Scar 17s eat optics and accessories

[deersniper]

What Optics/lasers/etc will hold up to a Scar17?
I hear of high end optics getting broken on scars. I read that .mil had lasers and other accessories redesigned so that they could stand up to a 17

A 100% reliable rifle doesn't do you much good if it makes your optics go down.

 

[cuz]

Personally, on one of my Scar 17s I have a Vortex 4-16x scope. I had the same concerns as you and decided to stick with either a Burris or Vortex as they had the best warranty for when the day comes that my scope gets eaten by my rifle. I concluded that the 4-16x is a bit too much scope for my liking so I'm going to replace it with a 1-8x, but can't decide which one. Currently considering the Burris XTR-II 1.5-8x as well.

 

[shipereyes445]

You can mitigate the Scar 17s problem with scopes by using the ADM Delta mount which is made specifically for the SCAR 17S. I got mine from Liberty Optics. I have a Bushnell Tactical Elite on my SCAR 17S and have not had any problems with the scope.

A trijicon accupoint and a Leopold MK6 have both survived thousands of rounds on mine. Most of the rounds fired with the MK6 were suppressed and most of those were overgassed. Perhaps it's the quality of the optic? Or am I the exception? Mounts were a DD cantilever and an ADM scout.

 

[deersniper]

There was a guy here that had a Acog, NF and one other high end optic die on a 17.

I know the cantilever mounts are bad on scars. I should have asked him what mount the NF had.

I have a spare NF mag mount and a Trijicon 1-8 that isn't selling that I am thinking about putting on the scar.

 

[SunuvaButch]

What Optics/lasers/etc will hold up to a Scar17?
I hear of high end optics getting broken on scars. I read that .mil had lasers and other accessories redesigned so that they could stand up to a 17

A 100% reliable rifle doesn't do you much good if it makes your optics go down.

Ran a 1-4 pst on my 17 for almost three years now. Good to go.

 

[Desert_Racer]

I've had the same 1-6 Bushnell on mine for probably 5 years now. No problems whatsoever.

 

[SunuvaButch]

I've had the same 1-6 Bushnell on mine for probably 5 years now. No problems whatsoever.

I agree. I think the scar killing optics thing is a rumor. I u derstand the recoil pulse it produces but proper mounting helps a lot of that.

 

[SunuvaButch]

What Optics/lasers/etc will hold up to a Scar17?
I hear of high end optics getting broken on scars. I read that .mil had lasers and other accessories redesigned so that they could stand up to a 17

A 100% reliable rifle doesn't do you much good if it makes your optics go down.

That's just it...you "hear" of high end optics getting eaten by the scar. I own four scars and have had junk on them at some point. I admit it. I have NF and leupys and a pst on them now. The scar does fine if the optics are mounted properly. I have a cantilever and Mark 4 on one now for almost 5 years and zero issues. At all.

 

[RollinCoal11]

I have a Swaro 1-6 in a Larue quick mount . No problems

 

[Frankly]

What's "mounting properly" versus mounting like any other rifle?

 

[Dougie308]

What Optics/lasers/etc will hold up to a Scar17?
I hear of high end optics getting broken on scars. I read that .mil had lasers and other accessories redesigned so that they could stand up to a 17

A 100% reliable rifle doesn't do you much good if it makes your optics go down.

I have had a Millett 1x6x24 on mine for a few years with a P.E.P.R. mount and have had no issues.

 

[N-C]

ERA-TAC ONE-PIECE ULTRA SHORT MOUNT WITH LEVERS 34MM TUBE 20 MOA 39MM-1.54" HIGH

ERA-TAC ULTRA SHORT 34MM

ERA-TAC Ultra Short 34mm mounts are particularly made for pairing up with Schmidt & Bender Ultra Short and Steyr AUG-Z systems. Each of these one-piece ERA-TAC Ultra Short 34mm mounts are precision CNC machined from 7075 aircraft grade aluminum for added strength and durability. They are capable of enduring challenging conditions, meeting highest demands, and proving to be a worthy choice for tactical users and sporting shooters.

