it.

      • Spencerhut

        Our military procurement is a pitiful shame. That our guys had to ever have M9’s is bad enough. Glock, P226, P2000, CZ75 . . . any would do better and that POS Beretta should have been File 13’ed long ago.

    • politicallyincorrectshooter

      100 years too late on the 6.5mms…

  • Shaun Connery Oliver II


  • NH Guy

    Well, good luck trying to buy a SCAR Mk 20. FN said they’d start selling them on the civilian market 2 years ago and they’re still not available. FN is like HK – they could care less about the civilian market because they’re working at capacity to fulfill their military contracts. Same goes for their customer service. Good luck if you’re not a government operator.

    • Anonymoose

      Screw the Mk20 when you could just buy a regular SCAR 17, a 20″ barrel from Handl that comes with their fancy carbon fiber mlok extension, and a Mesa Tactical stock adapter and PRS stock, and you’ll save like $1000 off the vaporware civilian Mk20 (they said they would sell them for $6000 or more iirc).

      • Dracon1201

        Exactly. I would say the aftermarket has created a better Mk20 than FN did. But that’s just my opinion.

    • CommonSense23

      Why would you want that piece of garbage anyway.

      • Joshua

        Maybe he’s on the west coast. They liked theirs for some reason….

  • Stevie Janowsko

    Just don’t change the muzzle device or even think about suppressing your Scar, voids your warranty instantly. You can even switch back to the original and deny suppressor use, FN can tell.

    • Just Say’n

      If you have to worry about your gun’s warranty, you screwed up buying it in the first place.

  • GSH

    I think the military should take a look at the .264 LBC-AR. You can still use the M4 and A4 with the exception of the bolt, barrel and magazine which would have to be replaced.I am in the process of buying parts and building one. It is capable of sub 1/2 moa out to 900 yards.

    • micmac80

      6.5 grendel -LBC is a fraud . Numbers were always tweaked to make it look good with use of low drag match bullets. In reality the round has way to low MV to be a flat shooter which is very important for engaing unknovn distance targets

      • LilWolfy

        I guess I’m committing fraud every time I rapid-fire groups on-target at distances from 500-1000yds from 16″ and 18″ barreled guns, while being able to see my own hits with no real effort.

    • neckbone

      Only problem is you need a 30″ barrel to get the ballistics right.

    • politicallyincorrectshooter

      I was thinking that the LSAT carbine in 6.5 CT might make an interesting basis for a sniper rifle. Standard load uses a lighter bullet than usually spoken of for long range use in 6.5mms, but if the project manager was not just blowing smoke in Nathaniel’s interviews, it sounds like it has potential. I have long followed the Grendel,but it is limited by being designed. To fit in a 5.56 length magazine. A useful cartridge, but not a long range sniper rd.

      • GSH

        Notice I said M4 and A4 which implies individually assigned weapons not sniper rifles.

      • Joshua

        No one wants the LSAT Carbine.

        It’s why it’s still only in TLR3. It weighs over 9lbs empty. Has a magazine that only holds 20 rounds, yet has managed to be longer than a 30 round 5.56 magazine. Has a stupidly short grippable handguard.

        The carbine is just a horrible design.

        Heavier, bulkier, reduction in ammunition capacity, and reduction in ammunition combat loads.

        Textron has decide to focus 100% on the 5.56 and 7.62 MMG according to them as SOFIC. They currently are not working on 6.5 CTA.

        Polymer CTA just isn’t a feasible concept in a magazine fed general issue Carbine.

  • Anon

    The amount of haters, and inaccurate info anytime SCAR is mentioned is hilarious/sad.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    How is this a “mod” instead of a different gun?

  • HansonBro

    Love SCAR.

  • LilWolfy

    .260 Remington with that port location is going to be fun to manage the cyclic rate on, especially suppressed.

  • patriot196

    There has been some suggestion that the .264 and/or the .260 will be adopted by the U.S. military as a whole. They are testing intermediate calibers now, not just special operations They want something with greater hitting power at distance over the 5.56. I have seen many posts, articles, agreements, and arguments for this. But what you want is not only terminal damage, but terminal damage associated with hitting power. Terminal damage is what kia’s an enemy, but hitting power or force is what actually takes them out of the fight. Internal damage caused by a round that feels like a hammer hitting an enemy that allows him to say in the fight at least for a few more minutes vs. a round that hits like a baseball bat, sledge hammer or a Mike Tyson upper cut that knocks the crap out of an enemy and takes him out of the fight, along with the internal damage that the round produces and at range. The latter is what you want, but the 5.56, although lethal, does not give you both attributes even at distance like a .260,.264, or 7.62×51. I hope they make the change all around. Marine recon.