User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:11:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your clumsy attempt at thread derailment is laughable. AR's have more value, SCAR's are just more expensive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Ok, so now we are back to the SCAR being worth WAY more than a similar optioned AR, yet selling for the same price.  AR's have more value, SCAR's are just more expensive. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:13:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. Don't hold your breath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:14:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bigger is not always better. The g36 didn't need all that extra mass, it cycles fine. Same with AR's, and like... all sorts of other guns. Bigger is not always better, but it usually is. Reference the SCAR and ICW trials or even the much disputed "dust test." The SCAR and XM8 (G36) come out on top. There is a distinction here between cycling "fine" and cycling better. The AR and "all sorts of other guns" I'm aware are very reliable, the SCAR potentially more so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:17:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for you to post in the slidefire thread. Don't hold your breath. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. Don't hold your breath. Why do you want me to post in the slidefire thread? I have never shot a gun with a slidefire, and have never cared to look in to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:19:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you want me to post in the slidefire thread? I have never shot a gun with a slidefire, and have never cared to look in to them. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip Why do you want me to post in the slidefire thread? I have never shot a gun with a slidefire, and have never cared to look in to them. Maybe that thread will change your mind after you learn about them and you'll not be able to live without one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:21:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet you'll post all about them in this thread... Maybe that thread will change your mind after you learn about them and you'll not be able to live without one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
Why do you want me to post in the slidefire thread? I have never shot a gun with a slidefire, and have never cared to look in to them. Maybe that thread will change your mind after you learn about them and you'll not be able to live without one. If I buy a slidefire, will you buy a SCAR? Say the word and I'll place the order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:23:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bigger is not always better, but it usually is. Reference the SCAR and ICW trials or even the much disputed "dust test." The SCAR and XM8 (G36) come out on top. There is a distinction here between cycling "fine" and cycling better. The AR and "all sorts of other guns" I'm aware are very reliable, the SCAR potentially more so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bigger is not always better. The g36 didn't need all that extra mass, it cycles fine. Same with AR's, and like... all sorts of other guns. Bigger is not always better, but it usually is. Reference the SCAR and ICW trials or even the much disputed "dust test." The SCAR and XM8 (G36) come out on top. There is a distinction here between cycling "fine" and cycling better. The AR and "all sorts of other guns" I'm aware are very reliable, the SCAR potentially more so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:24:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
about 5% had issues as they were not indexed to the machine improperly, every single one has been replaced according to Alan Handl is what I said. I do not know if there were fitment of function issues only that there could be. could be One thing that can not be discounted is the number of trigger modules that were not installed properly. The SCAR 25 requires following specific directions exactly, it is a stressed member which no other SCAR trigger module is. Initial mating is important in that process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The first 300 of these lowers produced had OEM parts fitment issues as well as function issues (verified by Klrb929 in previous threads). http://4c5oy13toq2z4b6dz22n11bctyl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HD_PressRelease_2012.pdf about 5% had issues as they were not indexed to the machine improperly, every single one has been replaced according to Alan Handl is what I said. I do not know if there were fitment of function issues only that there could be. could be One thing that can not be discounted is the number of trigger modules that were not installed properly. The SCAR 25 requires following specific directions exactly, it is a stressed member which no other SCAR trigger module is. Initial mating is important in that process. Are you saying this clown can't get his insider info straight? Thanks for clearing this up for us. I guess he will never post that proof on how SE stole from Handl. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:25:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for you to post in the slidefire thread. Don't hold your breath. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. Don't hold your breath. There is literally no reason to bring the bump fire stock into this thread. Obviously he must have searched your username and is trying to paint you out to be some dirt shooting bubba. Madcap doesn't have a slide fire, so there is no reason to bring it up or ask him anything about it in the comments. That's me. I also don't hate SCARs, so take that for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:26:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TL;DR Quote HistoryQuoted: snip  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:27:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bigger is not always better, but it usually is. Reference the SCAR and ICW trials or even the much disputed "dust test." The SCAR and XM8 (G36) come out on top. There is a distinction here between cycling "fine" and cycling better. The AR and "all sorts of other guns" I'm aware are very reliable, the SCAR potentially more so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bigger is not always better. The g36 didn't need all that extra mass, it cycles fine. Same with AR's, and like... all sorts of other guns. Bigger is not always better, but it usually is. Reference the SCAR and ICW trials or even the much disputed "dust test." The SCAR and XM8 (G36) come out on top. There is a distinction here between cycling "fine" and cycling better. The AR and "all sorts of other guns" I'm aware are very reliable, the SCAR potentially more so. A more reliable weapon has looser tolerances and clearances. That's what makes a well made AK so reliable, that and it's overgassed. Not the mass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:27:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying this clown can't get his insider info straight? Thanks for clearing this up for us. I guess he will never post that proof on how SE stole from Handl. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The first 300 of these lowers produced had OEM parts fitment issues as well as function issues (verified by Klrb929 in previous threads). http://4c5oy13toq2z4b6dz22n11bctyl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HD_PressRelease_2012.pdf about 5% had issues as they were not indexed to the machine improperly, every single one has been replaced according to Alan Handl is what I said. I do not know if there were fitment of function issues only that there could be. could be One thing that can not be discounted is the number of trigger modules that were not installed properly. The SCAR 25 requires following specific directions exactly, it is a stressed member which no other SCAR trigger module is. Initial mating is important in that process. Are you saying this clown can't get his insider info straight? Thanks for clearing this up for us. I guess he will never post that proof on how SE stole from Handl. There is someone here requesting that you verify your status as Army SF. Just thought I would point that out to you as a favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:29:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you ever have a problem with the M4 in the military? I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:30:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is someone here requesting that you verify your status as Army SF. Just thought I would point that out to you as a favor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip There is someone here requesting that you verify your status as Army SF. Just thought I would point that out to you as a favor. Funny how he's been asked multiple times to confirm or deny that but wont. A simple "I never was I liked the name" would go a long ways. Conversely, if he walked the walk IME any question would be met with a swift and fast conformation. I wonder if there is a word for people that imply they are something... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:31:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did you ever have a problem with the M4 in the military? I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:34:09 PM EDT
[#16]
This thread is turning into the new Shotgun thread.
I love it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:34:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A more reliable weapon has looser tolerances and clearances. That's what makes a well made AK so reliable, that and it's overgassed. Not the mass. Have you forgotten what an AK bolt carrier weighs? The extra mass certainly doesn't hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:35:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you forgotten what an AK bolt carrier weighs? The extra mass certainly doesn't hurt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A more reliable weapon has looser tolerances and clearances. That's what makes a well made AK so reliable, that and it's overgassed. Not the mass. Have you forgotten what an AK bolt carrier weighs? The extra mass certainly doesn't hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:35:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you forgotten what an AK bolt carrier weighs? The extra mass certainly doesn't hurt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A more reliable weapon has looser tolerances and clearances. That's what makes a well made AK so reliable, that and it's overgassed. Not the mass. Have you forgotten what an AK bolt carrier weighs? The extra mass certainly doesn't hurt. That's true, but when Kalashnikov was interviewed about his design. His pointers for it's reliability were the tolerances and clearances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:37:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a lot of words for a yes or no question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you ever have a problem with the M4 in the military? I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. But you received your answer in addition to diverting the subject, which I assume was the true intent. It would be much easier to discredit me than the US military testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:39:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But you received your answer in addition to diverting the subject, which I assume was the true intent. It would be much easier to discredit me than the US military testing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you ever have a problem with the M4 in the military? I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. But you received your answer in addition to diverting the subject, which I assume was the true intent. It would be much easier to discredit me than the US military testing. M4 is analogous to AR. This is a thread about SCARs vs ARs. I don't see how that was a diversion of the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:41:38 PM EDT
[#22]
I see that this thread has devolved into purse swinging.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:44:31 PM EDT
[#23]
The design of the SCAR BCG group would make a lot more sense if it followed the design of the Ultimax-100...
 The SCAR might as well have been a full on long stroke piston, and might as well made it hollow and have the recoil spring and guide rod in it, and use constant recoil for a smooth operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:45:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M4 is analogous to AR. This is a thread about SCARs vs ARs. I don't see how that was a diversion of the subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you ever have a problem with the M4 in the military? I know some that have. Are you suggesting we let personal opinions and experiences overrule empiracle testing? That's fine, but we might as well be throwing out Handl's data if that's the case. But you received your answer in addition to diverting the subject, which I assume was the true intent. It would be much easier to discredit me than the US military testing. M4 is analogous to AR. This is a thread about SCARs vs ARs. I don't see how that was a diversion of the subject. The subject was "the effects of increased cyclic mass on weapon feeding reliability" in which I provided three examples where rifles with heavier bolt carrier groups outperformed the M4 in reliability. Asking me if I've ever personally experienced an issue with the M4 is irrelevant to that matter while avoiding the acknowledgment of the evidence set forth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:46:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The design of the SCAR BCG group would make a lot more sense if it followed the design of the Ultimax-100... http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Machine%20Guns/ultimax_3.jpg The SCAR might as well have been a full on long stroke piston, and might as well made it hollow and have the recoil spring and guide rod in it, and use constant recoil for a smooth operation. Holy shit. It seems like Stoner has become the most copied arms designer in history.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 12:53:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see that this thread has devolved into purse swinging. "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" I'm pretty sure that was OP's intent, no? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:11:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Ok, so now we are back to the SCAR being worth WAY more than a similar optioned AR, yet selling for the same price. AR's have more value, SCAR's are just more expensive. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a similarly optioned AR at close to the same weight of a SCAR that is 3-4x's less.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:16:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" I'm pretty sure that was OP's intent, no? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I see that this thread has devolved into purse swinging. "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" I'm pretty sure that was OP's intent, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:20:08 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:23:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your saying threads mentioning AR vs SCAR brings out the purse swingers? Would that be the fault of the threads subject material, or the thin skinned personalities of SCAR owners? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see that this thread has devolved into purse swinging. "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" I'm pretty sure that was OP's intent, no? "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?"
