The tapered barrel probably has some hard engineering analysis behind it - becasue that is essentially what they do with the Minimi/C9/M249 as well.
If you watch the M4 failure test, you can see that the barrel started yielding and falling on it own weight right behind the FSB - does it make sense to hold a rock in the air by the end of a thin chopstick? That is what M4 and A2 barrels do.
The SCAR architecture is pretty cleverly engineered in the functional and manufacturing aspect, whereas the ACR is a better ergonomically designed product which is Magpul strong point (they do not have the depth of mechancial engineering expertise as FN does for sure). You have to have both, not just one. you cannot build a successful car with a design studio only, you have to have an engineering team to back up. You have to design something that can be built en mass at low cost and the quality standard could be maintained at low cost.
If you watch the M4 failure test, you can see that the barrel started yielding and falling on it own weight right behind the FSB - does it make sense to hold a rock in the air by the end of a thin chopstick? That is what M4 and A2 barrels do.
The SCAR architecture is pretty cleverly engineered in the functional and manufacturing aspect, whereas the ACR is a better ergonomically designed product which is Magpul strong point (they do not have the depth of mechancial engineering expertise as FN does for sure). You have to have both, not just one. you cannot build a successful car with a design studio only, you have to have an engineering team to back up. You have to design something that can be built en mass at low cost and the quality standard could be maintained at low cost.
