Thinking about putting a higher magnification scope on a SCAR 20s. I've heard that SCARs can be scope killers so I'm leaning towards something like Vortex, Leupold, or Nightforce as they're usually praised for their durability and warranty. But would you also trust a S&B? I'm a bit leery since I heard they now have a limited warranty.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Would you trust a S&B PMII 5-25x56 on a SCAR?
- Thread starter Johnson184
- Start date
It comes down to the construction. I would call them and ask them.
A $50 airgun scope would probably survive better than some $2000+ scopes simply because its built with that forward "recoil" in mind.
SWFAs are built similarly and I would trust one of them.
I personally would not mount a PM2 on a SCAR because if something does happen, you're on the hook for repair.
A $50 airgun scope would probably survive better than some $2000+ scopes simply because its built with that forward "recoil" in mind.
SWFAs are built similarly and I would trust one of them.
I personally would not mount a PM2 on a SCAR because if something does happen, you're on the hook for repair.
Crane had a list of approved optics for the SCAR, as I recall the list wasn’t long. A quick check on LF indicates an anecdotal account of a SCAR breaking a S&B Short Dot, amongst others.
I sure as shit wouldn’t be sticking anything I liked on a SCAR. The impression I got was that NF and Aimpoints were Crane’s suggestions.
I sure as shit wouldn’t be sticking anything I liked on a SCAR. The impression I got was that NF and Aimpoints were Crane’s suggestions.
Not sure why people who don't know what they're talking about feel the need to comment their opinion on stuff, but here are some facts.
1. They put PM2's on semi auto Barrett 50 cals that have WAAAAY more mass slapping back and forth than a scar and they hold up fine.
2. The 5-25 model specifically is a very popular choice on air guns because of the focus distance and people wouldn't run them if they didn't hold up to the reverse recoil.
It will be absolutely fine on a Scar 7.62, huge as can be but it will hold up. A 5-20 or 3-20 US would personally be my pick for that rifle to keep it more proportionate.
1. They put PM2's on semi auto Barrett 50 cals that have WAAAAY more mass slapping back and forth than a scar and they hold up fine.
2. The 5-25 model specifically is a very popular choice on air guns because of the focus distance and people wouldn't run them if they didn't hold up to the reverse recoil.
It will be absolutely fine on a Scar 7.62, huge as can be but it will hold up. A 5-20 or 3-20 US would personally be my pick for that rifle to keep it more proportionate.
Who said a S&B was fragile!? They didn't just get to where they are just because of the superb optics. It's one of the most robust rifle scopes ever made.
better question... will a scar hold up to a S&B?? lol
DT
DT
There's a certain irony to criticizing 'people who don't know what they're talking about' and then laying down facts, without evidence, that don't really get at the issue here.
Both facts implicitly assume that the determining factor in scope failure is peak recoil impulse. But, plausibly, it could be the frequency of recoil, too. Even if the SCAR has a lower recoil than the Barrett, it could induce scope failure through a higher rate of recoil impacts on the internal optical components.
That, by the way, is another reason the Crane NSWC results for the MK17 might not easily transfer over to the SCAR. If the failures occurred in whole or in part due to full auto testing, then that kind of frequency of stress might be unrealistic to assume for the civilian semi-only model.
I don't really know. But more importantly, even if this were perfectly known, I'm not sure it does the OP any good.
Any kind of comfort in this world comes from the law of large numbers. And nobody that I know of has done batch testing on S&Bs vs Vortex vs etc. to see not only which holds up best on the SCAR but also how significant that advantage is.
In the absence of this knowledge, then, it's really about prioritizing among:
* Optical feature set
* Optical quality
* Price
* Warranty/Support
If OP likes the S&B because it has better optical quality than a similarly priced Vortex, for example, then he needs to decide whether that quality difference is enough to outweigh the warranty difference (best for Vortex).
That's a choice that only he can make. For me, I usually err on the side of the best warranty support not only because I like to use my gear a lot, but because I'm clumsy, sometimes careless, and these purchases are significant expenditures that I want lasting support for many years down the line.
I’m not sure this is relevant. However, I have a Millett 1x6 on my 17 and it has performed flawlessly for what would be considered a “cheap “ scope.
Why does a polymer lower blow out the reticle on the S&B? Not trying to be condescending, just seeking to understand from your experience.
the Polymer lower doesn’t do enough to dissipate recoil. The scopes weren’t unrepairable but the repeated recoil in combat rattled the internals of the scope loose. We saw Reticles sideways.....
The newer metal lowers are the new standard across the board. I’m not an engineer but I assume the material does a better job to catch and degrade the recoil than the polymer does.
The newer metal lowers are the new standard across the board. I’m not an engineer but I assume the material does a better job to catch and degrade the recoil than the polymer does.
The 7.62 SCARs have a tendency to eat optics, however most of the higher-end stuff handles the strange recoil impulses of them alright. Make sure you are utilizing proper mounting techniques with a solid mount such as a Spuhr. I've never trashed an optic on my SCAR but then again I'm not shooting thousands of rounds through it. YMMV
You are 100% wrong on this. I do find it funny you are bashing everyone else when you are the clueless one and should be silent instead of commenting.
A scar 17 puts 10 times for force on an optic as a barret. The combination of design, light weight receiver and very heavy bolt carrier results in a system that has destroyed what was, at the time, the finest electro optical systems we have.
Litterly almost every socom weapon accessory had to be redesigned and hardended to stand up the the 17. Lights , lasers, optics, everything. Want to know why eotech came out with a perpendicular battery compartment ala xps/exps?.
Now with all that being said the PM2 is one of the more durable optics but I would expect it's electronics to go first. NF and Bushnell are the two top optics (early hdmr was a popular scar17 optic) IF I needed that much mag.
Today with the mk20 they have redesigned it to mitigate optic damage and in conjunction with hardened optics, it's not that much of a problem. My suggestion would be to see what guys in country are running on their mk20s and copy that.
Last edited:
It's just the design of the scar. It's a trade-off to get a stupid reliable, lightweight, ergonomic , low recoiling accurate semi auto weapon system in a heavy caliber. All in all not a bad compromise. You already spent $4k for the rifle and accessories what's another $2k for a quality optic.
Agreed ^ As well I will add that there's always a certain group of people on this forum who don't know what the fuck they are talking about and could care less about the insurmountable evidence, they simply blow it off as "anecdotal."
The facts remain, the SCAR H eats optics. I have had to repair top tier optics that I have had on my SCAR, this includes a CQBSS from Leopold and at Nightforce F1. In discussions with support staff from both companies they relayed this is a common occurrence with the SCAR H platform. An SnB will be no different. I am of the same opinion as the above, the warranty and reputation of the supporting company is everything when it comes to optics.
Note to fanboys: Scopes are complex electro optical devices that like anything else will fail given enough beating.
Ignore Sako... He is literally going into every post I made and talking shit. He's nothing but a troll.
Hk,. Yea they have the same issue. Def going to eat an optic before an AR would.
Hk,. Yea they have the same issue. Def going to eat an optic before an AR would.
I like this take on it because I think it really does describe why the SCAR is so enduringly effective in spite of its optics habits.
On a more tangential note, another reason I get an optic with a good warranty is because I bet that the average shooter nowadays is pushing their equipment closer to the breaking point than before.
I mean, 10, 20 years ago, how many people would put down 1000 - 5000 rounds a year? Unless you were trying to liberate an oil field or another sandy country, I don't think many civilians did.
Yet now you have, even at the local level, PRS guys and more commonly going past 1k rounds and having to switch barrels more frequently (albeit with hotter cartridges), etc.
Similar threads
