All my optics have MOA turrets, with most scopes being Nightforce first focal plane models. I like NF's MOAR reticle, and NF's older F1 reticle on NXS also works well.

Vortex's MOA reticles are OK, but I like NF better.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

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.

Woah. Those S&B scopes have pretty hefty price tags to be having those sorts of failures.

The Schmidt and Bender story is an interesting one.

Several years ago I met a couple of high tier shooters who were absolute fans of S&B scopesights. Between them they must have had nine or ten mounted on precision rifles. I had also seen them recommended here. At one time too the US Marine Corps had chosen S&B scopes for their snipers.

Almost overnight it seemed, though, all that changed. Precision shooters were complaining about their failures and the difficulty of getting them serviced. At least one vendor of high end rifles and optics suddenly blew out their S&B scopes at closeout prices, and more recently I see other vendors putting them on sale when other brands never vary in price. Another illustration that high price doesn’t always mean best quality.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

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.

I feel the same way about em. Not seen that with Nightforce, which is my preferred high end optic, or SWFA on the low end. I have the SWFA 1-6 in a Bobro mount on my 17 and it has stood up to the recoil fine. I'd rather pay for rugged optics first, then clarity. I feel like the S&B is opposite.

Bartocci on small arms solutions has a SCAR 17 video about the recoil of the 17 eating optics. Large mass, impact rearward then forward, and wonky harmonics are all cited. He also calls the mags weak. I don't know about all that. He's saying the Handl lowers helps fix it to stiffen things too. I have a hard time messing with FNs design. I think Bartocci brings a lot to the table but I just don't agree with him on the 17.

Don't have a good picture of the optic and mount from a few years ago

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2hN26fS]

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The Schmidt and Bender story is an interesting one.

Several years ago I met a couple of high tier shooters who were absolute fans of S&B scopesights. Between them they must have had nine or ten mounted on precision rifles. I had also seen them recommended here. At one time too the US Marine Corps had chosen S&B scopes for their snipers.

Almost overnight it seemed, though, all that changed. Precision shooters were complaining about their failures and the difficulty of getting them serviced. At least one vendor of high end rifles and optics suddenly blew out their S&B scopes at closeout prices, and more recently I see other vendors putting them on sale when other brands never vary in price. Another illustration that high price doesn’t always mean best quality.

I was giving some real consideration to getting one of the S&B dual-role 1-8x scopes for my SCAR-17, and moving the Tango6 to an AR. Guess not!

I used to watch this forum that showed what PRS shooters used. In 2013 S&B was the leading vendor. by 2018 they were fourth and falling. But many of the top 10 still used them.
I use NF and have zero issues on a scar.

I have been shooting S&B for a long time, I have older and newer scopes, and have been equally happy with all of them. I for one am happy to see any negativity on the internet over the brand, it helps keep the mark ups down. If anyone wants to unload a new or good used PMII let me know I need another one and one of my shooting buddies needs another as well. I will freely admit that there are vendors that have in the past given me free or reduced price products and I will always recommend them when appropriate, I would like to say I am objective but that would be hypocritical of me. Take what you hear or read from nearly everyone especially on the internet or if they are wearing a fancy jersey with a grain of salt. Except Miller High life, it really is the champagne of beers.

Well I’m going to try the Trijicon AccuPower 1-8 in a Bobro mount on my 17. Heavy as balls but hopefully it’ll hold up.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:
Well I’m going to try the Trijicon AccuPower 1-8 in a Bobro mount on my 17. Heavy as balls but hopefully it’ll hold up.

I'd be comfortable with one, at least from a durability standpoint.

And having returned an AccuPower 1-4 myself, Trijicon's C/S was great (scope took a spill, worked find but it dislodged some dust inside the optic which became visible on the reticle).

Good to know. Thanks!

So, at this point in this thread, are there interesting technical factors in defining the SCAR's allegedly unique ability to destroy scopes, like receiver flex and two way recoil impulse, and the specific features of a scope that can survive, or is it just a matter of using a quality riflescope, defined by dollar cost?

If so, what is the bottom dollar cost of a survivor?

What exactly is the type of 'scope' are you discussing. I can say with complete personal confidence that any aimpoint is fine. As is the Nightforce NXS compact, NXS 3.5-15, ATACR 1-8 or 4-16, NX8 1-8. I would probably sweep any NF into that recommendation, but I haven't tested anything beyond the above.
After that I would venture that any of the other high quality tactical scopes would be fine...Vortex Razor, US Optics, Premier or Kahles.
Though none of these will be 'cheap'.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
If so, what is the bottom dollar cost of a survivor?

Some will depend on the preferred type of scope and your use. First, are you looking for optics on a SCAR-17 that you own, or is this a hypothetical discussion?

I suspect a quality fixed power optic or a decent red dot -- like an ACOG or Aimpoint -- won't have problems.

Variable power optics contain more pieces of glass and more mechanical pieces. More things to become wonky.

Constantly dialing elevation wears the elevator system faster than fixing a zero and holding over or under.

High volume shooting will reveal potential optics weaknesses faster than low volume shooting.

Run-n-gun type shooting will impart additional shocks to the optics system -- shocks that won't occur with a rifle that gets TLC during transfers from the car's trunk to the lead sled on a concrete shooting bench.

I think the least expensive sight you can put on a SCAR-17 is the Aimpoint PRO, or, even slighlty less expensive but really the same sight, the Aimpoint ACO

If you can interpret this stuff:

Shock: Withstands shock. Limits: X-axis: 500 g, 0.7 – 1.1 ms (3 shocks), Y-axis: 40g ±4g, 11 ±1ms (2 shocks in each direction, Z-axis: 40g ±4g, 11 ±1ms (2 shocks in each direction).

