Somebody Ackbar this thread, it truely is a TRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Nothing revolutionary about it. It's just a loose copy of a CSI SR-88. Lets see, charge what will likely be 2x the cost of an A2 AR, have next to ZERO aftermarket support, and no discernable advantage over the AR platform... GENIUS!!

S.O.

Hopefully the gas system is adjustable. If HK clones are worth 1000+ this thing is easily worth 1500 if it works. It would also be a very impressive achievement for a small firm.  Looks like alot of work went into it.

It's nice to read the opinions of so many "experts" on the modern gas-piston systems currently undergoing evaluation.  
HFG

I'd just like to know why there are no concrete specs listed on the site. I'd like to know OAL w/ stock folded/unfolded, overall weight unloaded, and price (as well as price for replacement parts) before I even consider this as a replacement to one of my ARs.

What's with the 1960s era folder on there? Can't they design something adjustable for LOP that can preovide a real cheekweld with optics? I'm also curious as to what the charging handle looks like, and the bolt and carrier design. It should be interesting to see what they came up with. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see pics of the FCG as well. It's refreshing that they actually decided to use a fully enclosed piston system, unlike other systems out there.

If this is the revolutionary Robinson SCAR entry, I'm far from impressed just by looking at it. It'd be something neat to have on the side, but the G36 actually looks better than this (and some of you know how I feel about the G36). Who knows, this thing might actually be worth buying, but I just can't see paying a premium over an MRP equipped rifle from LMT.

-Cap'n

Quoted: Mildly interesting.  I hate the stock.

My thoughts exactly.  The only thing that I really like about it is the ability to take AR mags.  Overall I don't really see anything that makes me want to buy it.  I think I'd still rather have another AR instead.  

Another thing that turns me off about Robarms is the owners arrogant attitude...

Quoted: Quoted: Mildly interesting.  I hate the stock. My thoughts exactly.  The only thing that I really like about it is the ability to take AR mags.  Overall I don't really see anything that makes me want to buy it.  I think I'd still rather have another AR instead.   Another thing that turns me off about Robarms is the owners arrogant attitude...

And Colt doesn't have an arrogant attitude? Give me a break. I had a Robarm Vepr for several years, and they do stand behind their work. It was one of the better made AKs I have owned in fit, finish and performance.

I'll buy one if it is around $1000 or less. Higher than that, I'd rather have a DS Arms SA58.

WTF? No carry handle?
now how the hell are you supposed to carry this thing anywhere?





....that's more like it

Quoted: www.robarm.com/XCR%20Vert%20Grip.jpg WTF? No carry handle? now how the hell are you supposed to carry this thing anywhere? www.fnmfg.com/products/m16/m16a2.gif ....that's more like it

Ummmm...ever heard of one of these?

Quoted: And Colt doesn't have an arrogant attitude? Give me a break. I had a Robarm Vepr for several years, and they do stand behind their work. It was one of the better made AKs I have owned in fit, finish and performance. I'll buy one if it is around $1000 or less. Higher than that, I'd rather have a DS Arms SA58.

I never mentioned Colt did I?  There's plenty of great AR manufacturers who deserve our business but any company that acts like they don't need my business won't get it!

I was hoping we civvies would get some innovative guns out of the SCAR program, and if the XCR is basically what Robinson Armament submitted, I applaud them for their effort. From briefly reading about this XCR, it looks like it fulfills a lot of my "wish list" items for an optimized assault rifle.

1. Reliability. I don't care HOW you make it reliable, just make progress toward the "holy grail" of a gun that never, ever jams. Gas-pistons may or may not be the best science for accomplishing this, but they do seem to be in the lead. RgrGordo says the XM8 has an 80% better MTBF rate than the current M16/M4 series. Frank of POF says his gas-piston AR is getting phenomenal reliability. HipFiredGun says pistons are leading in their reliability tests. I want reliability, and the state-of-the-art says it lies in a gas-piston.

In general, the fewer and simpler the parts the better! Someone else has mentioned the XCR bolt has a few big lugs, a big extractor, and there's a fixed ejector. To my mind, these are all good for reliability.

I've been told that a bullet is 25 feet out of the barrel before gas-piston parts even START to move, so there's no technical reason those working parts should ruin accuracy. (Someone with more knowledge, please confirm.) And here's a stab at why AK-style gas-pistons have a reputation for reliability under combat field conditions: the heavier weight of the bolt carrier with the operating rod attached have more momentum to blast crud out of the way than a light bolt system. (That point is pure conjecture, but it seems reasonable.) Anyway, the tests showing better MTBF reliability for gas-pistons are not conjecture. So it's a plus that this new XCR is based on one.

