joshua79109

I've been using one for a while now and it's a great tool. It really speeds up the process. I've sent 3 to friends who are currently serving in combat and all three like them.

Butch's Bore Shine takes care of anything I've run into. Sometimes I soak in a foaming bore cleaner first if it's exceptionally dirty.

I wonder if a cross dominance (right handed left eye dominant) plays into the opinions any? (besides the other reasons listed)

Well, could be lots of differences - choice of optic - use of forward grip / rail - use of lightened bcg and buffer - trigger - use of light - brand preferred seems to be different I lean to the personal protection side, but use my carbines for 3 gun and coyotes. So I'd say it depends on your goal. I seem to enjoy shooting for sport, but attempting to maintain a personal protection mindset while doing so. Most post I read around here the folks really gear more towards 3 gun, so they set up their carbines more that way. I'd imagine you would have plenty of fun taking out your tactical carbine and giving it a try and then if you have the urge you could build a 3 gun carbine any way you want.

This is the grip I use, which makes me suspect that most folks around here won't like it. Edited to add: My favorite is the Tango Down Stubby grip, but I also use the KAC grip.

I'm not sure if this will help you or not, but here is a link to a fella that shows some high speed video testing a few different buffers. He has a bunch of other interesting videos as well.

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use. For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier. I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision. as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better. I'm sure you're right about the Millett and I just thought for the price it was worth a try. As far as why the RDS is more popular for personal protection you've missed the boat in my opinion. The reasons I believe folks on the personal protection side gravitate to something like the Aimpoint. - Battery Life - Durability - Reliability - Unlimited eye relief and unlimited field of view - excellent when sweaty or bloody - Co-Witness - Simple - good when under the pressures of someone shooting at you - Fast target acquisition - Very well proven - not just perceived - Excellent in low light While the 1-4 does some of those things it does not do all of those things. As far as accuracy with the magnifier. I get excellent groups out to 300 yards regularly and have pushed it to 400 yards. Most of my shots are under 150-200 yards and this set up serves me well. If most of my shots were over 150 yards I'd reconsider. For some folks the line between the two will be close while for others it is very far apart. Lots of room for opinion here. I won't pretend to be able to speak for the previous post, but his post says "for 3 gun" when referring to the 1-4 vs RDS with magnifier My overall point was that folks on the 3 gun side seem to gravitate to the 1-4 while folks on the personal protection side go towards the RDS or irons. So, for some the 1-4 will do everything the RDS will, for others that's simply not true. I believe it's just opinion and seems to be separated some by the intended use. I'm sure that the one that each individual is most trained on is the best for that person most of the time. I did not miss your point, My post was from a 3-gun competition aspect, as that is what the OP was enquiring about, I am sure your opinion is important to someone who might ask regarding a sighting device for your purposes (personal defense), perhaps you could start a thread to that affect. I do wish the competition would all switch to the RDS/magnifier combo. It doesn't appear as though you got the point in your response to my post. It appears as though you were attempting to argue against my point (that you now say is not even relevant to the op - so why add to the confusion if you're correct). My answer to the op was intended only to show the separation, not to argue one against the other. I made no such attempt until you posted up some inaccurate information about the RDS. It now seems that you would like to make it look like I'm off target by saying perhaps I should start a thread, well - no thanks. I stated in my original post that I understand this site is geared towards 3 gun and qualified my statement with that. As far as you stating what my purposes are, you seemed to miss a few. For my purposes the RDS serves very well for 3 gun, personal protection, and predator hunting. So to clarify, I like the RDS for 3 gun (as well as other things). If I had to pick only one sort of training from now on it would be personal protection as opposed to 3 gun and that is a lot of the reason I'd choose the RDS over the 1-4. Luckily I don't have to pick one style, so I pick the RDS and use it across the board, just because I like it more and I'm better with it. I'm nowhere near the top of the food chain in this sport, so I'm not terribly concerned with where using a good 1-4 might take my game as compared to the RDS. There are a good number of shooters like me out here, they just might not show up on a site like this. I'm much more likely to shoot irons in this sport than a good 1-4. And I'm not sure what cheers means to you, but in good spirit -

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use. For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier. I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision. as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better. I'm sure you're right about the Millett and I just thought for the price it was worth a try. As far as why the RDS is more popular for personal protection you've missed the boat in my opinion. The reasons I believe folks on the personal protection side gravitate to something like the Aimpoint. - Battery Life - Durability - Reliability - Unlimited eye relief and unlimited field of view - excellent when sweaty or bloody - Co-Witness - Simple - good when under the pressures of someone shooting at you - Fast target acquisition - Very well proven - not just perceived - Excellent in low light While the 1-4 does some of those things it does not do all of those things. As far as accuracy with the magnifier. I get excellent groups out to 300 yards regularly and have pushed it to 400 yards. Most of my shots are under 150-200 yards and this set up serves me well. If most of my shots were over 150 yards I'd reconsider. For some folks the line between the two will be close while for others it is very far apart. Lots of room for opinion here. I won't pretend to be able to speak for the previous post, but his post says "for 3 gun" when referring to the 1-4 vs RDS with magnifier My overall point was that folks on the 3 gun side seem to gravitate to the 1-4 while folks on the personal protection side go towards the RDS or irons. So, for some the 1-4 will do everything the RDS will, for others that's simply not true. I believe it's just opinion and seems to be separated some by the intended use. I'm sure that the one that each individual is most trained on is the best for that person most of the time.

