SCAR17 accuracy testing

[QuietShootr]

I decided yesterday that I would put some real glass on my SCAR17 and bench it with some match ammunition and see what it would do. I've been tempted to get another LMT MWS, but I keep hearing that the SCAR has serious accuracy potential. If it does, I'm going to put serious glass on it and start playing.

So: I added an ADM mount and a Leupold M1 Ultra with mil-dots and a 20x Premier Reticles power conversion. I started the zeroing process at 50 to get it on the paper and was gratified to see it shoot a ****ing BUG HOLE with Federal GMM 168gr ammo. I know it's just 50, but I'm excited to see what it will do, now. I'm going out to shoot it here in a few. Will report back. [Crosses fingers]

[QuietShootr]

Well, that was a little disappointing in one regard - I thought it would shoot tighter than it did. However, it's very consistent. Everything I put in it, from 168gr Federal GMM, to Hornady 155 and 168 TAP, to L2A2 ball, shot 1.5 MOA. I zeroed with Hornady 168 and fired the rest of the rounds using that zero, and found that the only thing they did was move POI vertically. The lightest round (the 149gr ball) hit the highest, followed by the 155 TAP, then the two 168 match rounds stayed pretty close to each other.

So it's not a sniper rifle. I thought it probably wouldn't be. But 1.5MOA isn't all that bad for a combat rifle, so I guess I got what I wanted.

[Kchen986]

Aww shucks. I was hoping for 1 moa accuracy with the 17.

[QuietShootr]

Aww shucks. I was hoping for 1 moa accuracy with the 17.

I don't know. I'm suspicious that EVERYTHING was 1.5 moa. It might be the shitty trigger. I'd like to try one with a good trigger and see what happens.

[C-grunt]

Thats definitely accurate enough for long range shooting in combat.

[Hootiewho]

I have found mine shoots 155 gr Hornady Tap the best of the loads I've tried so far. I will concour with your observation, I have found that it shoots nothing "bad". I am actually amazed at how well as a whole it will shoot a broad range of ammo well and be stone cold reliable vs being a tack driver.

I think it is tempting to look at the 17 as a SASS, but you have to realize it is not a SASS. It is a true battle rifle, a light weight one at that. For the role of a battle rifle I think it is more than accurate enough to get the job done. I have read many threads on the SR25 EMC that state that it shoot's .75 moa, but at the same time the statement will be made that it just doesn't like to be fed xyz type of ammo. I'd much rather have a 1.5 moa gun that will feed anything. My 17 has really been like a goat, it will eat about anything and regardless of what goes in, it all roughly looks the same coming out.

The AR (or other assault type rifles) are 0-200 yard weapons
The 17 (battle rifles) are 0-500/600 yard weapons

I bought mine to fill the distance void, but what I am finding is if the driver runs the 17 right, the 0-100 where the AR (5.56) usually shines is very do-able with the 17. The trade off of what can be done up close with those 2 weapon systems vs the effect of the 5.56 vs 7.62 at distance and through barriers, makes the 17 an aweful tempting option.

When compared to other 7.62mm AVAILABLE battle rifle platforms to me it's a no-brainer. I don't see how anyone could fork over the coin for an M1A with the 17 available. I went and helped some friends do some sound testing on silencers the other day for a nfa discussion forum. I shot a suppressed M1A for about 40 rounds, then shot my 17 suppressed. Totally different beast they are. The 17 was so smooth. So if you want a 17, look at it from the standpoint of buying a rack grade M1A, FAL, AR10, or G3; don't expect it to be a SASS, but what you will find, in that catagory of rifles the 17 really is at the top of the game.

[mkmckinley]

I've seen several of them achieve around 1 MOA with M118LR in the hands of a decent shooter. I'd like to see what the Mk 20 is going to be able to do, but the 17 is a great combination of manageable weight, good ergos/ recoil management and great accuracy for an EBR. If you want .5 MOA get an OBR or a bolt gun.

[Hootiewho]

Supposedly the Mk20 takes it to that level. Several people who's word I trust say it's gtg. I am saving my $$$ for the Mk 20 myself. I'm not invested in an AR10, so my .308 mags are SCAR 17 mags. It only makes sense for me.

[mkmckinley]

I suppose if you already have a SCAR heavy a Mk-20 would be a good option for a precision rifle. Any idea when they'll be released for civilian sales?

[QuietShootr]

I have found mine shoots 155 gr Hornady Tap the best of the loads I've tried so far. I will concour with your observation, I have found that it shoots nothing "bad". I am actually amazed at how well as a whole it will shoot a broad range of ammo well and be stone cold reliable vs being a tack driver.

I think it is tempting to look at the 17 as a SASS, but you have to realize it is not a SASS. It is a true battle rifle, a light weight one at that. For the role of a battle rifle I think it is more than accurate enough to get the job done. I have read many threads on the SR25 EMC that state that it shoot's .75 moa, but at the same time the statement will be made that it just doesn't like to be fed xyz type of ammo. I'd much rather have a 1.5 moa gun that will feed anything. My 17 has really been like a goat, it will eat about anything and regardless of what goes in, it all roughly looks the same coming out.

The AR (or other assault type rifles) are 0-200 yard weapons
The 17 (battle rifles) are 0-500/600 yard weapons

I bought mine to fill the distance void, but what I am finding is if the driver runs the 17 right, the 0-100 where the AR (5.56) usually shines is very do-able with the 17. The trade off of what can be done up close with those 2 weapon systems vs the effect of the 5.56 vs 7.62 at distance and through barriers, makes the 17 an aweful tempting option.

When compared to other 7.62mm AVAILABLE battle rifle platforms to me it's a no-brainer. I don't see how anyone could fork over the coin for an M1A with the 17 available. I went and helped some friends do some sound testing on silencers the other day for a nfa discussion forum. I shot a suppressed M1A for about 40 rounds, then shot my 17 suppressed. Totally different beast they are. The 17 was so smooth. So if you want a 17, look at it from the standpoint of buying a rack grade M1A, FAL, AR10, or G3; don't expect it to be a SASS, but what you will find, in that catagory of rifles the 17 really is at the top of the game.

This is all true, except I disagree about 5.56s being limited to 200 yards.

My 17 loves 155 TAP, which is great because it's my serious round of choice, but it eats everything from shitty Pakistani surplus to Federal Gold Medal with no problems. And I agree - at close range, you can run the hell out of a 17.

I might just wait for a Mk20 to get a SASS.