Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 4/1/2014 1:34:24 PM EDT
Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32 FFP

Would you put this on a scar17s?

Pros? Cons?

All help with this is appreciated.
Link Posted: 4/1/2014 4:39:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Absolutely. I'm going to be replacing my Leupold with one.
Link Posted: 4/2/2014 10:04:46 AM EDT
[#2]
I have the 1x4x24 PST on my SCAR 17 and a Vortex 6.5x20 Viper that I interchange from time to time.  Great scopes but I cannot speak for the 10x PST specifically.  But I would suggest getting a good QD scope mount for your SCAR I use LaRue LT104 and use it on my AR's SCAR M1a Remington M700, Winchester M70 rifles.  Develop a DOPE for the scope for each rifle so you have 1 good scope for all your rifles instead of 5 ok scopes.

ETA stock up on CR2032 batteries because if you leave the IR on the scope it will drain the batteries and they only last about 4-6 hours on normal day modes.
Link Posted: 4/2/2014 12:58:49 PM EDT
[#3]
There is quite a bit of internet chatter about the Heavy damaging optics.  In fact, there's a 9 page thread on here wherein someone claims a Heavy even killed his ACOG (which are generally considered "bombproof").

I'd read up on this a little before buying a scope.

As for me:  I've used ACOG (TA11 and TA31) as well as a USO 1-4 on my Light and Heavy.  I'd recommend the USO.
Link Posted: 4/2/2014 7:13:15 PM EDT
[#4]
I use a Nikon M-308 4-16x scope. Seems to be holding up quite well to the SCAR 17. I have about 500 rds on the scope now.
Link Posted: 4/3/2014 8:17:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There is quite a bit of internet chatter about the Heavy damaging optics.  In fact, there's a 9 page thread on here wherein someone claims a Heavy even killed his ACOG (which are generally considered "bombproof").

I'd read up on this a little before buying a scope.

As for me:  I've used ACOG (TA11 and TA31) as well as a USO 1-4 on my Light and Heavy.  I'd recommend the USO.
View Quote


This is total myth my friends and myself have been running SCAR 17s for awhile now and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary debunks your claim.  Yes optics can fail they fail all the time was it because of a SCAR doubtful was it because of factory defect or inferior quality of product.  Try not to use conjecture and stay more objective and no ACOG's are not considered bombproof they are considered reliable and rugged but they have failure points and failures in general but QA catches most as Trijicon has a great track record with quality products.  Plus to assume it is the optic is nothing more than speculative conjecture because other factors should be consider.  Quality of rings/mount, right size, installed properly (yes their is a right and wrong way to install a scope it is not rocket science), to loose of optic or to tight, how is the rifle/optic taken care of.

Now that rant is over back to OP's topic.
Link Posted: 4/3/2014 2:28:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


This is total myth my friends and myself have been running SCAR 17s for awhile now and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary debunks your claim.  Yes optics can fail they fail all the time was it because of a SCAR doubtful was it because of factory defect or inferior quality of product.  Try not to use conjecture and stay more objective and no ACOG's are not considered bombproof they are considered reliable and rugged but they have failure points and failures in general but QA catches most as Trijicon has a great track record with quality products.  Plus to assume it is the optic is nothing more than speculative conjecture because other factors should be consider.  Quality of rings/mount, right size, installed properly (yes their is a right and wrong way to install a scope it is not rocket science), to loose of optic or to tight, how is the rifle/optic taken care of.

Now that rant is over back to OP's topic.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is quite a bit of internet chatter about the Heavy damaging optics.  In fact, there's a 9 page thread on here wherein someone claims a Heavy even killed his ACOG (which are generally considered "bombproof").

I'd read up on this a little before buying a scope.

As for me:  I've used ACOG (TA11 and TA31) as well as a USO 1-4 on my Light and Heavy.  I'd recommend the USO.


