Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Scars eat optics. (Page 2 of 6)
|
Quoted:
Perceived recoil is less. Look at the weights of reciprocating mass posted. The SCAR is itself lighter, as well. Muzzle brakes actually magnify the problem, they don't help. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just pissed I can't put my thermal on my new 17s. Or my lasers or nv scope. All the forum just blame the optic and it is bs. In the night vision forum there is talk that measured recoil forces from a scar 17 are 2-3x a DI AR10 scar recoil is much less than an ar10 with a 16" barrel.most is the factory muzzle break Perceived recoil is less. Look at the weights of reciprocating mass posted. The SCAR is itself lighter, as well. Muzzle brakes actually magnify the problem, they don't help. The factory muzzle brake is crazy. It makes perceived recoil much, much more severe. With the aac blackout it seems like half of the perceived recoil. Suppressed you hardly feel any recoil. If I was going to put a 10k thermal or nightvision on there, it would be with the suppressor on. |
|
Quoted:
The can could potentially make things worse with back pressure, no? I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. Quoted:
Quoted:
The can could potentially make things worse with back pressure, no? I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. |
|
Quoted:
As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The can could potentially make things worse with back pressure, no? I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. The optics are mounted to the rail. If the rail moves, i.e., recoil, then the optic moves. If the rail moves less, the optic moves less. And vice-versa. The bolt carrier could not affect the optic without affecting the entire rifle to which the optic is attached. It would seem to me that the violence, or lack thereof, of recoil would be a good indicator as to how harsh the rifle is on the optic. But again, I skipped physics in both high school and college, so I may be missing a few things. |
|
This thread is not the first I've heard of this issue.
In fact, I first heard about this from a test tech who works for a large Military optics company. He tests lasers, optics, thermals, lights, etc... and certain contracts call for testing on SCARs. What he told me was the SCARs were by far the most abusive on both the optics and the receivers themselves. |
|
Quoted:
The optics are mounted to the rail. If the rail moves, i.e., recoil, then the optic moves. If the rail moves less, the optic moves less. And vice-versa. The bolt carrier could not affect the optic without affecting the entire rifle to which the optic is attached. It would seem to me that the violence, or lack thereof, of recoil would be a good indicator as to how harsh the rifle is on the optic. But again, I skipped physics in both high school and college, so I may be missing a few things. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The can could potentially make things worse with back pressure, no? I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. The optics are mounted to the rail. If the rail moves, i.e., recoil, then the optic moves. If the rail moves less, the optic moves less. And vice-versa. The bolt carrier could not affect the optic without affecting the entire rifle to which the optic is attached. It would seem to me that the violence, or lack thereof, of recoil would be a good indicator as to how harsh the rifle is on the optic. But again, I skipped physics in both high school and college, so I may be missing a few things. I think you skipped some of this thread too. |
|
Quoted:
I think you skipped some of this thread too. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The can could potentially make things worse with back pressure, no? I'm no physicist, but I don't feel much recoil at all suppressed. So I would assume that it would be lighter on optics. If there's some invisible force which I cannot perceive, then who knows. But in any event, I have never personally witnessed any problems anyways. As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. The optics are mounted to the rail. If the rail moves, i.e., recoil, then the optic moves. If the rail moves less, the optic moves less. And vice-versa. The bolt carrier could not affect the optic without affecting the entire rifle to which the optic is attached. It would seem to me that the violence, or lack thereof, of recoil would be a good indicator as to how harsh the rifle is on the optic. But again, I skipped physics in both high school and college, so I may be missing a few things. I think you skipped some of this thread too. You're the one who called it a theory. Have you had any optics eaten? |
|
Quoted:
You're the one who called it a theory. Have you had any optics eaten? 3 scars with NF, Leupy and aimpoint optics. The aimpoint has a DBAL. No issues yet, but the 3 rifles don't have 2K rounds on them total. One of them has less than 200. Believe me when I say nobody wants the claims and theory to be incorrect more than I do. But if there's an issue I'm definitely going to explore all options, not just write it off. |
|
Quoted:
You're the one who called it a theory. Have you had any optics eaten? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As previously stated, perceived recoil is not whats breaking the optics. Or at least that's the theory currently being discussed. Its the movement of the bolt and related parts. That would potentially be increased with the back pressure from a can, even if its only slightly. The optics are mounted to the rail. If the rail moves, i.e., recoil, then the optic moves. If the rail moves less, the optic moves less. And vice-versa. The bolt carrier could not affect the optic without affecting the entire rifle to which the optic is attached. It would seem to me that the violence, or lack thereof, of recoil would be a good indicator as to how harsh the rifle is on the optic. But again, I skipped physics in both high school and college, so I may be missing a few things. I think you skipped some of this thread too. You're the one who called it a theory. Have you had any optics eaten? I think what he's talking about is that, as the theory stands, the rearward recoil is not in question as to the POSSIBLE damage to optics. It is the forward recoil, when the bolt/carrier slams back into battery that could possibly be causing optics failures. A heavy spring airgun will usually destroy most normal riflescopes because they were not designed for forward recoil of the spring/piston. Same concept with the heavy bolt/carrier in the SCAR 17. Like I said though, this is just a theory. I still love my SCAR rifles. Their recoil is soft, lightweight, very accurate and run like a top. I'm just going to put a little extra care into my optics choice for them. 
