Knight's Armament ("KAC") SR-15 - NOT Compatible with XM193 (Federal/Lake City)!!!! - Page 7

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Knight's Armament ("KAC") SR-15 - NOT Compatible with XM193 (Federal/Lake City)!!!! (Page 7 of 10)

Posted: 6/17/2017 6:31:36 PM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
Correct, Vista Outdoors now, not sure what's up with Lake City anymore

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Is Federal not synonymous with Lake City?

There is a lot of misinformation on the web

No, they are not. They used to be operated by the same parent company but with two totally separate sets of management. They are now operated by different parent co.panies and have been for about 2 years.

Correct, Vista Outdoors now, not sure what's up with Lake City anymore

So searching and buying Federal Lake City is a legacy, older ammo that has been manufactured over two years ago.

Posted: 6/17/2017 7:14:24 PM EDT

[#2]

I have shot a ton of xm193 through all my Colt, DD and KAC rifles for years. I have had a few bad lots of LC xm193 that would pop primers in all of my 556 ARs so I stopped using it. I switched to PMC xtac 193 a few years ago and that stuff runs fantastic in all three of my SR15s. I can see how a manufacture can 'recommend' not to use certain factory ammunition or reloads due to inconsistent quality or loadings. I do not see any foul here on KACs part.

Posted: 6/18/2017 9:03:49 PM EDT

[#3]

I have owned multiple KAC rifles, and all of them have been phenomenal. I sent a rifle in once, turns out I was part of the 90%. The way in which KAC handled my concerns, and the class in which current and former employees are addressing your issue, only confirm to me what a high quality environment exists at KAC. Also voting for OP being "that guy" in before the poll

Posted: 6/21/2017 5:05:23 PM EDT

[#4]

Where are the videos op?

Posted: 6/21/2017 6:17:19 PM EDT

[#5]

This thread was entertaining to say the least. I'm curious why the OP refuses to send in the rifle to get checked out by the mfg. Something is fishy about that.

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:13:50 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
Where are the videos op?

View Quote

Id guess their being edited to fit his story/grievance... Eh, who cares

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:20:18 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

And what would the diagnosis be? That I'm a pissed-off customer? Yep. Are you suggesting something different? Like, I'm some sort of covert bomb-thrower for a different company . . . please. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I'm actually curious as to what your theory may be.

Just imagine how much different all of this would have been if "Bill" would have said, "Oh shoot, that doesn't seem right, send it in and we'll check it out." Y'all would have never heard a peep from me. Instead, the BS (edit: BS as in "should not be the culprit"), "XM193 is the culprit" line came out. EVERYTHING ELSE has emanated from that.

View Quote

what are you, 8 years old and having a temper tamtrum? its just a damn rifle. you act like your wife is cheating on you.

i cant handle anymore of your psychobabble-question dodging-BS.

you have crossed over into the Trollholio catagory.

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:07:38 PM EDT

[#8]

This thread is full of shit.

Let me guess, he still hasn't sent it in. Afraid of actual knowledgeable people looking at it. Might as well be a GD thread.

Posted: 6/24/2017 7:23:10 PM EDT

[#9]

Hey OP, whats the verdict?

You send it in yet? Do you have video? Dropped off the interwebs? Mauled by pitbulls?

Posted: 6/26/2017 12:13:25 AM EDT

[#10]

m193?

Posted: 6/26/2017 4:49:17 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:

No dog in this fight. Well, not any more.
I had ordered a $1500 SR-15 Mod2 upper right before reading this thread. Cancelled it.
Nothing against KAC, but plenty of very good $700 uppers around that I am seeing no limitations on common ammo. I'd like to at least start out believing an upper will eat whatever it is fed. That extra $800 will buy a LOT of cheap ammo.

View Quote

Hell, there are $700 guns (total) that will cycle whatever. The lucky gunner 10,000 round test with the Bushmaster comes to mind. I'm an AR noob, but when I see a company asking $300 for a muzzle brake, I tend to take them off my potential vendor list...

Posted: 6/26/2017 5:59:45 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Hell, there are $700 guns (total) that will cycle whatever. The lucky gunner 10,000 round test with the Bushmaster comes to mind. I'm an AR noob, but when I see a company asking $300 for a muzzle brake, I tend to take them off my potential vendor list...

