Scar
- Thread starter bacardi
- Start date
Not that I have a horse in this race but there’s quite a few military and special force groups that use the Scar, but I haven’t seen any that use the XCR. I’d rather trust something that’s been thoroughly tested and adopted when getting into this price point.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I see someone caught on. But hey. What do those guys know?
May i point out while guys on the field have had issues with the SCAR, the XCR has never been field on a serious(if any) scale by any professional military unit sof or reg force in any capacity, so sure under repeated field use the SCAR had its issues but there has never been multiple XCR that did the same thing in the same field conditions.
As disclaimer despite having played with the full naughty versions of the SCAR I am not a fan of the carbine. For a piston platform I argue the Hk416/417 is the better option. Otherwise honestly a good di gun in the ar15/10 is pretty excellent as well. One thing to note the slow cyclic rate of the SCAR makes it notably controllable in full auto(useless for us but should be noted.).
As for the xcr... it's not proven to the same degree. I'm glad there are happy owners for these guns out there... but lets not start comparing an unproven rifle that never got adopted to one that saw active service. It ain't an apples to apples comparo.
that videos pretty dumb honestly,
"we had reliability issues"
gee who would have thought with steel case ammo
need a source on the hatred because I see them carried quite often.
also with the optics breaking thats a old meme from garbage Elcan Spectres breaking on them
That's not a meme it's been tested and even found out why. It's because the lower is polymer and the shock rebounds off it and into the optic. Also the stocks are janky garbage. As we can see from your pic.. it was replaced. A "premium rifle" that needs a better stock and a better lower isnt very premium. Even worse when it trashes your optic
Agreed ( r34skyline ). Some think that burying a gun in sand or packing it with mud is some sort of test that proves something. I'm just waiting to hear MAC say its not what your gun does to the mud, its what the mud does to your gun. Totally unrealistic. On the other hand, battle proven is real life. Sustained fire for hours at a time with Poo dust blowing in your gun is much more realistic. The XCR might be a very capable range gun. Perhaps that is where the discussion should end.
Iceman18, r34skyline,MustangFrank you guys should look at the youtube videos I posted. The stock would crack under use. Guys in the field would pack back up stocks for this reason. As $kull points out a lot of guys replace the stock with aftermarket stocks now.
Also the receiver had many problems to, to the point where aftermarket receivers are now being built. That will set you back another 500-600 USD.
It already has been mentioned multiple times that the XCR did not enter trial in the SOCOM SCAR program because someone forgot to include a BFA so the rifle was automatically disqualified. The SCAR program found that an upgraded M4 (heavy barrel, stronger bolt) could do everything the SCAR can do however SOCOM decided to go with the SCAR because they saw it as having more future potential down the line. It should be quite telling that the majority of guys are still using their M4s when they have this new fancy rifle.
Even when it comes spoken from the horses mouth (the seals in the video I posted) you guys don't believe it.
Also the receiver had many problems to, to the point where aftermarket receivers are now being built. That will set you back another 500-600 USD.
It already has been mentioned multiple times that the XCR did not enter trial in the SOCOM SCAR program because someone forgot to include a BFA so the rifle was automatically disqualified. The SCAR program found that an upgraded M4 (heavy barrel, stronger bolt) could do everything the SCAR can do however SOCOM decided to go with the SCAR because they saw it as having more future potential down the line. It should be quite telling that the majority of guys are still using their M4s when they have this new fancy rifle.
Even when it comes spoken from the horses mouth (the seals in the video I posted) you guys don't believe it.
Last edited:
- Location
- Victoria, BC
I'm tempted to believe the XCR could torture-test on-par with the SCAR. The fact that it was disqualified doesn't mean it wasn't subject to the same standard of testing back at RA. They intended it to see military service, so I'm pretty certain they built it with that in mind, and to survive field testing.
I don't really have a dog in this fight except I might pick up an XCR at some point. I know it's the way of the future, but I just don't like guns with integral poly components. Even my Tavor - which I know is robust and sturdy AF, still feels kinda cheap. Give me metal \m/
I don't really have a dog in this fight except I might pick up an XCR at some point. I know it's the way of the future, but I just don't like guns with integral poly components. Even my Tavor - which I know is robust and sturdy AF, still feels kinda cheap. Give me metal \m/
CaptainGoose, I'm not sure if you are mis reading my comments, but I am not a fan of the SCAR. I don't like it. If the XCR has made substantial improvements, I would at least consider it but do not like the looks so that could be a deal breaker. Looks do count.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Iceman18, r34skyline,MustangFrank you guys should look at the youtube videos I posted. The stock would crack under use. Guys in the field would pack back up stocks for this reason. As $kull points out a lot of guys replace the stock with aftermarket stocks now.
Also the receiver had many problems to, to the point where aftermarket receivers are now being built. That will set you back another 500-600 USD.
It already has been mentioned multiple times that the XCR did not enter trial in the SOCOM SCAR program because someone forgot to include a BFA so the rifle was automatically disqualified. The SCAR program found that an upgraded M4 (heavy barrel, stronger bolt) could do everything the SCAR can do however SOCOM decided to go with the SCAR because they saw it as having more future potential down the line. It should be quite telling that the majority of guys are still using their M4s when they have this new fancy rifle.
Even when it comes spoken from the horses mouth (the seals in the video I posted) you guys don't believe it.
