Hunting target scope for SCAR 17s?

edmorseiii said:
No one judged the guy for owning a SCAR. We judged him for wanting to put a cheap optic on a $3,000 rifle, one that is known to destroy cheap optics. It was at that point that you SCAR dudes lost your minds and started hyperventilating about how awesome your wonder guns are.

ETA:

So just for fun I went back and re-read this thread. No one took issue with the guy owning a SCAR. There was a bunch of dick wagging about shooter ability, advice about optics (some of it really good), and one dude who made an ugg boot joke in the entirety of the first 2.5 pages until you saw someone criticize the trigger and it sent you off the rails like a conversation about how pointless 40s&w is in 2019. Then the other SCAR dude jumped in to add nothing of substance, and I have been bored at my desk for 2 days which brings us to this post. No one gives a shit that you spent big SCAR and LWRC dollars for your false sense of "more reliable", stop projecting your buyers remorse on everyone who looks at these rifles and shrugs their shoulders because the juice aint worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...

I do believe someone considered a geisselle trigger for his scar and he was reprimanded for it. That's what did it for me.

False sense of reliability? Lol The Scar is factually more reliable, the design alone lends itself to more reliability. If you want to ignore the findings that have been presented, that's fine.
 
I'm stuck on the reliability claims: I'm not buying it.
Is this for an uncleaned rifle? over how many rounds?

If it's an unclean rifle after 5000 rounds, it had no basis in the real world.
First, in any call of duty, millenial-wet-dream, shtf scenario, you personally are not going to last 500 rounds let alone 5000.
Second, you just paid $3k for a rifle and you're not going to clean it?? I call BS.

AR's are extremely reliable, no matter what any old timer may say about it. You can buy any rifle you want for any price: I don't care. BUT, don't try to justify it because of any urban legand shortcomings of another rifle.
 
ok . so back to scopes... we all know that each person loves their own platform for MSRs... be it an expensive KAC, PoF, DPMS,SIG,FN SCAR, BAR, FAL, G3, FNAR, etc. Whatever flavor of caliber, be it the tiny 5.56, 308. whatever it is..

people can debate the low magnification optic on a 308 "battle rifle" but if you wanted to do a low mag optic why not just stick with the old reliable AR15? you wanted to reach out and touch someone farther with an easier bullet traj. so you bumped it up to 308. to reach out to like 700 yards.. why not have more mag at that range.. which is why i personally went 6-24x it will sit on 6x illuminated , and soon a 45 degree canted red dot on the rails. I mean sure .. if someone gave me a scar20, or a KAC 20" beast i would love it. but i honestly have more fun these days with my mauser 98k. it is super fun playing with bolt guns. will add this soon to my mauser and a long eye relief 1-4 x i think. Also going to try and pick up a second mauser 98k for just straight iron sight work
K985-1.jpg
 
PatMcD said:
I'm stuck on the reliability claims: I'm not buying it.
Is this for an uncleaned rifle? over how many rounds?

If it's an unclean rifle after 5000 rounds, it had no basis in the real world.
First, in any call of duty, millenial-wet-dream, shtf scenario, you personally are not going to last 500 rounds let alone 5000.
Second, you just paid $3k for a rifle and you're not going to clean it?? I call BS.

AR's are extremely reliable, no matter what any old timer may say about it. You can buy any rifle you want for any price: I don't care. BUT, don't try to justify it because of any urban legand shortcomings of another rifle.
Click to expand...

Just keep ignoring the facts. Fine by me. Turning your cheek doesnt change reality.
Battlefield Vegas and the trials.

I've never cleaned any of my scars, not once. I've had them for 2-3 years, and I shoot frequently. Literally have never wiped down the internals. It's not necessary.
I have wiped down my lwrc just to see the difference And its night an day. Only the bolt face and barrel get dirty, but not nearly as dirty. I hardly clean any of my guns, I'm lazy. Piston platforms are perfect for lazy people like me. They run clean, and cool which translates to better reliability.
I have no regrets on what I paid, at this point I could sell the Scars at a profit in probably an hour in the classifieds. They sell like hot cakes.

Ar15s crap on themselves every trigger pull. Excess heat and carbon are real and are short comings. You can ignore them all you want, but the operation of either rifle are vastly different.
 
PatMcD said:
If it's an unclean rifle after 5000 rounds, it had no basis in the real world.
First, in any call of duty, millenial-wet-dream, shtf scenario, you personally are not going to last 500 rounds let alone 5000.
Click to expand...

As if most of these internet SCAR dudes actually ever put 5k through their rifles. [laugh]
 
edmorseiii said:
As if most of these internet SCAR dudes actually ever put 5k through their rifles. [laugh]
Click to expand...

Lol, I doubt either of mine will even get to 1k rounds before my kids inherit them someday. And I can guarantee you that neither one will ever get cleaned by me. I didn’t buy them for their reliability, I just thought they looked cool and I didn’t have one. The second time around it was cuz I have 2 kids and only one Scar. I didn’t want them to fight over it...
 
Cuz said:
The second time around it was cuz I have 2 kids and only one Scar. I didn’t want them to fight over it...
Click to expand...

Completely valid. One reason I am looking at a set of RNVG's is because my daughter already likes looking through my PVS14. [laugh]
 
Last edited:
I thought this thread was about scopes for a Scar-H?

.308 sucks as a round for a battle rifle. Weighs too much and you can’t carry enough of it, whatever enough is. Also, who wants to reload every 20 rounds in a firefight? Fine as a DMR round or a belt-fed (i.e. crew served). I may pick up a Scar-H or L at some point (probably the Scar-L), but it is low on my list as I already have a custom-built DPMS-variant AR10 in .308 and an AR and Tavor in .223.

To get back on topic, I've got a Trijicon Accupoint 3-9X40 mil-dot mounted on my AR10 that I find does the job... Trijicons seem to be over-engineered and have quality glass and features for the price. I know Scars are supposed to eat optics, but I've had good luck with this. I picked mine up back in the day when the price was still up around $900. I think you can get them for $629 on Opticsplanet now.

Trijicon AccuPoint 3-9x40 Rifle Scope - TR20, Color: Black, Tube Diameter: 1 in w/ Free Shipping — 9 models

Add an off-set red dot or off-set irons as a backup and for close-range work and you're GTG.

IMG_0278.JPG
 
Last edited:
HK91 with retractable stock because I suck and they hate me and my shoulder needs tenderizing for that. Plus it ejects rounds further than all others at the range.
 
rkwjunior said:
Just keep ignoring the facts. Fine by me. Turning your cheek doesnt change reality.
Battlefield Vegas and the trials.
Click to expand...

Yes, AKA, "might as well be fairy tale land", conditions nobody on this board will likely ever expose their rifle to.

If the results are so awful, then why are M4/M16/AR derivatives still basically the #1 deployed rifle type/pattern amongst pipe hitter types? A lot of which include units that
can run/bring virtually anything that they want? If it's so terrible why would they keep going back to it? [laugh] If it was so terrible then operators would be demanding
Kalashnikov clones and end up using them 95% of the time.

I'm not bashing a SCAR or LWRC or whatever either. People should keep buying them, and companies should build more stuff. Moar is better. I am bashing the ever loving shit out of this retarded, hula hoop chicken neck jive turkey type idea that you somehow "need" one to have a reliable rifle. That's just retard talk. It's retarded as a Glock owner telling some guy with a smith 3rd gen that he's owned and maintained all his life, that somehow his favorite gun is not reliable enough. [rofl] It's the same brand of BS.

Ar15s crap on themselves every trigger pull. Excess heat and carbon are real and are short comings. You can ignore them all you want, but the operation of either rifle are vastly different.
Click to expand...

That's great and all, but you have to ask yourself- does it actually matter? In the real world, for normal people? Keep dreaming. A $1000ish Colt 6920 with some lube in the BCG every now and then and a wipe here and there is going to be pretty much fine. It will be reliable enough with decent mags/ammunition that most people would be bored by its existence.

