User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 7:07:35 PM EDT
[#1]
I have watched this with interest my scar 17s wears a 3x30 acog which hold zero very well and has been dead on balls on out to 400 meters.
If you are reading this thread and worried about your glass get a ta11 3x30 mine is doing very well I have never heard of this before on other rifles the g3 is far more violent in recoil than a scar so is the FNAR niether seem to have NY ISSUE. SO THE IDEA OF REVERSE RECOIL IS INTERESTING BUT so is the idea of after market mounts which are not holding up or mounted correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 8:02:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More "I saw this guy once, on another forum, which is so secret, I won't even name it" innuendo. You have no idea what my experience, training, or area of expertise is. Once again for the cheap seats.... Show me some proof, you can keep the keep second hand information. People that do have lots of experience normally talk about it to frame their point of view, and give weight to their opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 9:30:19 PM EDT
[#3]
IM sent with resume.
ETA* I have found the opposite to be true. The more someone toots their horn... The less they generally have to add to the conversation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what people that don't have very much normally say. People that do have lots of experience normally talk about it to frame their point of view, and give weight to their opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
More "I saw this guy once, on another forum, which is so secret, I won't even name it" innuendo. You have no idea what my experience, training, or area of expertise is. Once again for the cheap seats.... Show me some proof, you can keep the keep second hand information. People that do have lots of experience normally talk about it to frame their point of view, and give weight to their opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 3:05:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SCARs will eat old ACOGs, EOTechs, PEQ lasers, and Leupy scopes Mk4 and older. That does not mean every single one will fail quickly on a SCAR. It means that you will have a much higher rate of optic failure at a much lower round count than the same optic placed on an AR or other rifle. There's a reason you see NightForce scopes and ELCANs on all the NSW and SF SCAR photos. There's several threads on other forums discussing this with FN folks who actually designed the guns or were involved in the R & D phase in the military. It's caused by the weird high G-force recoil impulse of the guns. I'd tell you where these forums are but if you don't already know, you probably couldn't get a membership there anyway. They vet members based on what they do for a living and at least one existing member has to vouch for them. Call it bullshit all you want. Get back to me when you've actually put a few thousand rounds through your SCAR and your old TA01NSN or EOTech goes Tango Uniform. Oh, and remember those guys you see doing special secret things in undisclosed places for king and country ain't paying for their stuff when it breaks. They just turn it in to the armorer dudes for a new one. Unless you can get the same kinda deal you best do your homework and ask around to some folks like professional trainers, .mil folks who are issued the SCAR, or LE that shoot it a lot what a good reliable optic for the gun is. Vendors may or may not be good sources of info. Vendor specific sales guys are usually worthless peckerwoods who will say anything trying to sell their product. Vic and the other guys at TNVC are good to go. If they tell you not to put something on a specific gun you can take it to the bank there's a damn good reason why they're telling you that. Are any of those posters Team Members? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 3:17:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IM sent with resume. ETA* I have found the opposite to be true. The more someone toots their horn... The less they generally have to add to the conversation. Quote HistoryQuoted: IM sent with resume. ETA* I have found the opposite to be true. The more someone toots their horn... The less they generally have to add to the conversation. Quoted: Quoted: More "I saw this guy once, on another forum, which is so secret, I won't even name it" innuendo. You have no idea what my experience, training, or area of expertise is. Once again for the cheap seats.... Show me some proof, you can keep the keep second hand information. People that do have lots of experience normally talk about it to frame their point of view, and give weight to their opinion. Having a direct pipeline to experienced knowledgeable people about topics is pretty handy. Gives a lot more insight than "I'll believe it when I see it". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 6:15:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Look fella. I have seen literally hundreds of optics fail, on just about every weapons platform over the years. The majority of them being Eotechs and variable power scopes. Can any of those failures be attributed to the weapon platform itself? Maybe. More than likely though, and what happens to be my experience, is that mechanical instruments fail during use. Especially so during hard use.