This is total myth my friends and myself have been running SCAR 17s for awhile now and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary debunks your claim.  Yes optics can fail they fail all the time was it because of a SCAR doubtful was it because of factory defect or inferior quality of product.  Try not to use conjecture and stay more objective and no ACOG's are not considered bombproof they are considered reliable and rugged but they have failure points and failures in general but QA catches most as Trijicon has a great track record with quality products.  Plus to assume it is the optic is nothing more than speculative conjecture because other factors should be consider.  Quality of rings/mount, right size, installed properly (yes their is a right and wrong way to install a scope it is not rocket science), to loose of optic or to tight, how is the rifle/optic taken care of.

Now that rant is over back to OP's topic.


Fanboyism aside, I guess you've spent hundreds of hours scouring the information in an effort to claim the often stated issue a "total" myth? If you want to spend time as Internet Cop perhaps you should gripe when people make absolute statements like yours.  Anyway, I advised the OP to research the issue before plunking down any of his hard-earned cash on an optic.  This, the objective of my post, is sage advice especially for something as expensive as an optic.

As for the "total myth"...

There are pictures of BarryinIN's TR24 that literally came apart on M4Carbine.net and FNForums.  Having personally put thousands of rounds through ARs with a TR24 without so much as a loss of zero I'll have to say his was just a faulty unit.  

"Update my SCAR 17's Trijicon TR24.
It broke. This is a pretty popular scope and mine is the first one I've heard of breaking. Of course it happened to me.

Sunday, I was shooting a stage at 275 yards in a 3-gun match. The image kept becoming slightly blurred, then clearing up again on the next shot. I thought it was just crud that had got in my eye from the dusty range.
I had a solid zero but had a hard time whacking the eight inch plates, but I attributed that to simply crappy shooting even though I had rang them easily three weeks ago.
They didn't use any if the longer ranges, and they were too short to see any problems.

Yesterday I'm at my club shooting it at 100 yards. Groups were two shots here, three there. Also, the focus was definitely whacked. I'd have to refocus after almost every shot, and sometimes I couldn't get it to focus. Then maybe after a shot, it would be focused fine. This all happened within maybe ten rounds.

Then I fired a shot and suddenly the top quarter of the field of view was blacked out. Uh-oh, in recognize this from another brand of scope that failed in the past. Sure enough, give it a little shake and something moved inside. A ring of some sort is on the loose in there."


See the pictures here:

http://fnforum.net/forums/scar-accessories-scopes-mods/23010-optics-your-scar-16-17-a-12.html

This is just one "documented" case of an otherwise well respected optic dying on a Scar-17.

You are now permitted to rant, rave and foam at the mouth since I called your rant out as a juvenile response borne out of fanboyism.

FTR: I own Scars and shoot them regularly.  I've not personally experienced an optic failure, but I have witnessed the wear a Scar-17 can inflict on its top rail if an optic is not "pushed to the front" of the notch.

As I advised: do your own research and avoid listening to "total" statements on the Errornet.

NINJA ETA:
I'll let "total myth" have the last word, because my job isn't Internet Cop (I work for a living).


Link Posted: 4/3/2014 5:49:50 PM EDT
[#7]
I had a vortex 4-16 FFP on 17 for a while before swapping it out for a leupold mk6. For about $800 on the vortex, you get a lot of features typically associated with scopes that cost more money. I liked mine, but had my heart set in the mk6. What was said about the battery life is true, and IIRC, you'll have to jack the brightness setting to see the reticle in daylight conditions.

As for the '17's eat optics', maybe it happens. I've put several thousand rounds through mine, maybe half of which were shot through a suppressor), and haven't had any issues with damage or loss of zero. I shoot mostly 168 gr match ammo, for reference. I'm just a guy on the Internet, and my anecdote isn't any more or less valuable than anyone else's (probably less, if I had to choose lol).
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 4:43:53 AM EDT
[#8]
I'm running a Nightforce 2.5-10x32 in a Bobro mount. GDi is another great mount.

Nightforce is arguable the most durable scope.

You might as well get a 40 or 42mm obj if you aren't using the rear sight.   A 32mm will sit flush against the rail in .885 rings.
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 5:26:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Great optic. I run a Vortex Razor HD 1-4 on mine. Has held up well.
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 6:30:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Fanboyism aside, I guess you've spent hundreds of hours scouring the information in an effort to claim the often stated issue a "total" myth? If you want to spend time as Internet Cop perhaps you should gripe when people make absolute statements like yours.  Anyway, I advised the OP to research the issue before plunking down any of his hard-earned cash on an optic.  This, the objective of my post, is sage advice especially for something as expensive as an optic.