Have you ever even shot a decent, properly built AR to failure? I doubt it. (maybe some rifle trainers have, or some pipe hitters that burn up a few thousand rounds a
month, etc. )

I have like a mid length, tier 2-3ish (I think it has an MP tested bolt, but that's the only fancy thing on the whole gun) AR right now, it hasn't been cleaned since I bought it. I know I can probably drop a couple drops of lube on the BCG and it'll run just fine. (it may not even need that but given that I haven't touched it in like a year itd probably be cheap insurance). Are there better rifles? Sure, you bet there are, including other ARs, etc. Is what I have bad enough that it compromises the intended use? nope. not even close.

When I was a newb I used to huff the gun rag/internet glue fumes, etc, used to be one of the types who wouldn't own a rifle that shits where it eats, but when I bought my first decent AR, I quickly discovered most of that stuff to be mostly a cauldron of bullshit that doesn't actually matter. That became apparent to me when I had like 1700 rounds through my Colt 6520 and the only thing that made it "stop" was a bad magazine...

I smoke cigars with rich guys that think just like you do, and it's hysterical, We get into these kinds of gun discussions and their myopic thinking cannot be unf***ed. Buying it "Because you want it" is one thing. I get that. I get that 110%. That's like when someone buys a Range Rover/Jaguar/Bentley (insert some other shitty, but nice looking car here) because they like how it rides and looks. It's a perfectly understandable motive. I get it, everyone has their own tastes. On the other hand when they start talking about guns they start getting into this almost like, lispy hipsteresque-talk about quality and reliability, that's based off either an excess of hype, internet blather, or some other effluvial crap, or gnomish mysticism for that matter. A guy who fires less rounds in a year than even I do (which at this point, given what I don't shoot is pretty pathetic, a few thousand rounds is a pretty low bar to hit) was trying to lecture me about how an HK MR whatever is so much more reliable than an AR. (and to top it off, he's never owned either one, just parroting shit from gun rags or whatever) I'm like... "It's a great rifle, however, in our world, most of the differences will never be realized, nor will it matter". And they don't get it. Now if the guy had just said "I like HK cause I have a bunch of their guns and I can afford it so that's what I'm buying" I get that, it makes sense. Hell I tell people to buy extra. The person then is not trying to sell themselves what, for their circumstances, amounts to a big lie to justify a purchasing decision.

It even occurs when you up the ante. This one guy was asking me what the best 1911 was and blah blah blah what do you think of Nighthawk etc blah blah blah, and I think I spent a half an hour with the guy trying to explain to him that "Unless he's going to buy an SVI, I would take the nighthawk money and buy two Dan Wessons with it" and I think his mind was numb because he didn't understand how something that cost 60% as much would be "as good" etc. It was pretty numbing.

I don't understand the need for people to tell lies and hyperbole to themselves to justify what they bought. It's just mind boggling. It's like they have part of their conscience that's trying to tell them that they made a bad decision, and the lie is necessary to shut up that half of their brain or something. Or they feel the need to self-validate because their parents didn't validate enough of their decisions growing up or something, its really weird shit that I don't think I'll ever wrap my brain around. Not saying this is the case for you but some of them feel validated based off this nostrum of vanity that their choice will somehow automatically be respected, blah blah. The fun thing is the real world is a lot more cruel than that. In things that actually matter what you can do with "X" is 1000x more important than the topic of whatever "X" actually is.

In order for reliability (as opposed to say, just simply wanting it because you like the way it looks or shoots, or for the sake of something different to try) to legitimately be an overriding motivating factor WRT purchasing decisions on stuff like this, this means that only two things are actually possible:

1- you are the corner case that can legitimately justify something based on a reliability claim. Please show the class your multi million dollar MG collection where customers pour thousands of rounds through your guns every week, or all the gun testing you've done that shows a hard-edged , drastic difference. Or the helmet cam video where your brand new AR choked while shooting the Taliban because it "wasnt reliable enough" etc.

2-you're from the George Costanza school of thought and keep telling yourself this "moar reliability" pep talk fluff to justify what you did... [rofl]




It can be only one of these two possibilities, and in the case of #2, I guess if it makes you sleep better at night, then keep telling yourself that stuff.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
Yes, AKA, "might as well be fairy tale land", conditions nobody on this board will likely ever expose their rifle to.

