Hi everyone - I have been a lurker on this forum for several years now and appreciate the good info here.
Anyways, I've read through a few threads here and elsewhere about the S17 (still) eating optics, even for recommended scopes such as the ELCAN, NF NXS or NF ATACR with recommended mounts such as the ADM Delta mount, etc.
After ~10 years it seems like the generally accepted theory is that 1) the vibration of the upper, 2) the forward recoil impulse, 3) the relatively sudden recoil impulse causing by moving parts, and 4) the (reciprocating) heavy mass of the carrier all seem to work together to destroy optics.
Has anyone tried to reduce the above successfully by mounting or adding dampening materials or physical items to the SCAR with any success with regards to less or no more dead optics? Or at least say doubling or tripling the time it takes an optic to die?
--------------------
My own thoughts, I have not tried any of the below with enough rounds, I may be completely wrong about the viability, etc etc:
1a) I suspect vibration of the upper is the easiest to fix - Dynamat is often used on car bodies to absorb excess vibrations that cause noise. Limbsaver or Bowjax clamps, wedges, or stick on pads are often used on compound bows (limbs, riser, and/or string stop) to reduce vibration and noise and I imagine can similarly be clamped or stuck onto the upper or scope mount to reduce vibrations. I also imagine something similar to the above would be be used asymmetrically - similar to how a tuning fork with uneven legs (or pinching one leg yourself) won't vibrate very well because it's out of resonance.
1b) The recoil impulse also needs to be transmitted from the moving parts through the upper through the mount into the optic. This leaves places to introducing dampening materials as well. May include mounting a thin layer of damping foam (many types, but various open/closed cell butyl and PET foams come to mind first) or energy absorbing gels (think of stuff in knee or elbow pads, shoes, etc.) onto the receiver (asymmetrically), between the optic mount and the receiver somehow, or within the scope rings themselves.
2) I suspect the forward recoil impulse can be reduced in part by the above. However, I can't think of anything that would be attached or stuck to the end of the bolt carrier that would significantly reduce impact that would be both durable enough, wouldn't negatively impact function of the firearm, and would actually be available or affordable to "average" people outside (i.e. not 5 or 6 figure specialty materials for lab use). I also wouldn't do anything simple like reducing the spring rate of the recoil spring (so it can't push the carrier back into battery as hard) w/o changing anything else in the system (namely an adjustable gas block... which I don't think exists for the S17). In short, probably not much can be done here.
3) Similar to #2, I can't think of anything that could be done to the moving parts that would be both durable and wouldn't negatively impact function of the firearm.
4) Only think I can think of here is lightening the bolt carrier. However, given expensive, proprietary, and not typically available bolt carrier, I haven't heard of anything shaving weight off of their carrier (and also lightening the recoil spring rate with it) before.
Anyways, I've read through a few threads here and elsewhere about the S17 (still) eating optics, even for recommended scopes such as the ELCAN, NF NXS or NF ATACR with recommended mounts such as the ADM Delta mount, etc.
After ~10 years it seems like the generally accepted theory is that 1) the vibration of the upper, 2) the forward recoil impulse, 3) the relatively sudden recoil impulse causing by moving parts, and 4) the (reciprocating) heavy mass of the carrier all seem to work together to destroy optics.
Has anyone tried to reduce the above successfully by mounting or adding dampening materials or physical items to the SCAR with any success with regards to less or no more dead optics? Or at least say doubling or tripling the time it takes an optic to die?
--------------------
My own thoughts, I have not tried any of the below with enough rounds, I may be completely wrong about the viability, etc etc:
1a) I suspect vibration of the upper is the easiest to fix - Dynamat is often used on car bodies to absorb excess vibrations that cause noise. Limbsaver or Bowjax clamps, wedges, or stick on pads are often used on compound bows (limbs, riser, and/or string stop) to reduce vibration and noise and I imagine can similarly be clamped or stuck onto the upper or scope mount to reduce vibrations. I also imagine something similar to the above would be be used asymmetrically - similar to how a tuning fork with uneven legs (or pinching one leg yourself) won't vibrate very well because it's out of resonance.
1b) The recoil impulse also needs to be transmitted from the moving parts through the upper through the mount into the optic. This leaves places to introducing dampening materials as well. May include mounting a thin layer of damping foam (many types, but various open/closed cell butyl and PET foams come to mind first) or energy absorbing gels (think of stuff in knee or elbow pads, shoes, etc.) onto the receiver (asymmetrically), between the optic mount and the receiver somehow, or within the scope rings themselves.
2) I suspect the forward recoil impulse can be reduced in part by the above. However, I can't think of anything that would be attached or stuck to the end of the bolt carrier that would significantly reduce impact that would be both durable enough, wouldn't negatively impact function of the firearm, and would actually be available or affordable to "average" people outside (i.e. not 5 or 6 figure specialty materials for lab use). I also wouldn't do anything simple like reducing the spring rate of the recoil spring (so it can't push the carrier back into battery as hard) w/o changing anything else in the system (namely an adjustable gas block... which I don't think exists for the S17). In short, probably not much can be done here.
3) Similar to #2, I can't think of anything that could be done to the moving parts that would be both durable and wouldn't negatively impact function of the firearm.
4) Only think I can think of here is lightening the bolt carrier. However, given expensive, proprietary, and not typically available bolt carrier, I haven't heard of anything shaving weight off of their carrier (and also lightening the recoil spring rate with it) before.
