props to the engineering and mathematics that made this possible. guns are one of the most incredible tools i've seen, the engineering that goes into each gun can be seen in its optimality, and regardless of optimality ive always been a fan of the scar.
Its always amusing to realize how genius and crafty humans become, when they want someone dead 😂itsgonna be a long working year until i buy my own scar :)
Seems like a lot of reciprocating mass... but I guess that's the tradeoff with a short stroke, and you don't need as much recoil spring/damping like in the AR-15
thank god finally a video that isnt shit tier quality. ive never really cared enough to actually learn exactly how scars work just because ive never been to big of a fan of them. and i can see why most people say long stroke piston systems are more reliable aswell. still a cool and good rifle tho
Ok, I have to say it. The SCAR is a very poorly engineered rifle, and incredibly overpriced. *It is a short-stroke piston system, and yet it has a massive extension to reach the actual piston when it could and SHOULD have the piston just extend back, which helps with overall recoil control and barrel harmonics. *For no reason, it has its charging handle located above the ejection port. This makes for extra machining for minimal benefit, as the easy way to get an ambidextrous ejection system is just have the charging handle able to be attached to the other side and have a plate cover up the unused ejection port. It is cheaper, easier, faster, and leads to less holes that dirt and dust can get into. *Despite having loads of polymer, FN has hiked up the price to ridiculous levels when we all know damn well that thing is worth 2k at absolute most. The only issue I can even give a pass to for the SCAR is the spring assembly, but that's solely because loads of other firearms do the exact same thing without realizing that there is an infinitely better way, which I need to do a brief history lesson to explain. So, when Armalite sold the design rights of the AR15 to Colt, they lost access to the Direct Impingement system and borrowed a design Eugene Stoner made for them known as the AR-16, which was a .308 version of what Armalite redesigned into the AR-18. This was among the first designs to use a short-stroke piston, and the first to implement a guide-rod recoil spring assembly. And the funny thing is, the AR18 had two guide rods, meaning the bolt itself did not need to touch the walls of the receiver in order to function; and that reduced friction and thus the capacity to jam. A mistake so many modern firearms do nowadays is only use one guide rod, and use the receiver frame to keep the bolt assembly properly oriented. It's a cheap and effective way of doing it, but makes it vulnerable to the same jams that the AK-47 is vulnerable to, which very much do happen contrary to popular belief. If you have the money, don't buy a SCAR. Buy either an MSBS, or a G36 if TommyBuilt has 'em in stock. They're far better quality wise, and actually well engineered.
Yeah but having 2 guide rods and "not touching the walls" as you say makes the AR-18 only suitable for firing 5.56 The scar is a battle rifle. A battle rifle version of the AR-18 would be unstable especially in full auto, have tons of recoil making it unusable when it comes to accurate fire and it's internals would get all over the place because "they are not touching the walls"
@@constantinethecataphract5949 The AR10 makes 30 cal feel like 9mm. The SCAR H is utterly redundant, and the FAL and Draguniv both prove that the SCAR's op-rod is utterly redundant.
props to the engineering and mathematics that made this possible. guns are one of the most incredible tools i've seen, the engineering that goes into each gun can be seen in its optimality, and regardless of optimality ive always been a fan of the scar.
Thank you, I just ordered mine and had to see how the short stroke piston worked. So cool,
Thank you! 3DGunner
This is one my favorite guns and this thing can be used to hunt with
Your content is great!
Thank you
Its always amusing to realize how genius and crafty humans become, when they want someone dead 😂itsgonna be a long working year until i buy my own scar :)
Very neat. Thank you for this.
The bolt starts moving back before the gas expansion?
Seems like a lot of reciprocating mass... but I guess that's the tradeoff with a short stroke, and you don't need as much recoil spring/damping like in the AR-15
didnt those oppenings in the upper carrier became an weak point
making the use of the short piston useless?
Not than I'm aware of, I have never seen anyone have a failure due to the receiver vents
@@Fatal_Inertia i was thinking about sand and mud in dirty places
Great work thanks👍
Thank you!
Is the rate of fire of FN SCAR 550-650 RPM due to the long bolt stroke as shown in the video?
The primer is intact...
thank god finally a video that isnt shit tier quality. ive never really cared enough to actually learn exactly how scars work just because ive never been to big of a fan of them. and i can see why most people say long stroke piston systems are more reliable aswell. still a cool and good rifle tho
За весь этот просмотр было выпущено менье 27 патрон
Cool
Thank you
Ok, I have to say it.
The SCAR is a very poorly engineered rifle, and incredibly overpriced.
*It is a short-stroke piston system, and yet it has a massive extension to reach the actual piston when it could and SHOULD have the piston just extend back, which helps with overall recoil control and barrel harmonics.
*For no reason, it has its charging handle located above the ejection port. This makes for extra machining for minimal benefit, as the easy way to get an ambidextrous ejection system is just have the charging handle able to be attached to the other side and have a plate cover up the unused ejection port. It is cheaper, easier, faster, and leads to less holes that dirt and dust can get into.
*Despite having loads of polymer, FN has hiked up the price to ridiculous levels when we all know damn well that thing is worth 2k at absolute most.
The only issue I can even give a pass to for the SCAR is the spring assembly, but that's solely because loads of other firearms do the exact same thing without realizing that there is an infinitely better way, which I need to do a brief history lesson to explain.
So, when Armalite sold the design rights of the AR15 to Colt, they lost access to the Direct Impingement system and borrowed a design Eugene Stoner made for them known as the AR-16, which was a .308 version of what Armalite redesigned into the AR-18. This was among the first designs to use a short-stroke piston, and the first to implement a guide-rod recoil spring assembly.
And the funny thing is, the AR18 had two guide rods, meaning the bolt itself did not need to touch the walls of the receiver in order to function; and that reduced friction and thus the capacity to jam.
A mistake so many modern firearms do nowadays is only use one guide rod, and use the receiver frame to keep the bolt assembly properly oriented. It's a cheap and effective way of doing it, but makes it vulnerable to the same jams that the AK-47 is vulnerable to, which very much do happen contrary to popular belief.
If you have the money, don't buy a SCAR. Buy either an MSBS, or a G36 if TommyBuilt has 'em in stock. They're far better quality wise, and actually well engineered.
Oh? And what have YOU ever built? I thought so...
Yeah but having 2 guide rods and "not touching the walls" as you say makes the AR-18 only suitable for firing 5.56 The scar is a battle rifle. A battle rifle version of the AR-18 would be unstable especially in full auto, have tons of recoil making it unusable when it comes to accurate fire and it's internals would get all over the place because "they are not touching the walls"
everything you wrote doesn't make any sense at all
@@constantinethecataphract5949
The AR10 makes 30 cal feel like 9mm. The SCAR H is utterly redundant, and the FAL and Draguniv both prove that the SCAR's op-rod is utterly redundant.