|
|
Quoted:
This thread is not the first I've heard of this issue. In fact, I first heard about this from a test tech who works for a large Military optics company. He tests lasers, optics, thermals, lights, etc... and certain contracts call for testing on SCARs. What he told me was the SCARs were by far the most abusive on both the optics and the receivers themselves. Was he speaking of both the 16 and 17? |
|
Quoted:
I think what he's talking about is that, as the theory stands, the rearward recoil is not in question as to the POSSIBLE damage to optics. It is the forward recoil, when the bolt/carrier slams back into battery that could possibly be causing optics failures. A heavy spring airgun will usually destroy most normal riflescopes because they were not designed for forward recoil of the spring/piston. Same concept with the heavy bolt/carrier in the SCAR 17. Like I said though, this is just a theory. I still love my SCAR rifles. Their recoil is soft, lightweight, very accurate and run like a top. I'm just going to put a little extra care into my optics choice for them. Yes, all of this. Thanks. |
|
I think this issue would have been evident on the FAL HK93 and M14 type rifles also they are piston and heavy bolts going forward rifles as the theory claims.
I think this amounts to correlation without causation and people who are having failures of optics are attributing it to the rifle when it has nothing to do with the rifle. The only way to test this theory is to get a group of SCAR 17s rifles and a group of misc other 308 semi auto rifles shoot them and see if the SCAR has an statically significant optic failures over other 308 rifles. And use a Bolt rifle as a control. I could speculate about this all day but with no evidence other than hear say and one or two failures here and there no other reasonably objective conclusion can be drawn. |
| There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. |
|
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. |
|
Quoted:
I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. Bolt mass honestly does not make sense though lots of rifles over the past century HK 93, M14, FAL, Dragnov etc have had heavy bolts. It is just a case of people seeing optics failing and correlating it with the rifle it is on. If this is the case how many failed optics has the AR-15 alone have I bet the number is large but was it the rifle or optic? |
| I dont have a 17 but could it be the same principle as air rifles tearing up center fire rifle scopes because of the recoil pulse that goes in the opposite direction. I find it hard to believe that even a good red dot would get tore up if there wasnt some other force acting on it, say for instance the bolt slaming close is enough to mess with things designed for most of the force to go the other way. Just an idea. |
|
A couple of years ago, I had a SCAR 16 and mounted an EOTech 511 on it (using a GG&G Accucam mount). Previous to the aquisition of the SCAR, the 511 had been mounted on an AR. I ran the optic for several years with no issues on the AR; however, after mounting it on the SCAR, and running approx 500 rds, it began to shift zero to the right during firing. First I thought it was me and stringing the shots to the right due to sloppy trigger control, but after flipping up the opens I observed that the dot was right of the front sight post. I moved the dot back left and began shooting again, keeping the open sights in the up position. After every round fired, secondary sight pictured confirmed that the dot was indeed moving right. After 4-5 rds, the dot had moved enough off the FSP that there was daylight between the two.