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times). This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular. I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4. I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

No comments from the FN fanboy. Lol What can I say? The fact that I can be labeled does sting a little though.

SCAR 17S

I use an Urban ERT, but I bet you can get a similar adapter for the stock (or maybe this one fits) - http://store.urbanertslings.com/ursiposlla.html - about 1/4 way down is the Extended UNIVERSAL POSITIVE RETENTION WRAP (P.R.W.) ADAPTER with Retention Tab ($13.75). For the front I just go to the side of the tri-rail with a sling adapter.

I'm not positive I am helping here, but I'll try. I believe the confusion could be in the length of the tubes/rails. They can be any length regardless of the gas system. The standard length would be where the actual gas block is for the rifle, mid, carbine lengths. Meaning the tube can extend well beyond or stop short of the block.

I'm new in 3 gun/multigun and am not nearly as good as many of the folks here. I enjoy shooting, but seem to lean more towards the shtf training and so far have tried to keep my carbines set up for multiple uses from matches, to training for personal protection, to coyote hunting. I run an Aimpoint with a 3x mag on a flip to side mount. I really like the set up. I don't seem to use the magnifier until I'm out past 100-150 yards depending on the run. If I'm moving a lot I just use the Aimpoint. I did just get a Millett DMS-1 to test and try out. I have very little time on it(about 600 rounds), but so far I can see why folks like them. For me, it is not nearly as easy to use with both eyes open (up close on 1x) as the Aimpoint. I plan to continue with the DMS-1 to see if I can get better with it with practice. Even if I can't ever get where I like it like an Aimpoint, I can see where it would be nice on a firearm set up for hunting. From what I've seen, there are not nearly as many of those using optics like an Aimpoint as compared to those using a 1-4. To the original question.... I very much like my set up with an Aimpoint and 3x magnifier on the flip to side mount.

I use fast mags http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=105524&st=0&p=1200271&fromsearch=1entry1200271

+1 While I was in the service we always used this stuff and it worked for us. It will wear off after a while so you have to spray it again. It is nice and flat so no glare.

SCAR is now a little over 7440 rounds. Here is a few targets from my last range session. This was after 380 rounds were run through it. Still running the 2moa Aimpoint and 3X mag. 200 yards off a pack 60 grain Hornady VMax and Win 748 12 rounds 10 rounds Now I'm to the point of hoping the 17s runs as good as the 16s.

What part of didn't you understand? Thanks for the information. Way to pounce, kind sir.

Looks like the SCAR Light has been dropped, but the SCAR Heavy is still in the running. http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html

Thanks for the heads up. I've heard they (E-mags) work well in the SCAR, but not so well in some ARs. Can anyone confirm either way? I would like to hear if the E-mags allow the bolt to release by pulling the charging handle to the rear, if anyone has some to confirm one way or the other. I've heard the E-mags work for the drop free issue, but I've never heard anyone else talk about the bolt release issue. Really my post is just geared towards making pmags work in the SCAR for folks who have a bunch of pmags that they'd like to use in the SCAR. My pmags still perform properly in an AR as well.

SCAR16s and Pmags - 2 issues This is just meant to be helpful for folks like me who had a truck load of pmags prior to getting a SCAR. The better answer is probably just to buy metal mags. I have a bunch and they all perform perfectly in the SCAR 2 issues I've found: 1 -Drop free: (some do some don't) I've tested a bunch of pmags now and I cannot find any way to tell what pmags will work and what pmags won't work Many folks post up stuff that says a certain marking will work or not, but so far I don't find that to be true. 2 - Releasing the bolt from the charging handle I have old pmags, new pmags, and everything between. So far none of them will allow the bolt to release by pulling the charging handle to the rear. The pmags work fine using the button to release the bolt, but won't release by pulling the charging handle to the rear. I've not found this issue to be true with any of my metal mags. I've used a Dremel to work my pmags and they now all perform properly for drop free and they allow the bolt to be released by pulling the charging handle to the rear. To fix the bolt release issue just copy a metal mag. The pmag is oval shaped at the back of the mag and the metal mag is rectangular in shape. Remove a little of the material at the left of the oval and they perform properly. The oval I am talking about is the point where you would see the primers if the mag were loaded. Hope this helps

