Trigger was supposed to be much lighter, so yes, that's an issue.
The scope holes being off? I didn't see that, the video was painful to watch and I fast forwarded through much of it.
That's a defect and would be fixed by them hopefully.
The accuracy... well... I'm betting the shooter may not have much time behind a 50, possibly didn't torque the rings/mount correctly, and you never know if he cleaned the rifle first. I'm tossing the benefit of doubt on this one, and hoping that he's just not doing it right. There are dozens of possible contributing factors to bad accuracy when setting up a new weapon.
The trigger can be fixed, and the mounting holes should have been right from the factory. For less than $2K on the street, it still sounds like a deal. (and probably still more accurate than an 82A1)
My only hangup was the shell holder design rather than the quicker bolt action style of the AR50. That's why I chose the AR50.
BUT, knowing the limitations of the gun and knowing that it may have issues that you have to resolve when first getting it, it's STILL a good deal at that price point.
If it was dangerous, inherently inaccurate, or otherwise a bad design, then I wouldn't even consider it.