I contacted EOTech and sent the sight in. I spent $58 to have the internals rebuilt. When I received the sight back from then, I remounted it and went back to the range. I immediately noticed that the sight was doing the exact same thing as it had done previously, by moving right during the firing sequence. I dumped the EOTech and topped the rifle with an Aimpoint Comp ML2. Never had another issue through over 1K+ rds.... Currently have a 17 with a TA11J, with only a couple hundred rounds through it. As of today, no issues to report with the Trijicon. |
|
Interesting thread. I have a ~7.5 lb AR-10 with an eotech on it and it hasnt shifted zero or broken, so I dont think the light weight of the SCAR is the culprit. Before the recent commercial manufacturers got hold of the AR-10, they were very light rifles and they never had this issue, but back then optics were not commonly used so maybe thats why. I don't know how many rounds mine has seen with the eotech probably less than 500, so who knows, maybe it is a ticking time bomb but I doubt it. I think the reverse recoil of the bolt impacting on its closing stroke makes the most sense, the bolt group on an AR-10 is not that heavy or heavily sprung compared to other battle rifles, and the SCAR is one of the heaviest it seems. If you let the bolt drop with no mag inserted, it is even more violent, with a loaded mag, stripping the round out of the mag absorbs a lot of the bolt energy. |
|
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. Why did he not care for the Elcan? Problems on the SCAR platform, or just doesn't care for them personally? |
|
Quoted:
Why did he not care for the Elcan? Problems on the SCAR platform, or just doesn't care for them personally? Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. Why did he not care for the Elcan? Problems on the SCAR platform, or just doesn't care for them personally? I don't know that he ever said, although the usual complaints about the Elcan have to do with the weight - and probably also the fact that you are limited to 4x or 6x. I definitely would like to know more. |
|
A few threads concerning SCARs eating optics:
A bit of a hijack of this thread, by folks who've used them/been around them used a lot (as in institutions/units): http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1415109__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Why_doesn_t_the_U_S__use_the_bullpup_design_.html&page=7 Some background on the critiques of that last thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_24/357536__ARCHIVED_THREAD____reliability_of_the_Scar_16_.html&page=4 And another criticism of SCARs damaging optics: http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=104622&page=2 From what I've read and seen, Eotechs die like goldfish with heart conditions, old ACOGs weren't built for the task of high recoil impulse, but new ACOGs are good to go, and Aimpoints were forged by dwarven weaponsmiths in the deepest lava fires of Belegost. I've seen Eotechs killed by M4s, and not on an irregular basis. Where I've worked had about 6 broken Eotechs in a locker at one point... and only about 10 rifles were running Eotechs to begin with before they were stripped... so a 60% failure rate. The ACOGs still run strong, and the few Aimpoints still work fine - and that's with M4A1s. My SCAR 17 doesn't mind the Aimpoint one bit, and it's worked great for some 2-3K rounds. I wouldn't trust an Eotech on it, and I still haven't decided on an ACOG to get. I've only messed with an ELCAN once, and since the only mounts available for it right now are from ARMS, I'll pass. |
|
All someone has to do is get a peak G load reading on the rifle, that likely is going to answer any questions as to what is happening to the optics.
Several guys on the night vision subforum were finding that their PVS-14's were suffering damage when mounted on a 9mm AR. Turns out that although the overal recoil energy in a 9mm AR-15 is less than a 5.56 AR, the peak level of G's is considerably higher on a 9mm AR, and peak G's is what kills optics. Someone over there had a way to test peak G loads, you might check with Vic at TNVC and see if he had the rig or knows who does. |
|
Quoted:
Bolt mass honestly does not make sense though lots of rifles over the past century HK 93, M14, FAL, Dragnov etc have had heavy bolts. It is just a case of people seeing optics failing and correlating it with the rifle it is on. If this is the case how many failed optics has the AR-15 alone have I bet the number is large but was it the rifle or optic? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. Bolt mass honestly does not make sense though lots of rifles over the past century HK 93, M14, FAL, Dragnov etc have had heavy bolts. It is just a case of people seeing optics failing and correlating it with the rifle it is on. If this is the case how many failed optics has the AR-15 alone have I bet the number is large but was it the rifle or optic? I know that the G3/CETME bolt/carriers are much heavier than the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier. If there was some issue with weight then those legacy rifles should have the same reputation. The G3 has a light weight bolt/carrier that is used for those old DAG blue plastic training rounds and the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier is about the same weight. As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. |
