User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 6:59:45 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 9:24:52 AM EDT
[#2]
The correct answer is ACOG/Elcan (I'm a huge fan of the TA11 on mine personally, though I've always preferred ACOGs). Honorable mention depending on preference would be your LPV of choice.
The real answer is a sturdy scope in whatever zoom range you'll primarily be shooting at. It's a flexible rifle, hence most answers will be flexible optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 10:32:58 AM EDT
[#3]
For shorter distances I use the Vortex Razor II 1-6. For longer distances I use a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 10:57:04 AM EDT
[#4]
TA11-E. I have both red chevron and green crosshair. Green cross hair has the edge for precision, red chevron for speed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 11:09:17 AM EDT
[#5]
I would go with the Vortex Razor 1-6 or a TA11 ACOG ..... I have personally ran both on my 17s and both are fantastic optics
The Razor will push you over your budget especially after getting a good mount which is a must on the scar Also the Razor is a pig compared to the ACOG ... So if weight is a big factor to you get the ACOG |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:24:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would go with the Vortex Razor 1-6 or a TA11 ACOG ..... I have personally ran both on my 17s and both are fantastic optics The Razor will push you over your budget especially after getting a good mount which is a must on the scar Also the Razor is a pig compared to the ACOG ... So if weight is a big factor to you get the ACOG Any recommendations for a mount? LaRue? Or is the Trijicon one that it comes with good enough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 2:23:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Keep your eyes open for a Night Force 2.5-10x42 or x32. They work great on this rifle and you can usually find a good deal on them if you're patient. I have two that I bought new and each one was under $1100 each.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 2:46:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Don't rob the platform of one of its best attributes, being lightweight. I run a T1 or TA11EG ACOG on my Scars.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:28:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't rob the platform of one of its best attributes, being lightweight. I run a T1 or TA11EG ACOG on my Scars. TA11 vs. NF NXS 2.5-10x42 is the NF is only 3oz heavier, negligible for the additional precision the real scope offers. I always thought one of the best attributes was this compact 7.62x51 that was a reliable MOA rifle with good ammo. Just my 2 cents. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:35:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any recommendations for a mount? LaRue? Or is the Trijicon one that it comes with good enough? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would go with the Vortex Razor 1-6 or a TA11 ACOG ..... I have personally ran both on my 17s and both are fantastic optics The Razor will push you over your budget especially after getting a good mount which is a must on the scar Also the Razor is a pig compared to the ACOG ... So if weight is a big factor to you get the ACOG Any recommendations for a mount? LaRue? Or is the Trijicon one that it comes with good enough? ADM has a mount catered to the SCAR it's the ADM DELTA ..... You don't need a mount that extends because of the SCARs one piece upper assmebly. The Delta provides more clamping surface and is right at home on the scar. I would recommend the delta or a geissele mount but they are pricey |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 7:39:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Another vote for the ACOG TA11. I might just be biased because I used ACOG's in the military for years and never became a big glass kind of guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 7:41:10 AM EDT
[#12]
I think the NA 11E is the route I'll go, thanks for all the input. Any recommendations about a mount for it? Is the one it comes with good enough or should I upgrade to another one?
Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 9:28:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the NA 11E is the route I'll go, thanks for all the input. Any recommendations about a mount for it? Is the one it comes with good enough or should I upgrade to another one? Thanks The TA51 mount (thumb screw) will work but I much prefer a QD mount.... The knobs on the TA51 are a big eye sore to me personally Any quality QD mount will work LaRue, BoBro, or ADM ..... I run the dual larue mount on my TA11 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 12:15:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the NA 11E is the route I'll go, thanks for all the input. Any recommendations about a mount for it? Is the one it comes with good enough or should I upgrade to another one? Thanks The TA-51 is a perfectly serviceable mount, though you may want to have it with knobs on the right, so it doesn't rub when slung or get in the way of any charging handle stuff. Just make sure it's on good and tight. Still, aftermarket options are a lot less bulky and have the added benefit of easy detach and RTZ. I prefer Bobro for overall simplicity, though I consider GDI to be just as good once adjusted. Larue, GG&G, and ADM are also GTG, if you're buying any of the above you'll be fine. Just buy the one that appeals to you personally, or you catch a deal on. I doubt you'll notice much of a difference, though fan boys will viciously argue otherwise. I've seen GDI ACOG mounts sell for crazy cheap here recently, I assume getting rid of excess inventory or something. I've snagged a few for <$40, if you're lucky enough to find them I'd recommend snagging a few up. I even got a spare, I'm sure I'll end up using it sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 6:17:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't rob the platform of one of its best attributes, being lightweight. I run a T1 or TA11EG ACOG on my Scars. Excellent point. I was all fired up about putting a Vortex Razor Gen 2 1x6 on my 17 until I handled one mounted on a rifle. Holy s#2t it's heavy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 6:44:10 PM EDT
[#16]
I have a choice between two gdi mounts one is 0 moa and the other is 25 moa, which would be better for a scar 17 with a Leopoldo 1-6 mk6 7.62 cmr reticle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 8:59:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a choice between two gdi mounts one is 0 moa and the other is 25 moa, which would be better for a scar 17 with a Leopoldo 1-6 mk6 7.62 cmr reticle. MOA canted mounts are for long-range shooting where the scope runs out of elevation adjustment at extended ranges, giving you more useable adjustment. If you're using your CMR reticle'd scope as designed, this is unnecessary as you won't be dialing elevation, but zeroing at the prescribed distance and using BDC holdover. The 0 MOA makes more sense for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 9:18:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Thanks for the info doty_soty!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 9:31:21 PM EDT
[#19]
TR26-C or the TA11E red chevron... Only way to go... TR26 sounds best based on the distances you're describing...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 11:09:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 11:27:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I'm looking into getting a 17S and want to know what you guys think is the best optics set up, my budget is around $1200. I'm torn between something like an ACOG or a more traditional scope from either Nikon or leupold. The rifle would be used for general range time (100 yards) to medium range to long range hunting (300-600 yards). Thanks guys |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:26:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 3:49:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. I think ill go take a look at both of them in person, I just feel like 3.5 won't be powerful enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 8:40:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think ill go take a look at both of them in person, I just feel like 3.5 won't be powerful enough. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. I think ill go take a look at both of them in person, I just feel like 3.5 won't be powerful enough. It won't be, not if you're looking use the rifle to its fullest potential. Yep, you'll be able to hit steel at 500+ but forget about precision shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 10:51:08 AM EDT
[#25]
For some reason, I have struggled more with SCAR 17 optics than any other platform. Trying to balance weight with the .308's capability with the lightweight of the 17 is a tough one. I have run EVERYTHING on my 17. Here is how it started and progressed. Started with a TA11 green chevron. Thought I could tighten groups with a scope and moved to NF 2.5-10, ran both a 24 and 32 obj in an ADM Delta. That bulked out the gun and made it heavy and I said to myself, "I have bolt guns for shooting teeny tiny groups." So, I went to an Aimpoint Micro in a Bobro qd mount. I really liked this set up because it kept the package light. I agree with others that this what makes shooting the Scar 17 so fun and appealing - the light weight and light recoil. The one thing I hadn't explored - what lots of shooters have settled on - Elcan. So, I just recently purchased an Elcan - it's heavy but it looks at home on the 17. The glass and reticule is amazing and I love the daylight visible illumination. I figure I'll probably switch back to the Micro but I'll have no home for the Elcan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 11:16:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. According to Trijicons website the TA 55 weighs 25 oz with a mount, and the TA11 weighs 14 without a mount. With a mount it's about 18 oz, I think the extra power may be worth the 7 oz penalty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 1:41:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to Trijicons website the TA 55 weighs 25 oz with a mount, and the TA11 weighs 14 without a mount. With a mount it's about 18 oz, I think the extra power may be worth the 7 oz penalty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 I've owned a few 55's in the past, and thought they were fantastic optics, also they look really unique and cool. Observations were that the eye relief was really similar to the 11 (which makes sense, it's more or less a 11 body with an additional lens setup on the bell, a lot of 55 bodies are even labeled as TA-11s), with superb clarity and low light transmission. I really feel that you're hurting one of the biggest strengths of the SCAR though which is its light weight. The 55 is a pig of a scope, it feels more like a telescope than an ACOG, in hand it feels chunkier than a full beer bottle. I'd be wary of choosing it over the 11, and I say that as a fan of the 55. According to Trijicons website the TA 55 weighs 25 oz with a mount, and the TA11 weighs 14 without a mount. With a mount it's about 18 oz, I think the extra power may be worth the 7 oz penalty. If the weight doesn't bother you then I'd say do it. I thought it was a superb optic aside from that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2016 6:01:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 4:03:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 11:17:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. A lot of people are hesitant about using a scope with such short eye relief on a 7.62, which I'd imagine is why there is a lot more 7.62 reticle development in 33's/11's/etc than 31's though they do exist. Using a 31 I've still tapped my glasses a bit shooting 5.56, I imagine there'd be a lot of scope eye if using a 7.62 and shooting from awkward positions etc. the 11 is the best optic for the 17 given this, in my