SCAR vs ACR Part 2

This was posted in the other thread (Part I thread).

1196760159_PMQzv-L.jpg
 
I'd like to know why the ACR has that "bull" section between the flash hider and the piston assembly? is it for attachments? I can see where the "extra" weight comes from.
 
foxbat said:
Just curious as to what specifically you wanted to see....and why.
Click to expand...

Well in a piston driven rifle, the gas system is a major focus for routine maintenance. In fact, if you had little or no time on the battle field, all you would clean is your piston assembly and simply apply oil to the rest. I am interested in how the Scar's piston comes apart, and if it is easy to do without much disassembley.

mildot said:
I'd like to know why the ACR has that "bull" section between the flash hider and the piston assembly? is it for attachments? I can see where the "extra" weight comes from.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like the ACR is using a regular AR barrel with with the piston assembly bolted and pinned on. The barrel looks like a midlength gas system with an M4 or Government profile through out. The M203 notch being just in front of the gas block.
 
Last edited:
mildot said:
I'd like to know why the ACR has that "bull" section between the flash hider and the piston assembly? is it for attachments? I can see where the "extra" weight comes from.
Click to expand...

Technically, there is no good reason for this, and this has been a complaint of many since it was revealed at SHOT 2010. When asked, Bushmaster claimed that consumers liked the look of the M4 profile and it was a selling point for consumers...

Who really knows?

The fact is that the barrel profile is stupid and unnecessary, and helps to add weight to a rifle that's already too heavy.
 
When I handled it at SHOT in 2010, it was very front heavy and turned me off immediately, hence I went for the SCAR.
I think that the "quick" change barrel feature is innovative, not sure how practical it is for the civi market, my experience with "quick" change barrels is for full auto "belt" guns like the MAG 58(C6) and the FN Minimi (C9) from my military days.
 
I remember reading an article about the original development by Magpul, and they decided early on to make the system use many existing parts, including using AR barrels. I guess at some point Remington, or Bushmaster or whoever decided to make the new version use the M4 "heavy" profile. Maybe they wanted early user reviews to have great accuracy results...I dunno.
 
The quick change barrel is great until you add in the time it takes to go to a range and zero the rifle with the new barrel. Oh and the weight of the quick change system is a negative.
 
That ACR barrel bulge is just plain stupid. Adds weight and contributes no rigidity. If you are going to thicken a part of the barrel, do so at the base where the moment is greatest from the cantilever.
 
The ACR has some flaws in the beginning, but the magpul fanboys believe Magpul could do no bad.....and hence the bushmaster/Remington is getting blamed for all the original design problems.

Bushmaster/Remington did not screw up Masada, all the weight issues are there in the beginning already. The M4 profiled barrel is stupid(but again, bushmaster is not that smart either).

Also, ignorance of American gun buyers could be blamed too. People are complaining about the lack of chromelining, but at the same time people are worshipping SG550 which is not chromelined either. Bushmaster/Remington did a lousy job and tried to make nitro-carburization some kind of secret treatment as if people do not know about tennifer and melonite. On the other hand, you cannot blame them sometime. It is hilarious to see people toss away their nitrocarburized CHF ACR barrels, and replaced them with Daniel Defence chromelined barrels thinking that they are upgrading. :rolleyes: Talking about stupidity and being retarded!
 
greentips said:
The ACR has some flaws in the beginning, but the magpul fanboys believe Magpul could do no bad.....and hence the bushmaster/Remington is getting blamed for all the original design problems.

Bushmaster/Remington did not screw up Masada, all the weight issues are there in the beginning already. The M4 profiled barrel is stupid(but again, bushmaster is not that smart either).

Also, ignorance of American gun buyers could be blamed too. People are complaining about the lack of chromelining, but at the same time people are worshipping SG550 which is not chromelined either. Bushmaster/Remington did a lousy job and tried to make nitro-carburization some kind of secret treatment as if people do not know about tennifer and melonite. On the other hand, you cannot blame them sometime. It is hilarious to see people toss away their nitrocarburized CHF ACR barrels, and replaced them with Daniel Defence chromelined barrels thinking that they are upgrading. :rolleyes: Talking about stupidity and being retarded!
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Although all the koolaid drinkers will be hurting when they relieze the truth.
& Yes The Truth Hurtz!
 
The only problem I have with the ACR barrel is the M4 profile. It adds unnecessary weight. I would prefer a pencil barrel, or lighter profile. The SCAR proves a lighter weight barrel is capable of exceptional accuracy. Plus, there's no need for the tappered barrel with a rail system... all accessories would mount to the rail, not the barrel.

The nitrited barrels are good to go. Chrome lining vs. nitrate... both accomplish the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom