9-hole reviews on the Youtubez did a shoot with the Scar 17 and this issue cropped up. Accurate gun, but, if I recall the video right, they experienced walking bolts on the rifle itself and talked about the "recoil dampener" as a solution.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
The SCAR 17 doesn't have significant recoil impulse, but it does have a 'fast' recoil.

For fucks sake.

The physics of .308 semiauto are actually a constant. Boys, quit mincing.

So all semi-auto actions work the same? DI vs piston? Just like all 9MM pistols recoil exactly the same - or don't?

Well I guess my experience with the SCAR 17 is different that yours.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Two way recoil caused by the operating system and receiver flex?

Riflescopes made for spring piston airguns addressed similar problems long ago: etched reticles ( not wire), two way bracing of lenses and internal parts, and one piece scope mounts.

I was remembering these features from the seventies when I got my Beeman FWB124 and the Beeman Blue Ribbon 2-7X32 scope.

Back then, spring piston air guns were destroying even expensive, high quality riflescopes.

Remember the Beeman Short Scopes? They were being used on AR15's as well as on airguns.

Excellent point! I remember that Beeman optic you're talking about. I knew a guy who put one of those on HK91 and swore it was a great optic for that rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I no longer recall the source, but I did see a super slow motion video of SCAR receiver during the recoil process. There was a fair amount of flex in the upper receiver, and these forces acted upon the optic. It was theorized that a very stiff one-piece scope mount would add rigidity to the upper receiver, thus reducing the flexing forces on the optic.

The flexing forces might be a function of the recoil pulse & harmonics, or it might be something else.

I do suspect a heavier and stiffer upper receiver might reduce the SCAR's potential for chewing on optics, but it's just speculation on my part.

Interesting concept. I've not given much thought to the need for rigidity in a riflescope up until fairly recently and this comment underlines the reason why rigidity in a scope is a thing.

Scopes usually come with main tubes in standard diameters: 1 inch (25.2mm), 30mm, 34/35mm and even 40mm now. The reason for the increasing sizes is to allow for addition internal travel. They all seem to use the same size inner tube and lenses but where you have about 30 MOA (10mil?) of travel in a 1 inch tube, you now have 60 MOA (20mil?) in a 30mm tube and 90-100 in a 34/35mm tube. The external tube thickness is always the same at 2mm.

Well, "always" is a big word, let's say "mostly." The reason for the correction is that the 56mm scopes from March with a 34mm tube are exceptions to this "rule." The 34mm is not not used to provide for more adjustment range, it's actually a product of the fact the tube is 4mm thick instead of the standard 2mm.

We all know that a larger diameter tube is more rigid than a smaller diameter tube even is the thickness of the material is the same; bending a larger tube is more difficult than bending a smaller tube. But in the case of the March-X, the material is twice as thick, which makes it very rigid.

My March scope on my F-TR match rifle has seen over 20,000 rounds through the rifle since it's been on there and it's not burped one bit. I will say that a bolt rifle does not have the bizarre recoil impulse of a SCAR or my AR-10B, but then again, the match rounds are a lot more powerful than the regular 7.62X51 or .308 WIn ammo that I run through my AR-10B.

So, if you want a stiffer scope tube, get a larger diameter tube; but the ultimate in rigidity is a March-X, but that will cost plenty.

I can see where a quality one-Piece mount would go a long way to alleviate the flexing, but I should think that you want a short contact with the top rail lest you eliminate the benefit of the one-piece mount by having it connect with the rail for most or all of its length.

Most reticles are etched nowadays, I haven't seen or heard of a wire reticle in decent or better quality scopes in years (decades?)

Well I guess I'll chime in with my 2 cents here. My 2 cents is at least a somewhat informed 2 cents since I have a SCAR 17 and another even LIGHTER 308 with the same exact optic mounted.

My SCAR 17 ate the Swarovski Z6i 1-6 BRT that I originally had mounted on it. The ocular with the illumination assembly rotated to about 3 O'Clock or so and had to be sent back to Austria for repairs.

My even Lighter Steyr Scout with the exact same optic and similar rounds fired counts is still on the same rifle and has had Zero issues......

So My personal experience is that Scar 17's are harder on Scopes. Even premium not so cheap optics.

I can't say whether it's from the heavy bolt carrier or IMHO even more likely excessive receiver flex but my suspicions not based on scientific testing are that it's a combination of a flexible aluminum receiver and a heavy bolt carrier.

