whats the point of a rifle that uses a short stroke gas piston if you're going to have a bolt carrier the same size as a long stroke?
i feel like the entire point is mute if you're not either going to have the carrier be as small as possible or weighted towards the back to balance the system along the grip; it just makes it more complicated, and for no justifiable reason as far as i can tell
even if you wanna say "well it keeps the system clean", its not even a good excuse, dust & grime will enter the system either way, yet all you need is a quick ragging down to clean it, and with the carrier being over the barrel, you'll want to give it a little bit of fresh oil anyways, same to the piston
i've come to the conclusion that this is all just a meme that came from people copying anachronistic prototypes that were just never updated, e.g. the SCAR off the FNC
what do you guys think?
Non reciprocating bolt.
Yes, the U.S. explicitly asked not to have it
No, FNH did not comply
Yes, they cried "corruption!!" like their big brother France when everyone dropped it
i feel like a reciprocating bolt is a bolt that doesn't work
jokes aside, i think you meant "reciprocating bolt handle" right?
even that is already achieved a hundred times over & up to preference anyways
>Yes, the U.S. explicitly asked not to have it
This is wrong. SOCOM specifically asked for a reciprocating charging handle for the SCAR program and FNH complied.
There’s a reason the new SCARs have nrchs and they stopped making the originals, and that’s because the original program is over.
What's nrchs and how are the scars different from originals?
non-reciprocating charging handle
Why the fuck would anyone specifically want a reciprocating charging handle?
"No, dammit - it is essential that we have a part that zips around on the gun which can hit gear and fingers. Also, if something is in the way of its travel make sure it causes a malfunction!"
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
>That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
You just described the United States Army. Even at the highest levels of special operations. What they were trying to go for was an AK style BCG, but they didn't describe it properly.
>Why the fuck would anyone specifically want a reciprocating charging handle?
SOCOM wanted it because they felt it would simplify reloading and malfunction clearing. In contrast with an M4 it does away with the need for a forward assist or having to mortar the stock on a stuck casing. It also makes locking the bolt back without a magazine a little easier. This was when the M4 was being labeled as unreliable, so the point of the program was to make a replacement that was a simple, reliable, and robust as possible, hence the reciprocating charging handle and giant bolt carrier.
At the end of the day though the 16 was little better than the block II M4s, just different, which is why it went away. The 17 stuck around because it was/is probably the best “combat” option for a .308.
Army had nothing to do with the design or requirements.
You can have a bolt handle that works as a forward assist without a reciprocating charging handle.
Yes they did
>You can have a bolt handle that works as a forward assist without a reciprocating charging handle.
Yes, but that wasn’t what was spec’d in the original SOCOM program, so it wasn’t included. They asked for a reciprocating charging handle and that’s what they got.
>Yes they did
<citation needed>
><citation needed>
charging handle can be pushed inward, letting you engage the bolt carrier
this is like man other rifles
><citation needed>
Chuck Pressburg's Patreon. He worked on the SCAR program when he was at USASOC's R&D section.
you must be 18 to post here
>that’s because the original SCAR program is over
Moot. Entire point is MOOT.
no, its HIROYUKI
It's literally just cleaning. That's the main advantage short stroke has over anything else. That and also the piston has to be a somewhat accurate part so having it only move a cm or so is advantageous for manufacturing.
>whats the point of a rifle that uses a short stroke
First and foremost, Stoner had sold off his patent for a rodless short stroke (called it a stationary piston), so he invented a new rodened one to avoid royalty fees. Other designers based their gas operation on it because the action spring could be migrated forward (more efficient use of receiver space). Additionally, cycling is more reliable with a short stroke piston if the barrel is 10.3" long
Stoner didn't invent the short stroke you retard
No, but he did invent the AR-18 piston (downscaled from the AR-16), which is the basis of the SA80, AUG, G36/XM8, HK416, et cetera
The AR18 piston is for all intents and purposes identical to the FAL and Tokarev's before it.
>digits
You've convinced me, Stoner is a plagiarist
it's weird how AR cucks are putting pistons in their ar15's when they should be buying and embracing the superior ar18
Weird how the AR-18 isn't in use at all and has been a failure every time Armalite tried to sell them. Almost like it was a dogshit rifle and slapping a piston on an AR-15 doesn't make it an AR-18.
>it didn't sell so it's bad
The colt 2000 was stoners best design, best handgun in the world fr fr
>rotating barrel
It's shit.
Good guns always succeed. If the gun isn't successful, it's because it wasn't good. Simple as.
It didnt take off because Armalite didnt have the resources to have it take off. Colt barely got the AR-15 to be adopted after dozens of tries and failures. Turns out just because a military doesn't adopt a firearm doesnt mean it's bad, crazy I know.
>It didnt take off because
It was a bad gun.
>piston on a AR15
The AR18 literally has NO PARTS commonality with the AR15.
>actual piston AR15
Type 65 from Taiwan.
It's intensive purposes
>but he did invent the AR-18 piston
It first appeared on the SVT38, then the SVT40, G43,FAL.
The HK416 was less reliable than the G36 and SCAR in US military testing. Jamming a short stroke piston into a gun designed to be DI was dumb. Shoulda made a modernized AR-18 instead. Larry Vickers and others got kickbacks from HK to get JSOC to adopt the 416 in the first place.
Pat Rogers too? He believed in pistons for sub 10.3" barrels
I'm not saying pistons in general are bad. Piston AR-15s are bad. AFAIK Pat Rogers was never involved in R&D.
>He believed in pistons for sub 10.3" barrels
sub 10.3" 5.56 is a meme. If you really need to go that short (you don't), switch to .300 nigout or something similar.
But yes, anything shorter than carbine-length gas system on an AR is retarded
incidentally, .300 fagout is the only caliber I can think of that should use a pistol length gas system. maybe .350 legend but I know very little about that cartwright
SCAR has one to make blood sacrifices to the optics god and filter poors who won't give appropriate sacrifices to said optics god.
ur fucking cringe for saying all that, this reads like a gayass garandthumb intro
yeah.
you aren't a SCAR owner
yeah.
NTA, but the SCAR's definitely showing it's age.
The most boring firearm design reminds me of everything returning to crabs.
SCAR is the cran of weapons
>thinks a SCAR makes him not poor
>doesn't know all the cool kids have moved to the Sig Spear
oof.
Nobody is dumb enough to believe this except siggers, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it’s still not true.
SCAR failed U.S testing, and failed and weren't reliable with SOCOM, it's a failed design.
>SCAR failed U.S testing
No it didn't. It passed with flying colors and btfod everything else in reliability testing with the US Army. They just decided the AR-15 was good enough and that was the end of that.
Pretty much this, sure it rapes optics that aren't elcan or trijicons but it's a pretty good gun. At the end of the day, the scar costed way more than just updating and keeping the M16/M4
>raped everything in testing
Yeah, it beat the M4 4:1 in stoppages and was more accurate.
>what happened
Colt absolutely had a full meltdown and threw literal briefcases of money at senators to get the project canned.
>iT cOsT tOo mUcH
The entire US military could switch service rifles at the cost of 2 F35's.
Did I mention the SCAR?
Rent free in your tiny pea brain.
Anything Nig Sauer creates is garbage, including the spear. Their firearms have been universal junk all the way back to the nig556 and the p250.
Literally MIM junk being outsourced to pajeets in pajeetistan.
Buying off a bunch of generals to get an adoption does nothing to change this.
So no, “cool kids” do not touch garbage like the spear, just gullible fools (99% of Nigs consumers).
Wait what's wrong with the Sig 556?
This kills your optic
Cringecog was built for scars, and non-reciprocating charge handle lowers the requirement
Rapid short strokes feel better than long slow strokes. More vibration.
SCAR OWNERS WW@
range day tomorrow bros
more 600 yard off hand shootng!!!