If the results are so awful, then why are M4/M16/AR derivatives still basically the #1 deployed rifle type/pattern amongst pipe hitter types? A lot of which include units that
can run/bring virtually anything that they want? If it's so terrible why would they keep going back to it? [laugh] If it was so terrible then operators would be demanding
Kalashnikov clones and end up using them 95% of the time.

I'm not bashing a SCAR or LWRC or whatever either. People should keep buying them, and companies should build more stuff. Moar is better. I am bashing the ever loving shit out of this retarded, hula hoop chicken neck jive turkey type idea that you somehow "need" one to have a reliable rifle. That's just retard talk. It's retarded as a Glock owner telling some guy with a smith 3rd gen that he's owned and maintained all his life, that somehow his favorite gun is not reliable enough. [rofl] It's the same brand of BS.



That's great and all, but you have to ask yourself- does it actually matter? In the real world, for normal people? Keep dreaming. A $1000ish Colt 6920 with some lube in the BCG every now and then and a wipe here and there is going to be pretty much fine. It will be reliable enough with decent mags/ammunition that most people would be bored by its existence.

Have you ever even shot a decent, properly built AR to failure? I doubt it. (maybe some rifle trainers have, or some pipe hitters that burn up a few thousand rounds a
month, etc. )

I have like a mid length, tier 2-3ish (I think it has an MP tested bolt, but that's the only fancy thing on the whole gun) AR right now, it hasn't been cleaned since I bought it. I know I can probably drop a couple drops of lube on the BCG and it'll run just fine. (it may not even need that but given that I haven't touched it in like a year itd probably be cheap insurance). Are there better rifles? Sure, you bet there are, including other ARs, etc. Is what I have bad enough that it compromises the intended use? nope. not even close.

When I was a newb I used to huff the gun rag/internet glue fumes, etc, used to be one of the types who wouldn't own a rifle that shits where it eats, but when I bought my first decent AR, I quickly discovered most of that stuff to be mostly a cauldron of bullshit that doesn't actually matter. That became apparent to me when I had like 1700 rounds through my Colt 6520 and the only thing that made it "stop" was a bad magazine...

I smoke cigars with rich guys that think just like you do, and it's hysterical, We get into these kinds of gun discussions and their myopic thinking cannot be unf***ed. Buying it "Because you want it" is one thing. I get that. I get that 110%. That's like when someone buys a Range Rover/Jaguar/Bentley (insert some other shitty, but nice looking car here) because they like how it rides and looks. It's a perfectly understandable motive. I get it, everyone has their own tastes. On the other hand when they start talking about guns they start getting into this almost like, lispy hipsteresque-talk about quality and reliability, that's based off either an excess of hype, internet blather, or some other effluvial crap, or gnomish mysticism for that matter. A guy who fires less rounds in a year than even I do (which at this point, given what I don't shoot is pretty pathetic, a few thousand rounds is a pretty low bar to hit) was trying to lecture me about how an HK MR whatever is so much more reliable than an AR. (and to top it off, he's never owned either one, just parroting shit from gun rags or whatever) I'm like... "It's a great rifle, however, in our world, most of the differences will never be realized, nor will it matter". And they don't get it. Now if the guy had just said "I like HK cause I have a bunch of their guns and I can afford it so that's what I'm buying" I get that, it makes sense. Hell I tell people to buy extra. The person then is not trying to sell themselves what, for their circumstances, amounts to a big lie to justify a purchasing decision.

It even occurs when you up the ante. This one guy was asking me what the best 1911 was and blah blah blah what do you think of Nighthawk etc blah blah blah, and I think I spent a half an hour with the guy trying to explain to him that "Unless he's going to buy an SVI, I would take the nighthawk money and buy two Dan Wessons with it" and I think his mind was numb because he didn't understand how something that cost 60% as much would be "as good" etc. It was pretty numbing.

I don't understand the need for people to tell lies and hyperbole to themselves to justify what they bought. It's just mind boggling. It's like they have part of their conscience that's trying to tell them that they made a bad decision, and the lie is necessary to shut up that half of their brain or something. Or they feel the need to self-validate because their parents didn't validate enough of their decisions growing up or something, its really weird shit that I don't think I'll ever wrap my brain around. Not saying this is the case for you but some of them feel validated based off this nostrum of vanity that their choice will somehow automatically be respected, blah blah. The fun thing is the real world is a lot more cruel than that. In things that actually matter what you can do with "X" is 1000x more important than the topic of whatever "X" actually is.