 

[BarrettBoy]

I've had a 3-9 accupoint on a 17 for 600 rounds, no problems yet.

 

[N-C]

Shockwaves ( this .50 cal but !??! )

Video ~~~

 

[N-C]

For the long run maybe should get like the

Leupold Mark VI 1-6x20 Rifle Scope

Trijicon 1-6x24mm VCOG Riflescope.

 

[RickyRodney]

Everyone is posting to the contrary of what has been the rumor about scar 17's and optics. Cantilever mounts and "middle of the road" optics. After hearing a scar ate a ACOG wasn't really sure what to do.

 

[Bakwa]

What's "mounting properly" versus mounting like any other rifle?

I'd like to know this as well.
Perhaps I've been mounting optics "improperly" all these years.

 

[RickyRodney]

I think he means not using cantilever mounts on SCAR's which are supposed to induce that whip like motion you can see in that slow motion video on that 50BMG, which is basically using a cantilever mount.

 

[prskiller]

Had a ACOG and now have the Aimpoint CompM4, no probs with either.

 

[bigjake83]

Or you could just not buy rifle that breaks shit....just saying

 

[samnev]

I've had a Bushnell 3.5-21X50 ERS on my SCR for 4 years without a problem

 

[ballistic1]

Or you could just not buy rifle that breaks shit....just saying

This ^^

 

[Nicktoney]

I’ve bent and broken accessories on my rifle but no optics. I’ve ran a ta01b acog, 4-16hst, and now this accupoint and they’re all great. I’ve bent a KDG charging handle, loading a bipod on their kinekt bipod mount (using their mrex rail) and the recoil would rip the bipod our every time. Also their cerakoted mrex coating came off with a degreaser bath. Lame. Here’s the heavy ugly girl now. Needs some spring spray paint.

 

[TheOE800]

I think he means not using cantilever mounts on SCAR's which are supposed to induce that whip like motion you can see in that slow motion video on that 50BMG, which is basically using a cantilever mount.

I’ve read that before. There’s no reason to use a cantilever mount on the SCAR considering the monolithic receiver and top rail.

Never had any issues with the NXS I had on my 17.

 

[deersniper]

What mount are you using?
I plan on mounting a Trijicon 1-8 in a NF Magmount

 

[Eblade2004]

Razor 1-6 on my 17 with no problems.

 

[TheOE800]

What mount are you using?
I plan on mounting a Trijicon 1-8 in a NF Magmount

Don’t remember. The rifle and optic are long gone.

 

[eMc9002]

What mount are you using?
I plan on mounting a Trijicon 1-8 in a NF Magmount

Geissele on my Trijicon 1-8 with no complaints. Been super great on my 17 so far with 1k round's trouble free.

 

[JeffLebowski]

I agree. I think the scar killing optics thing is a rumor. I u derstand the recoil pulse it produces but proper mounting helps a lot of that.

Negative. Here is an informative post from a SEAL Chief that has extensive experience with the SCAR 17, at work, as a tool.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5709-SCAR-17-discussion&p=97049&viewfull=1#post97049

 

[Upstate43]

Negative. Here is an informative post from a SEAL Chief that has extensive experience with the SCAR 17, at work, as a tool.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5709-SCAR-17-discussion&p=97049&viewfull=1#post97049

So one anecdotal forum post proves that the SCAR's have widespread problems with optics failing?

FWIW, the SCAR's have seen extensive use in military and LEO communities. Has there been consistent feedback from those groups indicating that the optics don't last?

 

[deersniper]

Optics and lasers had to be hardened to hold up on the scar. There was a long lost on a scar specific forum but I can't find it now
Edit here's another post about it
http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-159515.html

Too much smoke for there to be no fire.