View Quote

Not wanting to do the cliche thing and complain about a newb... buuuuttttt as time goes on I'm sure you'll come around.

Posted: 6/26/2017 6:48:26 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

Hell, there are $700 guns (total) that will cycle whatever. The lucky gunner 10,000 round test with the Bushmaster comes to mind. I'm an AR noob, but when I see a company asking $300 for a muzzle brake, I tend to take them off my potential vendor list...

View Quote

Open up the gas port enough and an AR will cycle almost any ammo, crappy or not. There are negative consequences for this however and some of us would much prefer a smaller gas port on our barrel.

Posted: 6/27/2017 5:00:38 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not wanting to do the cliche thing and complain about a newb... buuuuttttt as time goes on I'm sure you'll come around.

View Quote

Come around to paying $300 for a muzzle brake??

Posted: 6/27/2017 5:08:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Come around to paying $300 for a muzzle brake??

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not wanting to do the cliche thing and complain about a newb... buuuuttttt as time goes on I'm sure you'll come around.

Come around to paying $300 for a muzzle brake??

as a NON-noob myself, i gotta agree with the "newb"...brakes in general are for gamers and 300 clams is st00pid, especially on a poodle shooter. love the AR15 platform and all the new great ammo but a brake....no.

Posted: 6/28/2017 5:44:24 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

as a NON-noob myself, i gotta agree with the "newb"...brakes in general are for gamers and 300 clams is st00pid, especially on a poodle shooter. love the AR15 platform and all the new great ammo but a brake....no.

View Quote

The military is pushing flash hiding comps hard, currently, especially the SOF side of the house. The MAMS does very very well at what it's made to do, and making it is not cheap or simple. Does $300 suck? Yes it does. But nothing else can be had that is going to do what it does, so you can either pay and play, or not. Just because you choose not to does not mean that those who do are somehow wrong or getting a bum deal.

Posted: 6/28/2017 9:55:42 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Come around to paying $300 for a muzzle brake??

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not wanting to do the cliche thing and complain about a newb... buuuuttttt as time goes on I'm sure you'll come around.

Come around to paying $300 for a muzzle brake??

Its brake performance is sub-par. It does have great flash suppression performance, but not $300 worth.

Posted: 6/28/2017 10:20:15 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

Its brake performance is sub-par. It does have great flash suppression performance, but not $300 worth.

View Quote

I have used the MAMs and it's ability to keep the muzzle flat and minimize movement is as good as any brake albeit with very slightly more recoil. I care far more about muzzle movement than felt recoil. It does this with much less blast than a pure brake.

Flash suppression is nothing special imo.

There are other hybrid devices that are very similar. PA AFAB and EFAB come to mind. They are significantly cheaper but don't allow for suppressor attachment.

Posted: 6/28/2017 10:43:15 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have used the MAMs and it's ability to keep the muzzle flat and minimize movement is as good as any brake albeit with very slightly more recoil. I care far more about muzzle movement than felt recoil. It does this with much less blast than a pure brake.

Flash suppression is nothing special imo.

There are other hybrid devices that are very similar. PA AFAB and EFAB come to mind. They are significantly cheaper but don't allow for suppressor attachment.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Its brake performance is sub-par. It does have great flash suppression performance, but not $300 worth.

I have used the MAMs and it's ability to keep the muzzle flat and minimize movement is as good as any brake albeit with very slightly more recoil. I care far more about muzzle movement than felt recoil. It does this with much less blast than a pure brake.

Flash suppression is nothing special imo.

There are other hybrid devices that are very similar. PA AFAB and EFAB come to mind. They are significantly cheaper but don't allow for suppressor attachment.

I feel the same as you on those points. There's just too many other options at a 3rd of the price, with equal/more performance.

I think it's the fact of having Mil contracts somehow justifying the price. $300 is crazy for a muzzle device.

Posted: 6/28/2017 10:51:05 AM EDT

[#20]

How about we get this back on track?

@MRAD did you send the rifle to KAC for diagnosis yet? Can we get an update?

Posted: 6/28/2017 10:53:32 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
I feel the same as you on those points. There's just too many other options at a 3rd of the price, with equal/more performance.

I think it's the fact of having Mil contracts somehow justifying the price. $300 is crazy for a muzzle device.