Vibration: Withstands Vibration. Limits: Vibration, sinusoidal in a frequency range of 10-150 Hz. Frequency: 10-30 Hz, ±1.587 mm, Frequency: 30-150 Hz. 5.75 g, 1 octave/min. Direction: X, Y and Z, Time: 30 min/direction.

https://www.aimpoint.com/product/aimpoint-pro/

So, this says the sight can withstand a force of 500 g in the X-axis, which I assume means the bore axis. It also says the sight can withstand a force of 40 g in the Y-axis and the Z-axis.

IIRC, Elcan says that the Specter DR 1/4x can withstand a shock of 450 g, and the Elcan Specter is widely accepted as damn near bulletproof and a prime choice for the SCAR-17, so if Aimpoint's estimates are correct, you can put a PRO or ACO on your SCAR-17- in a quality mount, of course- and shoot 'til the cows come home.
Least expensive, durable for the SCAR-17 magnified optic? Perhaps something like the Trijicon AccuPower 1-8 in a quality mount? Something like that. That scope has a 34mm tube and it's very heavy.

Just a guess on that, but the Aimpont PRO or ACO is a sure bet in my book.

To follow up on Para’s post I agree Trijicon is a good mid-priced option. I’ve run the following on my 17S:

Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40, ADM Recon-S mount: ~1500 rounds with no issues. Sent to Trijicon for a checkup and got a clean bill of health, now on a different rifle and still solid.

Trijicon Accupoint 1-4x24, ADM Recon-S mount: ~500 rounds with no issues.

Nightforce 2.5-10x42, Seekins rings, ~1500 rounds with no issues.

Many Scar 17S are over gassed from the factory, especially if you shoot full power ammo. This makes a big difference as the carrier is slamming into the back of the receiver, transmitting those accelerations to the optic. If your Scar is “jumpy” when you shoot it, as in it feels like you get punched in the cheek, it’s probably over gassed. If it cycles while on the suppressed setting even without a suppressor installed it’s probably over gassed. It’s pretty easy to tune the gas system and smooth things out.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
So, at this point in this thread, are there interesting technical factors in defining the SCAR's allegedly unique ability to destroy scopes, like receiver flex and two way recoil impulse, and the specific features of a scope that can survive, or is it just a matter of using a quality riflescope, defined by dollar cost?
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935&m=4240060364
If so, what is the bottom dollar cost of a survivor?

I'm sot so sure...

The dollar amount has virtually nothing to do with the situation. There are a number of great (expensive) optics manufacturers out they're. S&B, Zeiss, Hensoldt, Swarovski, Kahles, March, Tangent Theta, just to name a few. While most people would consider these to be very fine optics... To a SCAR there pretty much just different flavors of Dorrito's.

Conversely, a person could easily spend a fraction of the money on a Trijicon, Leopold, Nightforce or Vortex and have far less chance of problems on a SCAR.

For those wanting an illuminated optic, most (not all, but most) optics makers have two warranties. One for the optics and one for the illumination electronics. Two notable exceptions are Vortex and Steiner. There may be others.

The point I would make is to consider what has been proven to work on SCARs. IMO, that would be what the military uses with them, combined with credible reports from civilian shooters. What I will personally look for in a SCAR optic will be an overall balance of warranty duration, brand reputation, optical quality and mechanical reliability.

From what I have been able to tell from researching the subject, SCARs in the military have been widely issued with a number of optics:

ELCAN - It's my understanding that initially ELCANs were being killed by SCARs and the manufacturer ended up making subsequent revisions to harden them specifically for use on the SCAR. I don't recall their warranty being especially great.

ACOG - There may have been issues initially, but I think they have those pretty well worked out. I can't recall hearing about an ACOG getting killed on a SCAR. The other Trijicons (Accu-Power/Accu-Point)? It's my understanding these are Trijicon optics in name but are manufactured by a company in Japan. They might be fine on a SCAR, but Trijicon is one of the companies who has a separate warranty on the illumination electronics.

Leupold - There are lots of Mk4s in use in the military and I suspect they are sufficiently rugged to survive on a SCAR. Leopold is another company that has a different warranty on their electronics.

Nightforce - NSX optics have been widely used in the military and I have little doubt they are sufficiently rugged for a SCAR. Though, NF again has a different warranty for their illumination electronics.

Vortex - I've seen a number of "in the field" photos with SCARs sporting Vortex Razor II optics and Vortex covers both optics and electronics in their warranty.

Steiner - I haven't heard much in the way of Steiners on SCARs, but their warranty covers both optics and illumination electronics.

I have no affiliation with Brownells. I also know a prudent shopper can beat their prices if they look around. However, most of their optics are covered by a lifetime purchase guarantee, so it's something I would certainly consider when making a purchase. I am leaning toward Elcans & Nightforce for my SCARs.

quote:

ELCAN - It's my understanding that initially ELCANs were being killed by SCARs and the manufacturer ended up making subsequent revisions to harden them specifically for use on the SCAR. I don't recall their warranty being especially great.

What and how they modified them to survive might be very interesting.

I have used several Aimpoints on my SCAR 17 with no ill effects (Pro, M4S and Micros). It currently has the M4S on it.

I planned to try the Vortex PST Gen 2 1-6x24 on it but it may be awhile until I get done with it on another rifle.

I went with a U.S. Optics 1x8 and ADM mount. So far so good.

Sexy.

FYI the AccuPower 1-8 in Bobro medium extended mount weighs 2 lbs 5 3/8 oz on my scale, or 1.06 KG. Doesn’t seem too bad holding it in my hands, but we’ll see how it feels on the rifle.