 

[deersniper]

"
FWIW, the last "update" I saw to the SOPMOD VAS Program for phased replacement components (still Increment II) had new items listed with an asterisk that said "CAR Hardened," including many Phased Replacement parts of otherwise seemingly identical existing items with new suffixes that were so marked, so it seems SOCOM/NSWC-Crane is making a clear distinction between "CAR Hardened" and not, which would suggest that there is definitely a recognition and acknowledgement of "something" being different with what is and is not able to be used on the MK 17 MOD 0 and MK 20 MOD 0s.

I would prefer to not be more specific as it is FOUO, but anyone who wants more specifics (I don't have much) and wants to talk through .mil can shoot me a PM.

~Augee"

"

I aint got release authority or anything, but the poster that was printed up highlighting that information, If it aint got a distro statement on it, then I guess its public knowledge. I got one hanging up in the classroom, I will check it in the morning.

I aint got release authority or anything, but the poster that was printed up highlighting that information, If it aint got a distro statement on it, then I guess its public knowledge. I got one hanging up in the classroom, I will check it in the morning.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

So one anecdotal forum post proves that the SCAR's have widespread problems with optics failing?

FWIW, the SCAR's have seen extensive use in military and LEO communities. Has there been consistent feedback from those groups indicating that the optics don't last?

I guess I'm one of those anecdotal posters. As mentioned eariler I had a few ACOGs and a NF die on top of a Mk17 and had Leupold Mk4 that got the shit shaken out of it. During my time using the platform professionally since 12'' I've seen a few other dudes have similar problems too. Again I don't know why the SCAR-Hs are rough on optics, I mean its just a .308, I don't think its recoil but more the recoil impulse though the upper receiver. As it was said above the new SOPMOD stuff is being hardened, and I don't think that any of us who have used the MK17 professionally are surprised.

On top of this I've never seen the problem in Mk20s, and of the few SCAR-H I've seen ran though courses, I haven't seen the same issue but again that was less than a hand full of rifles and a couple thousand rounds. My bottom line, a few hundred rounds though your SCAR-H while wearing a Vortex PST over the last few years isn't exactly a definitive test, you might get away with it for a while but make sure your warranty is good for your optics or have tax payers buy them, lol.

 

[Upstate43]

Optics and lasers had to be hardened to hold up on the scar. There was a long lost on a scar specific forum but I can't find it now
Edit here's another post about it
http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-159515.html

Too much smoke for there to be no fire.

Again, a few forum posts constitutes smoke?

I'm not denying there might be problems with certain optics, but I also think people on the internet tend to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[JeffLebowski]

So one anecdotal forum post proves that the SCAR's have widespread problems with optics failing?

FWIW, the SCAR's have seen extensive use in military and LEO communities. Has there been consistent feedback from those groups indicating that the optics don't last?

You are claiming that data is anecdotal. It is not. The SEAL that wrote that worked extensively with the SCAR17 and is still under an NDA over some of his professional experience with it. @BigJoe29 knows him. I see that another poster in this thread has also offered identical data from work use of the SCAR17, but you are free to call that anecdotal as well. I call it “a clue”, myself.

 

[fdkay]

And that is why you buy a CZ Bren instead. plus, it is cheaper.

 

[GMZ]

So one anecdotal forum post proves that the SCAR's have widespread problems with optics failing?

FWIW, the SCAR's have seen extensive use in military and LEO communities. Has there been consistent feedback from those groups indicating that the optics don't last?

There are enough reports out there to make me think there is an issue, anecdotal or otherwise.

Both of those end user groups don't use their own funds to buy/use most of their gear, so they frankly don't give a shit if something breaks they just bring it back to the armorer or supply shed and get a new one. The types of units that are issued the SCAR are also not the type to blab on the open internet about design flaws of issued weapons. Who does care about it are the armorers and logistics guys who are managing budgets. That a few electro-optical devices had to be "redesigned" to work properly with the 17 tells me there was/is an issue there that was costing someone, somewhere, enough money to make a redesign financially worthwhile.

Contrast that with civilian shooters who pay for the gun/optic, and ammo to shoot it. Those guns are under a much less severe duty cycle, and even then there are enough reports of optics failing or other strange happenings (mounts recoiling themselves loose) on any number of forums. M4C, LF, FNForum, Arf, etc.

