What were they thinking? - Page 4

FN Forum

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Thanks Tree5Thanks

Thread: What were they thinking?

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    184
    Thanked
    68 times
    A non-reciprocating charging handle does not solve the problem of hitting your knuckles on a fat sight like an Eotech. That's what these offset charging handles are for.

    Instead it's more for silencing critics like this that refuse to get off the AR.

    AR-18 Bolt Carrier


    G36 Bolt Carrier


    SCAR Bolt Carrier


    Make a new short carrier group and use the space where the armature used to be for the mechanism. To mount the replacement armature in place, use those 3 long holes near the side rails or connect it to the upper or lower rail.



    Yes, I know. There might need to be some tuning because less mass is being thrown about. More parts means more complicated. Reliability will be affected. Durability of the parts may be in question. The non-reciprocating bolt will need some sort of forward assist... Point is, it's possible to make it without drastically altering the receiver.

    If you make the charging handle non-reciprocating, it also makes it possible for a charging handle to be moved around to the back for those that refuse to accept change. The last time I saw a "fix" to make the SCAR charge like an AR it was a piece of string threaded from the charging handle's hole to the rear sight with a small loop in it for you to put your finger in. The string was flexible enough that it would droop when the bolt was cycling so it would not hit him in the face... much. Then when he wanted to charge the weapon he pulled the string taut and he had his horrible solution to an overblown problem.
    Last edited by Cadpack; 01-23-2012 at 12:02 AM.
    FullAssault thanked this.


  2. #32
    Senior Member FullAssault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,235
    Thanked
    1102 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Scar17FAN View Post
    I would in a heart beat I'm sure many others would too it's the single thing that holds the scar back from being one of the best platforms out there. I'm not concerned about a manufacture s warranty and many others have proved their not worried as well.
    I wouldn't..... I don't have an issues with it but to each his own!
    "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
    -Samuel Adams

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1
    Such a good one.Thanks a lot for sharing.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    ,
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Bullseye Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    170
    Thanked
    20 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadpack View Post
    A non-reciprocating charging handle does not solve the problem of hitting your knuckles on a fat sight like an Eotech. That's what these offset charging handles are for.

    Instead it's more for silencing critics like this that refuse to get off the AR.

    AR-18 Bolt Carrier


    G36 Bolt Carrier


    SCAR Bolt Carrier


    Make a new short carrier group and use the space where the armature used to be for the mechanism. To mount the replacement armature in place, use those 3 long holes near the side rails or connect it to the upper or lower rail.



    Yes, I know. There might need to be some tuning because less mass is being thrown about. More parts means more complicated. Reliability will be affected. Durability of the parts may be in question. The non-reciprocating bolt will need some sort of forward assist... Point is, it's possible to make it without drastically altering the receiver.

    If you make the charging handle non-reciprocating, it also makes it possible for a charging handle to be moved around to the back for those that refuse to accept change. The last time I saw a "fix" to make the SCAR charge like an AR it was a piece of string threaded from the charging handle's hole to the rear sight with a small loop in it for you to put your finger in. The string was flexible enough that it would droop when the bolt was cycling so it would not hit him in the face... much. Then when he wanted to charge the weapon he pulled the string taut and he had his horrible solution to an overblown problem.
    Ahh an eotech I see I wouldn't have experience with those sights because I run aim point t1 and a mark 4 cmr2 and have never hit my knuckles because I can get mounts that have attachments on the ejection side of the gun. Im just saying when each person who owns a scar is asked about the non-reciprocating charging handle 90 % would rather have one. I mean if bushmaster can do it to the acr then it's quite obvious that scar should be that way not to mention its safer that way too.

  5. #35
    Senior Member WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN BADGES copter976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern Kahli'Stan
    Posts
    512
    Thanked
    28 times
    I'm in for one as well when you're ready to roll with them! Thanks for doing this!!!
    Illegitimus non Carborundum...
    (to prevent the above, VOTE, for a new president)

  6. #36
    Sponsor
    FN Supporter
    StrykerEnterprisesLLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,690
    Thanked
    9789 times
    A shortened carrier:

    Let's say we shorten the nose of the carrier. What happens to the piston?


    The non-reciprocating, F/A equipped, SCAR CH design was done.

    It was canned due to having to machine the upper receiver.

    I went with the ACH design from a clean page.

    AR-15's have their place.

    The SCAR stands alone.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    AUTHORIZED FN LE/Mil DISTRIBUTOR

    07/02 SOT FIREARM MANUFACTURER

    Law Enforcement / Military / Commercial Sales

    O: 815-977-5167


    Accepting All Major Credit Cards

    Like us on Facebook for your chance to win cool stuff!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.




  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    184
    Thanked
    68 times
    Let's say we shorten the nose of the carrier. What happens to the piston?
    The short bolt carriers are just an example of how that arm of the SCAR's bolt carrier doesn't need to necessarily be that big. In my idea the piston would still cycle and act directly upon the bolt carrier through a thinner arm (vertically, horizontally or both) than what we have now. The difference is that the space freed up around the thinner arm would allow for a charging handle design that only engages the arm of the bolt carrier when the user moves it out of its neutral position with a backwards or forwards motion. That's why in my idea the mechanics would have to be mounted to a fixed point of the receiver such as those holes or the rails to avoid having to alter the receiver.