It's not like I don't own an AR or 10 either. It's just ludicrous to claim that a SCAR is 3-4x's the price of an AR that can do half what the SCAR can (including reliability and accuracy). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:29:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" It's not like I don't own an AR or 10 either. It's just ludicrous to claim that a SCAR is 3-4x's the price of an AR that can do half what the SCAR can (including reliability and accuracy). That for over $1500 more, you get $1500 more reliability and accuracy? Uh huh. ETA- what does the SCAR do that the MPAR can't?  Or an AR-180B. Or An adams arms AR... or any other slew of rifles. There's nothing special about SCAR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:40:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying that the benefit of a $2500 SCAR over a $900 Walmart 6920 is that impressive? That for over $1500 more, you get $1500 more reliability and accuracy? Uh huh. ETA- what does the SCAR do that the MPAR can't? Or an AR-180B. Or An adams arms AR... or any other slew of rifles.
There's nothing special about SCAR's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?"
It's not like I don't own an AR or 10 either. It's just ludicrous to claim that a SCAR is 3-4x's the price of an AR that can do half what the SCAR can (including reliability and accuracy). That for over $1500 more, you get $1500 more reliability and accuracy? Uh huh. ETA- what does the SCAR do that the MPAR can't? Or an AR-180B. Or An adams arms AR... or any other slew of rifles.
There's nothing special about SCAR's. I liked the lack of gas to the face, on the SCAR, when running suppressed. Just too bad that mine never ran reliably suppressed for many rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:43:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I liked the lack of gas to the face, on the SCAR, when running suppressed. Just too bad that mine never ran reliably suppressed for many rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip I liked the lack of gas to the face, on the SCAR, when running suppressed. Just too bad that mine never ran reliably suppressed for many rounds. Apperanlty these work really well.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:46:00 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL always a benefit. Apperanlty these work really well. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee110/blackfly53/001-3.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
I liked the lack of gas to the face, on the SCAR, when running suppressed. Just too bad that mine never ran reliably suppressed for many rounds. Apperanlty these work really well. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee110/blackfly53/001-3.jpg I've heard about those as well. I kind of prefer having a forward assist though, despite that it never really gets used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:46:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apperanlty these work really well. I hear gas pistons work better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:51:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying that the benefit of a $2500 SCAR over a $900 Walmart 6920 is that impressive? That for over $1500 more, you get $1500 more reliability and accuracy? Uh huh. ETA- what does the SCAR do that the MPAR can't? Or an AR-180B. Or An adams arms AR... or any other slew of rifles.
There's nothing special about SCAR's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip "What does a SCAR do better...That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?"
It's not like I don't own an AR or 10 either. It's just ludicrous to claim that a SCAR is 3-4x's the price of an AR that can do half what the SCAR can (including reliability and accuracy). That for over $1500 more, you get $1500 more reliability and accuracy? Uh huh. ETA- what does the SCAR do that the MPAR can't? Or an AR-180B. Or An adams arms AR... or any other slew of rifles.
There's nothing special about SCAR's. I have never heard of an MPAR other than this thread.
