>>64115501
>the fact is not everyone with a sub-MOA capable gun has the skills to shoot sub-MOA with it.
That's fair, but I just asked for 1 video or picture that proves it. The burden of proof lies on the person who made the claim. He could have shown me anyone else's SCAR grouping, it didn't have to be his own. All he did was claim that Lucas from T-Rex arms made a claim that it was sub-MOA. Meanwhile, in Lucas's actual video where he recaps on owning a SCAR for 7 years, he shows a 1.07"-1.75" MOA and verbally says it's a 1-1.5" MOA rifle, so we've already caught OP lying. The very guy OP is using as proof said himself that it's not a sub-MOA rifle.
>>64115510
All I asked for was proof. The fact that you're obsessed with Ukraine when all I did was use an example about how claims are not always true proves that you'd rather derail your own thread than admit you're wrong and can't prove the claim you made. With your lack of integrity, I'm surprised you aren't shilling SIG products instead.
>Just because something isn’t on video doesn’t mean it’s implausible.
The fact that it was plausible is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked for proof. Instead, you just mentioned Lucas, who in his own video says his finely tuned SCAR is a 1-1.5 MOA rifle and his friend's SCAR is a 2 MOA rifle.
>AR cult worship
Says the guy who started a thread by whining that we don't worship his rifle. I once saw a G3 hit a .88 MOA group with Hornady ammo. I've also seen multiple M14s hit sub-MOA groups. All I wanted was for you to prove your claim, and I would have agreed with you on the sub-MOA claim. Instead, now I'm even more convinced that you are talking out of your ass. I might join the others who didn't believe you and ignore your cope thread.