The schools of thought are:

1. Cantilever mounts flexing during recoil

2. Forward "recoil" impulse of the massive 17 bolt/carrier which many optics aren't designed to withstand.

Personally I think the primary cause is #2, which may or may not be exacerbated by #1. Spring loaded air guns also have a significant forward recoil impulse which can damage optics. To mitigate this, scopes which are designed for severe or military service seem to be able to withstand it better than other types of optics though at what type of duty cycle I'm not sure.

 

[Upstate43]

You are claiming that data is anecdotal. It is not. The SEAL that wrote that worked extensively with the SCAR17 and is still under an NDA over some of his professional experience with it. @BigJoe29 knows him. I see that another poster in this thread has also offered identical data from work use of the SCAR17, but you are free to call that anecdotal as well. I call it “a clue”, myself.

My point is people here will use other peoples' experiences, instead of their own, as proof that the SCAR does have a problem with optics; that's the anecdotal aspect to this discussion. Many people don't know for sure that the SCAR's 'eats' optics, and they can't be 100% certain of the credibility of other peoples' claims, and yet they seem willing to make a snap judgement based on the 'evidence' they've gathered.

Maybe some SCAR's have had problems with optic durability. Maybe other SCAR's have had their optics work just fine. Any forum post 'evidence' should be considered a data point, not the definitive smoking proof that there is a widespread problem.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

Again, a few forum posts constitutes smoke?

I'm not denying there might be problems with certain optics, but I also think people on the internet tend to make mountains out of molehills.

I mean sure disregard what the professionally invested SMEs are saying, over some random guys who are emotional and financially invested in their purchases. It is neither a mountain nor a molehill, it just is what it is.

 

[JeffLebowski]

My point is people here will use other peoples' experiences, instead of their own, as proof that the SCAR does have a problem with optics; that's the anecdotal aspect to this discussion. Many people don't know for sure that the SCAR's 'eats' optics, and they can't be 100% certain of the credibility of other peoples' claims, and yet they seem willing to make a snap judgement based on the 'evidence' they've gathered.

Maybe some SCAR's have had problems with optic durability. Maybe other SCAR's have had their optics work just fine. Any forum post 'evidence' should be considered a data point, not the definitive smoking proof that there is a widespread problem.

Maybe when both SF and NSW guys tell you the same thing, maybe that's evidence of people who have seen more than a babied sample of one enthusiast's optics. Maybe like.... widespread issues amongst working weapons, not weekend weapons shot only for groups.

I'm not trying to name drop here, I'm passing on data from a personal friend. I don't give a fuck if SCARs have problems or not. However, I'm happy that I know better than to disregard days like what @Rudy Gonsior is putting out there. If you don't want to listen, that's cool, but if you think you have more experience than him or my buddy, by all means share with the class.

 

[JeffLebowski]

"
FWIW, the last "update" I saw to the SOPMOD VAS Program for phased replacement components (still Increment II) had new items listed with an asterisk that said "CAR Hardened," including many Phased Replacement parts of otherwise seemingly identical existing items with new suffixes that were so marked, so it seems SOCOM/NSWC-Crane is making a clear distinction between "CAR Hardened" and not, which would suggest that there is definitely a recognition and acknowledgement of "something" being different with what is and is not able to be used on the MK 17 MOD 0 and MK 20 MOD 0s.

I would prefer to not be more specific as it is FOUO, but anyone who wants more specifics (I don't have much) and wants to talk through .mil can shoot me a PM.

~Augee"

"

I aint got release authority or anything, but the poster that was printed up highlighting that information, If it aint got a distro statement on it, then I guess its public knowledge. I got one hanging up in the classroom, I will check it in the morning.

I aint got release authority or anything, but the poster that was printed up highlighting that information, If it aint got a distro statement on it, then I guess its public knowledge. I got one hanging up in the classroom, I will check it in the morning.

