Scar 17 SBR Scope thoughts?

Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#1
I picked up a Scar 17 earlier this year and submitted the paper work back in August for SBR. I already have an LMTMWS with a NF 3-15 which weighs a ton. I’m also running a SF 762ss on this platform.

So my thoughts were to SBR the scar, get a light weight rig, a shorter profile while suppressed also. The purpose for rifle will be pig hunting and brush hunting deer in wooded areas. Some walking and stalking ect.

I really like the NF. Scopes but have no experience with FFP scopes in the new 1-8 line. I thought the NX8 would be a good match-with weight, compact, short-midrange optic-but here some different thoughts with reviews. The Atacr gets pricy and my weight starts going up again.

Would like to keep low profile, light weight and bullet proof rig, but still get out use this rifle if I want to.

What are your guys thoughts or running on Scar 17 SBR?

Thx for feedback
 
Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#3
The 2.5-10x42 was my original intention until the 1-8 came out, but comparing the two model specs-the 2.5-10 is only 2 oz heavier and 3 inches longer then the nx8. Does anyone run the 2.5-10x42 on an Sbr 308? Maybe this is the option to reconsider now that you mention it-thx
 
Mar 15, 2018
209
165
43
#5
I also SBR’d my SCAR 17S and I would highly recommend the ELCAN SpecterDR 1.5x/6x. This is a topic of much heated debate but for better or worse SCAR’s are notoriously hard on optics. The ELCAN’s are built like a brick shithouse and hold up extremely well to the recoil of the SCAR; the short barrel only exacerbates that recoil. I’ve been running mine in this setup for about 5 years now without a hiccup. Plus, the ELCAN’s have been on sale for a while now so this is a very good time to pick one up. Best of luck with whatever you choose.
 
Likes: beenjammin
Oct 9, 2008
6
3
3
#6
I have a SCAR 17 and have found that the twist in the barrel shoots best with about a 150 grain bullet. The small shoulder flat surface on the barrel will not hold a suppressor firmly enough to keep the suppressor in place without having a bullet strike the baffles. You will have to have someone work that issue out for you. For the optic I am running a ACOG 3.5 X 35
 
Likes: beenjammin
Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#7
I have thought about the Elcan also, just thought the lpv scope might suit better. I know lots of guys running Elcan on Scars for the durability. Does that Elcan 1.5-6 seem heavy on your SBR Powerspc? I have the SF 308 legacy can that overlaps with the break. I didn’t tbink about what u said about suppressor mounting up tight. The break I have is the 762ssal/re-will have to look into this. Thx
 

hypno02

Not Politically Correct
Jul 23, 2006
1,016
136
63
South Dakota
#8
You can run any QD can you want on a scar17. You just need to mount your muzzle device using the beveled shim that Surefire produces for the lack of thread shoulder.

If I were in your situation I’d go NXS 1-8 or 2-10x24.

NX8 only if you plan on a lot of <40yd stuff.
 

longshot2000

Sniper's Hide Dealer: CHARLIE'S
Feb 19, 2017
1,347
145
63
Northern VA
charliescustomclones.com
#10
Some really good advise here, so I am just going to amplify it. As an SBR, you want light weight and responsiveness. As a Scar, you want tough as shit durability, and low profiel. As a 7.62 rifle, you want a little magnification beyond a red dot. For those reasons, I would recommend:

#1 Elcan 1.5x/6x in FDE
#2 Nightforce NX8 (avail in MOA and mil)
#3 Nightforce 2.5-10x24mm

The NX8 is a great little scope, and we have sold to competitive shooter and SWAT team snipers. The Elcan Specter is a classic and is really neat, and looks awesome on a Scar. Prices right on Elcan are more affordable than ever. I don't think the prices will stay this low.

We sell scopes, and NF and Elcan are huge sellers right now. Let me know if I can help.
 
Mar 15, 2018
209
165
43
#11
I have thought about the Elcan also, just thought the lpv scope might suit better. I know lots of guys running Elcan on Scars for the durability. Does that Elcan 1.5-6 seem heavy on your SBR Powerspc? I have the SF 308 legacy can that overlaps with the break. I didn’t tbink about what u said about suppressor mounting up tight. The break I have is the 762ssal/re-will have to look into this. Thx
The ELCAN's are 25 oz.'s, I don't notice the weight I think because the SCAR's are so light to begin with, swap it over to the 13" barrel and you cut even more weight. The 1-8's are certainly another way to go, I'm running NX8 1-8's on a LMT 5.56 with a 14" barrel, a TAVOR X95 in .300BLK and a AUG/A3 M1 in 5.56. I'm also using the ATACR 1-8 on an LMT 308MWS with a 13.5" barrel. If I went the 1-8 route I would suggest using the ATACR as opposed to the NX8. They're both excellent but I just feel like the ATACR will hold up better under the larger recoil (nothing scientific just my personal opinion). All that said, I would still choose the ELCAN over the NightForce for the SCAR.; I've always though the SCAR was built for the ELCAN.
 
Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#12
Thanks for the feedback-will have to take a closer look at the ELCAN. The fact that I have no experience with the FFP scopes might rule out the new 1-8 NF line. This rig will mostly be used for hunting and considering Night vision down the line. Any experience with NV with the ELCAN?
 
Mar 15, 2018
209
165
43
#13
Thanks for the feedback-will have to take a closer look at the ELCAN. The fact that I have no experience with the FFP scopes might rule out the new 1-8 NF line. This rig will mostly be used for hunting and considering Night vision down the line. Any experience with NV with the ELCAN?
I have no first hand experience with NV.
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#14
Let me learn you up on the 17.

The ATACR 1-8 is the pinacle of optics for the scar, in fact it's almost like it was made for it. Can be had for $2500 with mount, anything else is a sacrifice and compromise.

Second, you want to run light bullets. 110-130 grain is going to give you the velocity while keeping recoil down for close and fast work. I personally like the nosler 110s BT and Barnes Tsx130. Both are very effective man stoppers out to about 600 yards, which is really the range of these. Less with a short barrel.

I am not a fan of the sbr17, it nueters the velocity too much and I would rather have an ar15 at that point. So if you are bent on running a sbr17, go with lighter , well constructed bullets to get back some velocity. It's also going to shoot flatter when you take it out past 200 yards making your hit probability go up.

If you haven't done it yet, get the kdg stock and extended forearm rail. The super scar is a no brainier and pick up a new angled charging handle to clear the optics if you haven't yet. Be careful with optic mounts. The upper is the serialized parts so don't fuck it all up trying to wrench down steel mounts. Use something like a BoBro that is rtZ and will never hurt the rail due to design.
 
Mar 15, 2018
209
165
43
#16
Let me learn you up on the 17.

The ATACR 1-8 is the pinacle of optics for the scar, in fact it's almost like it was made for it. Can be had for $2500 with mount, anything else is a sacrifice and compromise.

Second, you want to run light bullets. 110-130 grain is going to give you the velocity while keeping recoil down for close and fast work. I personally like the nosler 110s BT and Barnes Tsx130. Both are very effective man stoppers out to about 600 yards, which is really the range of these. Less with a short barrel.

I am not a fan of the sbr17, it nueters the velocity too much and I would rather have an ar15 at that point. So if you are bent on running a sbr17, go with lighter , well constructed bullets to get back some velocity. It's also going to shoot flatter when you take it out past 200 yards making your hit probability go up.

If you haven't done it yet, get the kdg stock and extended forearm rail. The super scar is a no brainier and pick up a new angled charging handle to clear the optics if you haven't yet. Be careful with optic mounts. The upper is the serialized parts so don't fuck it all up trying to wrench down steel mounts. Use something like a BoBro that is rtZ and will never hurt the rail due to design.

Agree and disagree. Agree you will lose velocity with the shorter barrel but you will absolutely not lose accuracy (this myth has been thoroughly debunked). Agree on the ATACR 1-8 (I'm running one on my LMT308) disagree on that being the only choice. The ATACR was not available when I got my SCAR but now that I have first hand experience with it, if I had to make the choice today I would still choose the ELCAN 1.5-6x fo rthe SCAR. That said, both are excellent choices. Good post.