Good news for us that like the SCAR http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=82 McLean, VA) —FNH USA, LLC received notification from the USSOCOM Program Executive Office—SOF Warrior (PEO—SW) that the SCAR Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) was approved and signed on April 14, 2010, moving this FN Herstal (FN) program into the Milestone C phase. This decision authorizes the production and deployment of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) MK 16 and MK 17, as well as the Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) MK 13. Following a worldwide solicitation to the military firearms industry, nine vendors submitted a dozen different designs for a new modular, multi-caliber weapons system. The FN SCAR submission was the only weapons system to pass all of the Go/No-Go criteria and was unanimously chosen in November 2004 by the selection board composed of senior operators from every SOF component. The SCAR is the first new assault rifle procured by the U.S. Military through a full and open competition since the M16 trials were held in the mid-1960s. Tests in reliability, accuracy, safety and ergonomics were administered from August 2005 to September 2008 and were conducted in a variety of environments including urban, maritime, jungle and winter/mountain operational test scenarios. The SCAR weapons system successfully endured more than two million rounds of ammunition during these trials, therein making it one of the most heavily tested weapons in the history of small arms. “The SCAR is one of the most tested small arms in our military’s history and is currently being employed in the fight to defend freedom,” said United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Products of excellence, like the SCAR, represent the continuation of a long and proud tradition of defense manufacturing in South Carolina. I look forward to the continued use of this weapons system.” The FN SCAR system consists of two highly adaptable modular rifle platforms and a grenade launcher. Type-designated as the MK 16 MOD 0 5.56mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the MK 17 MOD 0 7.62mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, both weapons are available with three different barrel lengths optimized for conducting operations in close-quarters combat, standard infantry and longer-range precision fire roles. All SCAR barrels can be easily interchanged by the operator in just minutes to instantly meet the requirements of virtually any mission. The MK 13 MOD 0 40mm Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) quickly mounts under the barrel of either SCAR platform, providing additional capability to the individual warfighter’s firepower, and can be easily configured for use as a stand-alone weapon as well. Because of the SCAR system’s modular design, ergonomic commonality (100%) and parts commonality (greater than 80%), it represents a significant reduction in training costs and life-cycle support. The weapon system’s open architecture is designed to support future advancements in operational requirements including ammunition, aiming devices, sighting systems and other mission critical equipment. “The SCAR weapons system is a major USSOCOM program whose success is a direct result of the effort, commitment and teamwork provided by FN and the U.S. Government. We are extremely pleased to have had the opportunity to work with such a strong team in achieving the Milestone C decision,” said Mark Cherpes, Vice President of Military Operations for FNH USA. “This milestone signifies that our products are operationally effective and suitable for mass fielding. We believe that the SCAR is the most flexible, reliable and cost-effective small arms weapons system ever offered to America’s servicemen and women, and that it will give them a significant operational advantage in both present and future conflicts.” FN firearms manufactured in the United States are produced by FN Manufacturing in Columbia, SC. The Herstal Group is represented by FNH USA, FN Manufacturing and Browning within the United States and directly employs more than 1,000 individuals. U.S. operations are located in Virginia, South Carolina, Utah and Missouri. FNH USA is the sales and marketing arm of FN. Its corporate mission is to expand the company’s global leadership position in defense, law enforcement and commercial markets by delivering superior products and the finest in training and logistical support. For more information, or to view the entire line of FN products, visit www.fnhusa.com. FNH USA, LLC, P.O. Box 697, McLean, VA 22101 USA.

Well I haven't heard of anything that would get you to the trigger you like on your AR, but here is a few links to look at. This is a place that is doing a trigger job - http://www.hi-desertdog.com/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=320&review=write Here's a link from a good FN forum member about the outcome - http://fnforum.net/woo-hoo-trigger-job-t18105.html Here's another link from a good FN forum mod with his fix and explanation - http://www.fnforum.net/fn-scar-16s-fire-control-group-pix-updated-08-05-09-t16633.html I'm getting use to the trigger, but understand the desire for an upgrade.

I don't disagree. I do believe a person has to want one to buy one due the price - and I could honestly build 1.5 - 2 nice ARs for the same price. Knowing what I know now I'd buy the SCAR again.

I recently realized another good reason for running the charging handle on the right side. I've been running the CH on the right side and like it there. I've even run the SCAR on a hood previously, but just realized this additional benefit. I had already considered that the CH could be in the way if resting the SCAR against something on the right side (easy to overcome be properly placing the firearm). In the middle of a stage when I realized that when shooting from cover and the firearm is placed on the ground or something like the hood of a vehicle the CH is not in the way on the right side and would be on the left side. (same side as ejection port) Here are some reasons I've decided I like the reciprocating CH. I know that many folks prefer a non-reciprocating charging handle, but I believe some folks will like the reciprocating CH if they give it a good try. I like the reciprocating charging handle - I run it on the right side allowing bolt release from both sides of the weapon, clear field of view, not against me when slung, and no issues with the Aimpoint/LaRue mount. With the reciprocating CH - - I find it to be simple to work malfunctions - when running drills - I find it easier to spot a malfunction - when running drills due to the position of the CH - simple design / no extra parts - same design as my shotgun and 308 semi auto I would like to see a few different aftermarket CHs. There is one available, but it is not one I'm interested in. I'd like to see one that is built like the Nordic CHs. I would also like to see some that change the angle and possibly drop the ch down a little lower if that's possible.