You can keep trying to impress folks around here with stories about "that guy you know" or you can go out, and experience these issues for yourself so you may speak from personal experience and stop spreading internet rumor. Like I said before, show me one report from a reputable source of an optic failing due to being mounted on the 17 and I'll believe it. Until then.... It's another internet rumor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 9:08:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look fella. I have seen literally hundreds of optics fail, on just about every weapons platform over the years. The majority of them being Eotechs and variable power scopes. Can any of those failures be attributed to the weapon platform itself? Maybe. More than likely though, and what happens to be my experience, is that mechanical instruments fail during use. Especially so during hard use. You can keep trying to impress folks around here with stories about "that guy you know" or you can go out, and experience these issues for yourself so you may speak from personal experience and stop spreading internet rumor. Like I said before, show me one report from a reputable source of an optic failing due to being mounted on the 17 and I'll believe it. Until then.... It's another internet rumor. There are documents floating around from Crane that talk about this issue and what optics/devices can and can't be used on the platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 10:35:09 AM EDT
[#8]
Those same documents from Crane (From what I have seen posted in other threads) state that the issued RDS (Eotech) and the Elcan are the ones having issues on the 17. Now, even if this elusive Crane document exists, those same two optics have been taking a crap on the M4 for years. The failures with the laterally mounted battery models of the Eotech are well known, and have been documented long before the 17 was even released. I have personally seen numerous battery compartments pop off of the older Eotechs in rifle classes. So much so that they were intentionally avoided by the majority of the students through my classes.
Eotechs have come along way. The newer models (XPS, EXPS) of the Eotech has resolved these issues, but those changes were not initiated due to the 17 "Eating the old ones". Those changes were a long time coming. I have no experience with the Elcan hell, I have never even held one. But I have read on the interwebs that the initial units had teething problems, and not just on the 17. So when we sum up all the actual, reliable information available to us to base an opinion on regarding this matter, its still internet rhetoric. Can I destroy even the hardest of optics on any particular weapons system given enough abuse? I sure can. Is the SCAR 17s or Mk17 "Eating" optics? I think not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 10:52:52 AM EDT
[#9]
I would like to direct peoples attention to this video:
Now, we all know what type of weapon that is. It is scoped with a Luepold Mk4. I can guarantee you that that weapon system has a far greater forward and rearward recoil impulse than the 17. I haven't heard any horror stories of the 107 "Eating" the Leupold Mk4. Throw a BSA, old model Eotech, or any other cheap piece of shit scope on there though and you may have a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 11:08:47 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would like to direct peoples attention to this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioJ8s7BsFDINow, we all know what type of weapon that is. It is scoped with a Luepold Mk4. I can guarantee you that that weapon system has a far greater forward and rearward recoil impulse than the 17. I haven't heard any horror stories of the 107 "Eating" the Leupold Mk4. Throw a BSA, old model Eotech, or any other cheap piece of shit scope on there though and you may have a problem. So you can guarantee that it has a higher impulse than a SCAR? We're suppose to take you at your word without proof, when you completely discount everything that's being talked about here because of lack of hard data? Do you have any proof besides "you can see"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 11:13:33 AM EDT
[#11]
It's called "Physics". While the Barrett M82 and M107 utilize a very effective recoil mitigation system, as well as a very good brake, the energy from the round detonating cannot be "diminished", only the perceived or felt recoil to the shooter can. Even though the weapon doesn't kick as hard as you thought it might, all of that energy is being transferred internally, along the weapons structure, allowing the impulse to the shooter to be "slowed" down thus, lower perceived recoil. The energy of the round detonating is still being transferred, as a whole, to the weapon platforms structure. I have shot the M107, it recoils substantially more than my 17s.
If you can honestly state that you feel that the energy transfer (or recoil for that matter) from a .50 BMG round to a weapons frame (and to the scope) is less than a .308, then I don't know what else I can tell you. You are in a class by yourself. *ETA clarification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 11:15:49 AM EDT
[#12]
And coming from a guy that has done nothing in this thread but spread rumor and innuendo all the while espousing the merits of his relationships with high speed military guys while providing no substantial proof to back any of it up.... I'll take your jab as a compliment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 1:17:05 PM EDT
[#13]
I've fired 1,500 rounds of Privi through my SCAR 17 using an Aimpoint Comp M4S with no issues
I then switched to a NightForce and it's been trouble free for another two 1,000 round cases of Privi .308 ammo. I've fired over half of those with a Surefire 7.62 suppressor attached. The rifle has been shot dirty, and has been tossed around. 