A Colt 6920, which I have, is just slightly less than 1/2 of what I paid for my SCAR 16 ($930 vs $2200, I do understand you can get the 6920 for around $800 now). It does not have the quad rail is the first thing, it doesn't have a CHF free floating barrel, OR in my use, it's just not as accurate, the recoil is CONSIDERABLY more than my 16, and it runs WAY dirtier than my scar. The 6920 IS an awesome buy/value. So it's not as accurate, it runs way dirtier, and it has way more recoil. It also doesn't have an ambidextrous mag release or bolt release, no adjustable gas system, no comb on the stock, and no folding stock for throwing in the back pack. They also weigh about the same EXCEPT the SCAR is WAY better balanced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:55:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never heard of an MPAR other than this thread. A Colt 6920, which I have, is just slightly less than 1/2 of what I paid for my SCAR 16 ($930 vs $2200, I do understand you can get the 6920 for around $800 now). It does not have the quad rail is the first thing, it doesn't have a CHF free floating barrel, OR in my use, it's just not as accurate, the recoil is CONSIDERABLY more than my 16, and it runs WAY dirtier than my scar. So it's not as accurate, it runs way dirtier, and it has way more recoil. It also doesn't have an ambidextrous mag release or bolt release, no adjustable gas system, and no folding stock for throwing in the back pack. They also weigh about the same EXCEPT the SCAR is WAY better balanced. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip I have never heard of an MPAR other than this thread. A Colt 6920, which I have, is just slightly less than 1/2 of what I paid for my SCAR 16 ($930 vs $2200, I do understand you can get the 6920 for around $800 now). It does not have the quad rail is the first thing, it doesn't have a CHF free floating barrel, OR in my use, it's just not as accurate, the recoil is CONSIDERABLY more than my 16, and it runs WAY dirtier than my scar. So it's not as accurate, it runs way dirtier, and it has way more recoil. It also doesn't have an ambidextrous mag release or bolt release, no adjustable gas system, and no folding stock for throwing in the back pack. They also weigh about the same EXCEPT the SCAR is WAY better balanced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:56:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, what kinds of groups do you shoot with your SCAR, and are you left handed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip I have never heard of an MPAR other than this thread.
A Colt 6920, which I have, is just slightly less than 1/2 of what I paid for my SCAR 16 ($930 vs $2200, I do understand you can get the 6920 for around $800 now). It does not have the quad rail is the first thing, it doesn't have a CHF free floating barrel, OR in my use, it's just not as accurate, the recoil is CONSIDERABLY more than my 16, and it runs WAY dirtier than my scar. So it's not as accurate, it runs way dirtier, and it has way more recoil. It also doesn't have an ambidextrous mag release or bolt release, no adjustable gas system, and no folding stock for throwing in the back pack. They also weigh about the same EXCEPT the SCAR is WAY better balanced. I shoot both left and right. Groups are rated as more accurate vs less accurate. ETA to add: Why is the dirty part funny? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:59:41 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I shoot both left and right. Groups are rated as more accurate vs less accurate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip I shoot both left and right. Groups are rated as more accurate vs less accurate. I mean, "more vs less" accurate doesn't mean much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:01:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hear gas pistons work better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Apperanlty these work really well. I hear gas pistons work better. Lets not forget the part you cut out. "Quoted: I liked the lack of gas to the face, on the SCAR, when running suppressed. Just too bad that mine never ran reliably suppressed for many rounds." That was pretty weak sauce Kalmar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:01:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Typically they are rated in some form of comparable metric such as the group size at 100 yards. I mean, "more vs less" accurate doesn't mean much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip I shoot both left and right. Groups are rated as more accurate vs less accurate. I mean, "more vs less" accurate doesn't mean much. How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper on free time. Well at that rate, I guess all of the items listed don't mean anything either. So if that is what you were going for, good for you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:04:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper. If it's "fucking paper" why would accuracy or reliability matter to you then? Does your $2500 rifle punch different holes in paper? It sounds like the SCAR is more of a status symbol to you then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:11:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was pretty weak sauce Kalmar. No different than ignoring valid points while attempting to continually shift the goal posts. I'd be interested to hear more about Zerlak's troubles, so far my suppressed SCAR's have been 100% along with the vast majority of other users I've interacted with. Again I ask, are we letting the experiences of a single person dictate our entire assessment of the weapons being discussed here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:18:14 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No different than ignoring valid points while attempting to continually shift the goal posts. I'd be interested to hear more about Zerlak's troubles, so far my suppressed SCAR's have been 100% along with the vast majority of other users I've interacted with. Again I ask, are we letting the experiences of a single person dictate our entire assessment of the weapons being discussed here? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That was pretty weak sauce Kalmar. No different than ignoring valid points while attempting to continually shift the goal posts. I'd be interested to hear more about Zerlak's troubles, so far my suppressed SCAR's have been 100% along with the vast majority of other users I've interacted with. Again I ask, are we letting the experiences of a single person dictate our entire assessment of the weapons being discussed here? No, I was pointing out the hilarity of that specific post of yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:19:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you don't have any way to constantly and consistently gauge your skills and wether they are advancing or declining over time? If it's "fucking paper" why would accuracy or reliability matter to you then? Does your $2500 rifle punch different holes in paper? It sounds like the SCAR is more of a status symbol to you then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper. If it's "fucking paper" why would accuracy or reliability matter to you then? Does your $2500 rifle punch different holes in paper? It sounds like the SCAR is more of a status symbol to you then. Didn't you literally just complain about a poster selectively quoting you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:21:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No different than ignoring valid points while attempting to continually shift the goal posts. I'd be interested to hear more about Zerlak's troubles, so far my suppressed SCAR's have been 100% along with the vast majority of other users I've interacted with. Again I ask, are we letting the experiences of a single person dictate our entire assessment of the weapons being discussed here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That was pretty weak sauce Kalmar. No different than ignoring valid points while attempting to continually shift the goal posts. I'd be interested to hear more about Zerlak's troubles, so far my suppressed SCAR's have been 100% along with the vast majority of other users I've interacted with. Again I ask, are we letting the experiences of a single person dictate our entire assessment of the weapons being discussed here? I actually made a post in here earlier concerning the details. I may have just had a lemon rifle, it is possible. My problem was after 350-400 rounds of PMC 55 grain .223, it would start having cycling issues and not lock back on last round and have issues feeding. This happened with 4 different mags and with Federal/American Eagle .223. The suppressor attached was a Surefire FA556-212. After the malfunctions, I would rake the piston out and scrape all the build up off of it and it would then work fine until the 350-400 round count. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:26:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I was pointing out the hilarity of that specific post of yours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I was pointing out the hilarity of that specific post of yours. Apparently you missed the irony of yours. Quoted:
I actually made a post in here earlier concerning the details. I may have just had a lemon rifle, it is possible. Interesting, thanks for sharing. Did you ever contact FN about the problems you were having? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:27:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't you literally just complain about a poster selecting quoting you? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper. If it's "fucking paper" why would accuracy or reliability matter to you then? Does your $2500 rifle punch different holes in paper? It sounds like the SCAR is more of a status symbol to you then. Didn't you literally just complain about a poster selecting quoting you? So, back to you though, you talk about how the SCAR is a lot better, but not enough to measure accuracy over time. I know a lot of people say that the SCAR has great "practical accuracy" so how about in action shooting. Do you do that with your SCAR at all? Any two or three gun matches? Have any video of you shooting showing how much faster you can run a SCAR than your AR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:30:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was pointing out how funny it was, yes. Though in this case, I annotated that I was cutting down the length of conversation. So, back to you though, you talk about how the SCAR is a lot better, but not enough to measure accuracy over time. I know a lot of people say that the SCAR has great "practical accuracy" so how about in action shooting. Do you do that with your SCAR at all? Any two or three gun matches? Have any video of you shooting showing how much faster you can run a SCAR than your AR? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip
How does more vs less not mean much? I don't care to measure and record my groups. It's fucking paper. If it's "fucking paper" why would accuracy or reliability matter to you then? Does your $2500 rifle punch different holes in paper? It sounds like the SCAR is more of a status symbol to you then. Didn't you literally just complain about a poster selecting quoting you? So, back to you though, you talk about how the SCAR is a lot better, but not enough to measure accuracy over time. I know a lot of people say that the SCAR has great "practical accuracy" so how about in action shooting. Do you do that with your SCAR at all? Any two or three gun matches? Have any video of you shooting showing how much faster you can run a SCAR than your AR? Holy shit you are dense. "WHAT DOES A SCAR DO BETTER....That makes it worth 3 or 4 times the price?" Why are you unable to accept the simple fact that the SCAR IS worth 3-4x's any AR that is indeed 3-4x's less? What do you want me to do, strap my gopro to the SCAR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2014 2:32:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy shit. It seems like Stoner has become the most copied arms designer in history. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The design of the SCAR BCG group would make a lot more sense if it followed the design of the Ultimax-100... http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Machine%20Guns/ultimax_3.jpg The SCAR might as well have been a full on long stroke piston, and might as well made it hollow and have the recoil spring and guide rod in it, and use constant recoil for a smooth operation. Holy shit. It seems like Stoner has become the most copied arms designer in history. L. James Sullivan led the Ultimax 100 design team. He worked on the Stoner 63 and the AR-15 / M-16 with Stoner (and the Mini-14). Nowadays he hates on the M-16. Firearms designers, especially modern ones, copy from anything they think will work. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