My personal solution to the issue was to spend too much money on 1pc Spuhr mounts to stiffen the Scope/receiver interface and I invested in a lovely Schmidt Bender 1-8 I hope is way tougher than the Swarovski Z6.

I truly love my Scar 17's and hope they won't eat anymore stupid expensive scopes!

...........DJ

I have been using a TA11-J Acog in a larue mount on my SCAR 17 with no sign of any issues. Keep in mind too that the 17 is overgassed under either gas setting from the factory.

You can easily remove the gas jet from the gas block and tune the system to your liking. Lower cyclic rate may or may not keep SCARs from eating optics, but it does help with shootability.

Parker Mountain Machine Gas Jets

Ran an ELCAN on my issue Mk17 with 13 inch barrel and FN suppressor. Never had any issues.

I have had very negative experiences with EOtechs, But it was all battery life and leakage related issues.

Slight thread drift, how is the CZ Bren 2 on scopes.

I have a Bushnell Tactical Elite Tactical FDE ERS on my FDE SCAR 17 with 500 rounds down the barrel without any problems.

Before purchasing my first SCAR 17, I had read reports of it damaging optics. There are even some videos out there that show the recoil impulse / harmonics in slow motion showing the flex that actually takes place. I ended up getting Aadland mounts for both my Razor 1-6 and Nightforce NXS. IMHO, a sturdy mount along with a higher end scope is the way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by vincent317:
I ended up getting Aadland mounts for both my Razor 1-6 and Nightforce NXS. IMHO, a sturdy mount along with a higher end scope is the way to go.

Agreed.

It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

Quite true. If my experience at public ranges and my browsing of websites is any indication, there are a number of quality rifles out there with bargain optics on them.

During my early years of rifle shooting, I couldn't bring myself to purchase high-end optics. As I began pushing my rifles for better accuracy at longer distances, I began understanding the importance of good glass.

I suspect many shooters do not posses the experience or skill sets to exploit the capabilities of their long guns. Unfortunately, acquiring those abilities will be more difficult with cheap glass.

I also believe that many rifle shooters are used to buying handguns. A person buys the pistol and it is done. Maybe a new holster, but maybe an existing holster works. Buying a firearm for say, $3k, then sinking another $3k or more for optics, optics mount, and bipod can be a shock to some.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

Quite true. If my experience at public ranges and my browsing of websites is any indication, there are a number of quality rifles out there with bargain optics on them.

During my early years of rifle shooting, I couldn't bring myself to purchase high-end optics. As I began pushing my rifles for better accuracy at longer distances, I began understanding the importance of good glass.

I suspect many shooters do not posses the experience or skill sets to exploit the capabilities of their long guns. Unfortunately, acquiring those abilities will be more difficult with cheap glass.

I also believe that many rifle shooters are used to buying handguns. A person buys the pistol and it is done. Maybe a new holster, but maybe an existing holster works. Buying a firearm for say, $3k, then sinking another $3k or more for optics, optics mount, and bipod can be a shock to some.

This is quite true, however I would interject as I mentioned above and as member djpaintles has discovered, even expensive high quality optics can fall prey to the SCAR-17's unique recoil characteristics.

Just my opinion, but anyone considering using an optic on the SCAR would be well advised to stick to optics that have been specifically proven to work well on the SCAR-17 (i.e.. what they use in the military on their SCARs). Also, it would be prudent to consider a rugged 1pc. mount and purchasing said optic from Brownells as they offer a "Forever Warranty" on most of their optics.

When I finally spring for optics, personally I will most likely be running Nightforce optics in Spuhr mounts. I will likely also purchase the optic at Brownells.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

Quite true. If my experience at public ranges and my browsing of websites is any indication, there are a number of quality rifles out there with bargain optics on them.

During my early years of rifle shooting, I couldn't bring myself to purchase high-end optics. As I began pushing my rifles for better accuracy at longer distances, I began understanding the importance of good glass.

I suspect many shooters do not posses the experience or skill sets to exploit the capabilities of their long guns. Unfortunately, acquiring those abilities will be more difficult with cheap glass.

I also believe that many rifle shooters are used to buying handguns. A person buys the pistol and it is done. Maybe a new holster, but maybe an existing holster works. Buying a firearm for say, $3k, then sinking another $3k or more for optics, optics mount, and bipod can be a shock to some.