I'm not sure which part of "I'm not a fan of this carbine" was unclear there so let me re-iterate. I am not a fan of the SCAR in either the 556 or 7.62 chamberings.
Doesn't change the fact that post SCAR trials nobody adopted the XCR. Hell some random east block nation adopted the ACR.
Beyond the immediate disqual no professional organization ever pitted an XCR in any kind of testing and to my knowledge none made it to any of the current sandboxes... so you can't claim it is a better fighting carbine than the SCAR, because there is nothing to substantiate that under any formal testing and usage beyond mostly clean civvie ranges.
Again in case someone thinks I like the SCAR, I don't. It introgued me then on a trip to the us i got to try a h and a l. Other than the easy to manage f/a capability i was deeply underwhelmed by the weapon.
MustangFrank, r34skyline I misread your guy's comments and mistaken it for another guy I was responding to who really likes the SCAR. I was trying to address the battle proven part.
The XCR to me doesn't look as modern as the SCAR because of the lack in polymer features. I also think the SCAR is a better looking gun than the XCR.
As for the XCR's reliability, across the internet people have been liking it. The youtube videos I posted in the previous pages also give it high praise breaking it down and going through each part and why it makes sense. The guy who runs that youtube channel works in the firearms industry and is very knowledgeable with that regard.
I would say that the manufacturing standards for civilian use are better than military specifications. With the military it comes down to checking a box for liability issues where with the civilian market it comes down to providing the best product for the customer to capture market share. We can see this with military kit for example with night vision. Thats a different discussion though.
Robinson Arms is also a very small outfit competing with the likes of FN and Remington. Securing government contracts comes down to their network and financing which bigger companies have more of.
The XCR to me doesn't look as modern as the SCAR because of the lack in polymer features. I also think the SCAR is a better looking gun than the XCR.
As for the XCR's reliability, across the internet people have been liking it. The youtube videos I posted in the previous pages also give it high praise breaking it down and going through each part and why it makes sense. The guy who runs that youtube channel works in the firearms industry and is very knowledgeable with that regard.
I would say that the manufacturing standards for civilian use are better than military specifications. With the military it comes down to checking a box for liability issues where with the civilian market it comes down to providing the best product for the customer to capture market share. We can see this with military kit for example with night vision. Thats a different discussion though.
Robinson Arms is also a very small outfit competing with the likes of FN and Remington. Securing government contracts comes down to their network and financing which bigger companies have more of.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Manufacturing standards for civilians can be better and worse depending on outfit and standards set by them. Top tier civvie equipment I would argue have better attention to detail and can be a better product. Although in my experience most really high end stuff end up focusing more extremely on the refinement of the product which occasionally negatively affects the weapons durability/reliability. And some of the budget stuff... not so much.
As for RA specifically, I've heard mixed reviews both here and on other parts of the internet. They were one of the first to have the swappable barrel setups so I'll give them that, but with the added weight of the guns mixed with the questionable accuracy and reliability of the early models put a lot of people off.
I thought they rectified it in the second gen, but there was a recent thread with one tossing a bcg in a few hundred rounds, and another poster referring to a busted op rod along with a blown extractor in two of his xcr I'm still not sure on their products quality.
With the Stag 10 out at almost a grand less, I would be very hard pressed to justify the XCR, or this SCAR if it ever comes here.
Not sure what you are referring to for nvg equipment as currently the gov has nv tech not availble to civvies legally for any amount of money(panoramic goggles).
I'm about to build a Stag, looking up some top tier parts now and it looks like it will come to 2.5-3k. The price of the SCAR would be around double that if it were to come up here.
Another point about the SCAR program was that SOCOM found that upgrading the m4 gave very similar results to the FN SCAR and its other contenders. As you said, the AR platforms come out significantly less than a really expensive SCAR.
NV equipment in the US civilian market is better than what is issued to regular military. Civilians can buy the panoramic goggles however they're really front heavy. I just mentioned it because it was an example of where military and civilian standards differ favouring civilian specs.
Another point about the SCAR program was that SOCOM found that upgrading the m4 gave very similar results to the FN SCAR and its other contenders. As you said, the AR platforms come out significantly less than a really expensive SCAR.
NV equipment in the US civilian market is better than what is issued to regular military. Civilians can buy the panoramic goggles however they're really front heavy. I just mentioned it because it was an example of where military and civilian standards differ favouring civilian specs.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
But the SCAR isn't issued to regular mil. It's issued to socom guys.
Sale of pvs18s to civvies is news to me. Last i checked they were gov purchase only. Maybe it changed recently.
Don't forget they are insanely expensive as well.
As for the SCAR I don't know about double that but it will certainly be more money than it's worth.
That being said having more options available is never a bad thing.
kennyclone
Regular
- Location
- Grande Prairie
immediate right of the flag guy has a mk20 SSR. SF guys arent doing individual purchasing of scars, they're being issued to them as NSWC just renewed their support contract for them and USASOC has them fielded in small batches while doing some 6mm testing.
also lol at thinking that guy spent his own money on his issued gun.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Daddy garand would approve of your statement.
Cool pics. A bunch of dudes on a range shooting SCARS. That proves it. Guys overseas shoot SCARS. No story, no explanation, no reports why or if they like them . Basically nothing to report except pictures of guys holding guns. The science is settled LOL.
BlazinDayz
Regular
- Location
- Niverville, MB
I know this mainly evolved into a comparison between the SCAR and XCR but just seen this vid and thought it was a great comp as well.
Last edited:
