Hunting target scope for SCAR 17s?

I picked up a scar over the weekend and am trying to figure out the best optic for it. Research shows that the Scar is tough on scopes. I am looking to use this rifle for target shooting out to 300 yards and hunting hogs and whitetail out to 200 yards. I wear glasses so eye relief is important and the highest magnification on a scope is usually useless to me. I see quite a few recommendations for the nightforce 2.5x10, but I am not spending $2000 on an optic. I would also like a little more magnification since I use my scope as a spotting scope occasionally when hunting. I would like to spend under $1000, ideally around $500.

Right now, the Vortex Viper PST II line seems to be a front-runner to me. It comes FFP which is interesting from a quick holdover calculation perspective when hunting. I am leaning towards the
3-15x44 FFP version since that is magnification I use when hunting now. I also really like the zero lock for quick changes. Since it has the holdover lock, maybe the FFP is not as interesting to me?

I was also looking at the Nikon x1000 series of scopes.

Any other scopes in the price range I should be looking at? Any opinion on the 2x10 vs the 3x15?

thanks,
Chris
 
So I called EuroOptic and they suggested the NIGHTFORCE SHV 4-14X50 which is a little over my budget at $1290 but within reach.

Both the Vortex and Nightforce customer service folks suggested approx 4x14 scope for what I am looking to do. Blind hunting and possibly back of the truck hunting.

When I referred to a basketball size target, I am referring to the kill zone on a small/mid-sized deer (e.g. heart and lungs) I know from actual experience, I will not take a shot at a deer 250 yards away with a 6x scope.

Chris
Im glad you recognize your limits.
 
I own them both and I’m selling the Vortex. I’m also selling an HD AMG I took off my precision rifle.
I’m not saying the vortex is better overall, but for the price and the way the tube disappeares at 1x better than any other scope I’ve seen. I’m still taking the gen2E. And the clarity is still damn good, nowhere near “b&w” Different strokes for different folks I guess. Glad we have the options we do.
 
I really don’t want to criticize other people’s choice here. After all, it is your money and your rifle. With that said I just don’t get a high powered variable in FFP on a Scar 17. If you back the magnification down to its lowest setting, the lines almost disappear. To me a Scar has to work pretty well up close and fast. I want a quickly recognizable aiming point close it if I need it.
 
I’m not saying the vortex is better overall, but for the price and the way the tube disappeares at 1x better than any other scope I’ve seen. I’m still taking the gen2E. And the clarity is still damn good, nowhere near “b&w” Different strokes for different folks I guess. Glad we have the options we do.

It wasn't intended to be taken literally, it’s better than B&W TV lol. They are really heavy though.
 
For what is worth I lost a vortex Razor HD2 to my scar16s. Not sure if it was the scar or I just had a lemon. Internal adjustment mechanism came apart and scope wouldn’t hold zero after rezeroing it. You could see the internal spring hanging through the magnifier.

Vortex did replace it with a new one which I sold. Before moving it to my scar 16s scope was mounted on a BCM with no issues.
 
For what is worth I lost a vortex Razor HD2 to my scar16s. Not sure if it was the scar or I just had a lemon. Internal adjustment mechanism came apart and scope wouldn’t hold zero after rezeroing it. You could see the internal spring hanging through the magnifier.

Vortex did replace it with a new one which I sold. Before moving it to my scar 16s scope was mounted on a BCM with no issues.
I’m probably guessing a lemon since the 16 isn’t particularly rough on optics like the 17. I do like vortex but it does seem like people need to use their stellar warranty more than one would like. My scar17 also ate a 2-10pst. Illumination stopped working before finishing the first MAGAzine.
 
You should be able to hit a basketball at 300 yards with iron sights, and you don’t need to be an operator. Even an average shooter should be able to shoot 6” groups at 300 yards with an optic, even as low as a 1x red dot sight.
I make you a bet here:
We meet at a range. You, an impartial person from the forum staff, and me. You show me that you can hit a 2 inch target (the actual target, like a cardboard cutout, 2"x 2") consistently (like 4 out of 5 times) with iron sights, and if you can do that, I will:
-request that the admin put a "jackass of the year" under my screen name for the rest of 2019
-hand a $100 bill over to the witness, so he can make a donation to GOAL or the Monadnock defense fund.
You do the same if you fail. Deal?
 
I make you a bet here:
We meet at a range. You, an impartial person from the forum staff, and me. You show me that you can hit a 2 inch target (the actual target, like a cardboard cutout, 2"x 2") consistently (like 4 out of 5 times) with iron sights, and if you can do that, I will:
-request that the admin put a "jackass of the year" under my screen name for the rest of 2019
-hand a $100 bill over to the witness, so he can make a donation to GOAL or the Monadnock defense fund.
You do the same if you fail. Deal?
I will up the bet, i will pay your entry fee and ammo for the OCSA club in pembroke CMP M1 garand clinic. The rifles are capable of 6"
The solution to your trigger problem is the Geissele Super Scar Trigger:
Triggers - Lower Parts - Rifle Parts

I put one in mine and it made a big difference. They go on sale a few times a year. With that NF scope you have mounted, you will be completing an awesome package with the Geissele trigger.
HC! How can you accept a shit trigger in a $2500+ gun.
Right there would be a deal killer. There is zero reason why a $2500 has a shit trigger.
Now to pay another $350 for a trigger...uggh. i feel much better about my $900 AR that came with a nice NM trigger. I would like lighter but rules limit to 4.5lbs
 
I really don’t want to criticize other people’s choice here. After all, it is your money and your rifle. With that said I just don’t get a high powered variable in FFP on a Scar 17. If you back the magnification down to its lowest setting, the lines almost disappear. To me a Scar has to work pretty well up close and fast. I want a quickly recognizable aiming point close it if I need it.

Yup, that's why I put a 1-8x on mine and I couldn't be happier.
I saved the 5-25x for my Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmore, and that scope is perfect for that rifle.
 
I didn’t say 2” for iron sights. I said a basketball at 300. Though, I thought they were closer to 12” rather than the 9.5” they are. That’s my bad. I should have confirmed the standard basketball diameter before posting. Still, I assume you’re talking about a 100 yard reduction, so that’s 3”, not 2”. Did you also get a basketball’s diameter wrong and think it was 6”?

Anyway, I stand by my point that shooting 3-4 MOA out to 300 with iron sights should be regarded as doable by normal shooters. My 2 MOA at 300 mention was for optics. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “average” shooter, but 2 MOA is a reasonable expectation with an optic and a barrel/ammo combo that will do it.

Also, I don’t meet people from the internet, plain and simple. Petition to add whatever you want under my username.


I make you a bet here:
We meet at a range. You, an impartial person from the forum staff, and me. You show me that you can hit a 2 inch target (the actual target, like a cardboard cutout, 2"x 2") consistently (like 4 out of 5 times) with iron sights, and if you can do that, I will:
-request that the admin put a "jackass of the year" under my screen name for the rest of 2019
-hand a $100 bill over to the witness, so he can make a donation to GOAL or the Monadnock defense fund.
You do the same if you fail. Deal?
 
I didn’t say 2” for iron sights. I said a basketball at 300. Though, I thought they were closer to 12” rather than the 9.5” they are. That’s my bad. I should have confirmed the standard basketball diameter before posting. Still, I assume you’re talking about a 100 yard reduction, so that’s 3”, not 2”. Did you also get a basketball’s diameter wrong and think it was 6”?

Anyway, I stand by my point that shooting 3-4 MOA out to 300 with iron sights should be regarded as doable by normal shooters. My 2 MOA at 300 mention was for optics. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “average” shooter, but 2 MOA is a reasonable expectation with an optic and a barrel/ammo combo that will do it.

Also, I don’t meet people from the internet, plain and simple. Petition to add whatever you want under my username.


I would pay to see you shoot 3-4 MOA with irons at 300m. I shoot 200-600 in mil competitions with irons with mil hardware heavy triggers. I probably suck at shooting.
 
Last edited:
I make you a bet here:
We meet at a range. You, an impartial person from the forum staff, and me. You show me that you can hit a 2 inch target (the actual target, like a cardboard cutout, 2"x 2") consistently (like 4 out of 5 times) with iron sights, and if you can do that, I will:
-request that the admin put a "jackass of the year" under my screen name for the rest of 2019
-hand a $100 bill over to the witness, so he can make a donation to GOAL or the Monadnock defense fund.
You do the same if you fail. Deal?
I would pay to see you shoot 3-4 MOS with irons at 300m. I shoot 200-600 in mil competitions with irons with mil hardware heavy triggers. I probably suck at shooting.
If you can hold 3moa or with irons you would clean up at cmp/nra service rifle ....especially in off hand.
I will tell you from my own experience average shooters are not shooting 2-3 moa with irons. More like 6moa+.
For anyone interested come on down to OCSA in pembroke ma for a CMP M1 garand clinic. They have rifles and ammo that will hold the 3moa ten ring if you can. Pm if interested.

Now go back in time when i was kid and my dad and his friends hunted. Tony was the "limit" guy. Always got deer.
His favorite spot was around 250 yard shot. From a rest, dear would poke out at the end of the fields. He used a sporterized mauser with rear lyman aperture sight with a larger than "target " size peep. IIRC it was .100" ...his moto was if I can see it I can hit it.
For fun we used to plink at his place in maine. Just about 1000 yards. He had a plywood deer silohette out there. Big buck was his name. If he did not point it out I would never see it. So know your limits, know your gear and take good shots.
I hit that deer 2 times in the 10 or so shots I was allowed to shoot at it with his rifles. Scoped 1 hit believe he had a lyman fixed 6x , 1 iron sights with the mauser. We generally where limitted to 200 yards with the 22s and M1 carbine and the 30/30s
 
If you can hold 3moa or with irons you would clean up at cmp/nra service rifle ....especially in off hand.
I will tell you from my own experience average shooters are not shooting 2-3 moa with irons. More like 6moa+

“.. especially in offhand.” Well of course. I never said offhand. In that case, yes, 3 MOA offhand is very good. And as for 300 yard prone, that’s rapid fire and slinged up. Let someone shoot slow fire at 300 with a support, see what they can do. And for military grade weapons, the zero target for the Army has a 6 MOA circle to shoot inside. Most people’s groups easily fit inside 2/3 of they ring. And most soldiers are not above average shooters.
 
2 MOA is a reasonable expectation with an optic and a barrel/ammo combo that will do it.
You wrote 2 MOA at 300 with an non-magnified optic, like a red dot. I'd say you have to be pretty darn good of a shot, take it slow, have a good rest, an optic with a <2MOA dot, no wind, and hand loads or match ammo and a barrel that likes them. And it's still a tall order @300. But ok...
 
You wrote 2 MOA at 300 with an non-magnified optic, like a red dot. I'd say you have to be pretty darn good of a shot, take it slow, have a good rest, an optic with a <2MOA dot, no wind, and hand loads or match ammo and a barrel that likes them. And it's still a tall order @300. But ok...

I will concede that 2 MOA at 300 with a non-magnified optic is a stretch for most shooters.

Are you going to concede that you jumped the gun on your “2” with iron sight” challenge without really reading my post?
 
Last edited:
I will concede that 2 MOA at 300 with a non-magnified optic is a stretch for most shooters.

Are you going to concede that you jumped the gun on your “2” with iron sight” challenge without really reading my post?
I think its time to start separating target size and moa.

Broad side shot of a white tail deer kill zone heart/lung area is about 10” at 300 that about 3.5 moa.
A 10” target at 300 yards is hard enough to see if you dont know where it is even harder when it blends into the surroundings. If your lucky enough to get a nice clear broadside shot at 150 plus , god bless yeah. Lucky to see them at 50 yards around here. When we went north to rifle territory it was still hard to find them past 100 yards.
 
HC! How can you accept a shit trigger in a $2500+ gun.
Right there would be a deal killer. There is zero reason why a $2500 has a shit trigger.
Now to pay another $350 for a trigger...uggh. i feel much better about my $900 AR that came with a nice NM trigger. I would like lighter but rules limit to 4.5lbs

I hate when people whine about the trigger, the color, the price, the UGG stock, blah blah blah...The SCAR wasnt meant to be in competition, or look sexy, its a battle rifle, battle rifles are meant to be reliable when the shit gets hairy and nasty. There is something to be said about reliability, thats truly more important. Yes ar15s are reliable, with proper long tern care, but your gonna have to pay extra for a step above. Nature of the beast.
Its funny how everyone can justify paying huge money for something that is pretty and accurate, (accuracy isn't everything) but no one can justify the price when its notoriously reliable?
Honestly, I think its better than buying a $3500 Uber pretty Noveske 308 with a bunch of pretty bolt-ons, i dont care about the trigger on an ordinary gas gun, thats really all it is, just a dirty, hot running, poop on itself gas gun.
If i want to be accurate, ill buy a bolt gun for that money, and be done with it.
People are obsessed with pretty guns and light triggers, its just tacticool stuff. I have a harder time spending $250 on a snazzy trigger for an $850 Ar15. Thats literally 1/4 the price of the rifle, and for what?
I'll Gladly pay extra for the lack of maintenance and long term SCAR reliability any-day. Never ever have to worry about excessive heat or carbon build up, absolute sewing machine. And it can shoot under 1 moa with the right ammo, that's plenty accurate for its given purpose, and more than enough for the average gun shop commando.
So does the average Joe need that much reliability? No. But if thats what you want, and you have the funds, then go for it. I wont judge anyone for spending the coin on the SCAR, they are getting one of the best and most reliable rifles ever produced.

Battlefield Vegas reports the SCAR as the most reliable gun and cheapest gun to maintain in the whole building, that's enough for me. ..Take. My. Money!!!.
 
Last edited:
Agreed @junior i watched that same video/report. pound for pound the scar needs less maintenance than a DI AR he said. While the scar 16 does not offer anything over an AR-15, the scar 17 beats out most AR 10 rifles with the exception of a POF 308 which i could be happy with.
 
Agreed @junior i watched that same video/report. pound for pound the scar needs less maintenance than a DI AR he said. While the scar 16 does not offer anything over an AR-15, the scar 17 beats out most AR 10 rifles with the exception of a POF 308 which i could be happy with.

Well BFV also reported that the only real reliable piston AR platform was the HK416, so i'm not sold on POF vs SCAR.

He said the SCAR was the most reliable gun in the whole building.
 
I hate when people whine about the trigger, the color, the price, the UGG stock, blah blah blah...The SCAR wasnt meant to be in competition, or look sexy, its a battle rifle, battle rifles are meant to be reliable when the shit gets hairy and nasty. There is something to be said about reliability, thats truly more important. Yes ar15s are reliable, with proper long tern care, but your gonna have to pay extra for a step above. Nature of the beast.
Its funny how everyone can justify paying huge money for something that is pretty and accurate, (accuracy isn't everything) but no one can justify the price when its notoriously reliable?
Honestly, I think its better than buying a $3500 Uber pretty Noveske 308 with a bunch of pretty bolt-ons, i dont care about the trigger on an ordinary gas gun, thats really all it is, just a dirty, hot running, poop on itself gas gun.
If i want to be accurate, ill buy a bolt gun for that money, and be done with it.
People are obsessed with pretty guns and light triggers, its just tacticool stuff. I have a harder time spending $250 on a snazzy trigger for an $850 Ar15. Thats literally 1/4 the price of the rifle, and for what?
I'll Gladly pay extra for the lack of maintenance and long term SCAR reliability any-day. Never ever have to worry about excessive heat or carbon build up, absolute sewing machine. And it can shoot under 1 moa with the right ammo, that's plenty accurate for its given purpose, and more than enough for the average gun shop commando.
So does the average Joe need that much reliability? No. But if thats what you want, and you have the funds, then go for it. I wont judge anyone for spending the coin on the SCAR, they are getting one of the best and most reliable rifles ever produced.

Battlefield Vegas reports the SCAR as the most reliable gun and cheapest gun to maintain in the whole building, that's enough for me. ..Take. My. Money!!!.
So it takes $3k for FN to make things reliable?
You touched the key point. It comes down to what you/I/they like for your/mine/their money.
Maybe if the SCAR platform ever makes it to general issue the price might drop.
Until then , Im not a operative and Uncle Sam is not footing the bill for my gear. So I would want a nice trigger in a civilian marketed version. If its a heavy crusty milspec trigger that would be a problem for me.
Unlike military the men in the field dont get to choose thier gear . I do , so if its 3 different colors and the trigger is so so , thats going to play in my spending decision.
 
So it takes $3k for FN to make things reliable?
You touched the key point. It comes down to what you/I/they like for your/mine/their money.
Maybe if the SCAR platform ever makes it to general issue the price might drop.
Until then , Im not a operative and Uncle Sam is not footing the bill for my gear. So I would want a nice trigger in a civilian marketed version. If its a heavy crusty milspec trigger that would be a problem for me.
Unlike military the men in the field dont get to choose thier gear . I do , so if its 3 different colors and the trigger is so so , thats going to play in my spending decision.

Really, so simple minded.
You think is takes Noveske $3500 to bolt on pretty parts to a 50 year old design?
There is probably more of a profit margin in that over priced Noveske. Minimal R&D. Bunch of bolt ons. The Scar was built ground up, its it's own design. It copies some operating technology, but no parts are interchangeable. It was built specifically at the request of the military, that cost is significant.
The military wont outfit the grunts with it cuz of the price, so you wont see it happen. They would have to change everything, even the storage would have to be changed, it's a massive expense, without the price of the gun. The military will stick to the bare minimum.
Whether you like it or not, the Scar is an excellent platform that is going strong for over a decade now, and it will keep going for years to come.
Hate it all you want. Just dont knock it cuz YOU cant justify it in ur budget.
 
Really, so simple minded.
You think is takes Noveske $3500 to bolt on pretty parts to a 50 year old design?
There is probably more of a profit margin in that over priced Noveske. Minimal R&D. Bunch of bolt ons. The Scar was built ground up, its it's own design. It copies some operating technology, but no parts are interchangeable. It was built specifically at the request of the military, that cost is significant.
The military wont outfit the grunts with it cuz of the price, so you wont see it happen. They would have to change everything, even the storage would have to be changed, it's a massive expense, without the price of the gun. The military will stick to the bare minimum.
Whether you like it or not, the Scar is an excellent platform that is going strong for over a decade now, and it will keep going for years to come.
Hate it all you want. Just dont knock it cuz YOU cant justify it in ur budget.

Boy you FAL guys will go blue in the face defending your $3k redesign.
 
Back
Top Bottom