albeit limited experience. If I were Trijicon, I'd be considering the above when developing products, especially given they already have a very involved product line with the tons of different optic/color/reticle combos they offer. That seems like a logistical nightmare already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 11:19:47 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of people are hesitant about using a scope with such short eye relief on a 7.62, which I'd imagine is why there is a lot more 7.62 reticle development in 33's/11's/etc than 31's though they do exist. Using a 31 I've still tapped my glasses a bit shooting 5.56, I imagine there'd be a lot of scope eye if using a 7.62 and shooting from awkward positions etc. the 11 is the best optic for the 17 given this, in my albeit limited experience. If I were Trijicon, I'd be considering the above when developing products, especially given they already have a very involved product line with the tons of different optic/color/reticle combos they offer. That seems like a logistical nightmare already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. A lot of people are hesitant about using a scope with such short eye relief on a 7.62, which I'd imagine is why there is a lot more 7.62 reticle development in 33's/11's/etc than 31's though they do exist. Using a 31 I've still tapped my glasses a bit shooting 5.56, I imagine there'd be a lot of scope eye if using a 7.62 and shooting from awkward positions etc. the 11 is the best optic for the 17 given this, in my albeit limited experience. If I were Trijicon, I'd be considering the above when developing products, especially given they already have a very involved product line with the tons of different optic/color/reticle combos they offer. That seems like a logistical nightmare already. Ok thanks for clearning that up |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 12:05:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. There is (kind of) look up TA31 ACSS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 3:27:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is (kind of) look up TA31 ACSS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. There is (kind of) look up TA31 ACSS. yeah 1.5 inches of eye relief isn't enough |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2016 6:38:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? TA01NSN-308. yeah 1.5 inches of eye relief isn't enough The SCAR's recoil is so mild that I personally found it to be plenty. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 1:43:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Totally depends on your shooting style .... For me personally the TA31/TA01 didn't have enough relief .... I tried one on my 17s for a few shooting sessions and went back to my TA11
The TA11 has much more room for error when getting In position and therefore will be quicker for most people .... Most will agree the TA11 is the best acog for a 17s |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 5:55:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For some reason, I have struggled more with SCAR 17 optics than any other platform. Trying to balance weight with the .308's capability with the lightweight of the 17 is a tough one. I have run EVERYTHING on my 17. Here is how it started and progressed. Started with a TA11 green chevron. Thought I could tighten groups with a scope and moved to NF 2.5-10, ran both a 24 and 32 obj in an ADM Delta. That bulked out the gun and made it heavy and I said to myself, "I have bolt guns for shooting teeny tiny groups." So, I went to an Aimpoint Micro in a Bobro qd mount. I really liked this set up because it kept the package light. I agree with others that this what makes shooting the Scar 17 so fun and appealing - the light weight and light recoil. The one thing I hadn't explored - what lots of shooters have settled on - Elcan. So, I just recently purchased an Elcan - it's heavy but it looks at home on the 17. The glass and reticule is amazing and I love the daylight visible illumination. I figure I'll probably switch back to the Micro but I'll have no home for the Elcan. Great info!! Sounds like my 16. Did you use the 223 or 308 Elcan? I have a 223 on my 16. Just curious. I have a 17 coming that might be needing an Elcan 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 10:17:03 PM EDT
[#37]
I haven't shot it a lot, but on paper, I like the U.S. Optics SR-8C that I have on mine. I can tell you the dot is daylight bright and it's very fast on 1X. Haven't had a chance to push the range with it yet but I have the Horus H50 Reticle in it. Should be pretty capable.
It's been discontinued, not sure why, supposedly they are coming out with "something better". But I haven't been able to find out if there is a flaw with the SR-8C as of yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 3:16:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah 1.5 inches of eye relief isn't enough Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great info so far, how about the TA55A? Does anyone have any expirence with one? Everything I've read about it says it's great for the 17s, it's much heavier than the TA11 but weighs about the same as a traditional 3-9X40 Its a monster ...... I personally wouldn't run one just because it looks goofy .... its huge for a fixed powered optic just like the TA648 (massive).... The TA55 also weighs more than the Razor 1-6 (without a mount that is) and the razor is a much more capable/versatile optic IMO If you wanna stick with Trijicon and you are looking to spend near $1700-$2000 check out the VCOG <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/beltfed21/media/P9290033.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/beltfed21/P9290033.jpg</a> Yeah that's pretty enormous. Why isn't there a .308 bcd redicle for the 4X 32 that doesn't use batteries? I think at this point the TA11 is the best option. There is (kind of) look up TA31 ACSS. yeah 1.5 inches of eye relief isn't enough 
|
|
|
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.