|
Quoted:
I know that the G3/CETME bolt/carriers are much heavier than the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier. If there was some issue with weight then those legacy rifles should have the same reputation. The G3 has a light weight bolt/carrier that is used for those old DAG blue plastic training rounds and the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier is about the same weight. As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. Bolt mass honestly does not make sense though lots of rifles over the past century HK 93, M14, FAL, Dragnov etc have had heavy bolts. It is just a case of people seeing optics failing and correlating it with the rifle it is on. If this is the case how many failed optics has the AR-15 alone have I bet the number is large but was it the rifle or optic? I know that the G3/CETME bolt/carriers are much heavier than the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier. If there was some issue with weight then those legacy rifles should have the same reputation. The G3 has a light weight bolt/carrier that is used for those old DAG blue plastic training rounds and the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier is about the same weight. As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. But how strong are the return spring on those guns compaired to the 17? It seem like we could and are guessing all day untill someone measures these forces we will never know. My money is still on reverse recoil pulse being much higher. |
|
Quoted:
But how strong are the return spring on those guns compaired to the 17? It seem like we could and are guessing all day untill someone measures these forces we will never know. My money is still on reverse recoil pulse being much higher. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a guy in some of the scar pic threads who was .mil and who used the scar-H in the .mil, and who personally owned scars as well. I would like to hear him chime in. So far I've heard a lot of "yeah I know this guy in SF who said . . ." but nothing direct from .mil units using the scar. I don't recall the person I am thinking of mentioning problems with optics, other than that he didn't really care for the Elcan and preferred other optics on his rifles. I just (briefly) chatted with one of the guys you might be talking about. He hasn't seen any real life cases of it. And he's seen a LOT of 17s come through. I still think the bolt mass theory holds the most ground if it IS happening though. Bolt mass honestly does not make sense though lots of rifles over the past century HK 93, M14, FAL, Dragnov etc have had heavy bolts. It is just a case of people seeing optics failing and correlating it with the rifle it is on. If this is the case how many failed optics has the AR-15 alone have I bet the number is large but was it the rifle or optic? I know that the G3/CETME bolt/carriers are much heavier than the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier. If there was some issue with weight then those legacy rifles should have the same reputation. The G3 has a light weight bolt/carrier that is used for those old DAG blue plastic training rounds and the SCAR 17 bolt/carrier is about the same weight. As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. But how strong are the return spring on those guns compaired to the 17? It seem like we could and are guessing all day untill someone measures these forces we will never know. My money is still on reverse recoil pulse being much higher. +1, we can guess all we want, but physics don't lie. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. This video?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pVya7easkThat episode repeatedly and incorrectly identified the Accuracy International AS50 as a "Barrett"... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. This video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pVya7easkThat's nuts. A SCAR would put that thing to shame. It'd be like a slinky. |
|
Quoted: Eh, I just wanted to show off the video that I captured years ago is still making rounds.  Quoted: Quoted: That episode repeatedly and incorrectly identified the Accuracy International AS50 as a "Barrett"... Eh, I just wanted to show off the video that I captured years ago is still making rounds. Awesome vid. Good reason it's still making the rounds.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an aside, I have seen slow motion footage of a .50 cal Barrett firing with a scope mounted. The amount of flex that goes on is nothing short of amazing. This video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pVya7easkThat's the one! Great! |
|
I recently took my SCAR-17 to the range and the irons were still zeroed, but windage on my Aimpoint M4 had shifted 3" at 50 yards. The dot also will be clear sometimes and after firing will look like a slash. I think I'm going to send it in to get checked out.
One of my friends returned his ACOG for repair to Trijicon when it had some issues. Trijicon pro actively asked him if it was being used on a SCAR-17 |
|
All this anti-SCAR talk smacks of either jealousy or competitor smear campaigns.
