SCAR 17s for $1000 less than typical ODT pricing

[Heat01]

You don't read forums? hmm
You don't watch reviews on YouTube?
ok if you say so. Me however, I read reviews, watch reviews and browse forums on any gun I consider buying. When possible I visit gun shows to fondle the weapon and if it happens to be at a range when I shoot, I'll shoot it.

I haven't seen any at the range so they are either rare, over priced or not all that great. Not sure which one or possibly all.

So what your saying is that if you don't see it at a range, or cost too much it's not a good weapon? Hmmm, makes sense

 

[DinkyDau]

Next time their is a meet at a range that is convenient to me...I will bring mine for you to shoot but caution,,,,Since this will be your first experience shooting a 17 you will get stiff...Oh and I am not talking about your neck or shoulders.

 

[MaconGuns]

So what your saying is that if you don't see it at a range, or cost too much it's not a good weapon? Hmmm, makes sense

So you are saying in order to form an opinion you must own or shoot it before you buy?

I don't even test drive a car when I buy it.
I haven't already decided what I will buy before walk on a lot based on resale, past reviews and my personal preference. If it takes cash to drive the best then we'll all own Porsche. Or maybe you've not owned one long enough to establish an opinion maybe a Ford/chevy truck is better investment. Buy what you want, it's your cash. Just cause you sunk more cash into it doesn't justify it's purchase. I own 2 sig legions and I don't see them being "all that"

 

[DinkyDau]

Well personally I drive a Hemi 4x4, and I have hands on knowledge about almost everything I purchase..Especially high end items.

 

[Heat01]

I'm not saying you can't have a opinion on anything,just saying that your logic doesn't make that much sense because you didn't see one at the range or they cost too much they must not be good guns. Just to use your analogy is like saying I don't see a lot of Lamborghini on the road Bc they cost to much they are probably not good. To each is own

 

[Heat01]

Well personally I drive a Hemi 4x4, and I have hands on knowledge about almost everything I purchase..Especially high end items.

Agreed, this makes too much sense.

 

[Psilloh1]

So you are saying in order to form an opinion you must own or shoot it before you buy?

I don't even test drive a car when I buy it.
I haven't already decided what I will buy before walk on a lot based on resale, past reviews and my personal preference. If it takes cash to drive the best then we'll all own Porsche. Or maybe you've not owned one long enough to establish an opinion that a Ford/chevy truck is better investment.

Um... Ok you are the only person I have heard of that buys Cars or guns, without driving either before purchasing... Why are you questioning our length of ownership vs. what is the better investment, when you haven't even shot one?

Take the challenge and try one... Then come back and comment. Until then, you aren't being objective.

 

[MaconGuns]

Well personally I drive a Hemi 4x4, and I have hands on knowledge about almost everything I purchase..Especially high end items.

In my opinion it's more than I want or need. I'll guess the gas mileage isn't great but that's just a guess. Maybe it's better to word it a different way. in my opinion based on others research of the item in question, it is not worth the trade off of what I could have vs what I would have for the $$$ investment. If you truly believe that this rifle will out shoot a $1500 varminter and in close combat will be as nimble as suppressed 300 blackout SBR and also fills the roll of a medium budget AR. Then I will conceded. However in my non hands on opinion, I am not convinced.

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/21/fn-recalls-scar-rifles/

Please explain to me why you need a $3000 "battle rifle" . If you're an operator or a mall ninja, you are exempt.

 

[sparked1]

In my opinion it's more than I want or need. I'll guess the gas mileage isn't great but that's just a guess. Maybe it's better to word it a different way. in my opinion based on others research of the item in question, it is not worth the trade off of what I could have vs what I would have for the $$$ investment. If you truly believe that this rifle will out shoot a $1500 varminter and in close combat will be as nimble as suppressed 300 blackout SBR and also fills the roll of a medium budget AR. Then I will conceded. However in my non hands on opinion, I am not convinced.

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/21/fn-recalls-scar-rifles/

Please explain to me why you need a $3000 "battle rifle" . If you're an operator or a mall ninja, you are exempt.

I don't think it's a question of needing a $3k rifle. Why do you need a $1500 AR when an $800 AR will do the same thing? If you can afford it and are willing to pay for it, do so. If you can't or won't, don't.

But on the other hand, I do agree with your point that a $3000 rifle shouldn't need an immediate trigger upgrade. I suspect the rifle's current street price has a lot to do with the internet operator explosion which has made it very desirable and is not in as high production as many other rifles.

Supply and demand dictates that it's not necessarily the specific price that matters, but the value to the buyer. I'm fairly certain SCAR owners justified their then-$2200 rifle just as hard as they do their now-$3000 rifle and, when it gets to $3500, etc. etc.

 

[araomd]

I also would have to add that of all the Guns tested by the Military, the SCAR H was selected for special forces..

That in itself speaks volumes...

I'm always perplexed how a group of people who (in general) think that the government makes poor decisions still think that the military's procurement programs are a fantastic judge of quality.