FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
If this subject has previously been beaten to death I apologize although I could find no in depth mention while searching the Forum. :mrgreen:

So why is it then that no one has come up with a lower having an ambi-BCR? In terms of ambidextrous operation the SCAR platform addresses magazine release, charging and safety selection ergonomically and more than adequately. It is however lacking in the ambidextrous BCR department and I'm curious, why so? I have taken my 16s completely apart on more than one occasion trying to become "one with the gun" and I'm unable to see how making an ambi-BCR would conflict with any internals. I have also looked at many versions of an ambi-BCR and find that LWRC seems to offer the best solution on their M6 IC. In keeping with the already familiar BCR form factor LWRC appears to have only moved the right side BCR back about an inch and configured the necessary mechanics on the surface of the lower not internally. This makes a good deal of sense since it moves the BCR closer and more reachable with a trigger finger without much if any change in grip. Moving the left side BCR back equally would offer the same advantage to left-handed shooters.

View attachment 23949

I know some in here -names withheld to protect the innocent- are working on lowers and I ask you, have you considered this? From everything I've seen, read and researched the trend is towards fully ambidextrous lowers. Should Uncle Sam restart the Individual Carbine competition such a lower would surely provide a competitive edge. There's not much information available regarding the FNAC and photos of it don't show an ambi-BCR and who knows if FN will ever even release the thing. Apparently there's a need with an associated trend which translates to potential purchases and revenue perhaps even.....copious amounts of profit. Let's hear it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Even for a transverse mounted pin with all other mechanicals mounted externally as with the M6 IC? Is the conflict the pin retainer plates?


Because there's no room in the interior of the module.

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,418 Posts
What drives the train is the use of readily available parts since the SCAR is only manufactured by FN.

Separating from momma leaves the infant stranded in the woods while hungry wolves lay wait to pounce on the child.

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks Sarge, I understand the analogy, just wondering if it could be accomplished from an engineering standpoint.


What drives the train is the use of readily available parts since the SCAR is only manufactured by FN.

Separating from momma leaves the infant stranded in the woods while hungry wolves lay wait to pounce on the child.

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,418 Posts
Sure it can.

The next questions would be, at what cost and would a majority of SCAR owners be willing to pay for it to offset the capital expenditure associated with doing so?

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Is the concept worthy of a poll to gauge any interest?


Sure it can.

The next questions would be, at what cost and would a majority of SCAR owners be willing to pay for it to offset the capital expenditure associated with doing so?

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It would seem to offer an advantage in speed when releasing the bolt after a reload, there has to be a valid reason the MagPul B.A.D. is as popular as it is. Sure, I know some gravitate to anything new however a tactical application is apparent, at least to me. All controls made ambidextrous just makes sense, again, at least to me.

Why do you need one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,418 Posts
Is the concept worthy of a poll to gauge any interest?
You can certainly start a poll. I'm sure you'll get plenty of "YAYS", but considering everything involved, I can't see it being affordable to warrant the undertaking.

I've got a pretty good understanding of the SCAR market, along with what something like this would cost to do and honestly, there's certainly not enough buyers out there to put this into production given the minimal benefit of an ambidextrous bolt catch/release built into the trigger module.

Ask yourself if you would be willing to pay more than $500 to have this on your SCAR when Magpul sells the same for an AR platform for less than $30.

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Not to sound like an a**, but can't you just put the CH on the other side? The time savings on reloads is not significant/it may be non-existent. Ill agree with SS on the market, it is just not there; plus the price point won't help the matter.

My .02

KK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-scar-16s/24888-magpul-m3-scar-compatible-pmag.html#post257895

New Lower

I personally think this is the best option, if not the future. A new lower with a modular magwell that can be swapped out to be like the Colt CM901 or the CZ Bren. It seems like this would fit in well with the SCAR common reciever program rather than having to switch out a 5.56 lower with a 7.62 lower or whatever caliber you have when the Geissele Super SCAR trigger has shown that the trigger packs are close enough that his upgrade works in both.

Problem with a new lower however is where do you stop? Do you add a bolt hold open device on the right side or make the SCAR work like the B.A.D., XM8 or ACR with controls on or inside the trigger guard? Maybe change the grip attachment point so it takes AR-15 grips readily? Or something even more crazy like make magwells with an AFG-like ramp that keeps the SCAR newbies thumb from ever getting high enough to get hit by the charging handle.
I've brought it up before.

Going back to the original design, the SCAR's bolt hold open device sits off closer to the left side instead of in the center of the notch on the back of the magazines. This is what caused problems with non STANAG compliant designs like the early PMAGs that had a V-shaped notch instead of the square notch engaging the BHO device.

Wish it were as simple as adding a second one to the right side, but it's nothing that hasn't already been solved as we see with the ambi AR BHOs.

But like I mention in that old post, there's no reason to stop at just one thing. You could have the fancy systems we saw on the XM8 and ACR lowers with controls inside or on the trigger guard if you wanted.

The current lowers are just the first wave of what's to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
I don't think you're an a** quite the contrary but why would I want the CH on the right side when I'm right-handed? A fraction of a second can seem insignificant but, have you seen Police dashcam video's of how much ground people can cover in a split second? I for one would rather reload, return to battery, reestablish sight picture then reengage in the shortest time span possible taking that extra split second with me.

Not to sound like an a**, but can't you just put the CH on the other side? The time savings on reloads is not significant/it may be non-existent. Ill agree with SS on the market, it is just not there; plus the price point won't help the matter.

My .02

KK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
Don't like the ACR's configuration or the B.A.D. IMHO only a trigger and trigger finger should be "inside" the trigger guard. Just sayin'.... :mrgreen:

I agree, in time when the "after" market switches to a higher gear we'll see more options, at least that's my hope.

http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-scar-16s/24888-magpul-m3-scar-compatible-pmag.html#post257895



I've brought it up before.

Going back to the original design, the SCAR's bolt hold open device sits off closer to the left side instead of in the center of the notch on the back of the magazines. This is what caused problems with non STANAG compliant designs like the early PMAGs that had a V-shaped notch instead of the square notch engaging the BHO device.

Wish it were as simple as adding a second one to the right side, but it's nothing that hasn't already been solved as we see with the ambi AR BHOs.

But like I mention in that old post, there's no reason to stop at just one thing. You could have the fancy systems we saw on the XM8 and ACR lowers with controls inside or on the trigger guard if you wanted.

The current lowers are just the first wave of what's to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
An ambi- bolt catch is somewhat superfluous in my eyes; I always slingshot the bolt by the charging handle on my 17S. Charging handle on one side, bolt catch on the other, et voila - ambidextrousness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KK_Supa_V

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
I don't think you're an a** quite the contrary but why would I want the CH on the right side when I'm right-handed? A fraction of a second can seem insignificant but, have you seen Police dashcam video's of how much ground people can cover in a split second? I for one would rather reload, return to battery, reestablish sight picture then reengage in the shortest time span possible taking that extra split second with me.
In that case, who cares about lefties? :happyrotfl4vi0:
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top