User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 2:47:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Have they said anything about releasing the FDE ones that they post pics of?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 4:50:30 PM EDT
[#2]
When I first saw the MCX, I thought yep another meh Sig gun, but I must say the pistol version with the folding arm brace is pretty sweet and would get my approval.
The full size is pretty dumb IMO though. It's an AR with like an old shitty Galil stock that can change calibers - which the caliber change idea died pretty much almost a decade ago after everyone realized the pricing of such kits make no sense. And then the price tag for the base gun of nearly $2K... all for a gimmicky AR. At least the pistol version has something to offer with a folding stock - eh I mean folding arm brace |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 5:55:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I first saw the MCX, I thought yep another meh Sig gun, but I must say the pistol version with the folding arm brace is pretty sweet and would get my approval. The full size is pretty dumb IMO though. It's an AR with like an old shitty Galil stock that can change calibers - which the caliber change idea died pretty much almost a decade ago after everyone realized the pricing of such kits make no sense. And then the price tag for the base gun of nearly $2K... all for a gimmicky AR. At least the pistol version has something to offer with a folding stock - eh I mean folding arm brace It's far from a "gimmicky AR". It's a completely new rifle that happens to be compatible with AR lowers. Due to American political reality and organizational acquisitions, that puts it way ahead of the SCAR, ACR, and XCR for RDIAS, Pre-ban lower owners, and ban staters. It's very gas efficient. Meaning (at least when I was shooting prototypes) it ran just as well on garbage ammo as it does high end stuff. ROF/function was nearly the same. There's basically no recoil, which or an AR requires tuning for ammo. It can run dirty. VERY dirty. I never really liked the stock it came with. To me, an AR stock adapter was perfect. The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. $2K right now is the domain of new non-AR (and quality AR) rifles. And, I'm fairly certain SIG won't be pulling an FN with their bbl kits. If reasonably priced, easily changed barrels will catch on. I completely disagree with the "field swapable barrel concept", but a barrel, and QD optic is cheaper than a full upper assembly. Unfortunately no-one's gotten it right yet except LMT MWS. To add, basically every wear point (cam pin track, charging handle latch, feedramp, etc...) on the gun can be swapped out with a roll pin. It's built be last and be rebuilt. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 6:09:18 PM EDT
[#4]
There's a little blurb on The Firearms Blog about the French rifle trials. The blurb lists the MCX as being entered as a possible contender.
It'll be very interesting to see how the MCX fares against the 416 and the SCAR. Other rifles are also being tested but these two are what we're most familiar with. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 1:39:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's far from a "gimmicky AR". It's a completely new rifle that happens to be compatible with AR lowers. Due to American political reality and organizational acquisitions, that puts it way ahead of the SCAR, ACR, and XCR for RDIAS, Pre-ban lower owners, and ban staters. It's very gas efficient. Meaning (at least when I was shooting prototypes) it ran just as well on garbage ammo as it does high end stuff. ROF/function was nearly the same. There's basically no recoil, which or an AR requires tuning for ammo. It can run dirty. VERY dirty. I never really liked the stock it came with. To me, an AR stock adapter was perfect. The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. $2K right now is the domain of new non-AR (and quality AR) rifles. And, I'm fairly certain SIG won't be pulling an FN with their bbl kits. If reasonably priced, easily changed barrels will catch on. I completely disagree with the "field swapable barrel concept", but a barrel, and QD optic is cheaper than a full upper assembly. Unfortunately no-one's gotten it right yet except LMT MWS. To add, basically every wear point (cam pin track, charging handle latch, feedramp, etc...) on the gun can be swapped out with a roll pin. It's built be last and be rebuilt. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I first saw the MCX, I thought yep another meh Sig gun, but I must say the pistol version with the folding arm brace is pretty sweet and would get my approval. The full size is pretty dumb IMO though. It's an AR with like an old shitty Galil stock that can change calibers - which the caliber change idea died pretty much almost a decade ago after everyone realized the pricing of such kits make no sense. And then the price tag for the base gun of nearly $2K... all for a gimmicky AR. At least the pistol version has something to offer with a folding stock - eh I mean folding arm brace It's far from a "gimmicky AR". It's a completely new rifle that happens to be compatible with AR lowers. Due to American political reality and organizational acquisitions, that puts it way ahead of the SCAR, ACR, and XCR for RDIAS, Pre-ban lower owners, and ban staters. It's very gas efficient. Meaning (at least when I was shooting prototypes) it ran just as well on garbage ammo as it does high end stuff. ROF/function was nearly the same. There's basically no recoil, which or an AR requires tuning for ammo. It can run dirty. VERY dirty. I never really liked the stock it came with. To me, an AR stock adapter was perfect. The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. $2K right now is the domain of new non-AR (and quality AR) rifles. And, I'm fairly certain SIG won't be pulling an FN with their bbl kits. If reasonably priced, easily changed barrels will catch on. I completely disagree with the "field swapable barrel concept", but a barrel, and QD optic is cheaper than a full upper assembly. Unfortunately no-one's gotten it right yet except LMT MWS. To add, basically every wear point (cam pin track, charging handle latch, feedramp, etc...) on the gun can be swapped out with a roll pin. It's built be last and be rebuilt. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. Don't kid yourself, SIG pulled a SIG just like they did with the P250 er I mean P320. We get that you took part in a little bit of the project but put that aside. SIG could have built something really forward, with similarities to the ACR, instead they settled for the "SIG good enough" and reworked an AR. And yes, I know the it's really only an AR in appearance but that's the problem. If you want to go into the whole "built for professionals for a contract" excuse, that's fine, but you do realize this MCX will only go as far as the SCAR 16/Stoner 63/etc have i.e. will never be a major platform, just a stepping stone in weapon development - at best. Not trying to rain in the thread, just giving my honest perspective on it. Like I said, the arm brace pistol looks sweet cause nothing really out there like it (folding "bracer" ARish gun). Also, sure, at least SIG is bringing the gun to the commercial market unlike so far with Remington and the ACR so I'll give SIG a gold star for that 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 6:33:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I first saw the MCX, I thought yep another meh Sig gun, but I must say the pistol version with the folding arm brace is pretty sweet and would get my approval. The full size is pretty dumb IMO though. It's an AR with like an old shitty Galil stock that can change calibers - which the caliber change idea died pretty much almost a decade ago after everyone realized the pricing of such kits make no sense. And then the price tag for the base gun of nearly $2K... all for a gimmicky AR. At least the pistol version has something to offer with a folding stock - eh I mean folding arm brace The MCX offers a folding stock and piston operation and compatibility/convertibility to 300 Blackout. These are things not offered currently by any other platform that I'm aware of. Neither ACR nor the SCAR are readily convertible to 300BLK and require gunsmith work to swap. Even then, the guns can be problematic. The MCX is more than an AR. It is a unique and different design that uses a new lower. But the gun is also usable with existing lowers (via a conversion plate) and takes some AR internal parts. The trigger components, bolt, firing pin and cam pin are standard AR. SIG has done a good job of making a new rifle that can be used by departments, organizations or individuals who are married to existing lowers by budgetary or legal reasons. The manual of arms is carried over from the AR so agencies that might make the switch won't require a lengthy and costly transition training period. With that said, the gun is still too new and we'll see how it does in the marketplace. It ain't cheap. If the gun fails to become a commercial success cost will be a major reason. We'll see what the price does once the newness wears off. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 8:14:35 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't kid yourself, SIG pulled a SIG just like they did with the P250 er I mean P320. We get that you took part in a little bit of the project but put that aside. SIG could have built something really forward, with similarities to the ACR, instead they settled for the "SIG good enough" and reworked an AR. And yes, I know the it's really only an AR in appearance but that's the problem. If you want to go into the whole "built for professionals for a contract" excuse, that's fine, but you do realize this MCX will only go as far as the SCAR 16/Stoner 63/etc have i.e. will never be a major platform, just a stepping stone in weapon development - at best. Not trying to rain in the thread, just giving my honest perspective on it. Like I said, the arm brace pistol looks sweet cause nothing really out there like it (folding "bracer" ARish gun). Also, sure, at least SIG is bringing the gun to the commercial market unlike so far with Remington and the ACR so I'll give SIG a gold star for that The operating system is ingenious. As is the act it's AR compatible. Want a SCAR trigger? It's only $325. One of the original Masada selling features was that it would use AR triggers. But the ACR doesn't. The QD barrel is not present in the Remington ACR anymore (and the QD assembly contributed towards the weight). Let me guess, you demand a side-charging handle? So what ACR features are missing that would make it "really forward"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 9:01:35 AM EDT
[#8]
The fact that the MCX is compatible with standard AR15 and M16 lowers is a very strong point. That it will run on a fullauto M16 lower without alteration of the lower is fantastic. The MCX appears to be very very well designed. A great deal of thought was clearly put into the design. I fail to see why AR15 compatibility would be a detractor or make it somehow inferior. Is the HK416 just another AR?