Simple solutions: Use iron sights, buy sturdier optics, or get rid of the SCAR. Next? I'm tired of hearing about this alleged problem. What do you really want people to say about this? Gee, the coolest rifle in the world sucks because it destroys optics? So? Do you want FN to put some sort of a forward recoil buffer tube on it? Really? It's a light weight carbine firing a full powered rifle cartridge with a massive bolt carrier. I haven't seen it happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it ate optics like air rifles do. I've had two SCAR 17's, and have run several sights on them from low end to high end and haven't seen any issues in thousands of rounds of firing. If it happens to me, I'll say "huh, imagine that", and send the optics back for warranty repair. If they come out with a clause saying "not covered because you used it on a SCAR", I'll buy from someone else. If you don't like that the SCAR may harm optics, buy something else. I'd recommend the Smith & Wessen M&P 10. I have one of those too, and it's nearly as fine a rifle as the SCAR. For the money, maybe more so. Oh, and I haven't heard it eats optics. So there. |
|
Quoted: All this anti-SCAR talk smacks of either jealousy or competitor smear campaigns. Simple solutions: Use iron sights, buy sturdier optics, or get rid of the SCAR. Next? I'm tired of hearing about this alleged problem. What do you really want people to say about this? Gee, the coolest rifle in the world sucks because it destroys optics? So? Do you want FN to put some sort of a forward recoil buffer tube on it? Really? It's a light weight carbine firing a full powered rifle cartridge with a massive bolt carrier. I haven't seen it happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it ate optics like air rifles do. I've had two SCAR 17's, and have run several sights on them from low end to high end and haven't seen any issues in thousands of rounds of firing. If it happens to me, I'll say "huh, imagine that", and send the optics back for warranty repair. If they come out with a clause saying "not covered because you used it on a SCAR", I'll buy from someone else. If you don't like that the SCAR may harm optics, buy something else. I'd recommend the Smith & Wessen M&P 10. I have one of those too, and it's nearly as fine a rifle as the SCAR. For the money, maybe more so. Oh, and I haven't heard it eats optics. So there. ...products would never be improved. It seems like you're doing the "I bought one now I have to defend it's honor" thing. But through discussion, correlating data and experience, maybe some one with some cash can ID the issue and resolve it. But if everyone just stood on a soap box and yelled "So what there might be a problem, it's fine how it is" a lot of firearms that were sketch when they came out, would never be the good guns they are now. Even M&P 10's have been improved from what they started as... |
|
Quoted:
Simple solutions: Use iron sights, buy sturdier optics, or get rid of the SCAR. Your post went full retard. No one is talking about them eating cheap optics. I recently heard an Aimpoint sales rep say the only Aimpoint they endorse for the SCAR-H is the M4 because it is the most rugged. Apparently it had killed some Pros and Micros. ACOGs are some of the most sturdy optics around, I had one run over by a truck and it wasn't damaged. Yet, one of my friends that actually shoots his guns had one go bad in under 500 rounds on a SCAR-H When I had a LaRue mount on my SCAR H it constantly shot the locking mechanism loose and the arm swung open dumping my Aimpoint. I switched to a Bobro and it's never come loose. The Zero on my Aimpoint has shifted more than I would consider to be normal while the iron sights remain dead on. I really like the SCAR-H because its the most reliable, lightest .308 I have owned. I'm not against it, I want optics that I know will work on it without wasting a lot of money on ammo to find it out. I have about 1,500 rounds through mine so far. |
|
Quoted:
I think this issue would have been evident on the FAL HK93 and M14 type rifles also they are piston and heavy bolts going forward rifles as the theory claims. I think this amounts to correlation without causation and people who are having failures of optics are attributing it to the rifle when it has nothing to do with the rifle. The only way to test this theory is to get a group of SCAR 17s rifles and a group of misc other 308 semi auto rifles shoot them and see if the SCAR has an statically significant optic failures over other 308 rifles. And use a Bolt rifle as a control. I could speculate about this all day but with no evidence other than hear say and one or two failures here and there no other reasonably objective conclusion can be drawn. I'm just a passer by, don't own and have never used any type of SCAR. But I can tell you, as a long time owner of FALs, FALs will for sure eat up poor quality optics !! I believe, like some have said, it's the bolt carrier's forward recoil impulse that is responsible. Perhaps this effect is even more severe in the SCAR 17 and thus is even affecting good quality optics? |
|
Quoted:
When I had a LaRue mount on my SCAR H it constantly shot the locking mechanism loose and the arm swung open dumping my Aimpoint. Quoted:
Quoted:
Simple solutions: Use iron sights, buy sturdier optics, or get rid of the SCAR. When I had a LaRue mount on my SCAR H it constantly shot the locking mechanism loose and the arm swung open dumping my Aimpoint. Did you have the clamps properly tightened? |