This rifle has been run hard and had other individual shoot their own .308 ammo out of it also. No problems. No problems of losing zero, dots disappearing, batteries dying or LaRue locking levers coming undone and my optic flying away. I encourage individuals who have actually encountered first hand problems to post along with pictures documenting their issue and to contact FN. We haven't seen any of this. Quite frankly I don't think you're going to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 1:18:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 1:20:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my Spector dr 1.5-6 seems to handle it This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 1:33:14 PM EDT
[#16]
But RileyS, you must be mistaken. MadCap72 says it aint so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 4:11:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's called "Physics". While the Barrett M82 and M107 utilize a very effective recoil mitigation system, as well as a very good brake, the energy from the round detonating cannot be "diminished", only the perceived or felt recoil to the shooter can. Even though the weapon doesn't kick as hard as you thought it might, all of that energy is being transferred internally, along the weapons structure, allowing the impulse to the shooter to be "slowed" down thus, lower perceived recoil. The energy of the round detonating is still being transferred, as a whole, to the weapon platforms structure. I have shot the M107, it recoils substantially more than my 17s. If you can honestly state that you feel that the energy transfer (or recoil for that matter) from a .50 BMG round to a weapons frame (and to the scope) is less than a .308, then I don't know what else I can tell you. You are in a class by yourself. *ETA clarification. But once again it's not felt recoil, but Gs (and possibly forward movementi n the recoil system) that cause the phenomina. The rearward recoil of the M107 isn't going to cause the same stressors on the optic assembly as the the bolt return on the SCAR. Is that enough to cause optics to break? That's the debate. I used to work testing thermal optics and one thing that was a "lesson learned" by the engineers shortly before I started there was they could get scopes that worked on the M2 to break on the M4 due to recoil. I was first told about this phenominon by a test tech for another elctro-optics company. How the SCAR over time, especially on full-auto, could cause the receivers themselves to break and cause failures in optic assemblies. Maybe it's the full auto that's key. I can fire 360+ RPM with my finger, and that will not have the same effect as the 600+ RPM of a full auto SCAR-H. However, the first time I heard of this was from an optic company that was working to defeat the problem, not from a random person on the internet. I'm trying to see if he's willing to write up something about this, but he's in AFG right now, so he may not have the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 4:53:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Joe,
Your postulating about the cause of an issue that no one has yet proven to actually exist. G's are simply a scale by which we measure acceleration. I am stating that due to the much larger mass of the M107's BCG, and the larger detonation of the 50 cal round, wouldn't greater forces be placed ( harmonic and otherwise) on the weapons receiver and thus, the scope? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 5:15:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a training center next door whose SR-25s eat scopes like they're candy, and that forward recoil is likely the culprit. The baddest scope on the market won't live on a spring-piston air gun, for exactly that reason. I thought a .22 scope was built specifically for that slap recoil. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 5:21:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And coming from a guy that has done nothing in this thread but spread rumor and innuendo all the while espousing the merits of his relationships with high speed military guys while providing no substantial proof to back any of it up.... I'll take your jab as a compliment. Also, you're all over the map trying to explain what has already been discussed, the "why" which everyone has already talked about, the peak G loading, and the direction of the recoil during that peak G load. Your stament that the M107 has more recoil than than a -17 literally, does not matter. What matters is the peak G load and repetitions. "If you can honestly state that you feel that the energy transfer (or recoil for that matter) from a .50 BMG round to a weapons frame (and to the scope) is less than a .308, then I don't know what else I can tell you. You are in a class by yourself. " Energy transfer over time is the impulse. Do you know what the peak impulse is between the two? I don't, and I don't claim to. But find that out, and you can see if there is a coloration between that and if optics are fine or brake. (I.E. why airguns break scopes that are fine on real guns). "Your postulating about the cause of an issue that no one has yet proven to actually exist. G's are simply a scale by which we measure acceleration. I am stating that due to the much larger mass of the M107's BCG, and the larger detonation of the 50 cal round, wouldn't greater forces be placed ( harmonic and otherwise) on the weapons receiver and thus, the scope?" Once again, it's impulse force we're talking about. A .50 Cal round still has a chamber pressure that's near that of a 7.62x51 round (within a few thousand PSI) The mass of the BCG between the two is also scaled to the volume of the round... So why would it matter as much? You tried to impress me with your experience, while belittling mine. At least I have a working knowledge of high school physics. It seems that you're just throwing vocabulary words up and seeing what sticks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 5:58:47 PM EDT
[#21]
I have proof. Thousands of satisfied SCAR 17 owners who aren't bringing this horrible situation you describe to everyone's attention. It seems only you and a select few have the special friends who from the shadows, wish to enlighten us on this situation that you have nothing but heresay to back up. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't have to disprove your assertion, you made it, now prove it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 6:05:36 PM EDT
[#22]
How many of those thousands of owners have shot 500 rounds through their rifles? 1000 rounds? 5000 rounds?