    There's other ways such as extending that piston, but that's not the purpose of my postings. I just want to get manufacturers to start thinking about ways it can be done instead of getting stuck on ways it can't.

    I fully understand my idea may not happen, but I tend to look at the SCAR from the standpoint of where it could be if it had as much aftermarket support as the AR does now. I believe you're smart enough to do it Sgt, but I know you have your own reasons why you'd prefer not to.

    Btw, when is that fully adjustable drop-in gas regulator coming?
    Last edited by Cadpack; 01-23-2012 at 03:52 PM.

  8. #38
    Sponsor
    FN Supporter
    StrykerEnterprisesLLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,690
    Thanked
    9789 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Cadpack View Post
    The short bolt carriers are just an example of how that arm of the SCAR's bolt carrier doesn't need to necessarily be that big. In my idea the piston would still cycle and act directly upon the bolt carrier through a thinner arm (vertically, horizontally or both) than what we have now. The difference is that the space freed up around the thinner arm would allow for a charging handle design that only engages the arm of the bolt carrier when the user moves it out of its neutral position with a backwards or forwards motion. That's why in my idea the mechanics would have to be mounted to a fixed point of the receiver such as those holes or the rails to avoid having to alter the receiver.

    There's other ways such as extending that piston, but that's not the purpose of my postings. I just want to get manufacturers to start thinking about ways it can be done instead of getting stuck on ways it can't.

    I fully understand my idea may not happen, but I tend to look at the SCAR from the standpoint of where it could be if it had as much aftermarket support as the AR does now. I believe you're smart enough to do it Sgt, but I know you have your own reasons why you'd prefer not to.

    Btw, when is that fully adjustable drop-in gas regulator coming?
    The problems associated with what you're suggesting is the cantilever aspect of the BC has wings on it for support to avoid carrier tilt issues.

    Lengthening the piston opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to barrel harmonics as well as requiring a tube for support. I thought long and hard about the folding, non reciprocating Ch and they only way it would work is to machine the upper, along with minor machining to the carrier assembly.

    In all honesty, I don't believe there are very many SCAR owners who are willing to lose warranty coverage on the entire weapon just so they can have a non-reciprocating folding charging handle. Did I mention the upper would also require a strip and re -plate? That alone would cost a minimum of $240.00 per unit.

    How many SCAR owners are willing to spend somewhere around $500 for this option? I think the the numbers are very low. The warranty issue aside...

    Adjustable regulator project was based on the barrel project and it appears that FNH USA put that project in a holding pattern.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    AUTHORIZED FN LE/Mil DISTRIBUTOR

    07/02 SOT FIREARM MANUFACTURER

    Law Enforcement / Military / Commercial Sales

    O: 815-977-5167


    Accepting All Major Credit Cards

    Like us on Facebook for your chance to win cool stuff!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.




  9. #39
    Senior Member Bullseye Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    170
    Thanked
    20 times
    Damn 500? Would you be willing to do one of my 17's ? I don't care about a warranty on this gun I feel and this is just my feeling towards the scar platform is perfection except for the nonreciprocating charging handle and if I get my upper refinished at the same time well that's a win win in my book! Pm me if your interested may be you can put a new G trigger in it at the same time as well. Thanks

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    184
    Thanked
    68 times
    The problems associated with what you're suggesting is the cantilever aspect of the BC has wings on it for support to avoid carrier tilt issues.
    Yeah, this is close to the point at which the gunsmith that I was talking to about it gave up. His final ideas before he got interrupted by another customer (or perhaps that was his version of "go away kid, ya bother me") were for trying to keep as much of the external dimensions of the original bolt carrier as possible by milling out the middle and working from the inside out, or machining mating rails between the new armature and charging handle assembly to reduce tilt.

    The last one was for ignoring conventional drop in parts and working directly with the existing bolt carrier. He would mount his new charging assembly to the top rail and have it so the first portion of the pull dropped a pin into the empty hole of the existing charging handle and the rest of the pull cycled the weapon. Aside from the sheer ugliness and loss of rail space, the other problem with that idea was trying to get the forward assist function into it... and even if that problem was solved with more charging handle holes along the bolt carriers length it still needed to return itself to a neutral position. That's around where I decided to give up and let real experts work at the idea.
    Last edited by Cadpack; 01-23-2012 at 09:13 PM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. thinking about an FNX-40
    By DN3 in forum FN FNX
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 08:30 AM
  2. Am thinking of getting one of these...
    By C4iGrant in forum FN FNX
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-28-2012, 02:48 PM
  3. Another, what was this cop thinking?
    By MP_OHIO in forum Freestyle Room
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-02-2011, 05:33 PM
  4. Thinking of doing this, has anyone else?
    By Damian_Bloodstone in forum FN PS90 Accessories & Mods
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-31-2011, 07:57 PM

Search tags for this page

acr bolt carrier

,
ar18
,

fn scar bolt

,

fn scar bolt carrier

,

fn scar non-reciprocating charging handle

,
g36 bolt assembly
,

g36 bolt carrier

,
g36 bolt group
,
hk g36 bolt carrier
,
reciprocating charging handle
,

scar 16s bolt

,

scar 16s bolt carrier

,

scar bolt

,

scar bolt carrier

,
scar bolt dimensions
,

scar enhanced charging handle

,
scar h bolt carrier rails
,

scar non reciprocating charging handle

,
scar-16 bolt carrier
,
we scar bolt carrier
Click on a term to search for related topics.