Disintegration is fucking great
hey scarbros can i get a recc for a sling, ive tried two and they both suck for the attachment points
snickers sling
source: i've tried a lot of slings
This thread got derailed as fuck
Not even the first reply had anything to say related to OP
No wonder people don't care for the SCAR, it's owners are like BMW drivers
back to OP. I think short-stroke is a solution in search of a problem. You don't have the inline recoil of the gas expansion system of an AR-15. You don't save weight compared to a long-stroke piston. And it has a harsher, more violent recoil than either. All three systems can be made to run reliably, so that's a non factor. Plus, you never hear about the XCR or AR-10 killing optics like the SCAR does, but the 416 doesn't seem to have that problem either, so maybe it's just a SCAR problem.
>so maybe it's just a SCAR problem.
Monolithic upper receivers flex and bend more under recoil. Couple that with the SCAR having a large and heavy bolt carrier and you have increased vibration and flex. The nail in the coffin is combining the above with cantilever mounts, which exaggerates the vibration and basically vibrates and shakes optics to failure.
It’s not really a concern for red dots like aimpoint, but scopes that aren’t as durable as brands like nightforce, USO, S&B, or rated up to .50cal usage are more likely to fail.
makes sense. thanks for the explanation. So would LMT mono uppers be fine? I imagine so since they keep the small and light AR-15 BCG, whether it's DI or short stroke
He's just wrong. The LMT MWS uses a fuckhuge bolt carrier group and it's still fine.
>maybe it's just a SCAR problem.
It is.
The real problem is the shape of the SCAR aluminum receiver. The SCAR does not have a particularly heavy BCG nor does it have a particularly strong recoil impulse. It's far from the only monolithic upper receiver. The real problem is much more simple, and frankly stupid. Due to being an extrusion rather than a forging or stamping, the entire upper receiver is one shape along its length. A bell. This causes the entire upper to resonate on firing, sideways. Many optics are simply not up to having stresses applied in this direction. They can handle recoil, that's not what is happening.
Just like a three prong flash hider rings just like a tuning fork, because well, it's a fucking fork, a bell shaped upper also resonates like a bell. ARs and similar uppers don't have this problem because as a forging, they have lots of different shapes breaking up this phenomenon. Extrusions on the other hand can only have one shape along their entire length. Here's a stripped (aftermarket) SCAR upper that demonstrates what I'm talking about. It's one long bell shaped piece of aluminum.
Retard, many new production modern guns use an extrusion receiver.
Because it's cheaper than a forging Anon, not because it's better.
Yeah but the SCAR is unique in that it wrecks scopes.
The real reason why SCAR wrecks scopes is the shock from the bolt carrier bottoming out and directly transmitting that to the sight rail.
You're literally a mongoloid. The issue was the large weight of the SCAR's BCG slamming forwards, similar to how an airgun can wreck some normal rifle optics. It has literally nothing to do with the receiver "resonating" sideways, you fucking dunce.
SCAR problem is "negative" recoil. When its bolts locks gun moves forward and dips. All self loaders guns do but SCAR does it especially violently. Optics are ruggedised against " normal" recoil. Opposite direction fucks them up.
>whats the point of a rifle that uses a short stroke gas piston
retardation.
Barrel length mutability.
You can more easily control gas flow with a tappet system regardless of how long your barrel is in front of the gas port compared to a conventional long-stroke mechanism.
>whats the point of a rifle that uses a short stroke gas piston
Less mass going back and forth while having mechanical advantage over the shooter's hands.
AK just does everything right and western rifles are full of unnecessary and comlicated gizmos. It takes 13 second to dissassble and assemble an AK. It takes more than a minute for western rifles.
The AK is in some ways very complicated.
Its bolt carrier for example, is almost as complex as a traditional rifle receiver in terms of the cuts and precision necessary for it.
Compare that to the AR15 with its caveman tier "just let the bolt cam grind on the receiver wall lol", and you get a sense of the difference in complexity of engineering.
This is totally true. There is a surprising amount of engineering and high effort solutions in the AK that are not immediately obvious to the layman. As an engineer looking at the shape of the bolt, the bolt carrier, and the locking surfaces it really brings me dread imagining how I would go about drafting that by hand on paper. Same goes for the Garand too.
Listen man it's not rocket appliances.