P.s. The ELCAN SpecterDR 1.5-6x's are running about $1,935 which is more than $300 under Distributor cost and come with the ARD, Flip Covers and QD mount.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,619
1,022
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
#17
On the Elcan weight: keep in mind that the listed weight includes the mount. Once you figure the weight of the separate mount you need for a more conventional scope, it comes out close to even.

Personally, I am not too worried about magnification, so I use Elcan Spectre OS 4x fixed power scope and piggyback a red dot to it for the close up stuff. That 4xc is so good optically, I do not miss the magnification.

ILya
 
Likes: powerspc

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#18
Agree and disagree. Agree you will lose velocity with the shorter barrel but you will absolutely not lose accuracy (this myth has been thoroughly debunked). Agree on the ATACR 1-8 (I'm running one on my LMT308) disagree on that being the only choice. The ATACR was not available when I got my SCAR but now that I have first hand experience with it, if I had to make the choice today I would still choose the ELCAN 1.5-6x fo rthe SCAR. That said, both are excellent choices. Good post.

P.s. The ELCAN SpecterDR 1.5-6x's are running about $1,935 which is more than $300 under Distributor cost and come with the ARD, Flip Covers and QD mount.
I didn't say anything about accuracy. If anything you are going to have more trouble getting bullet stabilization out of a short barrel with the 1-12s fn produces. Which is why you should be running lighter and shorter rounds so you don't have accuracy issues at range out of the sbr17.

The elcan is a piece of shit and it's been explained in detail many times. People who actually shoot these things for a living know this, the flaws are obvious. Guys who shoot 100 rounds a year at dirtpiles care about looking cool not putting warheads on foreheads. It doesn't even sniff the ass of the NX8 much less the ATACR.

Lastly the elcan price was dropped so it's not below distro cost. It was a massive price drop because no one but cloners and socom press release wannabes buy them. They need to be about half the price as the vortex gen 2 with it's shitty sfp and bad retticle choices, is still a vastly superior optic to the elcan.

Good effort though.
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#19
On the Elcan weight: keep in mind that the listed weight includes the mount. Once you figure the weight of the separate mount you need for a more conventional scope, it comes out close to even.

Personally, I am not too worried about magnification, so I use Elcan Spectre OS 4x fixed power scope and piggyback a red dot to it for the close up stuff. That 4xc is so good optically, I do not miss the magnification.

ILya
And that's the only one they make that I even consider serviceable. You still have to deal with a flawed mounting system but don't have the point shift issues there are with the other choices. Even then, I'm taking an Acog over the elcan 8 days out of 7.

TA33 with a rmr piggyback in a BoBro mount will be cheaper, lighter, more durable and have a better eyebox for heads up shooting on the move. It will not have the worst qd mount known to man.

Next.
 
Mar 15, 2018
209
165
43
#20
I didn't say anything about accuracy. If anything you are going to have more trouble getting bullet stabilization out of a short barrel with the 1-12s fn produces. Which is why you should be running lighter and shorter rounds so you don't have accuracy issues at range out of the sbr17.

The elcan is a piece of shit and it's been explained in detail many times. People who actually shoot these things for a living know this, the flaws are obvious. Guys who shoot 100 rounds a year at dirtpiles care about looking cool not putting warheads on foreheads. It doesn't even sniff the ass of the NX8 much less the ATACR.

Lastly the elcan price was dropped so it's not below distro cost. It was a massive price drop because no one but cloners and socom press release wannabes buy them. They need to be about half the price as the vortex gen 2 with it's shitty sfp and bad retticle choices, is still a vastly superior optic to the elcan.

Good effort though.
I work with mine and have no issues; the 1/3/9, issues, but the 1.5-6x has never been a problem for me. Anyway, I have no dog in the fight, it’s the OP that has to choose 😁
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,619
1,022
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
#21
And that's the only one they make that I even consider serviceable. You still have to deal with a flawed mounting system but don't have the point shift issues there are with the other choices. Even then, I'm taking an Acog over the elcan 8 days out of 7.

TA33 with a rmr piggyback in a BoBro mount will be cheaper, lighter, more durable and have a better eyebox for heads up shooting on the move. It will not have the worst qd mount known to man.

Next.
I am not a big fan of the ARMS mount, but with adjustable levers it works well enough on every rail I tried it on. TA33 is a 3x scope, so that is an apples to oranges comparison.

With the 4x prism scopes, I looked at Trijicon (TA31), Elcan, Sig, Leupold and Hensoldt quite carefully. In terms of optical performance and ease of getting behind it, the ACOG was definitely the worst one in this group and it wasn't all that close.

In terms of durability, I have not had any problems with any of them.

With 3x prism scopes, I do like the TA33, but it is pretty much the only ACOG that is, IMO, worthwhile in the current market (maybe one of the 1.5x ones too, but I need to spend more time with them). I have spent a fair amount of time with the Elcan Spectre 3x and liked enough to put one on my brother's rifle. It has a different mount that is simpler than ARMS and has proven to be very consistent. It is also quite easy to get behind and has a much wider FOV than TA33 and better image quality. Weight is about the same, but depends on the mount since Trijicon lists the weight without the mounting system.

With TA33, Trijicon sacrificed the FOV for the flexible eye relief. It may have been a worthwhile tradeoff, but a bit more FOV would have been nice.

Generally speaking, Trijicon seems to be making the same mistake with their ACOG line as Leupold was making with the Mark 4 line a few years ago: resting on their laurels. These were really state of the art a couple of decades ago. The market waits for noone and it will catch up to Trijicon same as it does to everyone else who gets lazy.

ILya
 
Likes: powerspc
#22
Scars 17s eat optics, trust me!!!!!!!!!!’ I am running iron sights it’s so stupid.
With the SBR setup you will have even more reverberation from the recoil. Go with the most optically simple setup and company that has the best reputation for warranty repair. That said Nightforce has phenomenal customer care. Good luck!
 
Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#23
Lots of information here, many things to consider. Feel even more undecided now...

I have 2 NF scopes right now, older scopes no FFP-built like tanks and great customer service. Here first hand experience with elcans and atarc-and both make great points. I have read articles about the issues with ELCANs, but you got guys on here willing to vouch for them.

Tough choice-I do appreciate all the feedback guys. Although would like to say this rifle will be used to put “warheads on foreheads” it’s mostly gonna be used for hunting.

Do keep the opinions coming.
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#24
Scars 17s eat optics, trust me!!!!!!!!!!’ I am running iron sights it’s so stupid.
With the SBR setup you will have even more reverberation from the recoil. Go with the most optically simple setup and company that has the best reputation for warranty repair. That said Nightforce has phenomenal customer care. Good luck!
They ate optics and electronics 10+ years ago. Since then almost every quality manufacture has hardened their electronics to aliviate this. If your scar is eating optics, you are using trash optics.
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#25
Lots of information here, many things to consider. Feel even more undecided now...

I have 2 NF scopes right now, older scopes no FFP-built like tanks and great customer service. Here first hand experience with elcans and atarc-and both make great points. I have read articles about the issues with ELCANs, but you got guys on here willing to vouch for them.

Tough choice-I do appreciate all the feedback guys. Although would like to say this rifle will be used to put “warheads on foreheads” it’s mostly gonna be used for hunting.

Do keep the opinions coming.
Not all options are equal. Lots of people think they know what they are talking about or have little experience with something and think they are experts. Trust me when I tell you, get the atacr. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain ignorant or bullshitting.
 
Feb 8, 2012
44
2
8
40
Fort Lauderdale, FL
#26
Not all options are equal. Lots of people think they know what they are talking about or have little experience with something and think they are experts. Trust me when I tell you, get the atacr. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain ignorant or bullshitting.
I hear ya Primus-I actually just bought the SCAR this year and haven’t put any optics on it yet. I trying to do as much research and gain as many opinions as possible before buying a quality optic. Would need to learn up on the Mils if I go this direction. The 1-8 was one of my original choices. Just need to learn up on Mils if I go this direction. Both my NSX are moa. I can run NV with the Atacr correct?
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#27
With FFP, mils is way easier to understand. You are also dealing with smaller numbers and less clicks. Each click is essentially .36moa so less clicks especially when dialing long range stuff. Much faster to run the math in your head and coupled with FFP and a good Xmas tree reticle, you can spot your own shots and make adjustments on the fly. It will change the way you shoot and drastically improve first hit probability while adding speed. Plus everyone else who is switched on is running Mills and when shooting with buddies, you all speak the same language. Mills and FFP will be the same call no matter what scope/ spotter they are running. It's a thing of beauty.
 
#28
They ate optics and electronics 10+ years ago. Since then almost every quality manufacture has hardened their electronics to aliviate this. If your scar is eating optics, you are using trash optics.
You don't have a clue what I am using. For example had to send a NF back and a Leopold CQBSS, both offer great customer service, below a pic of my 17 with NF. Seriously I am not going to get into a shit war with you but I would tone it down before you have a clue. Don't rush to conclusions as you just put your foot in your mouth. And scars are still eating optics and electronics. I love the gun, very accurate but don't jump to conclusions. Just offering up my experience not trying to dish dirt on any manufacture, just warning people. Get a good optic that comes from a good manufacture who has a good customer service reputation. I'm simply tired of ruining my expensive optics and it's frustrating when I have to return them for repair , fair enough right? Offering my opinion and experience with this.

lastly, don't believe me that's ok. Just watch this entire video and these guys will explain how scars eat optics. Doubt there are running "trash optics."

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#29
That faggot seal video has been debunked ad nasuem. It's garbage clickbate for non gun guys. When I worked for the Navy and got to tour a team locker, they were full of mk17/mk20s and we're used plenty. Different teams both east and west coast use different shit, and devgru uses even different shit. They also ran NF nxs and S&b and didn't have the issues you had. There is a long list of optics and electronics that have been hardened as a result of the scar program. Everything from peqs to pvs, to eotech and lights and scopes. Eotech created the xps/exps specifically for the scar to get the battery out of line with it's recoil. Your anedotal experiences don't represent reality. The non nxs NF scopes are not as reliable and the non sealed ones even moreso. The NXS F1 is still the king scar 17 optic as far as jumping out of AC and diving.

Like I said before not everyones opinon and knowledge is equal. Some cats play pretend and some do this shit for a living.
 
Likes: ScarlettRed
#30
That faggot seal video has been debunked ad nasuem. It's garbage clickbate for non gun guys. When I worked for the Navy and got to tour a team locker, they were full of mk17/mk20s and we're used plenty. Different teams both east and west coast use different shit, and devgru uses even different shit. They also ran NF nxs and S&b and didn't have the issues you had. There is a long list of optics and electronics that have been hardened as a result of the scar program. Everything from peqs to pvs, to eotech and lights and scopes. Eotech created the xps/exps specifically for the scar to get the battery out of line with it's recoil. Your anedotal experiences don't represent reality. The non nxs NF scopes are not as reliable and the non sealed ones even moreso. The NXS F1 is still the king scar 17 optic as far as jumping out of AC and diving.

Like I said before not everyones opinon and knowledge is equal. Some cats play pretend and some do this shit for a living.
Well gosh damn! we got real expert up in here!

So..... those guys, ahh I mean... "fagots" as you call them do not do this for a "living?" Their opinions don't matter or count, and I suppose their experience are "anecdotal" as well? A SCAR 17 did not eat my NF and my Leopold. Well you obviously know better (sarcasm)

You can't play nice, you call me out, I give you a pretty good example of personal ownership and some seemingly valid opinion of people who used SCARS in combat and it's all B.S? The internet is rife with "cats" like you. You have fun with that...:LOL:
 
Likes: Henok

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#31
There are plenty x sof guys who barley know what end the bullets come out. Someone being a squeel doesn't make them a weapons expert. In fact, of all the sof branches, they are least likely to master their weapons systems. That have support guys do all their Charlie work, whereas other sof dudes do the shit themselves. Think an 18B weps Sgt needs a junior enlisted to show him how to clean a weapon?

Do you understand what anadotal means? Show me the piles of broken modern, quality optics broken by the 17/20 and we can have that discussion. You are a data point of 1.

When guys like you who don't have the knowledge , background and history of the actual subject matter want to argue with people who have followed the program since day one and work with guys who carry this shit for a living, and being paid by the .gov to maintain weapons it just muddys the water and makes it hard to separate the bullshit from truth.

You take some 3rd count internet story and something that was resolved almost 10 years ago to form an argument. Do you not see the problem?

And if you are still hell bent at jerking off to some seals, atleast use this one:
 

Attachments

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#33
Your childish insults went out of style in 2004. Get some better shit.

An anytime you want to compare 214's and SF50's, let me know.

Go ahead and read the comments to the actual video you posted. Its hilarious.
 
Mar 3, 2013
6
0
1
#34
Your childish insults went out of style in 2004. Get some better shit.

An anytime you want to compare 214's and SF50's, let me know.

Go ahead and read the comments to the actual video you posted. Its hilarious.
I just went back and the read the comments, and my goodness they are indeed hilarious. SMH.
 
#36
Yeah I was looking for some advice on optics, I definitely got some good feedback-but the thread went side ways pretty quick. Thanks for the solid replies though
It sure did, unfortunately. When some people don't have the same problem as you they don't believe in it's existence. Now, moving forward.

like I had mentioned I really love my SCAR, one of the best rifles I have ever owned, never jammed or had any other problems. The Leopold service specialist I spoke with thought the sharp recoil pattern possibly has something to do with the optic failures. On my third try I might go with a 1-6 Vortex. or an ELCAN. Many say that the ACOG and Elcan have no issues with this. There are reports of XTR's, and Zeiss fails, so I will stay away from those.

If your interested this guy has some interesting advice on how to mitigate potential optics issues, very good video SCAR owners should be interested in.

IN-DEPTH SCAR 17S MK17 EARLY ISSUES AND ACCESSORIES - PART 2 by Small Arms Solutions.
https://www.full30.com/video/a8057ae49dfcedc85b24cac0dba29545

Read this thread as well, there may be some good advice here as a few people are using specific mounts to mitigate the recoil pattern.
http://forum.snipershide.com/threads/scar-17s-eat-optics-and-accessories.6873756/
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#37
No one said there was not an issue. Quality optics do not break anymore under the scars reverse recoil impulse. Any electro/optic worth a shit has been hardened. Not sure how many times you need to hear it to get through your thick skull.

If your scar is breaking optics there are 3 possibilities:

A. You are using a shit optic
B. You are using an old optic
C. You got a lemon, hit the lottery, shit happens and everything fails given enough sample size.

The end.
 

bikeracer

Formerly Robb57
Aug 10, 2011
167
57
28
61
#40
I’ve got a NF 1-8 ATACR on my SCAR. This is the second one - I moved the original to a JP .223 - great optic on both rifles. No issues. Both run Geissle mounts,

I am curious about something else mentioned here - I run FGMM 168 and I noticed someone mentioned running lighter grain - 110-130 - can I get more specifics please?
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#41
Yeah there is the 130 Sost load that is pretty dirty.

There is tap 110, nosler 110 and 130gr ballistic tips and the Barnes TSX 130 copper solid.

Lower weight pills are going to have less recoil make it feel like a 5.56. it's also going to speed up the round , helping it punch through armor a bit better than heavier slow rounds. And you could always find some old black tip AP rounds as well. Or you might be able to find some m80a1 pills which is pretty much AP.

And then there is this option https://deadshotbarrels.com/scar-rebarreling

6.5cm SCAR17 shooting 120gr ballistic tips and copper solids will fuck shit up with less recoil and better long range performance.
 
Aug 28, 2013
53
6
8
#42
I just changed a Vortex Scope i had on my scar 17 and replaced it with the Elcan 1.5 x 6, very happy with it, its short and the glass is very clear.
Also a good deal, I purchased it from Eurooptics on sale. Funny my other 308 semi is a LMT and it is heavy but great rifle also.
 
Likes: Sako man

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,619
1,022
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
#43
it's also going to speed up the round , helping it punch through armor a bit better than heavier slow rounds. And you could always find some old black tip AP rounds as well. Or you might be able to find some m80a1 pills which is pretty much AP.
Can you expand on this a bit? Generally speaking, given similar construction heavier bullets punch through barriers better. Given the same diameter and construction, momentum is a better predictor of barrier penetration than speed alone.

Why would that be any different for body armor?

ILya
 
Likes: Sako man

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#44
Speed is the primary factor in defeating armor. Bullet construction is second. Go take a look at tank rounds, they are bassicaly tungsten rods in a sabot that can be fired at insane velocities to defat numerous types of armor and spall liners.

