RetroJunkie98 Wrote:If you want system adjustment, go adjustable gas or buy some tungsten buffer weights.
I have both and wouldnt dream of spending $250 on a SCS, even after having handled one.
The JP SCS is better for mitigating recoil than the traditional mil spec buffer IMO.. Adding tungsten weights to the buffer, slows the velocity of the bolt carrier group while increasing the weight being cycled. The purpose of tungsten weights was to slow the bolt carrier velocity so the magazine had time to replace the next cartridge being chambered..The M-4 carbine was cycling faster than the magazine could replace the next cartridge, resulting in malfunctions. The upper receiver feed ramps was the first solution to this problem.. The original steel weights were introduced to the system to prevent bolt bounce malfunctions after the military started using ball powder.. The more mass cycling, the more the recoil impulse.. Adjusting both ends of the recoil system is necessary, if maximum reduction of recoil impulse is the goal.. Reducing the gas allows reduction of the recoiling mass,"buffer weight- bolt carrier" which reduces recoil impulse..Finding the right balance has created a market all of it's own, with adjustable buffers, gas blocks, recoil springs, and bolt carriers..This can result in an operating system with the least amount recoil, running on the very edge of reliable function. I haven't mentioned what happens when throwing into the mix different pressured ammunition or suppressors... If faster split times or a smoother cycling system is desired, then it can be worth the cost. If max reliability is the goal, then probably not.. It all depends on the shooters goals and priorities..