Where I am skeptical is of Sig Sauer's ability to produce the MCX without an inordinate number of QC/QA issues. Time will tell. I truly hope they have their act together, as I want a shorty MCX upper for my M16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 10:30:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have they said anything about releasing the FDE ones that they post pics of? Whoever runs their Instagram mentioned middle of this year for the FDE versions to enter production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 4:49:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The operating system is ingenious. As is the act it's AR compatible. Want a SCAR trigger? It's only $325. One of the original Masada selling features was that it would use AR triggers. But the ACR doesn't. The QD barrel is not present in the Remington ACR anymore (and the QD assembly contributed towards the weight). Let me guess, you demand a side-charging handle? So what ACR features are missing that would make it "really forward"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't kid yourself, SIG pulled a SIG just like they did with the P250 er I mean P320. We get that you took part in a little bit of the project but put that aside. SIG could have built something really forward, with similarities to the ACR, instead they settled for the "SIG good enough" and reworked an AR. And yes, I know the it's really only an AR in appearance but that's the problem. If you want to go into the whole "built for professionals for a contract" excuse, that's fine, but you do realize this MCX will only go as far as the SCAR 16/Stoner 63/etc have i.e. will never be a major platform, just a stepping stone in weapon development - at best. Not trying to rain in the thread, just giving my honest perspective on it. Like I said, the arm brace pistol looks sweet cause nothing really out there like it (folding "bracer" ARish gun). Also, sure, at least SIG is bringing the gun to the commercial market unlike so far with Remington and the ACR so I'll give SIG a gold star for that The operating system is ingenious. As is the act it's AR compatible. Want a SCAR trigger? It's only $325. One of the original Masada selling features was that it would use AR triggers. But the ACR doesn't. The QD barrel is not present in the Remington ACR anymore (and the QD assembly contributed towards the weight). Let me guess, you demand a side-charging handle? So what ACR features are missing that would make it "really forward"? To make this clear, I'm not a fan of the SCAR etiher so it's not FN rocks Sig sucks type deal. And that's not to say that either one isn't a nice rifle, it's just if I'm going to switch from a well refined AR-15, that new platform must be better in every single way and not bring new faults to the table. Side charging handle? Absolutely if you are producing a new platform. The forward side charging handle position and the bolt release on the trigger guard are inarguably the best spots for the those respective controls. It allows the user to manipulate the action without having to break their firing grip when done properly. Remington has it not only away from the rail to prevent interference with optics, but it folds down out of the way to prevent snag on gear. They nailed it. Additionally, I have no idea why Sig would go with the stock choice they did. I know they advertise how cool it is to change between the stocks, but the thing is all the stocks suck. Subgun stock or a Galil like fixed stock are your options. Not like anyone wears PCs right? ACR stock is height and length adjustable - which why not give those capabilities to the end user. I could go on about other things that they missed the boat on IMO but this is not the thread for that. One last thing I'd like to point out, is the Remington ACR does have a QD barrel, it's not as fast as the Bushmaster or AUG, but it doesn't need to be. It's like the LMT MRP system and allows the gun with the re-worked rail to save a lb of weight. Your obviously a Sig fan, I'm not the biggest, but I will say I'd be the first to criticize HK or KAC (two companies which produce a lot of products I like) on any "good enough" product they put out. Like I said, the pistol version is cool because it offers something not currently available. And sure, there's a niche that the MCX offers in terms of it's 300blk capacity that currently no one else offers with similar features, but it's just that, a niche. Just my IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 10:16:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To make this clear, I'm not a fan of the SCAR etiher so it's not FN rocks Sig sucks type deal. And that's not to say that either one isn't a nice rifle, it's just if I'm going to switch from a well refined AR-15, that new platform must be better in every single way and not bring new faults to the table. Side charging handle? Absolutely if you are producing a new platform. The forward side charging handle position and the bolt release on the trigger guard are inarguably the best spots for the those respective controls. It allows the user to manipulate the action without having to break their firing grip when done properly. Remington has it not only away from the rail to prevent interference with optics, but it folds down out of the way to prevent snag on gear. They nailed it. Additionally, I have no idea why Sig would go with the stock choice they did. I know they advertise how cool it is to change between the stocks, but the thing is all the stocks suck. Subgun stock or a Galil like fixed stock are your options. Not like anyone wears PCs right? ACR stock is height and length adjustable - which why not give those capabilities to the end user. I could go on about other things that they missed the boat on IMO but this is not the thread for that. One last thing I'd like to point out, is the Remington ACR does have a QD barrel, it's not as fast as the Bushmaster or AUG, but it doesn't need to be. It's like the LMT MRP system and allows the gun with the re-worked rail to save a lb of weight. The ACR's charging handle was less than ideal IMO. If they had kept the original location from the Masada, it would have been much better. Forward charging handles tend to interfere with tape switch routing for lasers and lights, which obviously isn't a consideration for most users, but still one that needs to be accounted for. After using SCARs, ACRs, 556s, etc, the AR's charging handle location is still the best for optics and laser/light placement. The SCAR is still the only "modular" gun that you can lock the action back with one hand(assuming the charging handle is on the left hand side). There is nothing preventing you from putting an M4 style stock on the MCX. I plan on using a UCIW personally once the eform gets back. The appeal with the SAS stock isn't the adjustments, it's the folded/collapsed profile, same with the "subgun" style stock. The thing that has crippled current "modular" weapons systems such as the SCAR and ACR has been the lack of modularity due to availability of parts. The SCAR only recently got factory SBR barrels, the ACR, still nothing. The MCX coming out in the first batch with multiple barrels is already setting itself apart from existing "modular" designs. I'll give you the bolt release location on the ACR was ideal, but at least on my personal ACR, it required a lot more force to release than any of my ARs with a BAD lever and the bolt release operation isn't that big of a deal for the AR/MCX/SCAR in general if your gun isn't malfunctioning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 2:32:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's far from a "gimmicky AR". It's a completely new rifle that happens to be compatible with AR lowers. Due to American political reality and organizational acquisitions, that puts it way ahead of the SCAR, ACR, and XCR for RDIAS, Pre-ban lower owners, and ban staters. It's very gas efficient. Meaning (at least when I was shooting prototypes) it ran just as well on garbage ammo as it does high end stuff. ROF/function was nearly the same. There's basically no recoil, which or an AR requires tuning for ammo. It can run dirty. VERY dirty. I never really liked the stock it came with. To me, an AR stock adapter was perfect. The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. $2K right now is the domain of new non-AR (and quality AR) rifles. And, I'm fairly certain SIG won't be pulling an FN with their bbl kits. If reasonably priced, easily changed barrels will catch on. I completely disagree with the "field swapable barrel concept", but a barrel, and QD optic is cheaper than a full upper assembly. Unfortunately no-one's gotten it right yet except LMT MWS. To add, basically every wear point (cam pin track, charging handle latch, feedramp, etc...) on the gun can be swapped out with a roll pin. It's built be last and be rebuilt. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I first saw the MCX, I thought yep another meh Sig gun, but I must say the pistol version with the folding arm brace is pretty sweet and would get my approval. The full size is pretty dumb IMO though. It's an AR with like an old shitty Galil stock that can change calibers - which the caliber change idea died pretty much almost a decade ago after everyone realized the pricing of such kits make no sense. And then the price tag for the base gun of nearly $2K... all for a gimmicky AR. At least the pistol version has something to offer with a folding stock - eh I mean folding arm brace It's far from a "gimmicky AR". It's a completely new rifle that happens to be compatible with AR lowers. Due to American political reality and organizational acquisitions, that puts it way ahead of the SCAR, ACR, and XCR for RDIAS, Pre-ban lower owners, and ban staters. It's very gas efficient. Meaning (at least when I was shooting prototypes) it ran just as well on garbage ammo as it does high end stuff. ROF/function was nearly the same. There's basically no recoil, which or an AR requires tuning for ammo. It can run dirty. VERY dirty. I never really liked the stock it came with. To me, an AR stock adapter was perfect. The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. $2K right now is the domain of new non-AR (and quality AR) rifles. And, I'm fairly certain SIG won't be pulling an FN with their bbl kits. If reasonably priced, easily changed barrels will catch on. I completely disagree with the "field swapable barrel concept", but a barrel, and QD optic is cheaper than a full upper assembly. Unfortunately no-one's gotten it right yet except LMT MWS. To add, basically every wear point (cam pin track, charging handle latch, feedramp, etc...) on the gun can be swapped out with a roll pin. It's built be last and be rebuilt. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. Did you mention the MPX? That thing will never be released. Sig is so full of shit when it comes to the MPX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 4:49:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll give you the bolt release location on the ACR was ideal, but at least on my personal ACR, it required a lot more force to release than any of my ARs with a BAD lever and the bolt release operation isn't that big of a deal for the AR/MCX/SCAR in general if your gun isn't malfunctioning. This is really where people make too big a deal out of the side charging handle and/or FAL-style bolt release. With a rifle that runs properly, the charging handle is only needed to initially load and then unload the rifle. All other actions (reloads) should be conducted with the bolt release. Thumb on the M16 or trigger finger on the ACR. You'd need a shot timer to ever work out the fractional differences. Being able to lock the bolt open easily/quickly isn't that big a deal unless your training consists of nothing but malfunction clearance. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 5:19:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is really where people make too big a deal out of the side charging handle and/or FAL-style bolt release. With a rifle that runs properly, the charging handle is only needed to initially load and then unload the rifle. All other actions (reloads) should be conducted with the bolt release. Thumb on the M16 or trigger finger on the ACR. You'd need a shot timer to ever work out the fractional differences. Being able to lock the bolt open easily/quickly isn't that big a deal unless your training consists of nothing but malfunction clearance.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll give you the bolt release location on the ACR was ideal, but at least on my personal ACR, it required a lot more force to release than any of my ARs with a BAD lever and the bolt release operation isn't that big of a deal for the AR/MCX/SCAR in general if your gun isn't malfunctioning. This is really where people make too big a deal out of the side charging handle and/or FAL-style bolt release. With a rifle that runs properly, the charging handle is only needed to initially load and then unload the rifle. All other actions (reloads) should be conducted with the bolt release. Thumb on the M16 or trigger finger on the ACR. You'd need a shot timer to ever work out the fractional differences. Being able to lock the bolt open easily/quickly isn't that big a deal unless your training consists of nothing but malfunction clearance.
Which was an issue for me the other day when I had my gas knob of the ACR in the "S" position but was running unsuppressed. Not so on the MCX. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 12:52:09 PM EDT
[#15]
I run my Acr on U mode suppressed ;) but it's not 5.56...
I've been handling my Mcx a little more lately and made a huge discovery... There is a third caliber conversion out already that most haven't though of. I installed an AR .22 conversion kit into my Mcx today and it shot great! I don't know if they intended for it to work or not but for me it works pretty well YMMV. It cycled, and locked the bolt back perfectly. The only issue at this point is the AR 15 charging handle will need to be modified some to fit inside of the Mcx upper receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 12:58:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I run my Acr on U mode suppressed ;) but it's not 5.56... I've been handling my Mcx a little more lately and made a huge discovery... There is a third caliber conversion out already that most haven't though of. I installed an AR .22 conversion kit into my Mcx today and it shot great! I don't know if they intended for it to work or not but for me it works pretty well YMMV. It cycled, and locked the bolt back perfectly. The only issue at this point is the AR 15 charging handle will need to be modified some to fit inside of the Mcx upper receiver. That's awesome! What's the barrel twist on the 5.56 barrel? 1X9 or 1X7? And which 22LR kit are you using? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 7:53:06 PM EDT
[#17]
5.56 = 1:7
300 = 1:6
7.62 = 1:9.5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 9:02:29 PM EDT
[#18]
ETA: I think they used the barrel torque specs on the factory BUIS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 10:59:57 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 11:09:24 PM EDT
[#20]
At the end of the gas block towards the muzzle....is that a gas adjustment? Does it turn?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 11:59:14 PM EDT
[#21]
