SCAR 17/H problems
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
I'm glad somebody finally brigs up this issue with the SCAR
>>28365486
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDM7BOopGMI
forgot link
>>28365486
No one cares.
>>28365515
>>28365543
>posters: 4
>Trump posting is more entertaining that OPs gay 8-years-too-late rickroll video
Lol
>>28365486
The real issue is the SCAR series have an a much more violent recoil pulse, which ends up killing optics at a higher rate than on other guns.
It's not a good rifle for that reason alone. It's bigger, bulkier and offers little more that the M4 platform doesn't already offer in more compact, lightweight set ups.
When you have the M4 and the AK as the masters of their class, and the King Of Bullpups to be determined - why bother with a standard rifle with shittier performance?
>>28365684
I thought he was supposed to be the smarter of the Bushes?
>>28365707
>why bother with a standard rifle with shittier performance?
Because it won the contract.
>>28365717
Not a valid response
You are either issued a rifle because of your professional life, in which you have no say in the matter, or you are given the option to buy one for yourself in your personal life, at which point why overspend on something bordering on memegun territory?
There are better options.
>>28365806
>posts an HK
>not a memegun
LMFAO
>>28365819
It's an improved AR line with AR ergonomics that takes any AR compatible mag and many AR accessories.
What is meme about it?
>>28365707
>why bother with a standard rifle with shittier performance
Nobody does, the scar 5.56 is abandon ware. The whole selling point is the 7.62 variant, which is among the best in its class.
>>28365661
let the the butthurt flow through you
>>28365828
>which is among the best in its class.
I would agree, with the exception of it blowing up optics on the regular. It's a legitimate criticism of the gun.
Although if you use one of the approved optics that is confirmed to take the abuse the SCAR dishes out, it performs quite well.
>>28365917
Butthurt about what? There hasn't been anything bothersome about rickrolling in almost a decade. Its like expecting people to get upset about Elvis Presleys sexual dance moves, you're many years too late.
The real problem with the SCAR is the stock looks like an Ugg boot
>>28365944
taste it, now savor it.
>>28365959
Uggs are the perfect analogy. They look fucking stupid but they're super comfortable. That's how the scar stock is
>>28365928
what are the brands and models of optics that fail on a scar 17, and at what round count do they fail?
>>28366003
Gee, you got me.
I'm absolutely livid that someone would insert a classic piece of late 80s dancepop into a banal video editorial in an effort to shock me.
Gosh darn, I'm just so mad.
>>28366090
>>28366054
>what are the brands and models of optics that fail on a scar 17
Not entirely sure. I'll never be issued one. I know eotechs were pretty bad and would blow up on them. I see Elcan's issued on them all the time so I assume those are good to go since they are an external zero and all the components are comparatively macrosized.
I don't see many ACOG's on them either
They have a nasty habbit of breaking PEQ's as well.
Some civilian grade thermals have also been blown up on the thing.
If you are using a QD mount, make sure it's Larue on a SCAR. The 17 can apparently knock arms levers and ADM levers loose. Larue can lock your throw levers in place so they won't move.
It's actually super well known across the internet. People have measured the harmonics of the device and found the recoil profile of the SCAR to be different than other weapons shooting the same cartridge. It's more violent pulse as well.
Same reason why a 9mm AR can have a harder pulse than a 5.56 AR. Knew a guy who blew up a PVS-14 like that.
It's easily googleable. You can do your homework.
>and at what round count do they fail?
Easily one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard
You can tell this is a troll video from the beginning since the guy doesn't spend 5 minutes talking about previous videos and other random shit before getting to business.
>>28366054
>>28366128
http://handldefense.com/shop/product-category/optics/
Apparently Aimpoint is also good to go.
>>28365707
>violent recoil pulse
>bigger, bulkier and offers little more that the M4 platform doesn't already offer in more compact, lightweight set ups
one of this two statements must be false
recoil is greatly first by reduced by flash hiders and second by weapon weight.
>>28365806
Ergonomics (for me) are better (excellent) with a scar. Not worth the price tag though imo
>>28366020
Hahahaha holy shit this is the analogy I've been looking for.
>>28366135
Violent doesn't mean greater all the time. How the gun transfers that recoil to optics is killing a bunch.
I don't have all the charts these guys drew up, but they determined the SCAR has the potential to blow up some optics that would otherwise be fine on a different rifle with the same cartridge.
Sometimes guns behave in ways you wouldn't expect. An AR chambered in 9x19mm has about 150 more G's of force on the gun than a 5.56 has, give or take a few G's. You'd think "Man, smaller bullet and less powder" but nope. I was surprised to learn that, but it explained why a PVS-14 went down and had to go in for warranty.
