Remember when the SCAR from FN was gonna be the new standard by which all other ‘battle rifles/carbines’ would be judged? Maybe not so much. And while FN makes excellent stuff and parts breakage may not be as big an issue as with some brands, if youre gonna drop several grand on one rifle youd like to have the expectation its going to be able to live a long life of parts support from the OEM. To be fair, there is some third-party representation out there for the SCAR, but with the discontinuation of the model it seems those third parties are going to have to pivot to other things to take up the revenue loss. In short, if you love your SCAR perhaps it is the time to stockpile parts and mags. Or, trade it in for something a bit more plebian that is well-supported.
As Friend Of The BLog(tm), Tam over at View From The Porch sagely notes about FN: They’re still making ARs.
I ceratinly go off the reservation once in a while when it comes to picking up a less-than-common boomtoy. I have a few Mini-14s here which are notoriously difficult to source spare parts for, for example. But for ‘run out the door’ guns for when things suddenly become PvP, it’s the boring-and-predictable trio of AR, Glock, and 870/500. Guns that are rather ‘unsexy’ but will have logistical support until youre on life support.
This doesnt mean those are the ‘best’ guns. It just means that theyre the ones likely to have the biggest, broadest, most robust logisitcal support. Just because something is popular or numerous doesnt always equate to ‘best’. Sometimes the not-the-best is the smarter choice simply because the logistics support is stronger. I love me some HiPower, but I carry a Glock. I shoot better with the HiPower, but finding parts and mags is not nealy as easy as for the Glock. And since I usually buy guns, for preparedness purposes, with the attitude of “what if I can’t get any more of these tomorrow?” I tend to trend towards stuff that is going to have easy logistics.
In reality, if you have a SCAR it is highly likely, almost to the point of certainty, that you will never use it enough to have a parts breakage issue come to the point that the rifle is shut down. But I don’t like to play the odds if I can avoid it. Sure, the likelihood of tomorrow bringing the apocalypse and me spending the next twenty years living, running, hiding, fighting, guarding, and shooting with one rifle is virtually zero. But it isn’t zero. Survivalism is about resilience….min-max’ing things to give yourself every possible percentage point in your favor. And life has a habit of throwing some wild curve balls.
Doesn’t mean the AR is the ‘best’ rifle, it simply means that it is the best supported rifle. And long-term support is a very highly desired quality to have when picking something to run out the door with.
Invariably, someone in comments will chime in with ‘amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics’. I’m not a professional, but I don’t think I’m an amateur either. What I definitely am is a guy who tries to set dogma aside (“Hurrr hurr…back-to-back World War champions!”) and look at the choices from a particular viewpoint. That viewpoint is the one of “If what I have today is all I can have for the rest of my life, would I be okay?” If tomorrow the pipeline were shut off for the AR…no new guns, no new mags, etc., would I have the logistics in place to keep them going for the long-term? Absolutely. The market has provided unlimited resources that make getting squared away for a scenario like that a piece of cake. Compare against, say, the SCAR…or the G36….or the Mini-14…or the Beretta AR70…or any ’boutique’ or niche carbine.
All this to say that when you’re picking your next boomtoy with an eye towards the apocalypse, it might serve you well to pick something with an already established logistics train. At the moment, the AR platform is probably the most heavily supported platform of anything with a shoulder stock on it in the US. AK, HK, M1A, whatever….all fine bullet thowers but all way down on the ladder when compared to the logistical all-you-can-eat buffet that the AR brings.
I know it sounds like I’m stroking the AR here, but its simply that it is the most relatable and prevalent example of a wildly robustly supported platform. It’s subjective, but here’s my thinking on what platforms have the most robust support:
Rifle/carbine – The AR by miles. After that probably the AK. Everything after those two are more distant on the list. Plenty of support out there for the M1A and the AR10, but not like those first two choices.
Shotgun – Remington and Mossberg. Even with Remington’s reduced role these days there are literally tons and tons of parts, barrels, stocks, etc out there waiting to be had. Same for Mossberg. That Turkish M4 Benelli-clone you bought is cool, but when you need a new recoil spring or shell lifter you might have a problem.
Pistol – Glock wins hands down. One of the few guns you can build from scratch using only aftermarket parts. Maybe tied with 1911 for ubiquity, but as I’ve said, a Glock repair uses, at most, a punch and a hammer. A 1911 repair uses a mill and a lathe. VP9, Beretta 92, Sig 226, Smith M&P, all fine guns but not nearly the same level of support….close though.
.22 Rifle – The 10/22 is the hands-down logistics champ. Nothing else comes close.
Im sure SCAR owners will be fine, and FN says they’ll have parts for years, but that doesn’t change the fact that when you adopt a new platform you are at the mercy of the logistics needed to support it. Something to think about on your next preparedness gun purchase.