FN Herstal Firearms banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Being that the SCARs main advantage against the other 7.62 semiauto battle rifles is its weight combined with the fact that the gun experiences significant MOA shift at range, I would say going over a 6x battle scope isn't the way I would go.

If money isn't an issue, go with the Elcan SpectreDR in 1.5-6 with the 7.62 reticle. It will be more than enough for any battle rifle, be more durable and you can still spend the 2K+ you want to.
I ain't going to battle with it. Mine is very accurate out to 500 yards. It's just a fun gun to me to play and hunt with. If the zombies come I'll put a x6 on it ok.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
144 Posts
Why would anyone put a 2 pound, $2300 optic on a battle rifle like the SCAR? These scope threads are weird.

:th_confused0024:
Roger that, this is a 600M rifle. Just because it will hold MOA doesn't mean you should get stupid with it.........buy a TRG-42.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
I ain't going to battle with it. Mine is very accurate out to 500 yards. It's just a fun gun to me to play and hunt with. If the zombies come I'll put a x6 on it ok.
I would call a rifle "very accurate" if it shoots .5 MOA at ranges reasonable for the cartridge. I'd call it "accurate" if it shot 1 MOA. My 17s can't do that. Even Sarge couldn't get 1 MOA out of it.
What is "very accurate" to you Patton? Does your 17s group inside 5" at 500 yards? Or are you stating that it's very accurate for a carbine?

Also, as stated, I don't get it. That doesn't mean you're wrong or anything. It's just not for me.
:?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
I would call a rifle "very accurate" if it shoots .5 MOA at ranges reasonable for the cartridge. I'd call it "accurate" if it shot 1 MOA. My 17s can't do that. Even Sarge couldn't get 1 MOA out of it.
What is "very accurate" to you Patton? Does your 17s group inside 5" at 500 yards? Or are you stating that it's very accurate for a carbine?

Also, as stated, I don't get it. That doesn't mean you're wrong or anything. It's just not for me.
:?
Well I was shooting under about 12" at 500 yards but I suck at shooting. I get under an 1" at 100 with it. I just wanted something big for hunting. I like seeing the deer up close and personel.:?

Its all good man. We all like different stuff. I know it's not the way someone would set up the 17 in combat but I like it. Besides I can always change anytime I want. ::!!!::

Peace brother.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
I would call a rifle "very accurate" if it shoots .5 MOA at ranges reasonable for the cartridge. I'd call it "accurate" if it shot 1 MOA. My 17s can't do that. Even Sarge couldn't get 1 MOA out of it.
What is "very accurate" to you Patton? Does your 17s group inside 5" at 500 yards? Or are you stating that it's very accurate for a carbine?

Also, as stated, I don't get it. That doesn't mean you're wrong or anything. It's just not for me.
:?
What I don't understand is the fact that there are certain members that bring ABSOLUTELY nothing to the conversation other than that they don't understand why someone would purchase a Ferrari when a Ford Taurus would do. What I doubly don't understand is that they do this over and over and over again.

To the OP - BUY the BEST optic you can afford. This rule applies in photography as well. You may skimp on the digital components to some extend - they change with time and you will upgrade. Lenses almost NEVER change and you will keep your expensive Leitz or other German lens for the rest of your life.

Besides - having awesome glass on a rifle is like having sex without rubber. It's just that much better. People that never had the coin to own one just don't know what they are not understanding.

-TH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
Well I was shooting under about 12" at 500 yards but I suck at shooting. I get under an 1" at 100 with it. I just wanted something big for hunting. I like seeing the deer up close and personel.:?
I wish I could shoot that well. I've only shot my 17 to 500 yds on one range trip. Hit a big ram steel target about 50% of the time. The guy next to me was ringing away at them. He was good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,704 Posts
If I had the same Nightforce scope I sure as hell would be mounting it on my scar and having some fun. Patton, your photo of your scar has always made me drool! :p HAHA. Granted, my Eotech 553 is best suited for the shooting I do, but if I'm in a position to add a scope like that Nightforce to the mix, I wont hesitate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
What I don't understand is the fact that there are certain members that bring ABSOLUTELY nothing to the conversation other than that they don't understand why someone would purchase a Ferrari when a Ford Taurus would do. What I doubly don't understand is that they do this over and over and over again.
...
-TH
To me it's more like why would someone who lives in L.A. buy a Ferrari when a BMW would do. If you can't take advantage of the equipment's superior qualities, you're just trying to impress people.
In my world, never getting my car out of 2nd gear in stop 'n go traffic, or increasing the weight of a carbine by 20%, is opulence.

I'd rather Cerakote all my magazines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Well I was shooting under about 12" at 500 yards but I suck at shooting. I get under an 1" at 100 with it. I just wanted something big for hunting. I like seeing the deer up close and personel.:?

Its all good man. We all like different stuff. I know it's not the way someone would set up the 17 in combat but I like it. Besides I can always change anytime I want. ::!!!::

Peace brother.

Then put a Leupold VX-3 on it and be done. Plenty of glass for hunting with that platform. And I don't doubt one or two groups get under an inch, but the vast majority won't. Especially with factory ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Roger that, this is a 600M rifle. Just because it will hold MOA doesn't mean you should get stupid with it.........buy a TRG-42.
Or have a custom 700 built for way less. And it won't hold MOA passed 200 yards, not consistently. But yeah, you are right, a ton of fanboys see a 17S and think they have a Long Range body dropper. It ain't that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
What I don't understand is the fact that there are certain members that bring ABSOLUTELY nothing to the conversation ...

What I doubly don't understand is that they do this over and over and over again.
...
-TH
I believe there is merit to inform the OP into considering the downside of putting a 2lb optic on a SCAR. That input is not "ABSOLUTELY nothing".

"They" do it over and over because there are optic threads posted here daily (read over and over) and "They" are here daily.

Now you've flown in and taken your dump. Fly away seagull.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Or have a custom 700 built for way less. And it won't hold MOA passed 200 yards, not consistently. But yeah, you are right, a ton of fanboys see a 17S and think they have a Long Range body dropper. It ain't that.
Look man maybe you should go hang out with the local swat team and you can all congratulate each others weapon expertise. Ill bet you know 100 times more about combat weapons and optics than I do however there is no truly accurate way to measure how much I don't give a ****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
I tell ya, from where I am with my "optics decision" right now . . . I admire anyone who put's anything on their SCAR's! :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,094 Posts
FWIW, the title of the thread was "The best POSSIBLE scope......". Not the best value, best deal etc. etc. so maybe we can all take opinions within that context. No use gettin too wound up over Internet arguments anyway. There are different opinions on best and what best means, I think there have been a few useful points made here...............dj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Look man maybe you should go hang out with the local swat team and you can all congratulate each others weapon expertise. Ill bet you know 100 times more about combat weapons and optics than I do however there is no truly accurate way to measure how much I don't give a ****.
Then why are you on a firearms forum??? To have everyone agree with your inaccurate view of firearms, or to learn, share information, argue a bit, and ultimately gain knowledge.

And if you don't care, then why are you even bothering to respond???


The post asked a question, and it drew comments, honest ones from me. Can't give you anymore than that...sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
To the OP, the SCAR is light and fast on target so IMO I would keep it that way as much as possible. The better your glass the better you can ID your target. I shoot out to 600 and can tell you 1st hand the 17 hit center mass all day at that range. (FYI My 17 will shoots .75-1" at 100 even after 60+ rounds). Now as for scope mag, I have tried both 4X ACOGs and 4X Hensoldt scopes (good glass) BUT both left me wanting more X. I'm getting ready to get some new glass just for the 300-600+ range. I've been looking for about 3 Mo now and I keep coming back to the NF 2.5-10 with OS RMR :?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patton250

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
I dont know about you but, I cant get the safety to engage without the hammer cocked. Its the same as an AR trigger group. The safety is actually really great on this design trigger. When the safety is engaged (cant fire), it mechanically blocks the sear ( I hope thats what thats called) from moving and letting the hammer free to slam and engage the firing pin, thus fire. If the safety is "on" the hammer is cocked, I dont leave it cocked until looking at the target. Yours and my FS2000 the safety is only in the trigger not the trigger pack. So it can be engaged independently of the hammer, cocked or not.
Yeah, I just leave the SCAR 17 cocked with the safety on (but no round in the chamber). Should I not be leaving it cocked while sitting in a drawer? Is it bad for the hammer or springs or such?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
...a SCAR isn't that accurate anyway.
That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the SCAR isn't that accurate. While I haven't shot mine yet, every post I've read related to accuracy seems to gush about how super accurate this rifle is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Being that the SCARs main advantage against the other 7.62 semiauto battle rifles is its weight combined with the fact that the gun experiences significant MOA shift at range, I would say going over a 6x battle scope isn't the way I would go.

If money isn't an issue, go with the Elcan SpectreDR in 1.5-6 with the 7.62 reticle. It will be more than enough for any battle rifle, be more durable and you can still spend the 2K+ you want to.
I don't know about you, but I have a hard time seeing the lines on a target with my EOTech 4X Magnifier at 100 yards on my FS2000. So with just 2X more magnification, I don't know how the heck I'd be able to see the target very well at 500 yards.
 
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top