Possibly the bolt carrier hits the end compression of the spring and buffer pad as well as the buffer spring have a more rigid base to propel the bolt carrier forward and bounces back rather forcefully causing the hammer effect of the bolt being drug rearward (non suppressed) and slamming together, forcing the cam pin to rotate and canting the bolts. This hammer impact and rotation of the bolt within the bolt carrier forces the carrier key UP, putting torsion and torque on the screws which manifests as canted screws.Īnother POSSIBLE argument is the hinge plate being changed out from plastic to aluminum enhancing a REBOUND effect. (rather than the inertia of being pulled rearward)
The end of the rearward cycle movement of the bolt carrier group results in an increased hammer effect because the bolt is still moving with increased inertia. This higher pressure in the barrel PROPELS the bolt rearward faster than the bolt carrier dragging the bolt rearward. WITH A SUPPRESSOR There is increased pressure IN the barrel when the bolt carrier goes to the rear, unlocking the bolt. Too many people will point to their favorite poo-poo target or variable and say "THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG!!" - without addressing, eliminating or accounting for ALL the factors that may contribute or detract from the result.Īnother issue that may have been discussed is the time after cartridge ignition and the bullet passing the muzzle. Many of these variables affect the gross weight of the weapon, this may allow the weapon to work easier or harder, accounting for the overall mass of the weapon when the firing impulse is absorbed or transmitted. Here are SOME of the many variables I see at first glance:Įnvironment temperature & direct sunshine on cartridges & weapon ( This is why I cannot TOLERATE to watch many of the YouTube "tests" that are conducted & uploaded!) This is the best way to isolate variables that impact the function, and possibly there are many variables that 'stack' to induce a result. In any proper failure analysis, it is prudent to identify variables. the user should be able to configure it as a 13 inch suppressed battle rifle and five minutes later set it up to shoot long range, thats the whole point of the platform and unfortunately, for the civilian market, its just not there. It exist to replace multiple 556 and 762 legacy weapon systems. We should be on the Scar 3.0 at this point, it should be multi cal, it should have PDW/Long range stocks, they should have suppressed gas jets/regulators/gas blocks, the charging handle should be non reciprocating, they should have a modern hand guard.
It blows my mind that FN dedicated the resources to produce a semi auto SAW, but yet their flagship weapon may self destruct if suppressed, even if re-jetted. There is Zero reason, with how common silencers are these days, that a 10 year old weapon system can not be easily suppressed.
What cans are ok? I am sure FN cans are good to go but those are not an option SilencerCo Cans and similar cans are no goes. That's disappointing, and for me, I think my biggest issue with the the SCAR is FN reluctance to address any of these long standing issues, and really develop the platform.
0 kommentar(er)