As for the "total myth"...

There are pictures of BarryinIN's TR24 that literally came apart on M4Carbine.net and FNForums.  Having personally put thousands of rounds through ARs with a TR24 without so much as a loss of zero I'll have to say his was just a faulty unit.  

"Update my SCAR 17's Trijicon TR24.
It broke. This is a pretty popular scope and mine is the first one I've heard of breaking. Of course it happened to me.

Sunday, I was shooting a stage at 275 yards in a 3-gun match. The image kept becoming slightly blurred, then clearing up again on the next shot. I thought it was just crud that had got in my eye from the dusty range.
I had a solid zero but had a hard time whacking the eight inch plates, but I attributed that to simply crappy shooting even though I had rang them easily three weeks ago.
They didn't use any if the longer ranges, and they were too short to see any problems.

Yesterday I'm at my club shooting it at 100 yards. Groups were two shots here, three there. Also, the focus was definitely whacked. I'd have to refocus after almost every shot, and sometimes I couldn't get it to focus. Then maybe after a shot, it would be focused fine. This all happened within maybe ten rounds.

Then I fired a shot and suddenly the top quarter of the field of view was blacked out. Uh-oh, in recognize this from another brand of scope that failed in the past. Sure enough, give it a little shake and something moved inside. A ring of some sort is on the loose in there."


See the pictures here:

http://fnforum.net/forums/scar-accessories-scopes-mods/23010-optics-your-scar-16-17-a-12.html

This is just one "documented" case of an otherwise well respected optic dying on a Scar-17.

You are now permitted to rant, rave and foam at the mouth since I called your rant out as a juvenile response borne out of fanboyism.

FTR: I own Scars and shoot them regularly.  I've not personally experienced an optic failure, but I have witnessed the wear a Scar-17 can inflict on its top rail if an optic is not "pushed to the front" of the notch.

As I advised: do your own research and avoid listening to "total" statements on the Errornet.

NINJA ETA:
I'll let "total myth" have the last word, because my job isn't Internet Cop (I work for a living).


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is quite a bit of internet chatter about the Heavy damaging optics.  In fact, there's a 9 page thread on here wherein someone claims a Heavy even killed his ACOG (which are generally considered "bombproof").

I'd read up on this a little before buying a scope.

As for me:  I've used ACOG (TA11 and TA31) as well as a USO 1-4 on my Light and Heavy.  I'd recommend the USO.


This is total myth my friends and myself have been running SCAR 17s for awhile now and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary debunks your claim.  Yes optics can fail they fail all the time was it because of a SCAR doubtful was it because of factory defect or inferior quality of product.  Try not to use conjecture and stay more objective and no ACOG's are not considered bombproof they are considered reliable and rugged but they have failure points and failures in general but QA catches most as Trijicon has a great track record with quality products.  Plus to assume it is the optic is nothing more than speculative conjecture because other factors should be consider.  Quality of rings/mount, right size, installed properly (yes their is a right and wrong way to install a scope it is not rocket science), to loose of optic or to tight, how is the rifle/optic taken care of.

Now that rant is over back to OP's topic.


Fanboyism aside, I guess you've spent hundreds of hours scouring the information in an effort to claim the often stated issue a "total" myth? If you want to spend time as Internet Cop perhaps you should gripe when people make absolute statements like yours.  Anyway, I advised the OP to research the issue before plunking down any of his hard-earned cash on an optic.  This, the objective of my post, is sage advice especially for something as expensive as an optic.

As for the "total myth"...

There are pictures of BarryinIN's TR24 that literally came apart on M4Carbine.net and FNForums.  Having personally put thousands of rounds through ARs with a TR24 without so much as a loss of zero I'll have to say his was just a faulty unit.  

"Update my SCAR 17's Trijicon TR24.
It broke. This is a pretty popular scope and mine is the first one I've heard of breaking. Of course it happened to me.

