ACR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the ACR's future in doubt it seems those wanting modular rifles are now left with two options. The SIG MCX and the Robinson XCR. The FN SCAR is still around but it doesn't seem to have much available as far as modular components.

The MCX is a fairly refined product now with the Virtus. These guns seem to be fairly popular and SIG is offering some various accessories. Different stocks, handguard options and barrels in 300 AAC Blackout as well as 5.56. I assume we'll see 6mm ARC barrels fairly soon since that cartridge was supposedly done for a DoD contract.

Despite the good things about the MCX it is more or less an AR15. Or is it? The method of operation is piston and there's no buffer tube. But the upper works on legacy AR lowers and the charging handle and other controls are AR based.

So this leaves the Robinson XCR as the only other modular rifle that I am aware of. It was created as part of the SCAR program and was submitted for testing but was suposedly rejected because RobArm did not ship a blank firing adapter with the gun. Anyway, the design has been around awhile, appears to have good factory support, is reportedly accurate and reliable by those who own them and is available in both 223 and 308 frame formats. Robinson appears to sell barrel assembly parts such as gas blocks and barrel extensions so people like Dana and Marvin should be able to offer caliber or barrel configurations that aren't available otherwise.

Really the only bad thing I've ever heard about the XCR is about the owner of the company. It seems like he is pretty abrupt at times and doesn't seem very receptive to customer feedback especially when the feedback is negative.

So what does the ACR crowd think of the XCR? Are we so beholden to the Bushmaster product that nothing else will ever do or will we start looking to the XCR now as a choice for a modern modular rifle that's not entirely AR based?

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
I’m not against em and I don’t think anyone here is. I had a buddy with one back in 2011 when I first got my ACR and it operates very similar to the ACR like ya said. I thought long and hard about dropping my ACR for that SIG Virtus but decided to keep what I have. Your question about “being so beholden to Bushmaster” is slightly odd because we can’t use XCR parts on ACR so it’s not really “to the rescue”; more it’s another platform people can buy into if they want. Along those same lines, if ya want people to jump ship to the XCR, that’s fine too but you’re gonna need to make an XCR Forum. We can’t change this one haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Agreed on the MCX; the recoil system is contained in the upper and it uses a piston, but it is essentially a piston AR that can fire with a stock folded. It does not improve upon the ergonomics of the AR; it has the same abysmal charging handle, the BHO/release has been improved upon with designs like the ACR, and the forward assist that it separate from the charging handle and ejection port cover are unnecessary added parts.

I like the XCR, unlike the super cool M96, Robarm actually stuck with this one and has continued to develop and improve upon it to make it stronger and keep up with the times and newer attachment methods for accessories. It is a bit pricey, but the ability to order from a variety of barrel weights and lengths with a 1/7, 1/8, or 1/9 twist, choice of calibers, gas blocks, stocks, etc... make it probably the most modular choice out there, and IIRC Robarm will sell you conversion parts if you want to convert your existing rifle to another caliber. Awesome that it comes in ODG too.

The only real fault I can find with it is that the handguards can't be changed out since they are integral to the upper receiver, but now that they offer it with M-lok its really not a big deal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Agreed on the MCX; the recoil system is contained in the upper and it uses a piston, but it is essentially a piston AR that can fire with a stock folded. It does not improve upon the ergonomics of the AR; it has the same abysmal charging handle, the BHO/release has been improved upon with designs like the ACR, and the forward assist that it separate from the charging handle and ejection port cover are unnecessary added parts.

I like the XCR, unlike the super cool M96, Robarm actually stuck with this one and has continued to develop and improve upon it to make it stronger and keep up with the times and newer attachment methods for accessories. It is a bit pricey, but the ability to order from a variety of barrel weights and lengths with a 1/7, 1/8, or 1/9 twist, choice of calibers, gas blocks, stocks, etc... make it probably the most modular choice out there, and IIRC Robarm will sell you conversion parts if you want to convert your existing rifle to another caliber. Awesome that it comes in ODG too.

The only real fault I can find with it is that the handguards can't be changed out since they are integral to the upper receiver, but now that they offer it with M-lok its really not a big deal
In use I find the MCX charging handle adequate. It is ambidextrous and to the rear so it is more or less out of the way. This is one of my (I have several) complaints with the ACR. The forward charging handle is cool and all but it can cause issues when adding pressure switches for lights or forward mounted sling points, etc. The XCR is more FAL inspired with the charging handle on the mid point of the receiver. That means it'll probably dig into the shooter if he slings the rifle tight across the body for climbing, running, etc. Plus it isn't ambidextrous. There are ways for a lefty to work with it but none are probably super convenient.

As you note; the XCR upper is monolithic and the handguard can't be changed. But RA does sell new uppers so that's always an option. Albeit a pricey one.



Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
I've owned a couple XCR's and I would'nt trade them for my ACR's or the SCAR's I used to own or buy them over the MCX or most other AR like platforms. If the SCAR 17 was'nt so f'n expensive for no reason I would say thats the second best to the ACR, especially with the 3rd party support now.

With the XCR there is this feeling that you are using a low res made up gun from and old call of duty game and I don't understand why they don't take continual development more seriously - even the recently released MDR is on version 2 and they made all the changes they needed to make, same as the Tavor over a relatively short time. It's seems they embrace it instead - look at there homepage image right now https://robinsonarmament.com/ - neon green accents and keymod - lol wtf why

The XCR rifle didnt fail the trials - they were always rigged - COLT/FN was supplying M4's at 574.00 each - all of the competitors were 25-100% more and FN placed massive pressure to keep the status quo and given the slim margins and low contract valuation of rifles - there is not enough room for corruption - or "meat on the bone" as the saying goes.

Good thing too, the trials stipulated that none of the submissions pass or fail were to ever be offered to civilians for at least 10 years or eternity, unclear - and I think other countries - which is one reason Remington, not Bushmaster handled it.

Probably the BRN-180 and like will be the next hotboi option - cheap, proven, ar15 modular, folding and any caliber you can buy an ar15 in compatible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I've owned a couple XCR's and I would'nt trade them for my ACR's or the SCAR's I used to own or buy them over the MCX or most other AR like platforms. If the SCAR 17 was'nt so f'n expensive for no reason I would say thats the second best to the ACR, especially with the 3rd party support now.

With the XCR there is this feeling that you are using a low res made up gun from and old call of duty game and I don't understand why they don't take continual development more seriously - even the recently released MDR is on version 2 and they made all the changes they needed to make, same as the Tavor over a relatively short time.

The XCR rifle didnt fail the trials - they were always rigged - COLT/FN was supplying M4's at 574.00 each - all of the competitors were 25-100% more and FN placed massive pressure to keep the status quo and given the slim margins and low contract valuation of rifles - there is not enough room for corruption - or "meat on the bone" as the saying goes.
The MCX seems more refined. No big exposed bolt that holds the barrel on. It also seems to be what DEVGRU or whoever wanted as far as modular goes. The ability to change around some parts but not have to learn a new bolt release or a new charging handle location. I can understand some of that.

The MCX conversion kit that consists of a new upper and a plug for the receiver extension makes a ton of sense for those fortunate enough to own a full-auto M16 or a registered SBR. Or otherwise heavily invested in an AR lower such as those living in ban states.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
In use I find the MCX charging handle adequate. It is ambidextrous and to the rear so it is more or less out of the way. This is one of my (I have several) complaints with the ACR. The forward charging handle is cool and all but it can cause issues when adding pressure switches for lights or forward mounted sling points, etc. The XCR is more FAL inspired with the charging handle on the mid point of the receiver. That means it'll probably dig into the shooter if he slings the rifle tight across the body for climbing, running, etc. Plus it isn't ambidextrous. There are ways for a lefty to work with it but none are probably super convenient.

As you note; the XCR upper is monolithic and the handguard can't be changed. But RA does sell new uppers so that's always an option. Albeit a pricey one.



Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
A strong side handle is somewhat like operating a bolt action rifle so I don't find it awkward, and once you release it from the rearward position then by the time it is in battery then your hand is already back on the pistol grip. Or you can reach under/over to use it. Same thing with the weak side only its on the same side as the arm you change magazines with; either way with rifles like the ACR and XCR the bolt release is operated with the strong side hand. I believe there have been folding CH's made for the XCR as well, sort of like L1A1 FALs had, to solve the issue of it digging into you-or more likely your gear.

I read somewhere that the AR has the best charging handle for when you don't need to use it, and the worst one for when you do; I'd have to say I agree with that. It does solve the issue of interference with forward mounted accessories, though I prefer to just mount lights where I can hit the tailcap and avoid running wires. There are other switch options like what the MAWL has where you just need to mount it far enough ahead of the charging handle that it won't interfere, or get a one sided CH. Cool thing about the ACR is that the CH levers are interchangeable so there are a lot of options between one and two sided and folders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
I've owned a couple XCR's and I would'nt trade them for my ACR's or the SCAR's I used to own or buy them over the MCX or most other AR like platforms. If the SCAR 17 was'nt so f'n expensive for no reason I would say thats the second best to the ACR, especially with the 3rd party support now.

With the XCR there is this feeling that you are using a low res made up gun from and old call of duty game and I don't understand why they don't take continual development more seriously - even the recently released MDR is on version 2 and they made all the changes they needed to make, same as the Tavor over a relatively short time. It's seems they embrace it instead - look at there homepage image right now https://robinsonarmament.com/ - neon green accents and keymod - lol wtf why

The XCR rifle didnt fail the trials - they were always rigged - COLT/FN was supplying M4's at 574.00 each - all of the competitors were 25-100% more and FN placed massive pressure to keep the status quo and given the slim margins and low contract valuation of rifles - there is not enough room for corruption - or "meat on the bone" as the saying goes.

Good thing too, the trials stipulated that none of the submissions pass or fail were to ever be offered to civilians for at least 10 years or eternity, unclear - and I think other countries - which is one reason Remington, not Bushmaster handled it.

Probably the BRN-180 and like will be the next hotboi option - cheap, proven, ar15 modular, folding and any caliber you can buy an ar15 in compatible.
I don't understand your point with the bolded part. It reads like you're saying the rifle hasn't been updated because their webpage is subpar.

-They offer it in .224 Valkyrie, .300blk, 6.5 grendel, 6.8 SPC, 5.56, 7.62x39, 6.5 Creedmoor, and they have a pistol caliber one; so it seems that they are keeping up with the latest popular calibers that people have been wanting in modern semiautos.

-When it came out it had picatinny rails, then they came out with a keymod upper. Now they have M-lok uppers; seems they're keeping up there.

-Barrel twist options that fit the trend towards heavier bullets.

-Barrel weight options that go with the trend towards lighter barrels, shorter barrels, pinned and welded barrels, SBRs, and braced pistols.

-I think one of the gas blocks is a 5 position and the other is an 8 position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I don't understand your point with the bolded part. It reads like you're saying the rifle hasn't been updated because their webpage is subpar.

-They offer it in .224 Valkyrie, .300blk, 6.5 grendel, 6.8 SPC, 5.56, 7.62x39, 6.5 Creedmoor, and they have a pistol caliber one; so it seems that they are keeping up with the latest popular calibers that people have been wanting in modern semiautos.

-When it came out it had picatinny rails, then they came out with a keymod upper. Now they have M-lok uppers; seems they're keeping up there.

-Barrel twist options that fit the trend towards heavier bullets.

-Barrel weight options that go with the trend towards lighter barrels, shorter barrels, pinned and welded barrels, SBRs, and braced pistols.

-I think one of the gas blocks is a 5 position and the other is an 8 position.
A couple different stock options too. Didn't the "original" XCR have a non-folding stock?

There is at least one company making an adapter to mount an ACR stock:

https://lifeindustries.net/dir/prod...er-for-the-magpul-acr-enhanced-folding-stock/

And RA sells a buffer tube adapter if someone wanted to use a PRS stock or something else AR based.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
I don't understand your point with the bolded part. It reads like you're saying the rifle hasn't been updated because their webpage is subpar.
There web page is a reflection of company policy - no major changes to the platform have been made in a decade, the switch to mlok isnt what I would call a major change. When you look at the new POF rogue vs other 308 rifles, even thier own you see real constant innovation over the same time span with multiple platforms - the stock sucks, the barrel retention bolt is problematic, the gas valve and firing pin in the rush to release it sucked and the replacement process was worse - the rifle is still over 8 pounds with any optic and the 308 version exists for 8 years maybe, just not on there own website? https://robinsonarmament.com/xcrm.php 404 lol

The hand-guard sucks, it's an awkward shape which makes the whole thing look like it's made of out painted plywood and it has no serious heat management coatings or concepts and I have burned the Sht out of my hands after a few mags with gloves on. The new stock I heard sucks to which is why people are still using the ACR conversions even now.

The barrels may seem impressive, but you can do all of that the same way with the ACR which Bushmaster took way more seriously than the XCR, from the barrel profile to the coatings. Bushmaster has made a ton of caliber concepts, but to produce them in bulk and keep the quality up and the costs down they don't release everything under the sun. I spent a day with a company recently and the topic of 6.5 creedmoor came up. They showed me a ton of research, focus groups and sales numbers that steer decisions and how the money and time saved improved more popular offerings. I also realized I want a 308, not a 6.5 in that platform when they showed detailed use cases for there rifles backed up by real life data, not wishful thinking. #224lixsmuhballs

If you read the VS articles on their site its copy and paste claims that they made it to market first and that makes them better. The Masada / ACR went into development at the same exact time, Bushmaster is just a bigger company and produced more rifles in a professional manner, not piecemeal with many people wondering if they could ever get one.

Also in my short times with them I found the side charger to be a childish - you have to slide 1 piece of metal through another under tension and both of those pieces are very expensive and hard to replace, this same system has been used many times and has never caught on. It's sold as bolt action like precision, but its metal on metal wear.

Also dont stand within 20 feet of the ejection port unless you want brass in your face.

Beyond that this quote from 2011 really says lots about why the company is still called an unknown by media today, let alone the general public.

"Combine proprietary parts, customers as beta-testers, piss-poor customer service, and a psychotic company owner, and it matters not one whit how great the design of the rifle may be."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
There web page is a reflection of company policy - no major changes to the platform have been made in a decade, the switch to mlok isnt what I would call a major change. When you look at the new POF rogue vs other 308 rifles, even thier own you see real constant innovation over the same time span with multiple platforms - the stock sucks, the barrel retention bolt is problematic, the gas valve and firing pin in the rush to release it sucked and the replacement process was worse - the rifle is still over 8 pounds with any optic and the 308 version exists for 8 years maybe, just not on there own website? https://robinsonarmament.com/xcrm.php 404 lol

The hand-guard sucks, it's an awkward shape which makes the whole thing look like it's made of out painted plywood and it has no serious heat management coatings or concepts and I have burned the Sht out of my hands after a few mags with gloves on. The new stock I heard sucks to which is why people are still using the ACR conversions even now.

The barrels may seem impressive, but you can do all of that the same way with the ACR which Bushmaster took way more seriously than the XCR, from the barrel profile to the coatings. Bushmaster has made a ton of caliber concepts, but to produce them in bulk and keep the quality up and the costs down they don't release everything under the sun. I spent a day with a company recently and the topic of 6.5 creedmoor came up. They showed me a ton of research, focus groups and sales numbers that steer decisions and how the money and time saved improved more popular offerings. I also realized I want a 308, not a 6.5 in that platform when they showed detailed use cases for there rifles backed up by real life data, not wishful thinking. #224lixsmuhballs

If you read the VS articles on their site its copy and paste claims that they made it to market first and that makes them better. The Masada / ACR went into development at the same exact time, Bushmaster is just a bigger company and produced more rifles in a professional manner, not piecemeal with many people wondering if they could ever get one.

Also in my short times with them I found the side charger to be a childish - you have to slide 1 piece of metal through another under tension and both of those pieces are very expensive and hard to replace, this same system has been used many times and has never caught on. It's sold as bolt action like precision, but its metal on metal wear.

Also dont stand within 20 feet of the ejection port unless you want brass in your face.

Beyond that this quote from 2011 really says lots about why the company is still called an unknown by media today, let alone the general public.

"Combine proprietary parts, customers as beta-testers, piss-poor customer service, and a psychotic company owner, and it matters not one whit how great the design of the rifle may be."
So is there an actual complaint about the design here or just general disinterest on your part on the rifle and the website?

The 308 is shown here, BTW. Scroll down for info:

https://robinsonarmament.com/products/

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
:rolleyes: - clearly no complaints - the 18 months I spent waiting for service between 2 different rifles was absolutely not a factor in there eventual sale - I had alot more problems that I didn't mention like the folding mechanism on the stock breaking, cracks in the upper and a gas block that would have fallen off if it the muzzle device had been smaller, but whatever - super awesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
You linked to a video of a child talking about modern warfare I think :p

Arm and Gun did a video recently and it was in harsher conditions, being in canukland - notice he's also using the acr stock and a metal mag *foreshadowing lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yawn84xLgNA But its not a real test of its capabilities.

But to call it the best semi auto 308 is a leap at best - the FAL is proven platform in combat and adverse conditions and what abuse I felt comfortable with my old PTR91 was everything and more of a HK91+ that they make it out to be. I would still say the ptr91 pistol might be one of the best modern 308 platforms the rifle is a wee bit heavy. It's a known platform with improvements over many years.

I might say the saint victor could be another one since its cheap, uses common parts and is lighter than most ar10's, but I really think POF is leading the way. My rogue cost 1600, weighs 5.9 pounds and shares every component with the ar15 except the lower and the bolt - it uses a longer buffer tube to manage the recoil like the vltor system for the ar15, but even that could be swapped out. I am anxiously awaiting it from my dealer, I bought the first recon back in the day that came to cali and I can see the progression. Sold that gun to a sherrif who took part in the machine gun test for SBS and wanted one for personal use. Last I heard it had well over 20K on it and a bunch of other officers had also bought similar stuff, which given police pay is mind bottling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Despite the good things about the MCX it is more or less an AR15. Or is it?
I put the MCX in the "less an ar15" category, no doubt. As soon as I saw the video demonstrating the ease of barrel swaps, combined with the reputed accuracy of the barrels, I was hooked. Two torx screws, that's it. One of the few things I dislike about the ACR is the added weight of the tool-less quick swap lever assembly that gains me nothing because the only time I want to swap barrels is when I'm at home with tools readily available. The MCX solves this problem perfectly. Infinitely faster and easier to change a barrel than an AR15, and no added weight of a quick swap lever like an ACR while only adding a miniscule amount of time to the process. Combine that with the ability to shoot when the stock is folded as well as being compatible with a lot of readily-available AR15 products and it's a great package.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I put the MCX in the "less an ar15" category, no doubt. As soon as I saw the video demonstrating the ease of barrel swaps, combined with the reputed accuracy of the barrels, I was hooked. Two torx screws, that's it. One of the few things I dislike about the ACR is the added weight of the tool-less quick swap lever assembly that gains me nothing because the only time I want to swap barrels is when I'm at home with tools readily available. The MCX solves this problem perfectly. Infinitely faster and easier to change a barrel than an AR15, and no added weight of a quick swap lever like an ACR while only adding a miniscule amount of time to the process. Combine that with the ability to shoot when the stock is folded as well as being compatible with a lot of readily-available AR15 products and it's a great package.
No doubt the MCX is the vetted system at this point. It seems to have done with the ACR, XCR and SCAR could not and that's be adopted by .gov and .mil in decent quantity.

Timing plays a role no doubt but the design itself is also a major factor.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top