In order for reliability (as opposed to say, just simply wanting it because you like the way it looks or shoots, or for the sake of something different to try) to legitimately be an overriding motivating factor WRT purchasing decisions on stuff like this, this means that only two things are actually possible:

1- you are the corner case that can legitimately justify something based on a reliability claim. Please show the class your multi million dollar MG collection where customers pour thousands of rounds through your guns every week, or all the gun testing you've done that shows a hard-edged , drastic difference. Or the helmet cam video where your brand new AR choked while shooting the Taliban because it "wasnt reliable enough" etc.

2-you're from the George Costanza school of thought and keep telling yourself this "moar reliability" pep talk fluff to justify what you did... [rofl]




It can be only one of these two possibilities, and in the case of #2, I guess if it makes you sleep better at night, then keep telling yourself that stuff.

-Mike
Click to expand...

That's a bitch slap of truth, right there.
 
Mike said it well, we buy shit because we like it and then justify buying it with claims about things we don’t need/will never back up. How many guys have Ford Raptors and never take them off road? Of course some do and props to them, but some just like having a big, badass truck and who am I to criticize?

Been lurking on this thread and, given its tempo, reluctant to wade in but here goes. I have just picked up a new 17s and thought a lot about what to put on it, finally settling on a low power variable. As others have pointed out the SCAR is not a precision gun nor am I hunting with it so a 1-8 made sense. Went back and forth a bunch between the Schmidt un Bender PM II short dot and the Leupold Mk 8 CQBSS. I’ll say it’s tough to make such an expensive purchase with the hard information that’s out there...not a lot! I looked at but didn’t really consider the NF ATACR or Khales/Swarovski products, nor the elcan.

I was finally able to look thru the Leupold and went that way, with the H27 reticle. The S&B has fewer features and the locking turrets, illumination, etc. don’t quite match the Leupold. It is true 1x however, and I’m sure the glass would be even clearer. They offer both a ‘standard’ model with both reticle and dot in the same, second, plane and a ‘dual’ with the reticle in the first plane and the dot in the second, very cool.

The Leupold is a 1.1 and not a true substitute for a red dot at lowest power but I’m hardly using this gun to clear rooms so that was less of an issue. The adjustment of everything, magnification, travel, illumination, is incredible and the glass is very bright and clear. Can’t wait to go shoot it!

Just waiting on arrival of a mount, which is a whole other thing. I’m not sure the QD really is worth having or debating but most of the manufacturers, Larue, Bobro, etc make good stuff. I have had good luck with larue but went for an ADM delta which was reasonable and will probably switch the Gieselle trigger from my 16s or just say screw it and order a new one...which brings back the point of money and want/need.

Objectively for most of us, this is an absurd purchase, akin to buying that $70k raptor to commute to work. It’s more rifle than I can or ever will need. 600 yards? Not even close in eastern ma. Wearing out the barrel? Shooting 3000 rds between cleaning? Yeah not doing that.

But I wanted it for a long time, plus, all the FN fanboy BS aside, it’s pretty much the best you can get in the segment.... anything else like that, the best watch, the best car, etc...costs a LOT more money.

Alternatives would’ve been a even more absurd 20s with a much higher mag scope and again, where am I shooting that 1000yds? Plus at that point I’m sure a bolt gun makes way more sense and I have nowhere near the patience or temperament for that type of shooting. I could’ve gone for a 1-4 or just a dot even, but that’s more of a cqb gun and I have the 16 with a 4x acog so that would be kind of pointless. Any and all opinions welcome
 

Similar threads

Hunting Dogs
Replies
1
Views
62
Upland
Upland
Know your target
Replies
4
Views
383
alx
alx
Gopher hunting with a 22
2
Replies
36
Views
673
peterk123
P
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
595
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
CETME-L Scope Mount ID
Replies
0
Views
61
MetalgodZ
M
Back
Top Bottom