|
Because of the design of the operating rod working under the pressure caused by a short stroke gas piston leveraging against the extruded aluminum rails launching the bolt carry group into the rear of the receiver and causing the piston's energy to be dissipated into the optic. Or, you can just read the first letter of each line. I like that one from FN |
I've watched this thread with great interest - I bought my SCAR17 a few months ago and have developed a growing knot in my stomach whenever I hear rumors (unsubstantiated or not) about the weapon system's flaws, to include:
I'm not an "operator" - I'm a National Guard Cav Trooper and die hard shooter/hunter in my free time. I'm less concerned about the combat worthiness of the rifle and more concerned about my over $2k investment in a potentially flawed system. After talking with some friends who've used the SCAR17 in military training, my own limited experience, and lots of reading on online forums... here are my conclusions: Optics Breaking - I am convinced that the SCAR17 is breaking a lot of standard optics used on conventional Modern Sporting Rifles due to its unconventional recoil system. Optic manufacturers appear to be aware of the issue and my guess would be that they are taking steps to redesign optics to handle the forward high impulse recoil of the SCAR. Is this a flaw in the SCAR's design, or is it a side affect of an improvement in user perceived recoil? I would objectively argue that this is an issue of optics technology needing to adapt to an advance in semi-auto firearms technology. I'm not simply defending my purchase - I'm objectively stating that if the trade off for getting a lighter weight (8 pounds unloaded) 308 semi-auto battle rifle with significantly reduced user perceived recoil (equals faster followup shots), is that you need an improved optic that will handle the high impulse forward recoil... well I would say it's a good trade. It's inconvenient for now, but most good optic companies are warrantying/replacing optics and are likely in the process of redesigning their optics to be compatible with the SCAR. Parts Breaking at low round counts - this is troubling. I don't have any hard numbers on the round counts or which parts were breaking or if it was resulting in a deadlined weapon... I can only speculate that it won't affect the average hobby shooter like me who can't afford to feed their SCAR17 like special operations groups do. I would like to see this issue addressed publicly by FN, but I'm not holding my breath. Stock hinges breaking - I've heard this has been addressed in recently released guns, regardless I'm not going to be fighting running gun battles with my personal guns - they'll get abused a little hunting hogs, rabbits, coyote, deer, etc.... but I don't anticipate using IMT to avoid incoming fire  |
| I only have a few magazines through my 17 but my buddy bought his when they first came out. He runs a Leupy Mk4 on his and he has well over 2000 rounds through it without a problem. I'm calling this whole "Recoil impulse is damaging my optics" thing bullshit until I SEE someone post a pic or some type of definitive proof to the contrary. I can pull up a thousand threads where an M4 "Ate" an optic over the years. Oh wait, maybe it's just shitty QC on the part of the optic manufacturer. That doesn't happen often does it.... |
|
SCARs will eat old ACOGs, EOTechs, PEQ lasers, and Leupy scopes Mk4 and older. That does not mean every single one will fail quickly on a SCAR. It means that you will have a much higher rate of optic failure at a much lower round count than the same optic placed on an AR or other rifle. There's a reason you see NightForce scopes and ELCANs on all the NSW and SF SCAR photos. There's several threads on other forums discussing this with FN folks who actually designed the guns or were involved in the R & D phase in the military. It's caused by the weird high G-force recoil impulse of the guns. I'd tell you where these forums are but if you don't already know, you probably couldn't get a membership there anyway. They vet members based on what they do for a living and at least one existing member has to vouch for them.
Call it bullshit all you want. Get back to me when you've actually put a few thousand rounds through your SCAR and your old TA01NSN or EOTech goes Tango Uniform. Oh, and remember those guys you see doing special secret things in undisclosed places for king and country ain't paying for their stuff when it breaks. They just turn it in to the armorer dudes for a new one. Unless you can get the same kinda deal you best do your homework and ask around to some folks like professional trainers, .mil folks who are issued the SCAR, or LE that shoot it a lot what a good reliable optic for the gun is. Vendors may or may not be good sources of info. Vendor specific sales guys are usually worthless peckerwoods who will say anything trying to sell their product. Vic and the other guys at TNVC are good to go. If they tell you not to put something on a specific gun you can take it to the bank there's a damn good reason why they're telling you that. |
| More "I saw this guy once, on another forum, which is so secret, I won't even name it" innuendo. You have no idea what my experience, training, or area of expertise is. Once again for the cheap seats.... Show me some proof, you can keep the keep second hand information. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Scars eat optics. (Page 2 of 6)
Armory Sponsor