View Quote

There are a few manufacturing steps in the MAMs that make it more expensive to build than the others. The ports are drilled at a 15 degree angle instead of flat. The internal geometry is more complex, so much so that it can't be machined from the outside like other muzzle devices. It has to be completely open and then the end cap with tines has to be welded on.

Are these improvements worth the cost? IMO no. But I at least see where some of the money is going.

Posted: 6/28/2017 10:56:39 AM EDT

[#22]

This thread should be locked until KAC gets the rifle for testing.

Posted: 6/30/2017 1:07:40 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
The military is pushing flash hiding comps hard, currently, especially the SOF side of the house. The MAMS does very very well at what it's made to do, and making it is not cheap or simple. Does $300 suck? Yes it does. But nothing else can be had that is going to do what it does, so you can either pay and play, or not. Just because you choose not to does not mean that those who do are somehow wrong or getting a bum deal.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

as a NON-noob myself, i gotta agree with the "newb"...brakes in general are for gamers and 300 clams is st00pid, especially on a poodle shooter. love the AR15 platform and all the new great ammo but a brake....no.

The military is pushing flash hiding comps hard, currently, especially the SOF side of the house. The MAMS does very very well at what it's made to do, and making it is not cheap or simple. Does $300 suck? Yes it does. But nothing else can be had that is going to do what it does, so you can either pay and play, or not. Just because you choose not to does not mean that those who do are somehow wrong or getting a bum deal.

since this topic has morphed and the OP is AWOL...

so why is the military going to breaks/comps? i thought SOF guys all used suppressors? at least thats what hollywierd shows...

as for brakes and comps....seems like there is always some trade off and no happy ground. you get one that is very effective but is then loud as an F16 at take off and has too much muzzle flash.....or one that control flash but isnt really a comp/brake.

if troops are all going to electronic ears, then no big deal i guess. aren't the Marines starting to run suppressors on everything too? that's a whole other can of worms worthy of its own thread!

so IMO, brakes/comps are a bad-aide for a semi-auto rifle that is over gassed and recoiling to hard or a shooter that can't control full auto.

Posted: 6/30/2017 1:08:45 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
This thread should be locked until KAC gets the rifle for testing.

View Quote

just a guess but i doubt OP ever had any intention of sending it back. it seems more like an anti-KAC thread and OP is a troll.

Posted: 6/30/2017 3:41:47 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

since this topic has morphed and the OP is AWOL...

so why is the military going to breaks/comps? i thought SOF guys all used suppressors? at least thats what hollywierd shows...

as for brakes and comps....seems like there is always some trade off and no happy ground. you get one that is very effective but is then loud as an F16 at take off and has too much muzzle flash.....or one that control flash but isnt really a comp/brake.

if troops are all going to electronic ears, then no big deal i guess. aren't the Marines starting to run suppressors on everything too? that's a whole other can of worms worthy of its own thread!

so IMO, brakes/comps are a bad-aide for a semi-auto rifle that is over gassed and recoiling to hard or a shooter that can't control full auto.

View Quote

Brakes and comps serve as sacrificial baffles for their cans, they als act as a mount for the suppressor (because direct thread sucks).

Posted: 6/30/2017 5:03:08 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:

Brakes and comps serve as sacrificial baffles for their cans, they als act as a mount for the suppressor (because direct thread sucks).

View Quote

thats all fine and dandy if we are talking about brakes for rifles using suppressors. i get that, to an extent.

if we are talking about brakes for rifles that are not, that's another story.

Posted: 7/1/2017 6:31:51 PM EDT

[#27]

Op is still mia bahahhaha

Wonder if he even owns a sr15

Posted: 7/1/2017 11:38:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Please lock this thread since the OP is MIA and afraid to send the rifle to KAC.

Posted: 7/2/2017 6:07:40 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have used the MAMs and it's ability to keep the muzzle flat and minimize movement is as good as any brake albeit with very slightly more recoil. I care far more about muzzle movement than felt recoil. It does this with much less blast than a pure brake.

Flash suppression is nothing special imo.

There are other hybrid devices that are very similar. PA AFAB and EFAB come to mind. They are significantly cheaper but don't allow for suppressor attachment.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Its brake performance is sub-par. It does have great flash suppression performance, but not $300 worth.

I have used the MAMs and it's ability to keep the muzzle flat and minimize movement is as good as any brake albeit with very slightly more recoil. I care far more about muzzle movement than felt recoil. It does this with much less blast than a pure brake.

Flash suppression is nothing special imo.

There are other hybrid devices that are very similar. PA AFAB and EFAB come to mind. They are significantly cheaper but don't allow for suppressor attachment.

The AFAB may be the best hybrid on the market. I have the MAMS and GA Flash Comp

Posted: 7/4/2017 2:32:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Interesting thread.

Surprised no one has commented on the below:

Quote History

Quoted:
For what it's worth, my fleet MRBS is around 9,500 with PMC 55gr Bronze, M855, Mk 262 Mod 1, and various flavors of match ammo.

View Quote

Not being familiar with statistical data for other manufacturers' MRBS, or if they even keep it, this seems like an impressive number.

Posted: 7/5/2017 7:53:16 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Interesting thread.

Surprised no one has commented on the below:

Not being familiar with statistical data for other manufacturers' MRBS, or if they even keep it, this seems like an impressive number.

View Quote

Most others do not. To put it in perspective though, that is many many times the MRBS of the M4A1's threshold for acceptance.

Posted: 7/5/2017 2:26:33 PM EDT

[#32]

The things ive learned from reading all 7 pages of this thread are

1.People lack reading comprehension
2.People don't read before posting
3.I don't even believe op has a kac upper at this point.Nobody is this against sending it in to get fixed if they actually have it.
4.No way I could ever be a company spokesperson like jack.Too many stupid people to deal with while having to remain friendly and informative every day.
5.Anyone that believes a $400 AR is in the same ball park as an sr15 is delusional.

Posted: 7/5/2017 2:44:09 PM EDT

[#33]

"i bought a ferrari and put in 87octane and it runs like shit" is this entire thread

Posted: 7/5/2017 3:13:31 PM EDT

[#34]

Based on all the bold text in the OP, i think we just got trolled by non other than..................... Mark Larue

.

Not really, i actually think the OP bullshitted about shooting thousands of trouble free rounds through other rifles with this same ammo and pushed back until he actually took the time to run some different ammo and is now embarrassed and laying low with his fully functional rifle. I know i've blown several primers with federal m193... it is not the most reliable round out there for sure. Sold my SR15 awhile back but it shot m193 just fine... prob should buy one of those new SR156

uppers unless i can find a mod 1 14.5 somewhere.

Posted: 7/5/2017 4:48:38 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
"i bought a ferrari and put in 87octane and it runs like shit" is this entire thread

View Quote

But "Ferrari tested it with 85octane and recommended against 87octane as they claimed 87octane gas quality sucks"

Posted: 7/5/2017 7:06:46 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Based on all the bold text in the OP, i think we just got trolled by non other than..................... Mark Larue

.

Not really, i actually think the OP bullshitted about shooting thousands of trouble free rounds through other rifles with this same ammo and pushed back until he actually took the time to run some different ammo and is now embarrassed and laying low with his fully functional rifle. I know i've blown several primers with federal m193... it is not the most reliable round out there for sure. Sold my SR15 awhile back but it shot m193 just fine... prob should buy one of those new SR156

uppers unless i can find a mod 1 14.5 somewhere.

View Quote

Based on name and location, it might be Chris Barrett.

Posted: 7/6/2017 1:36:12 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
The things ive learned from reading all 7 pages of this thread are

1.People lack reading comprehension
2.People don't read before posting
3.I don't even believe op has a kac upper at this point.Nobody is this against sending it in to get fixed if they actually have it.
4.No way I could ever be a company spokesperson like jack.Too many stupid people to deal with while having to remain friendly and informative every day.
5.Anyone that believes a $400 AR is in the same ball park as an sr15 is delusional.

View Quote

I dont think anyone has come out and said that verbatim, but in what way(s) are they not in the same "ball park"? If we refer to the LG torture test, we have a very inexpensive AR that ran 10,000 rounds of brass without one single failure and with very little cleaning. And, after 10,000 rounds it still shot fairly accurately. What more could we ask for? So, after 10,000 rounds, lets say we take this cheap rifle and replace the BCG and barrel with a CHF chrome lined barrel...we're looking at what, $325?

Posted: 7/7/2017 3:03:53 PM EDT

[#38]

Yeah…… Internet…..

The OP has a total of 6 posts on an internet forum.

Funny how a guy with a low post count is typically discredited on AR15 for lacking "street credibility" when discussing any other topic, but the same guy can attack an extremely credible vendor/gov't contractor and like minded douches are sharpening their claws.

