And you would be wrong. I'm not sure how you've even convinced yourself that I might be biased, and then proceed to be biased as hell with no factual basis yourself. I was simply stating facts about quality AR10s. You are dithering about reputation. Which is biased again?
You're not stating facts. You're stating opinions. Claiming that the AR-10 outperforms the SCAR-H is not a fact, it's an opinion, one that is based on a series of
subjective evaluations.
I covered this above, yes. To be fair, the SCAR was a stock H on a range for a few hundred rounds. But that is all I needed to agree with the opinion of everyone else who's tested them on the points I made above. This isn't about some anecdotal BS, this is simply me reporting what is physically possible on both platforms.
This wasn't covered above. All you said was 'yes' in your previous post; you didn't provide any details. And even with a few hundred rounds, I don't know what the hell you observed that could persuade you to think that the SCAR is somehow deficient when compared to other 7.62 rifles.
Also, you should go look up the definition of anecdotal. When you use the experiences/opinions of other people as evidence, it's considered "anecdotal," as per the definition of that word.
Good god did you not even read my post? I said built, as in built by you or a good smith. But yes, there are actually several factory options for .5moa gas guns, including JP, GAP, and KAC. Lowlight has a pretty good list of top performers. So you can build them or buy them. And you know what? They will be over 2x as accurate as what a SCAR struggles to achieve on a good day.
2x as accurate? I think you're drinking too much kool aid. And as I said earlier, unless you've done extensive side-by-side comparisons (same ammo, same conditions, same range), which I very much doubt that you have, you're going out on a shaky limb to make that kind of claim.
Just like the AR10. And we know a lot about both because of it. And what we know is that SCARs can eat optics, and have other issues that a quality AR10 will not.
Have you personally experienced any of these issues with optics? Again, it seems like you're relying on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure
some SCAR's have had issues with optics. The fact is: the SCAR has been adopted by SOCOM, as well as other militaries, en masse. If optics failure was truly a widespread problem, I'd expect to see DOD requests for system changes; I haven't seen anything of the sort. Have you?
I've heard a few complaints about that issue within the civilian community....it's far from common. That issue may be more indicative of scope/optic quality rather than inherent design flaws with the weapon.
Now I know you are trolling. I just laid it out for you in the OP that you quoted. It isn't even a long post, just take the time to read. I'll give you an even quicker TL;DR. The AR10 can be: just as reliable and durable, lighter, quieter and less gassy to the shooter, far more accurate, with less recoil, won't eat optics, and with a massively better aftermarket. In other words, better in every way it is possible to be that matters.
I'm not going to argue against each of those individual points, but let's be honest here: just about everything you're stating in the above post is
opinion, not
fact. And if all you did was fire a few hundred rounds at a range to form those opinions, then I think you're assuming much more credibility on the topic than you deserve. Did you honestly see optics failures and abnormal weapons malfunctions during your limited time behind the SCAR?
I'm curious to know where/when you fired these several hundred rounds through the SCAR. Did someone let you borrow the rifle? It's obvious from what you've said so far that you don't own the rifle and that it wasn't your standard issue (if you were in a LE or Military service). And yet you talk about the rifle's shortcomings as if you're intimately familiar with it.