To bad that's not an MPX. WTF is up with them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 1:27:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To bad that's not an MPX. WTF is up with them? We get it. You're not happy about the release. Move along please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 1:30:09 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the end of the gas block towards the muzzle....is that a gas adjustment? Does it turn? No adjustment. It turns for removal upon depressing a detent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 7:58:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No adjustment. It turns for removal upon depressing a detent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At the end of the gas block towards the muzzle....is that a gas adjustment? Does it turn? No adjustment. It turns for removal upon depressing a detent. Thanks. Can anyone please provide detailed pictures of the gas system removed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 2:25:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Can anyone please provide detailed pictures of the gas system removed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At the end of the gas block towards the muzzle....is that a gas adjustment? Does it turn? No adjustment. It turns for removal upon depressing a detent. Thanks. Can anyone please provide detailed pictures of the gas system removed? I was going to link the Recoil pics, but then realized that's the old gas system. I'll get some tonight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 1:57:52 PM EDT
[#26]
.300blk gas system
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 2:29:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Beat me to it. Was busy mounting my flash hider.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 2:43:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.300blk gas system <a href="http://s897.photobucket.com/user/AssSupt/media/mcx/5312EF42-2C0B-43DE-806E-6EAC23CCAD32_zps1r9zc6ne.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac180/AssSupt/mcx/5312EF42-2C0B-43DE-806E-6EAC23CCAD32_zps1r9zc6ne.jpg</a> <a href="http://s897.photobucket.com/user/AssSupt/media/mcx/019B37D9-8ECE-49B6-B823-7428D55B96F4_zpsqzazur8o.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac180/AssSupt/mcx/019B37D9-8ECE-49B6-B823-7428D55B96F4_zpsqzazur8o.jpg</a> <a href="http://s897.photobucket.com/user/AssSupt/media/mcx/7544AE9A-A299-46E1-92A7-D5FCF54B7B70_zpsq0vhzukv.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac180/AssSupt/mcx/7544AE9A-A299-46E1-92A7-D5FCF54B7B70_zpsq0vhzukv.jpg</a> The gas plug says 16" so I assume there's a different plug for the 9" barrel. So what's different about it? Just a different sized vent hole or something more specific? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 3:29:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The gas plug says 16" so I assume there's a different plug for the 9" barrel. So what's different about it? Just a different sized vent hole or something more specific? I just took my 9" .300 and 5.56mm gas plugs out, and they visually appear to be the same as sunny's. I'm guessing whatever is different is the internal dimensions of the pinned in forward part of the plug and it's a standardized housing. Not sure how much further I want to tear it down in the name of science just yet.
ETA: 9" 300 barrels appear to be 1/5 twist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 6:01:54 PM EDT
[#30]
A few more photos. The only difference I can see between the .300blk and 5.56 is a port drilled on the 5.56. The .300 does not have this. Who knows what the internal differences might be. Like TopSecret, I'm not opening them up. I'm imagining some sort of spring in there that, if pressure is exceeded (suppressor added), bleeds off the excess gas. This is only a guess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 6:44:59 PM EDT
[#31]
A spring-loaded internal bleeder valve would make sense.
Can you depress the valve with a small punch or something and make it move? I imagine it'll have a heck of a spring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2015 6:22:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A spring-loaded internal bleeder valve would make sense. Can you depress the valve with a small punch or something and make it move? I imagine it'll have a heck of a spring. I have a bunch of family in town so I don't have a ton of time. I did cut out for a second to find that there is indeed a spring bleed off. You can press on it with a punch and move it. Here is the face of the valve. 
The gas is vented out of the valve and block via these ports. 
I'm guessing even weak 5.56 loads produces enough pressure that the additional fixed port is needed to vent it. That goes out these ports.
I think this port is just a air release so that the piston can move without creating a vacuum or pressure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:22:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Getting closer. Hope the range isn't frozen this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 8:34:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Here's another that's popped up on gunbroker.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=470220101 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 8:40:56 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's another that's popped up on gunbroker. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=470220101 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's another that's popped up on gunbroker. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=470220101 I really like all the bullcrap search key stuff he added. 