Conveniently, safe queens rarely malfunction or break 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 6:29:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have proof. Thousands of satisfied SCAR 17 owners who aren't bringing this horrible situation you describe to everyone's attention. It seems only you and a select few have the special friends who from the shadows, wish to enlighten us on this situation that you have nothing but heresay to back up. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't have to disprove your assertion, you made it, now prove it. I don't really have to prove anything. There's either an issue or there is not. Based on what people are talking about, there is. In fact, I've never said there was a problem one way or another. I've only stated that I know people who have had problems, and posters here have shared write ups on their experience overseas where there were problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:22:00 PM EDT
[#24]
So which one of you is going to stand on your soapbox and tell all of SOCOM they dont know what the fuck they are talking about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:34:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Has SOCOM released a statement advising that the Mk17 is eating optics? I would like to see it if they have. All I have seen in this thread is second hand information.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:49:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In fact, I've never said there was a problem one way or another. I've only stated that I know people who have had problems, and posters here have shared write ups on their experience overseas where there were problems. A friend had an ACOG go bad in less than 500 rounds on his SCAR H. When he contacted Trijicon they, proactively asked him if it occurred on a SCAR17. The Aimpoint rep he deals with told him that they only recommend the M4 for SCAR H because it is the most rugged. Personal Experience. I had the locking mechanisms on Larue mounts vibrate loose under recoil. Even after tightening the QD mounts this happened, the arms no longer worked their way loose but the locking mechanisms did. The zero on my Aimpoint M4 has shifted as much as 3" at 50 yards where the Irons have remained zeroed. Sometimes the reticle looks like a clear dot, but after shooting it looks like a slash. Another friend has a Leupold MKIV on his SCAR H and an Aimpoint M4 and has had no issues and he has shot his gun a bit more than either of us. My friends and I are all competitive action shooters and tend to use our guns harder than the average civilian gun owner. I'm not anti-SCAR, but if these issues are happening it is worth discussing them so they can be addressed. The posts here are irritating because its clear to some people the gun they own is an extension of their ego. Discounting any personal experiences isn't helpful. Posting round counts and optics used is valuable and we should share that info. The SCAR-H is the most reliable .308 I have owned, its reasonably accurate and lightweight. i'm not anti-SCAR. SCAR H Posts on my Blog |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 9:27:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has SOCOM released a statement advising that the Mk17 is eating optics? I would like to see it if they have. All I have seen in this thread is second hand information. You think you or anyone else on the outside would get to see it if they had? No one outside of SOCOM is using them so why create a spectacle if it can be fixed or avoided? Besides, if an ALTRAC was the deciding point on whether or not there is a problem with a piece of gear, 552's would still be gucci. Word of mouth travels fast, but when the words come from a lot of individuals who know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to boom sticks, it carries a lot more weight than that of recreational shooters. Anecdotal evidence isn't anecdote when it forms a pattern. Not so unlike your apples to oranges comparisons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 9:33:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
So which one of you is going to stand on your soapbox and tell all of SOCOM they dont know what the fuck they are talking about? I've read through six pages of this thread and haven't seen SOCOM saying anything? I apologize but I'm not in the same high speed unit as you so you'll have to show me what your buddies are talking about. Why don't you show us where SOCOM has said this and then we can get our soapboxes out? Quoted:
The zero on my Aimpoint M4 has shifted as much as 3" at 50 yards where the Irons have remained zeroed. Sometimes the reticle looks like a clear dot, but after shooting it looks like a slash. I had the locking mechanisms on Larue mounts vibrate loose under recoil. Even after tightening the QD mounts this happened, the arms no longer worked their way loose but the locking mechanisms did. That's odd that your Aimpoint shifted when mine and your friend's was okay. Contact FN and post their response from them in this thread. Also contact Aimpoint and LaRue. Both companies will stand behind their product and I am genuinely curious as to what they have to say. The Aimpoint M4 is the most rugged optic Aimpoint has produced. In this YouTube video, an Aimpoint rep actually says they have taped a flashbang to the optic and it was still fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc4ovNpdJYY Everyone else in this thread has been posting hearsay and second-hand, undocumented accounts. Like I said, let's see some real evidence like what Sinistral has posted and get to the bottom of this. Passing around rumors and gossip as fact isn't constructive and it's not helpful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 9:43:46 PM EDT
[#29]
I seem to be finding lots of evidence supporting the SCAR 17s are eating optics. Not to mention many other problems.