Sunday, I was shooting a stage at 275 yards in a 3-gun match. The image kept becoming slightly blurred, then clearing up again on the next shot. I thought it was just crud that had got in my eye from the dusty range.
I had a solid zero but had a hard time whacking the eight inch plates, but I attributed that to simply crappy shooting even though I had rang them easily three weeks ago.
They didn't use any if the longer ranges, and they were too short to see any problems.

Yesterday I'm at my club shooting it at 100 yards. Groups were two shots here, three there. Also, the focus was definitely whacked. I'd have to refocus after almost every shot, and sometimes I couldn't get it to focus. Then maybe after a shot, it would be focused fine. This all happened within maybe ten rounds.

Then I fired a shot and suddenly the top quarter of the field of view was blacked out. Uh-oh, in recognize this from another brand of scope that failed in the past. Sure enough, give it a little shake and something moved inside. A ring of some sort is on the loose in there."


See the pictures here:

http://fnforum.net/forums/scar-accessories-scopes-mods/23010-optics-your-scar-16-17-a-12.html

This is just one "documented" case of an otherwise well respected optic dying on a Scar-17.

You are now permitted to rant, rave and foam at the mouth since I called your rant out as a juvenile response borne out of fanboyism.

FTR: I own Scars and shoot them regularly.  I've not personally experienced an optic failure, but I have witnessed the wear a Scar-17 can inflict on its top rail if an optic is not "pushed to the front" of the notch.

As I advised: do your own research and avoid listening to "total" statements on the Errornet.

NINJA ETA:
I'll let "total myth" have the last word, because my job isn't Internet Cop (I work for a living).




One documented cause and you are ready to say optics failure is because of the SCAR because the optic was on a SCAR.  Had it been on an M1a, FAL, HK91 would it be because it was on the rifle or because the optic was doomed to failure because of factory defect.  Do you know for a fact that the sight was well taken care of did you witness this and find conclusive proof that the sight failure is attributed to the SCAR or would this have happened on another rifle.  Ok you have a ACOG that has run great on your AR good for you I am glad but what if you had his sight and he had yours.  Can you say the sight would not have failed on your rifle and your sight would still be just doing its thing on his rifle or vise versa.  You have shown nothing more than that you cannot read OP's request for info on optics, resorted to name calling, and brought no evidence other than purely circumstantial "ONE" documented case.  With the thousands of SCAR's out in the civilian and military if this was a real problem you would see more optics failing on top of that FNH taking lots of heat over this.    

So honestly take your ninja, fanboy, internet cop, troll comments elsewhere because it is not helpful to the topic.

ETA Back to op's topic
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 8:20:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


One documented cause and you are ready to say optics failure is because of the SCAR because the optic was on a SCAR.  Had it been on an M1a, FAL, HK91 would it be because it was on the rifle or because the optic was doomed to failure because of factory defect.  Do you know for a fact that the sight was well taken care of did you witness this and find conclusive proof that the sight failure is attributed to the SCAR or would this have happened on another rifle.  Ok you have a ACOG that has run great on your AR good for you I am glad but what if you had his sight and he had yours.  Can you say the sight would not have failed on your rifle and your sight would still be just doing its thing on his rifle or vise versa.  You have shown nothing more than that you cannot read OP's request for info on optics, resorted to name calling, and brought no evidence other than purely circumstantial "ONE" documented case.  With the thousands of SCAR's out in the civilian and military if this was a real problem you would see more optics failing on top of that FNH taking lots of heat over this.    

So honestly take your ninja, fanboy, internet cop, troll comments elsewhere because it is not helpful to the topic.

ETA Back to op's topic
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is quite a bit of internet chatter about the Heavy damaging optics.  In fact, there's a 9 page thread on here wherein someone claims a Heavy even killed his ACOG (which are generally considered "bombproof").

I'd read up on this a little before buying a scope.

As for me:  I've used ACOG (TA11 and TA31) as well as a USO 1-4 on my Light and Heavy.  I'd recommend the USO.


