Rifle Scopes SCAR scope problems?

[mercracing]

Hey guys I’ve got a chance to pick up a SCAR, don’t need one but I’ve always wanted one. I’ve heard from a couple people they’re hard on optics. Anyone know more about this? If I put a gen III razor, or NF on will they be ok? Or will it trash any optic?
thanks for the insight.

 

[Tonsofguns]

you'll most likely be ok with those optics. I think the trashing optics is more of an exception than a rule. Sure it happens, but with a good optic it's most likely not going to happen.
The big thing for me is I just don't put my thermal or nightvision clip ons on my scar.

 

[Lucky Se7en]

I ended up swapping my Kahles out for a Gen II razor a couple years ago. It’s been fine so far but the reason I did it was for the piece of mind that if it were to break later on I wouldn’t have any hassles with the Vortex warranty.

 

[Deano2246]

I would think you are OK with the Razor, Scar's do like to kill the cheaper scopes with the recoil impulse they create.

 

[Gasgun]

I have run both an HD II-E and currently have an ATACR mounted on my 17 with no issues.

The Vortex warranty is a consideration, but I’m confident that NF would take care of me if my SCAR ate my ATACR.

Having said that, if I were shopping for an optic for my 17 today, I would take a serious look at the Gen III. It looks like a nearly perfect match to the SCAR.

I believe that the SCAR’s reputation comes not only from people using cheap optics, but from poor choices in selecting a mount.

I would avoid a cantilever mount. I think that that may be a source of some of the issues that people have had.

I have used the ADM Delta mount with both optics on my SCAR and would recommend that.

 

[Lucky Se7en]

That’s a good point about using the correct mount. Also when selecting a mount with throw levers or anything protruding out the side, make sure it’s not on the same side as the charging handle. It may make the difference between a 20 MOA mount being a nice feature vs a PITA.

 

[eddie102870]

put a ACOG on mine

 

[GreenJavelin]

I have NF and no issues.

 

[tsavo303]

No Issues here with leupold. I think full auto and electronics were the real problem. Don’t use a lightweight cantilevered mount but something sturdy. I was a bit paranoid after hearing the armchair commandos warnings. Noticed that the FN shooting team used warne mounts.
So I figured those were good

 

[MarshalC_SportOptics]

yeah those rifles recoil pattern was hard on most optics, the vortex razors have held up great for the ones I've seen my customers mount up. Also with what tsavo said, make sure to use a nut and bolt cantilever, not a qd release.

 

[wyliecoyote]

put a ACOG on mine

First time I've heard of optics issues on SCARs but an ACOG would be an excellent choice, particularly the 6x48 model which is made for mounting on machine guns.

 

[fox33c1]

I did a pretty in-depth article on this subject. I will be re writing the article for recoil in the future. It is a deal where you have constructive interference that is transmitted through the top picatinny rail into the mount. One thing that is not taken into account is mounts and materials. The game has changed a bit from when I wrote the article so new scopes and their manufacturers are aware of this issue.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Doesn't the polymer lower play a role in the weird g forces distributed from the scar?

 

[Centuriator]

The SCAR is a battle rifle, in both 5.56 and .308. They do make a designated marksman/sniper version. I think one should not expect better that *combat* accuracy from it. It's an awesome weapons system. The SOCOM vets who used it where I train say it was a good rifle...but heavy, clunky, a bit unwieldy but better than simply the standard COLT SOCOMs they were issued. Everyone did to them what they had to to make them work. Improvised cheek weld solutions. Scope solutions, etc. etc.

They were reliable though. The nature of the non-DI gas system made them so.

 

[Tonsofguns]

my three year old daughter that wears uggs boots laughed when she saw my scar 16. Daddy why is there a boot on there? she thought it was the funniest thing ever.

great systems though, and fun to shoot, especially in 308. I do agree that the ergonomics aren't as good as the m4.
If i had take a rifle out the door, my lmt in both 223, and 308 come out first, then my scars, then my aks.

 

[fox33c1]

Doesn't the polymer lower play a role in the weird g forces distributed from the scar?

The polymer lower provides no structural benefit or harm. Although early civilian scar triggers were prone to doubling after excessive wear. While I contend polymer lowers could accelerate this process. New FN EDMd triggers appear to not have this issue. Additionally Geissele is the answer you are seeking. The allow lowers do provide some support to the system. In particular there was Handl Defense specifically designed to require a breakin/mating period that showed to have a profound positive effect on the system. This was from protecting the rear plate screws to secondary Recoil impulse mitigation. But for the most part an alloy lower is only going to provide you SR25 pattern magazines and only X products is still in business.