Guys on SOCNET seem a bit irritated with the SCAR and lack of support they are getting from FN on resolving these issues or replacement parts. It sounds like the SCAR is a dieing breed and is slowly fading out of the US military, entirely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 9:47:40 PM EDT
[#30]
I'm going to mess around with it some more to determine if its the sight itself or if the optic moved on the rails under recoil. I always push optics all the way to the back of the rail slot then tension it down. When I removed the Aimpoint with Bobro mount, the locking mechanism was freezed closed, I had to pop it open with a screw driver; like it made itself tighter under recoil.
If the forward recoil impulse is the problem, and the mount is shifting in the slot under recoil, maybe I should push the optic forward then clamp it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 10:05:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to mess around with it some more to determine if its the sight itself or if the optic moved on the rails under recoil. I always push optics all the way to the back of the rail slot then tension it down. When I removed the Aimpoint with Bobro mount, the locking mechanism was freezed closed, I had to pop it open with a screw driver; like it made itself tighter under recoil. If the forward recoil impulse is the problem, and the mount is shifting in the slot under recoil, maybe I should push the optic forward then clamp it down. if by back of the slot, you mean the slot side closest to the shooter's face, you're doing it in the reverse of every rifle I've ever seen set up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 10:10:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to mess around with it some more to determine if its the sight itself or if the optic moved on the rails under recoil. I always push optics all the way to the back of the rail slot then tension it down. When I removed the Aimpoint with Bobro mount, the locking mechanism was freezed closed, I had to pop it open with a screw driver; like it made itself tighter under recoil. If the forward recoil impulse is the problem, and the mount is shifting in the slot under recoil, maybe I should push the optic forward then clamp it down. Sinistral, There will always be a little bit of play between the rail itself and the mount. I've always pushed the optic and mount forward, towards the muzzle, and then clamped the lever down. With that in mind, I don't think this was the cause of your loss of zero and it sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the dot itself going bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 10:13:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Bottom line, until someone straps an accelerometer to a few, and graphs the results and compares them to other guns that there is no reported problems on, there's nothing to go on besides experiences.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2013 1:03:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Thread got killed faster than a NC STAR sight on a SCAR-17.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 4:13:35 AM EDT
[#35]
what height rings would ya's use for the scar 17 and a nightforce 2.5-10x24 ?
i have a Specter DR now with absolutely no issues. M1a / M14 recoil hard and ive never heard they ruin optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 4:25:27 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what height rings would ya's use for the scar 17 and a nightforce 2.5-10x24 ? i have a Specter DR now with absolutely no issues. M1a / M14 recoil hard and ive never heard they ruin optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 10:42:08 AM EDT
[#37]
after years of shooting the M14, my shoulder can tell you they recoil pretty hard.
how would you measure such ? i have a 17, have zero issues with the Specter DR. as for cheap junk optics, i dunno... i dont use that stuff on anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
do you know if they have a higher peak during their recoil impulse? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
what height rings would ya's use for the scar 17 and a nightforce 2.5-10x24 ? i have a Specter DR now with absolutely no issues. M1a / M14 recoil hard and ive never heard they ruin optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 10:48:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
after years of shooting the M14, my shoulder can tell you they recoil pretty hard. how would you measure such ? i have a 17, have zero issues with the Specter DR. as for cheap junk optics, i dunno... i dont use that stuff on anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
after years of shooting the M14, my shoulder can tell you they recoil pretty hard. how would you measure such ? i have a 17, have zero issues with the Specter DR. as for cheap junk optics, i dunno... i dont use that stuff on anything. Quoted:
Quoted:
what height rings would ya's use for the scar 17 and a nightforce 2.5-10x24 ? i have a Specter DR now with absolutely no issues. M1a / M14 recoil hard and ive never heard they ruin optics. My M1A has irons on it and the only scoped guns I have fired are M39s but ten seconds of google M14 Forums "does the M14 destroy scopes" and The problem with M14 recoil |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 11:33:25 AM EDT
[#39]
just wondering...