M193 will punch through lvl 3 armor like butter but the slower m80 can be stopped easier.

Solid copper rounds are also known to defeat armor much better than bonded traditional copper jacketed lead bullets. Barnes had to change their design years ago because their copper bullets we're armor piercing in pistol cartridges ( AR/ak pistols,ext), which are illegal.

I have a suspicond rounds like the Warner flatlines will do supurb at defating armor. A 180gr bullet traveling at 3200fps out of a winmag will probably defeat everything short of a newer esapi plate.

Small fast rounds with the right bullet will punch through soft armor as well (4.6, 5.7, 7.62 tomorrow) due to speed. It's one of the principles in the pdw concept.

Energy is still a factor but a smaller bullet traveling faster, all things being equal will defeat armor better. Remember it needs to punch through very small and strong strands of kevlar/aramid/dynemma/ect. A smaller surface area with more velocity will put more energy into a smaller area to punchh through the fibers.

When you get into hard plates there are litterly dozens of different types to protect from specific threats. One piece may stop 1 round of 7.62 AP but if shot a few times with m193, will fail.

But at the end of the day, speed kills.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,619
1,022
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
#45
I need to do some more digging, but I think you are a little bit off. M193 and M80 are different diameters. I think that is an apples to oranges comparison. I have a reasonable familiarity with tank rounds since that is a little closer to some of the things I do for a living and that is not an accurate comparison either. Same for your PDW analogy. They are punching through armor not only because of speed, but also because of bullet construction, small diameter and decent sectional density. With those rounds, the drive for speed was not so much for armor penetration, but for increased lethality in soft tissue despite a small bullet.

Solid copper vs lead core: the difference is likely due to difference in construction.

I definitely agree that the smaller frontal area is key, but I am not so sure about velocity (within limits). Common sense suggests that with the same frontal area and construction, a longer and heavier bullet of higher sectional density will have better barrier penetration even when it is moving slower.

Like I said, it is not quite my field, but it is interesting, so I will do some research.

ILya
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#46
M80 is 147 Grains and M193 is 55 grains.

M80 has about 2500 FT-lbs of energy traveling at 2700 fps

M193 has 1300 FT-Lbs of energy traveling at 3250 fps

M193 is more likely to penetrate just about any type of armor better than M80.

Shoot both at 1/4" steel at short range and report back.

Like I said, Speed than bullet construction are the most important factors for penetrating armor. Energy is a distant factor.

The same reason 7.62x25 will punch through soft armor before .45acp will. It has less energy more way more velocity.
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#48
Are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it? There is zero logic in what you are saying.

1300ftlbs / 5.56MM = 233 units of energy per surface area

2500ftlbs/ 7.62mm = 328 units of energy per surface area.

Both bullets have relativity similar construction. FMJ Copper jacked lead core. Now explain to me why the 5.56 , having less energy per surface area still outperforms the 7.62 against armor?

Let me give you a hint since you didn't hear it the first two times. Speed Kills. Why do you think Steel targets have speed/distance recommendations so you don't kill the steel? 7.62 @ 2700 fps will barley make a scratch. 5.56 @ 3200 fps will deform the shit out of it.

I know you think your the smartest dude in here. Being an optics engineer or whatever the fuck you are, and your getting schooled by a dude with an accounting & finance degree and a few tours in hajistan.
 
#49
I highly recommend this layman primer (below) on sectional density (SD) and it's effects on overall performance of a projectile i.e. BC and penetration. The article gets very interesting near the end. Though this is "penetrating" the subject matter of terminal ballistics....ok bad joke! this subject is worthy of it's own thread in the ballistics section.

http://abesguncave.com/sectional-density-all-important-and-almost-ignored/
 

Primus

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 13, 2017
726
271
63
Vancouver, WA
#50
Look another one who wants to argue for the sake of it. I don't know about you, but when I get my kinnetic impact on armor information, it's not from some jerkoff abeaguncave. It's not like the us defense industry hasn't spent tens of billions figuring this shit out. Jesus you are really grasping at straws to try and "win" and unwinnable argument.