When it comes to rifles, I would rather have a $1500 optic on a $500 rifle than the inverse.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

Quite true. If my experience at public ranges and my browsing of websites is any indication, there are a number of quality rifles out there with bargain optics on them.

During my early years of rifle shooting, I couldn't bring myself to purchase high-end optics. As I began pushing my rifles for better accuracy at longer distances, I began understanding the importance of good glass.

I suspect many shooters do not posses the experience or skill sets to exploit the capabilities of their long guns. Unfortunately, acquiring those abilities will be more difficult with cheap glass.

I also believe that many rifle shooters are used to buying handguns. A person buys the pistol and it is done. Maybe a new holster, but maybe an existing holster works. Buying a firearm for say, $3k, then sinking another $3k or more for optics, optics mount, and bipod can be a shock to some.

When it comes to rifles, I would rather have a $1500 optic on a $500 rifle than the inverse.

Yep. Agreed. One of my biggest firearm-related pet peeves is a turd of an optic on a quality rifle.

I don't know what optics have trouble on a SCAR. But I know from personal experience that Aimpoint doesn't, Nightforce (multiple options but NX8 and NXS) doesn't, acog doesn't, leupold doesn't' (Mark 6 or 8). FWIW.

I've been happy with my Tango6 (1x-6x) that's been riding on my SCAR-17 (the more accurate black finish version). I'm using a Bobro mount.

Just had it out on the range yesterday. It's good fun to make the plates on the 200 yard line jump.

I don't have a huge round count on my rifle. Maybe 300 rounds. But, the Tango has been solid.

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Blue:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It's heresy to buy a $3K rifle and put some sub-par optic to begin with.

Quite true. If my experience at public ranges and my browsing of websites is any indication, there are a number of quality rifles out there with bargain optics on them.

During my early years of rifle shooting, I couldn't bring myself to purchase high-end optics. As I began pushing my rifles for better accuracy at longer distances, I began understanding the importance of good glass.

I suspect many shooters do not posses the experience or skill sets to exploit the capabilities of their long guns. Unfortunately, acquiring those abilities will be more difficult with cheap glass.

I also believe that many rifle shooters are used to buying handguns. A person buys the pistol and it is done. Maybe a new holster, but maybe an existing holster works. Buying a firearm for say, $3k, then sinking another $3k or more for optics, optics mount, and bipod can be a shock to some.

This is quite true, however I would interject as I mentioned above and as member djpaintles has discovered, even expensive high quality optics can fall prey to the SCAR-17's unique recoil characteristics.

Just my opinion, but anyone considering using an optic on the SCAR would be well advised to stick to optics that have been specifically proven to work well on the SCAR-17 (i.e.. what they use in the military on their SCARs). Also, it would be prudent to consider a rugged 1pc. mount and purchasing said optic from Brownells as they offer a "Forever Warranty" on most of their optics.

When I finally spring for optics, personally I will most likely be running Nightforce optics in Spuhr mounts. I will likely also purchase the optic at Brownells.

Which optics are you considering? I haven’t gotten anything for mine yet and I don’t know much about optics other than I like the idea of a 1-6 or 1-8 with some sort of bdc reticle rather than a “real scope” for my intended uses.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:
Which optics are you considering? I haven’t gotten anything for mine yet and I don’t know much about optics other than I like the idea of a 1-6 or 1-8 with some sort of bdc reticle rather than a “real scope” for my intended uses.

I am not a fan of BDC reticles. For distances out to 250-ish yards, choosing a reasonable zero for one's application generally works just fine. This could be a 50/250 yard zero, a 75 yard zero, or a POI that's 1" high at 100 yards.

Beyond 300 yards the concept of a BDC reticle comes into play. In theory one only needs a good idea of the distance to target. But the BDC may not work for all users. The reticle assumes the bullet's ballistic coefficient, the muzzle velocity, the scope height over bore, and the air's density. These calculations may be close, or they might be noticeably different than your situation.

******
For a BDC scope, the Vortex Razor 1-6x has a proven track record in 3-gun competition.

I'm not thrilled about S&B scopes. I know too many competitors who have seen their S&Bs crap out -- generally on the scope's ability to maintain zero and elevation dialing.

Nightforce builds tough scopes, and they are the core of my optics. The NX8 1-8x is a nice scope -- the glass on the ATACR 1-8x is even better.

Thank you. What reticle do you prefer?