Yeah….. Internet….

Posted: 7/7/2017 5:03:23 PM EDT

[#39]

This thread is fraudulent.

Posted: 7/8/2017 8:17:40 PM EDT

[#40]

Maybe OP sobered up, reread the responses and his replies and decided to fade away into obscurity

Posted: 7/12/2017 3:44:27 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
"i bought a ferrari and put in 87octane and it runs like shit" is this entire thread

View Quote

that's not a good analogy. XM193 is 556 spec pressure, more like high octane gas. now if he was running low pressure ammo like PMC 223 and something failed to cycle, ok.

federal xm193 has always worked well for me for the past 10 years.

OPie was obviously full of shit because may other KAC owners claim to shoot XM193 without issue and i would believe THEM way before i believed a some troll claims a KAC built rifle could not handle it.

OP was sent by the Bronze, full of treachery...

Posted: 7/14/2017 10:10:04 AM EDT

[#42]

Holy shit what a long read....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a thread on the site regarding a BCM rifle the blew up and it was caused by LC XM193. Even though it was clearly an ammo problem, BCM still replaced the rifle for the guy and LC told him to . And I/ we know he's not the only one who has experienced shit ammo from LC. How many other guys have had issues with it and just not reported it on this site or other forums for that matter?

KAC has advised against the use of it due to inconsistency and the possibility that you could get popped primers, and a mess of other possible issues with that ammo. I see nothing wrong with advising against a particular brand of ammo due to a pattern of inconsistency seen by possibly hundreds of people with several different brands of rifles.

KAC did say that 90% of returns are usually user error. Nothing wrong with that statement. I'd wager a guess that every single other manufacturer here would have roughly the same numbers.

OP I'm curious. How does the company you bought the rifle from feel about giving you a refund for the rifle? I'd say after having 900 rounds through the rifle, they're probably telling you to pound sand right? KAC is begging to have you send it in so they can make it right for you. I can't think of a single other manufacturer that sounds as genuine as they have in this thread.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:00:39 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
Holy shit what a long read....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a thread on the site regarding a BCM rifle the blew up and it was caused by LC XM193. Even though it was clearly an ammo problem, BCM still replaced the rifle for the guy and LC told him to . And I/ we know he's not the only one who has experienced shit ammo from LC. How many other guys have had issues with it and just not reported it on this site or other forums for that matter?

KAC has advised against the use of it due to inconsistency and the possibility that you could get popped primers, and a mess of other possible issues with that ammo. I see nothing wrong with advising against a particular brand of ammo due to a pattern of inconsistency seen by possibly hundreds of people with several different brands of rifles.

KAC did say that 90% of returns are usually user error. Nothing wrong with that statement. I'd wager a guess that every single other manufacturer here would have roughly the same numbers.

OP I'm curious. How does the company you bought the rifle from feel about giving you a refund for the rifle? I'd say after having 900 rounds through the rifle, they're probably telling you to pound sand right? KAC is begging to have you send it in so they can make it right for you. I can't think of a single other manufacturer that sounds as genuine as they have in this thread.

View Quote

So, an update: I sent the upper back to KAC a wihle ago (while many of you were still lampooning me for not sending it back to them . . . but I bet dollars to donuts not a single one of you will apologize). I sent it back directly to them. However, I just learned from the original vendor/retailer that KAC had sent the upper back to them (and never said a word about it to me). The vendor/retailer said that KAC (I'm assuming Adam Pini since he was on the email string) refused to send it directly back to me because "they were upset about what had happened on some forum", and insisted that KAC send it to them and then they would send it to me. He said that he told KAC that it seemed like a total waste of time and money (which it is), but he was happy to do it. That says a lot of good things about this vendor, and not a lot of good things about KAC. KAC didn't even have the courtesy to send me a note or give me a call to tell me what was wrong with the upper. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if there's a note in the box. Fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:03:07 AM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

that's not a good analogy. XM193 is 556 spec pressure, more like high octane gas. now if he was running low pressure ammo like PMC 223 and something failed to cycle, ok.

federal xm193 has always worked well for me for the past 10 years.

OPie was obviously full of shit because may other KAC owners claim to shoot XM193 without issue and i would believe THEM way before i believed a some troll claims a KAC built rifle could not handle it.

