Originally Posted by
Smokerr
I am going to do a different take on this.
While a lot of work went into the write up, I think it missed the mark.
For someone shooting the gun, what counts is how well it works (reliability which only time will tell), accuracy (does it do what it needs to), ease of disassemble and assembly, ergonomics of controls and overall feel for function.
Once you delve into minute depth details, then I think it falls off the map.
Do a comparison with an AK and you would come up with a cheap piece of junk. Put the AK parts in context and its only drawback is accuracy (and that's not a drawback for untrained or conscript armies). Its cheap and it works (even for top operators in the right situation)
Assumptions of harmonics affecting the accuracy, piston vs DGI and all that drift into speculation as does timing, letting the feed work better etc.
I think you need to be a gun engineer/designer to actually asses how each of the components contributes, detract or even makes no difference in the gun functioning.
Ultimately, what actually tells is putting it into a lot of use to see how it holds up (and if you "improve" a component, the same thing, only use will tell, not an analysis - that just gets you the basis for what to do and you need to know what you are actually after in how that part relates to the rest of the mechanism). A designer because he knows the environment the part works in can make a good attempt, though it still have to be used a lot to tell for sure. Usually trial and refinement involved. Ergo agreement on certain components improvements for the AR we now know are better due to time and testing (SCAR is too new for that and proprietary so no aftermarket).
For me, I handled a SCAR the other day. My take is that it is a very well done gun quality wise, fit and finish were very good. That is the first impression, knowing FN it probably translates into very good results, but.......
I saw it stripped down but did not try it myself, would have to do that and see. Basing it on my XCR it seemed to be more parts to loose, but that's an impression.
I did not like the reciprocating charging handle (XCR does not have that and I see no advantage). The guy had put it on the right side as it was an issue. Non reciprocation on the left side for right handers works better if you are need speed.
Magazine release was good (and ambidextrous which is a plus)
Safety was too small and I did not like how it functioned.
I did not like the bolt hold back/ release mechanism ala an AR type (XCRs is probably done so well you cannot improve on it). The SCAR is better than an AR as it has a better shape, but still an AR location and setup which I do not like.
Fit and finish are far better than the XCR, handling and balance is better than my XCR, overall I would still take the XCR (I can improve the XCR if I was willing to get the light barrel, but still I do not think it will be as good as the SCAR of the MP15-T I have handled and shot)
That,s the kind of comparison that works, yes its my opinion, but I base it on actual facts from my viewpoint, and you can do the same and see if that fits you or not.
The massive XCR bolt would seem to be an improvement over the flimsy staked AR bolt, but time will tell. A poorly done massive bolt (even a beautifully machined one) is worse than a well done lighter bolt (though AK was a lot like the XCR so it looks good, but that's not proven fully though few if any XCR related bolt issues have surfaced)
Now that is s my take, the rest have liked this, for me it does not tell me what I need to know in far to much detail and does not give me a basis to assess with information I can use .
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks