Invisio

AUSA – FNH USA 7.62×39 SCAR

  

Many thought the AK compatibility requirement for the SOF Combat Assault Rifle had fallen off the table. Not true. Rather, USSOCOM initially concentrated in the impending need for 5.56 and 7.62 NATO variants. Now, FN has built a 7.62×39 version of the Combat Assault Rifle to fulfil a requirement. with the CAR contract entering its second five years, you’ll start to see these models hitting the field as a reliable alternative to battlefiled pickup AKs.

  

Naturally, it features a different barrel, bolt, lower and AK-style magazine catch, but it also has a different gas regulator seen below.

  

As it utilizes AK magazines, there is no bolt hold open on the last round.

   
 

www.fnhusa.com

Tags:

42 Responses to “AUSA – FNH USA 7.62×39 SCAR”

  1. Kemp says:

    What barrel lengths does it come in? Does it take it’s own suppressor or the H model’s?

  2. jbgleason says:

    Doesn’t it kind of defeat the concept/purpose of the SCAR models if it requires all the different parts. I thought the big selling point of the SCAR was “Switch the barrel/Switch the bolt” get to shooting.

    • With the AK family it is a necessity due to mags.

    • d says:

      It sounds like a lot of parts to switch, but since the AK mag catch is part of the lower, and the gas regulator is part of the barrel assembly, it’s really only three parts swapped.

    • Greg says:

      technically it’s only one more than you listed, “Switch the barrel/switch the bolt/switch the lower”

    • Josh says:

      This could easily be converted to a 6.5 Grendel variant however
      It’d require only a barrel change, because 6.5 Grendel uses same bolt heads as 7.62×39 – given that the bolts are strong enough to sustain the higher pressure created by 6.5 Grendel.

  3. Non-operator says:

    Will it be released to the civi market?

  4. Kevin W says:

    I think this has to be a response to Handl making conversion kits. There is some post I read that Handl had ak kits or guns for the military.

  5. Adam says:

    Serious question: Can someone explain to me why this is still a SOF requirement? I was just looking at the MCX in 7.62×39, and thinking to myself “why?” and then I scroll down and see this.

    Now, before I get treated like a total dumbass, I understand the obvious operational advantages, but if we are talking about a supply chain that has the funding and capability to not only issue out kits to convert our SCARs to x39 but also install them as this probably isn’t an end-user level modification, couldn’t we just… issue more NATO rounds?

    Think of the reasons for the good ol’ pickup AK. Low visibility? This is about as hi-vis as it gets. Locally sourced ammo and mags? If the ammo and mags are good enough, why isn’t the AK? And don’t tell me if you’re the dude on some deniable low-vis op that a decent AK can’t be found in country.

    I just don’t get the fascination with shoe-horning 7.62×39 into every weapon system we have. If someone could honestly provide some insight that is obviously lost on me at this point, I would love to learn.

  6. Matt says:

    This seems like it was just something to put in a booth some where. It just doesn’t make sense.

      • Matt says:

        Because none of the reasons for its development track. Replaces the need for battlefield pickups? Not really. Will be able to use AK mags? Yea, but why the need. I have a hard time believing that an operator in the Philippines or some other clandestine local would be better of with one of these than their regular kit. Say for example an operator brakes or looses his 5.56 weapon. It’s not like he will have this weapon in his back pack to replace it with.

        I’m not saying that the weapon is not nice. Heck. I would like one if I could afford it. But I just don’t see the need for it for our soldiers.

        • SSD says:

          That’s not what it’s for.

          • Matt says:

            What is it for?

            • SSD says:

              Exactly what it is, a reliable, issue 7.62×39 rifle for when one is appropriate.

              • Matt says:

                That’s what I’m trying to find out. When could it possibly be appropriate for our soldiers to need a x39 weapon?

                • james says:

                  I can see it being handy for Special Forces teams in advisory roles. It gives them the capability to use the same mag and ammo that the force they are working with use while keeping a weapon they have trained with a great deal. Could they just be issued an Ak rather than this kit? Sure, but it’s more weight and even more of a change in your manual of arms ,for not much gain if any. Add in the accessory mounting and ergos, I’d take the SCAR .

                  • Matt says:

                    If they are in an advisory role then they have a supply chain. That supply chain will have everything they need without having to rely on x39 stuff. The advisors will work up their kit and supplies before being dropped in to their job and will have everything dropped with them. As far as advising then they will need to use the same methods and instruments of those they are advising. Which means if they are teaching a bunch of locals how to use an AK then they them selfs will use an AK.

                    • SSD says:

                      Man, where were you 12 years ago when the SCAR requirement was written? You could saved everybody a lot of money and time with your insight.

                    • Matt says:

                      There are lots of ways a US citizen could save .gov money over the way .gov/.mil usually operate. It’s called common sense. Something the echelons above reality suffer from a lack of. If it doesn’t take 5 years and 3 and a half tons of red tape to procure then it seems our .gov/.mil doesn’t want it.

                    • SSD says:

                      Please explain to us how a citizen is going to save money. To be sure the DFAR is a PITA but it has become so unwieldy because of past issues. You’re going to have to change the law.

                    • Matt says:

                      Exactly. I agree with you there. The only way is to change laws. An honest to goodness audit wouldn’t hurt either. Not one of these three year senate panel ones. An honest to good audit which results in a streamlined low fat process.

                  • Matt says:

                    How exactly? I can’t see an operator using this over his regular kit. The only scenario that I can think of is if an operator is going native and then he would need the AK to look normal. This weapon would stand out like a sore thumb. Heck, he might as well carry a minimi for all the difference it would make.

                    • SSD says:

                      I have a sneaking suspicion it will never really be a factor in your life.

                    • Matt says:

                      That sure is a classy reply SSD. So when you can not adequately answer a question you resort to saying it doesn’t matter because your not in the “know.” What BS. You have no clue what or who I am. I could be a baker from Berlin or a general from Gainesville. Does it matter? Nope. Not one bit. What does matter is I’m a faithful reader of this website. I wouldn’t be here if it didn’t effect my life some how. So way to go on not answering questions and trying to insult when you can’t win a debate. Stay classy.

                    • SSD says:

                      I could care less how they’ll use it. They say they need it and they are buying it. At this point, SCAR isn’t being forced down anyone’s throat so it says something if they want it. I am amused that you are so worked up over it when you aren’t a guy who will use it.

                    • Matt says:

                      Worked up over it? Hardly. Just trying to understand the mindset of those that “needs” this weapon. I mean it’s practically the same thing if .mil ordered a HMMV with a Range Rover Engine.

                • balais says:

                  When could it be appropriate? probably never, not as long s a good ol trusty AK is available.

        • Jon, OPT says:

          Bad example, most weapons in the PI on both sides are AR based.

          Jon, OPT

  7. DGM says:

    It seems like I’ve seen something similar to this at hi-deserdog.com.