sigsauer mpx hk416 noveske kac knights hk mk18 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 11:18:32 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. I truly hope you're spot on with this assessment...I really want to like the MCX...the concept is nice and the design is fresh in how it approaches cycling the weapon. Sig just has a recent...as in since the GSR 1911 launch and debacle...the then subsequent 556 launch...re-launch...re-re-launch...of taking an outstanding design concept and running it into a tree...in a ditch...then bursting into flames... The modularity of the concept, from an SBR perspective is intriguing...just hope they can deliver on what looks like a nicely hyped weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 2:04:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I truly hope you're spot on with this assessment...I really want to like the MCX...the concept is nice and the design is fresh in how it approaches cycling the weapon. Sig just has a recent...as in since the GSR 1911 launch and debacle...the then subsequent 556 launch...re-launch...re-re-launch...of taking an outstanding design concept and running it into a tree...in a ditch...then bursting into flames... The modularity of the concept, from an SBR perspective is intriguing...just hope they can deliver on what looks like a nicely hyped weapon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The original purpose of this gun was to compete with both the HK416 and the Honeybadger, and was built and tested with those "end-users" in mind. It was also originally conceived by the guy who built the incredibly successful HK416, and later further developed with the help of the guy who designed the Honeybadger. It's not something built and marketed for the commercial market (like the 556 and 556R), but trialed by the best SOF/CT units in the world and is also available for the commercial market. SIG sees this gun as the future of SIG and their rifles (as opposed to the XI which I was told will close out the 55X series). Sig spent over 5 years developing it with the input of some very high speed dudes. I don't see SIG pulling a SCAR or ACR with this gun. The 55X line is coming to an end and the 516 is most likely done its evolution. The MPX, MCX, and MCX-MR will supplant the 55X and 516/716 line at some point. I truly hope you're spot on with this assessment...I really want to like the MCX...the concept is nice and the design is fresh in how it approaches cycling the weapon. Sig just has a recent...as in since the GSR 1911 launch and debacle...the then subsequent 556 launch...re-launch...re-re-launch...of taking an outstanding design concept and running it into a tree...in a ditch...then bursting into flames... The modularity of the concept, from an SBR perspective is intriguing...just hope they can deliver on what looks like a nicely hyped weapon. Sig's poor QC issues on the other guns came to light rather quickly. I hope they've learned a lesson. I've now run approximately 600 rounds of mixed XM855 and XM193 though my 16" MCX. Not a single failure and the wear patterns look normal. I know it's not a ton or rounds or a huge variety of ammo but I think its enough that any glaring problems would be showing. I don't see anyone else reporting issues. I'll go out on a limb and say they got this one right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 4:33:48 PM EDT
[#38]
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 4:50:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56? As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 4:57:58 PM EDT
[#40]
What's the "short" 5.56 length? 10.5?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:15:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the "short" 5.56 length? 10.5? 9". Apparently, it's what the distributor ordered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:16:51 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the "short" 5.56 length? 10.5? I haven't seen an exact measurement but Sig's literature say's 9". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 5:34:24 PM EDT
[#43]
That's good to know
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56? As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:24:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's good to know Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's good to know Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56? As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. Yes, available in 556 only, 300BO only and the 556/300BO kits. All in 9" PSB and 16" rifle configs. You will see them in dealers in the coming weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 6:56:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Excellent..........I'd like to have one in 5.56. I wonder what the price will be for a single caliber rifle
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, available in 556 only, 300BO only and the 556/300BO kits. All in 9" PSB and 16" rifle configs. You will see them in dealers in the coming weeks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's good to know Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56? As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. Yes, available in 556 only, 300BO only and the 556/300BO kits. All in 9" PSB and 16" rifle configs. You will see them in dealers in the coming weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:04:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent..........I'd like to have one in 5.56. I wonder what the price will be for a single caliber rifle Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent..........I'd like to have one in 5.56. I wonder what the price will be for a single caliber rifle Quoted:
Quoted:
That's good to know Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if SIG will offer the MCX in just 5.56? As I understand it, SIG will sell the MCX as a stand-alone rifle at some point. Currently only the kits with both barrels seem to be available. Yes, available in 556 only, 300BO only and the 556/300BO kits. All in 9" PSB and 16" rifle configs. You will see them in dealers in the coming weeks. MAP is $1749 - so somewhere between that and $1850 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 7:28:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Hmm.........maybe street price will be cheaper down the line since it's a single caliber. Cabela's carries the two caliber kit for 1,899.99...........I will keep on the lookout for them
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ MAP is $1749 - so somewhere between that and $1850 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 9:41:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAP is $1749 - so somewhere between that and $1850 Sorry if I missed it, but does anyone have a ballpark and how much the upper "conversion kits" are gonna cost when they come out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:27:36 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 12:03:40 PM EDT
[#50]
It looks like a nice well thought out system. If it works as intended it will be worth looking into. It has a high price though, if it comes with two barrels and an extra bolt I would pay about 2k for one with a 12 to 14" 5.56 barrel and a 9" 300blk barrel
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