if any of this is true i would think a FAL would be even worse the bolts are massive on those things although the impulse is totally different and the frame isn't as light as a Scar H ] 
yet i don't see or haven't heard anything that would indicate this http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_7/298871_FAL_with_Optics_Pic_Thread.html eotechs, acogs, aimpoints, etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 3:06:20 PM EDT
[#40]
i been shooting M14 with all kinds of optics for years, never an issue.... the Scar , no issue... thats all i can report boys.
what height rings should i use with a nightforce 2.5-10x24 ? if your afraid of these issues, dont buy these guns.... what else can be offered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 7:48:22 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: after years of shooting the M14, my shoulder can tell you they recoil pretty hard. how would you measure such ? A high amount of acceleration, over a very short time may feel like less recoil than a medium amount of acceleration over a medium amount of time. That's when it seems like people are getting hung up on in the thread. A rifle could have an INSANE amount of recoil, but if it's only for a microsecond, then tapers off, all you might feel is the little be left over and think "wow this rifle has great recoil". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 8:25:37 PM EDT
[#42]
I volunteer to help out.
If anyone wants to send my broke ass a Scar, I will feed it and keep it clean. Also, I have a wide variety of cheap to pretty darn good optics to try out on it. Any takers?
Ya'll fix this before I can afford one. I'll give you 3ish years. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 2:27:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Any further updates on SCAR17S's destroying optics?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2013 2:47:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any further updates on SCAR17S's destroying optics? Had a tasty little eotech for breakfast this morning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 12:51:18 AM EDT
[#45]
I got a seriously good laugh out of that avatar and tagline Lawyerup, props
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2013 9:24:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got a seriously good laugh out of that avatar and tagline Lawyerup, props Thanks, but I can't take credit. All provided by fellow arfcommers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2013 3:58:07 PM EDT
[#47]
I just called Trijicon Customer Service, because I plan on equipping my SCARs with TA11's.
The conversation went like this: ME: I plan on buying ACOG's for my SCAR-17's but have read on several websites that the 17 is eating optics including the ACOG. Does Trijicon recommend a model for the SCAR-17? TRIJICON: This is the FIRST I've heard about this, and people are VERY QUICK to let us know when they're not happy with our products (his emphasis). I recommend two models of the TA11 all the time because FN provided M80 ballistic data for them. You just pick the reticle you like. ME: Well, before I invest many more thousands of dollars in my SCAR rifles I want to make sure they isn't a known problem. TRIJICON: I'm not trolling the internet for this, but I do answer the CS questions all day and haven't heard a single problem. ME: What do you recommend for a SCAR-17 that will see 2000 rounds a year minimum and 5000rds a year maximum? TRIJICON: TA11H or J They're awesome and designed for the SCAR-17. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2013 12:42:54 AM EDT
[#48]
6 entire pages of mental masturbation without ejaculation, just this>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2013 12:51:24 AM EDT
[#49]
I don't want to be a party pooper or anything, but after 6 pages of reading, I haven't seen any proof that shows that these are eating optics. All I have read are things along the lines of; well, this guy in this really special operations Army SEAL unit that shoot's his SCAR17S while conducting GS14 Top Secret inflight missile repair, says that this thing is eating the FVCK!NG finish off his optics AND causing the reticule to cross itself. Can you believe this shit!
I'm just kidding of course. This thread was getting a bit dry. I'd like to see some hard data other that speculation. Mt 17S is fucking fantastic. Now, I only have an Aimpoint Pro on it, but no complaints here.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2013 3:01:35 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just called Trijicon Customer Service, because I plan on equipping my SCARs with TA11's. The conversation went like this: ME: I plan on buying ACOG's for my SCAR-17's but have read on several websites that the 17 is eating optics including the ACOG. Does Trijicon recommend a model for the SCAR-17? TRIJICON: This is the FIRST I've heard about this, and people are VERY QUICK to let us know when they're not happy with our products (his emphasis). I recommend two models of the TA11 all the time because FN provided M80 ballistic data for them. You just pick the reticle you like. ME: Well, before I invest many more thousands of dollars in my SCAR rifles I want to make sure they isn't a known problem. TRIJICON: I'm not trolling the internet for this, but I do answer the CS questions all day and haven't heard a single problem. ME: What do you recommend for a SCAR-17 that will see 2000 rounds a year minimum and 5000rds a year maximum? TRIJICON: TA11H or J They're awesome and designed for the SCAR-17. You Sir are my hero - thanks for verifying that. I'm going to call Vortex tomorrow and ask them the same questions about their Viper PST line. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