This is total myth my friends and myself have been running SCAR 17s for awhile now and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary debunks your claim.  Yes optics can fail they fail all the time was it because of a SCAR doubtful was it because of factory defect or inferior quality of product.  Try not to use conjecture and stay more objective and no ACOG's are not considered bombproof they are considered reliable and rugged but they have failure points and failures in general but QA catches most as Trijicon has a great track record with quality products.  Plus to assume it is the optic is nothing more than speculative conjecture because other factors should be consider.  Quality of rings/mount, right size, installed properly (yes their is a right and wrong way to install a scope it is not rocket science), to loose of optic or to tight, how is the rifle/optic taken care of.

Now that rant is over back to OP's topic.


Fanboyism aside, I guess you've spent hundreds of hours scouring the information in an effort to claim the often stated issue a "total" myth? If you want to spend time as Internet Cop perhaps you should gripe when people make absolute statements like yours.  Anyway, I advised the OP to research the issue before plunking down any of his hard-earned cash on an optic.  This, the objective of my post, is sage advice especially for something as expensive as an optic.

As for the "total myth"...

There are pictures of BarryinIN's TR24 that literally came apart on M4Carbine.net and FNForums.  Having personally put thousands of rounds through ARs with a TR24 without so much as a loss of zero I'll have to say his was just a faulty unit.  

"Update my SCAR 17's Trijicon TR24.
It broke. This is a pretty popular scope and mine is the first one I've heard of breaking. Of course it happened to me.

Sunday, I was shooting a stage at 275 yards in a 3-gun match. The image kept becoming slightly blurred, then clearing up again on the next shot. I thought it was just crud that had got in my eye from the dusty range.
I had a solid zero but had a hard time whacking the eight inch plates, but I attributed that to simply crappy shooting even though I had rang them easily three weeks ago.
They didn't use any if the longer ranges, and they were too short to see any problems.

Yesterday I'm at my club shooting it at 100 yards. Groups were two shots here, three there. Also, the focus was definitely whacked. I'd have to refocus after almost every shot, and sometimes I couldn't get it to focus. Then maybe after a shot, it would be focused fine. This all happened within maybe ten rounds.

Then I fired a shot and suddenly the top quarter of the field of view was blacked out. Uh-oh, in recognize this from another brand of scope that failed in the past. Sure enough, give it a little shake and something moved inside. A ring of some sort is on the loose in there."


See the pictures here:

http://fnforum.net/forums/scar-accessories-scopes-mods/23010-optics-your-scar-16-17-a-12.html

This is just one "documented" case of an otherwise well respected optic dying on a Scar-17.

You are now permitted to rant, rave and foam at the mouth since I called your rant out as a juvenile response borne out of fanboyism.

FTR: I own Scars and shoot them regularly.  I've not personally experienced an optic failure, but I have witnessed the wear a Scar-17 can inflict on its top rail if an optic is not "pushed to the front" of the notch.

As I advised: do your own research and avoid listening to "total" statements on the Errornet.

NINJA ETA:
I'll let "total myth" have the last word, because my job isn't Internet Cop (I work for a living).




One documented cause and you are ready to say optics failure is because of the SCAR because the optic was on a SCAR.  Had it been on an M1a, FAL, HK91 would it be because it was on the rifle or because the optic was doomed to failure because of factory defect.  Do you know for a fact that the sight was well taken care of did you witness this and find conclusive proof that the sight failure is attributed to the SCAR or would this have happened on another rifle.  Ok you have a ACOG that has run great on your AR good for you I am glad but what if you had his sight and he had yours.  Can you say the sight would not have failed on your rifle and your sight would still be just doing its thing on his rifle or vise versa.  You have shown nothing more than that you cannot read OP's request for info on optics, resorted to name calling, and brought no evidence other than purely circumstantial "ONE" documented case.  With the thousands of SCAR's out in the civilian and military if this was a real problem you would see more optics failing on top of that FNH taking lots of heat over this.    

So honestly take your ninja, fanboy, internet cop, troll comments elsewhere because it is not helpful to the topic.

ETA Back to op's topic




Why don't you read the other thread. It gets good towArds the end.
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 9:03:12 AM EDT
[#12]
I have a Vortex HD2 1-6 on my Scar 17s. I like it but it makes my Heavy even Heavier. It's a great all round optic, which I have not yet shot since I got it last year.