Think of it like this - one of those Airguns that shoots metal pellets or BB's can destroy an ACOG or Nightforce scope. It's why you have to get specifically made Airgun scopes.
The SCAR compared to the 417 is almost the same weight, I believe the 417 is about a pound heavier, but it also has all that extra fucking rail space no one needs. A short Geissele rail and it'll probably bring the weight back in line.
The 417 does not have the same harmonics as a SCAR, so optics the SCAR would blow up would be fine on a 417.
Just use an Elcan or Aimpoint and call it a day.
>>28366199
>"Man, smaller bullet and less powder"
You know what I meant by this, so before you go nitpicking the specifics just realize I've had a few extra shots of jacks so I'm not on my best game right now
>>28366128
why would round count be a dumb question? im talking about what round count the optics were at when they failed.
eotechs turned out to be shit right? isnt the military pissed at them because they are subject to failure?
i could understand some civilian model thermals breaking on a semi-auto .308.
the only other optic that i have read that has broke on a scar is a super sniper.
do you actually know of any other military grade optics failing on a scar?
>>28366003
Bystander to your argument here, please stop talking about tasting butts, butts are gross.
>>28365707
>what is the AUG
>>28366212
If your not a little drunk on night /k/ that's the wrong answer.
>>28366222
>round count the optics were at when they failed
Because there is no real measure of it, it can fail at 1 round or 10,000, but if the gun it going to kill optics it can happen at any time.
Handl did a test with eotechs, and had two fail in a single 5,000 round test.
The Eotech lawsuit is because of thermal drift and is, honestly, overblown. It's a real issue in the circumstances the military may be subjected to, but don't believe the shit posting in all the anti-EO threads. The other issues eotechs have are well documented and wouldn't apply in this case. It just blew the eotechs up by being a big burly bastard of a rifle.
I've seen a Leupold go down personally. It killed a Vortex but I don't give it that much credit cause Vortex is China crap with god tier warranty. We had an RMR fail. We've had two LDI OTAL lasers go down. I've heard in person of it killing a PEQ 15.
There are many other stories on the internet you can look into that go over this. It's so well known it's easy to Google and get immediate answers. Stop asking me, and look at Google.
The Thermals are one thing, but guys lost theirs. TNVC advises against using thermals rated for 7.62 NATO / .308 on a SCAR 17, but if something is rated for .50 you should be fine.
If you want to run a SCAR-17, use an Aimpoint or an Elcan. It's really that simple. I'm not shitting on the rifle for the recoil issue, but you'd be stupid to ignore the reality of the gun.
I am shitting on it because the 417 exists and I'd rather buy a shitty MR762 than a SCAR17. That is just me though.
>>28365824
no agr, means more wear on parts from higher back pressure and getting the system dirtier quicker
>>28366128
Eotechs were the only ones that I've heard of having issues and those were because of the vertical battery housing. On the xps series there isn't an issue from the reading I've done.
What civilian grade thermals to be exact? If a person doesn't measure the g forces their rifle is putting out, which can be measured and they don't verify that against what the manufacturer says is safe then that is their own fault.
If youre talking about rhino on fnf then its because his qd locks weren't tightened enough, after he moved it 1 notch it was fixed. I use bobro mounts and even in the cantilever position haven't had a single issue.
Which leupold and vortex? I've used a strikefire for a time on my 17s and didn't have it go tits up.
A guy I know bought an mr762 and as a result from HK telling him. the only can he can use is the shitty oss stuff. If you don't have a suppressor or intend on getting one sure, choose whatever. But I wanted a can to work on all my firearms without causing additional wear on the parts. I went scar 17 and use my 762rc with only 1 issue, it getting carbon on the blowback rings and fusing. that can be fixed with some expensive crisco before firing though.
I thought recoil was supposed to be less than the AR because "muh awesome space age polymer and gay plastic stock?"
>>28365664
How can anyone from /k/ like trump? His td is awful 1st of all not to mention the fact that he's a closet liberal. It's not going to be the liberals that take the guns it's gonna be a Republican who compromises
>>28365486
>99% of /k/ aren't poorfags and the whole 1% left over own a Scar H
Thanks for the useful thread OP.
>>28368575
You are free to use Google. The issues are well reported and there was an internal memo for DOD issued the SCAR H which optics were approved for use.
It is literally an objective fact that SCARs chambered in 7.62 NATO are more stressful on optics. People have done the research and put it all over the internet.
This is not an opinion. This is not shitposting. SCAR H had violent harmonics which can kill scopes otherwise rated and warrantied for the cartridge. This is a fact you need to accept.
If you have the money for a SCAR-H you have the money for an Elcan, Aimpoint or Nightforce Scope. Your budget Burris might not survive. Get over it.