Hit me up via PM if you’re comfortable sharing that with .gov

 

[Upstate43]

Maybe when both SF and NSW guys tell you the same thing, maybe that's evidence of people who have seen more than a babied sample of one enthusiast's optics. Maybe like.... widespread issues amongst working weapons, not weekend weapons shot only for groups.

It really doesn't matter if the guys "telling" you stuff are SF or not; the fact is when people here rely on those posts and testimonies, the evidence they've gathered is anecdotal. Go look up the meaning of that word if you don't understand what I'm getting at. More to the point, I've seen 2-3 posts of people referring to that SF feedback. There are quite a few SCAR's in use, both within the Military/LEO and civilian communities. So it is plausible some people have had problems with optics; it's equally plausible that a lot of people haven't had problems. The negative feedback tends to get the most attention on internet forums.

I'm not trying to name drop here, I'm passing on data from a personal friend. I don't give a fuck if SCARs have problems or not. However, I'm happy that I know better than to disregard days like what @Rudy Gonsior is putting out there. If you don't want to listen, that's cool, but if you think you have more experience than him or my buddy, by all means share with the class.

Except that you are name dropping and relying on others' experiences to validate your own judgement.

 

[JeffLebowski]

It really doesn't matter if the guys "telling" you stuff are SF or not; the fact is when people here rely on those posts and testimonies, the evidence they've gathered is anecdotal. Go look up the meaning of that word if you don't understand what I'm getting at. More to the point, I've seen 2-3 posts of people referring to that SF feedback. There are quite a few SCAR's in use, both within the Military/LEO and civilian communities. So it is plausible some people have had problems with optics; it's equally plausible that a lot of people haven't had problems. The negative feedback tends to get the most attention on internet forums.



Except that you are name dropping and relying on others' experiences to validate your own judgement.

Yup, I'm a real dumbass for listening to folks that would know. Have fun with your emotional investment. and be sure to tell Lowlight and everyone else that all of their data on here is anecdotal.

 

[Upstate43]

Yup, I'm a real dumbass for listening to folks that would know. Have fun with your emotional investment. and be sure to tell Lowlight and everyone else that all of their data on here is anecdotal.

I don't have an emotional attachment to anything that is inanimate. And I'm not criticizing anyone who has had first-hand experience with the firearm in question. Nor am I calling anyone a dumbass.

I'm saying when you rely on other peoples' experiences, your evidence is anecdotal. Do you understand what that word means?

 

[BlueWater]

FWIW I had a Vortex PST 2.5-10x32 fail on a SCAR 17 not once, but twice. Both times in an ADM Delta mount. No problems (though still early) with a NF 2.5-10.

 

[N-C]

? ? ? Eotech

 

[N-C]

Acog

 

[N-C]

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

Well, thank for posting those videos. I much as I like Lucas cinematography, watching an amateur gunfighter run around for 60 seconds doesn't lend much to the conversation.

I probably have 10,000+ rounds through a couple different SCAR-L/H and Mk20s now as a professional shooter, and I've spent the last 6 years as a instructor watching SCAR-Hs trickle though SDM/Sniper courses, so maybe add another 20,000 - 30,000 round on to that. Still 30,000 - 40,000 rounds isn't much more than a drop in the bucket and is arguably anecdotal. Baring empirical data, as I only bothered noting trends, the SCAR-H (Mk17 MOD 0 to be exact) have shown a tendency to break optics at rates higher than other platforms. The theory among my peers and one that seems plausible to me, is that the SCAR-H exhibates a resonating recoil impulse though the upper receiver that induces forces on optics that are not typically seen when mounted on other platforms.

Again I don't have data, I don't spend my day in the lab but as a professional shooter and instructor I do spend enough time doing this stuff to know when something is off. Ballpark failure rate from my perspective is hard to nail down, but Crane has crunched some numbers and apparently felt the need to put out guidance on optics and lasers. Yet here we still have people who bother with commenting "My Vortex whatever the fuck, has been running great for the last 4 years with 1k rounds". There have been training days durning pre-mission train ups where 1K is what I've shot before lunch.

 

[N-C]

~~~~~~