 

[JeffLebowski]

The SCAR is a battle rifle, in both 5.56 and .308. They do make a designated marksman/sniper version. I think one should not expect better that *combat* accuracy from it. It's an awesome weapons system. The SOCOM vets who used it where I train say it was a good rifle...but heavy, clunky, a bit unwieldy but better than simply the standard COLT SOCOMs they were issued. Everyone did to them what they had to to make them work. Improvised cheek weld solutions. Scope solutions, etc. etc.

They were reliable though. The nature of the non-DI gas system made them so.

Wrong.

SCAR 17 discussion

Should have been around for the early FNs......... But NDAs prevent any detailed discussion. Your H's are about Gen 7, if not later. Just saying, first Gen anythings rarely do what they were supposed to. Why I never buy a first model car, tv, gun, optic, or other high dollar item. I'll let...

pistol-forum.com

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

The polymer lower provides no structural benefit or harm. Although early civilian scar triggers were prone to doubling after excessive wear. While I contend polymer lowers could accelerate this process. New FN EDMd triggers appear to not have this issue. Additionally Geissele is the answer you are seeking. The allow lowers do provide some support to the system. In particular there was Handl Defense specifically designed to require a breakin/mating period that showed to have a profound positive effect on the system. This was from protecting the rear plate screws to secondary Recoil impulse mitigation. But for the most part an alloy lower is only going to provide you SR25 pattern magazines and only X products is still in business.

Thanks. I believe I have read your posts on m4carbine in the past and found them interesting. I think that may have been where I read that polymer lowers were a possible negative. Did handl go out of business?

 

[MK20]

Try to avoid a cantilever and use a unimount or plain rings. Torque everything. Use decent glass. Any good name brand will probably be ok.

 

[fox33c1]

Thanks. I believe I have read your posts on m4carbine in the past and found them interesting. I think that may have been where I read that polymer lowers were a possible negative. Did handl go out of business?

Handl Defense was sucked dry by its founder who was bleeding cash and assets out of the company to his other LLC's. Yea its dead AF.

Poly lowers on a SCAR are not a negative but an alloy lower with the right materials and features do suppress some of the energy in the system.

 

[Tonsofguns]

I put a striker aluminum lower on one of my old scars. I started have intermittent reliability issues afterwards. Before this I shoot two thousand rounds with maybe one failure to feed. With the Stryker I was getting them every couple of mags. Not sure if it was the Ammo or other factor, but I’ll stick with the factory lower from here on out

 

[HUNTERVASSER]

I have had an Elcan Specter Dr on my 17 for some time and it has been a tank. Only issue I found was a POF shift. I first thought it was the scope reading about the SCAR chewing up scopes. But after a bit of research and problem solving from the posts here I tightened the bolts on my barrel to the proper specs and everything went away. The rifle was in storage for a while, while I was overseas and I guess the bolts vibrated loose. Bottom line is make sure if you start to see problems be systematic in your approach to see if it really is the scope versus something coming loose.

 

[fox33c1]

I put a striker aluminum lower on one of my old scars. I started have intermittent reliability issues afterwards. Before this I shoot two thousand rounds with maybe one failure to feed. With the Stryker I was getting them every couple of mags. Not sure if it was the Ammo or other factor, but I’ll stick with the factory lower from here on out

Not a fan of "Sgt" Stryker and that is well known. He copied an early Handl before I came on board officially at Handl and helped get the magwell sorted after the Gen 2 to Gen 3 PMAG changes.

My primary concern with the SCAR is using 118LR or any suppressor other than a SF SOCOM RC2. Not saying others don't work just fine. But I can't support what I can't verify.

 

[fox33c1]

FYI these were the items that were hardened against constructive interference by NSWC Crane. Always a good bet with any of them on the commercial market. in addition and optic manufacturer that has won a DoD contract in the last 5-7 years will have an offering worth your money.

 

[theLBC]

i heard it's the forward impact of the heavy bcg on scars that some older or cheaper optics are not made to endure.
the fix is not difficult and combat ready optics should withstand repeated impacts in every direction.
the 11.2lbs of the 20S mitigates this a bit, so cheaper/older scopes might not fail automatically.
the normal recoil impact of the scars can also be softened with different recoil plates (nylon-medium or UHMW-soft).

constructive interference means the problem is amplified because impact happens while the scope is whipping forward from the normal recoil impulse.
like hitting the bottom of a ketchup bottle while you're trying to get some to come out.

this is why the choice of mounts is important.
as mentioned above, extended cantilever types should be avoided, and you would not need that for a rifle with a monolithic rail.

 

[hk dave]

I wonder how bad the cantilever makes the resulting shock. The official adopted geissele design def is cantilever.

 

[theLBC]

I wonder how bad the cantilever makes the resulting shock. The official adopted geissele design def is cantilever.

i don't think a well made mount would flex much. it depends on design and the weight of the scope.
for small low power optics, it probably doesn't matter.