Just haven't got around to it, with so many other guns to shoot.

Right now I'm still playing with assorted new handguns and ARs and my old machine guns before getting to my Scar 17s.

As to the topic of the damaging optics: I don't doubt it can happen, the bolt/carrier group in the 17 is heavier than any other lightweight "modern sporting rifle" out there.

So it might break an optic. So what? Any good optic will be fixed or replaced by the manufacturer. I don't sweat it.
Link Posted: 4/4/2014 10:45:32 AM EDT
[#13]
I’ve had one on my SCAR 17s since March of 2013 and love it and I believe the SCAR 17s really shines as a DMR type rifle with a Geissele trigger and that optic.  The lower end of the power spectrum is low enough to be useful for quick shots with the high end allowing you to see in detail at 100+ yards.  

As to the scope in general, it has everything I could want including illumination; the price point is simply a bonus.  I guess the largest complement I can give the scope is that I plan to buy another one for a SPR build I’m doing next year.  Because after once again looking at all the options I simply cannot find another optic anywhere near the same price range with the same feature set I want in a scope for a medium range semi-auto rifle.
Link Posted: 4/6/2014 3:53:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Well guys thanks.

I picked one up. Got here yesterday.

Put it in a LaRue LT104 and it looks good on the 17.

Now to find the time to get out there and try it out.
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 11:27:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well guys thanks.

I picked one up. Got here yesterday.

Put it in a LaRue LT104 and it looks good on the 17.

Now to find the time to get out there and try it out.
View Quote


Good choice on mount.  Post pics of the rifle.
Link Posted: 4/11/2014 12:09:02 AM EDT
[#16]
Consider this for a moment. There is no way this semi auto kicks harder than a bolt gun and the forward thrust from the bolt closing would not amt to enough to damage scope either. Now a magnum springer pellet rifle yea maybe seen they destroy rifle scopes one of mine included.  These things are tested for larger weapons than 308s and not bustin on you GaryT1776 either buddy I just hate rumors without facts with a passion. Who ever started it on the other post you read. is who I'm talkin about. Oh I just got the SCAR 17S this is why I'm reading this post
Link Posted: 4/11/2014 4:33:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I have a Vortex HD2 1-6 on my Scar 17s. I like it but it makes my Heavy even Heavier. It's a great all round optic, which I have not yet shot since I got it last year.

Just haven't got around to it, with so many other guns to shoot.

Right now I'm still playing with assorted new handguns and ARs and my old machine guns before getting to my Scar 17s.

As to the topic of the damaging optics: I don't doubt it can happen, the bolt/carrier group in the 17 is heavier than any other lightweight "modern sporting rifle" out there.

So it might break an optic. So what? Any good optic will be fixed or replaced by the manufacturer. I don't sweat it.
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/faldoc/FNH%20firearms/IMG_2620_zps9f18ac4c.jpg
View Quote


I just ordered one myself. After a week of researching, The Vortex seems to be the best for the money.  Our local fun store had one that I looked through.  Illumination intensity is impressive. Glass quality is amazing given the price.

I've broken many optics including a Trijicon TA31 and an Eotech 512 3 or 4 times.  Vortex's warranty appeals to me of that reason.  I don't doubt the 17s eats optics after having all 4 baseplate screws back out of my Aimpoint Micro under recoil.  It also seems to hate Larue ACOG mounts, having managed to loosen one of those up as well.


Link Posted: 4/15/2014 1:25:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Consider this for a moment. There is no way this semi auto kicks harder than a bolt gun and the forward thrust from the bolt closing would not amt to enough to damage scope either. Now a magnum springer pellet rifle yea maybe seen they destroy rifle scopes one of mine included.  These things are tested for larger weapons than 308s and not bustin on you GaryT1776 either buddy I just hate rumors without facts with a passion. Who ever started it on the other post you read. is who I'm talkin about. Oh I just got the SCAR 17S this is why I'm reading this post
View Quote


Your post is lacking facts.

Have you read the other thread?

Optics and accessories had to be redesigned.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top