OP was sent by the Bronze, full of treachery...

View Quote

I agree that that analogy sucks. And if I was "full of shit", why did KAC get on here and agree? Also, see my update.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:05:40 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
Holy shit what a long read....

OP I'm curious. How does the company you bought the rifle from feel about giving you a refund for the rifle? I'd say after having 900 rounds through the rifle, they're probably telling you to pound sand right? KAC is begging to have you send it in so they can make it right for you. I can't think of a single other manufacturer that sounds as genuine as they have in this thread.

View Quote

I realized that I didn't answer your question. As any retailer would normally, they resisted at first, but eventually had worked it out with KAC (I wasn't privy to the details) that they would refund me. Since that wasn't what I was after (so to the folks that suggest that's what I was after, I could have had it), I decided to try and work with KAC. KAC has (I just learned today) made this situation EVEN WORSE by throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to even send the thing back to me. What does that tell you? I know what it tells me.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:09:20 AM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:

So, an update: I sent the upper back to KAC a wihle ago (while many of you were still lampooning me for not sending it back to them . . . but I bet dollars to donuts not a single one of you will apologize). I sent it back directly to them. However, I just learned from the original vendor/retailer that KAC had sent the upper back to them (and never said a word about it to me). The vendor/retailer said that KAC (I'm assuming Adam Pini since he was on the email string) refused to send it directly back to me because "they were upset about what had happened on some forum", and insisted that KAC send it to them and then they would send it to me. He said that he told KAC that it seemed like a total waste of time and money (which it is), but he was happy to do it. That says a lot of good things about this vendor, and not a lot of good things about KAC. KAC didn't even have the courtesy to send me a note or give me a call to tell me what was wrong with the upper. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if there's a note in the box. Fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath.

View Quote

What's the rest of the story, because that doesn't make a lick of sense?

@KAC_Sales

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:10:45 AM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

Based on name and location, it might be Chris Barrett.

View Quote

This is funny. I do shoot at the same place as a lot of the Barrett guys. It's amazing how many people claim to be friends with Ronnie Barrett. I've never seen Chris or Ronnie at my range, but we do have a disproportionate amount of MRADs on scene (one of which is mine, but I actually purchased mine out of state).

Since Barrett came up: A comparison. I have .338 and .308 barrels for my MRAD. The rifle came as the .338 and I purchased the conversion kit for the .308. After two range sessions of having to disassemble the bolt to switch calibers, I decided that was for the birds and decided to purchase an additional bolt handle, so it was just "plug and play" so to speak. Well, even though the bolt handle was something like $380.00, the one I got was bent (yeah, go figure). It still worked, but it dragged noticeably when it cycled. I called Barrett, and although the guy I spoke with was initially pretty difficult to deal with (again, the KAC rep was super nice), Barrett took the bolt back in, acknowledged that it was out of spec and replaced it. Until this posting, I never said anything about it because it was resolved without issue - a testament to Barrett.

Manufacturers have errors. I get that. I don't think it should happen on higher end items because part of what I think I'm paying for is better quality control, but it still happens. It's why I avoid early-run products, too. Unless it's a scope manufacturer, I think a company should have one shot to get it right. In the case with Barrett, they succeeded. In the case with KAC, they failed . . . spectacularly.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:11:55 AM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
Maybe OP sobered up, reread the responses and his replies and decided to fade away into obscurity

View Quote

Not so much. KAC has decided not to let that happen.

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:16:03 AM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
The things ive learned from reading all 7 pages of this thread are

1.People lack reading comprehension
2.People don't read before posting
3.I don't even believe op has a kac upper at this point.Nobody is this against sending it in to get fixed if they actually have it.
4.No way I could ever be a company spokesperson like jack.Too many stupid people to deal with while having to remain friendly and informative every day.
5.Anyone that believes a $400 AR is in the same ball park as an sr15 is delusional.

View Quote

In light of today's update, would you care to retract #3, especially since KAC has acknowledged interacting with me (I'll resist the urge to turn the reading before posting thing back on you).

Posted: 7/14/2017 11:17:59 AM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
Please lock this thread since the OP is MIA and afraid to send the rifle to KAC.

View Quote

But you were wrong, weren't you?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Knight's Armament ("KAC") SR-15 - NOT Compatible with XM193 (Federal/Lake City)!!!! (Page 7 of 10)

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us