2. Accuracy. Depends on how well the gun fits the individual shooter, the quality of its construction and tolerances, and the standard deviation of the velocity of its ammo, as well as bullet quality. Did I mention the shooter's personal skill?

As far as the XCR, we don't know at this point how accurate it is. However, the only technical reason I can think of why it might be bad is if the easy-change barrel uses a method that allows the barrel to wobble. I'm not saying it does, and it probably doesn't, but it's something to watch in any easy-change barrel system.

3. Ergonomics. Controls should be ambidextrous, intuitive, easy to reach, and gun should fit and balance nicely. The AR15 has for a long time lead small arms in this department. I personally think all controls---selector switch, magazine release, and bolt release---should all be operated by the trigger finger. I envision either the system used in the Bushmaster .308s or the new XM8, where both mag- and bolt-release are operable by a left or right trigger finger. And, it's my personal preference, but I'd put the selector switch above and a bit forward of the trigger, so it can be operated by the trigger finger (the current placement seems a bit clumsy). Anyway, the XCR has most of these features, and thus scores points in the ergonomics department.

Even though I think the current stock does look good, real "businesslike," I can see that cheek weld on the metal folding stock is perhaps less than optimal for both irons and optics (the SIG550 has a more ergonomic folding stock that is more like a traditional stock). I also like the ACE Skeleton stock with the foam sleeve. Anyway, if the XCR's buttstock system is modular so a different one can easily be switched in, then all this is not a problem.

4. Modularity. Again, another strength of the AR15 series, and any optimized assault rifle should follow its example, as, indeed, new guns like the XM8 do. Buttstocks, pistol grips, foregrips, optics, barrel lengths and calibers should all be modular and customizable to any individual's preferences and any mission's requirements.

The XCR has rails for optics and for hanging stuff on the front end, and I like that the rails are built in. It's pistol grip is stock AR. Buttstock modular? Don't know. Barrels and calibers switchable? Yes, but the system must be well-engineered. I'd like one that shoots both 7.62x39 for cheap blasting and 6.5 Grendel for hunting and targets (same case head size, one bolt).

The XCR looks good in the modularity department.

5. Recoil Mitigation. Any assault rifle should have as little recoil as possible. The Russians are making progress in this area, but their AN-94 is so UGLY! The best idea seems to be the Ultimax 100 LMG. Next-generation assault rifles should take advantage of some of that science, but none do, and the XCR doesn't. No points there, but doesn't matter because the competition doesn't either. Want light recoil? Shoot 5.56. But it'd be nice to shoot 7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, and 6.5 Grendel with little recoil (muzzles brakes don't count because of the downside of blast).

6. Affordability. Any world-class assault rifle must have amazing features and yet be able to be mass-produced dirt cheap. Not saying the XCR is the next U.S. Army mass-produced weapon, but it should be affordable. Past pricing policies of RobArms is not encouraging, but, obviously, the jury is out until we see what they list it for.

Bottom line: The XCR looks promising. I'm glad they did it and I wish them success. It is perhaps the best physical embodiment to date of my "wish list" concept for an optimized assault rifle, provided production guns actually work! However, there is that niggling detail that if it's true that the XCR is no longer in the running for the SCAR program (somebody please confirm), then I'd like to know what THEY didn't like about it.

John

--------------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Quoted: However,  what if sheer idiocy, complaceny, etc. is the reason for not cleaning your weapon? That whole Jessica Lynch fiasco could have been solved if they had a weapon that didn't foul itself up ( however much I love the AR system, I will admit that it shits where it eats )? I recall that every gun they had jammed up because they didn't maintain the damn things. I'm not talking about the amount of time that goes by when rounds are being fired. I'm talking about the amount of time that it can sit there in a state of abuse and still work when needed.

I thought I read somewhere that the jams were caused by the CLP that they had coated all their weapons with and attracted the sand.

An email from Robinson in another thread... price $1200, won't be available until January 05.



Go back to sleep and start up a new thread next september when it's finally available.


Let's not get all shriked up about this.

hmm, well whatever...I think it looks cool...and judgeing by many of the guns posted here...if it looks cool...then you just have to have it. So guess what...I'll buy one.

I'd like to see some reviews/test results/ballistic results, but definitely on the watch list.

Well, not to be negative, but I've owned two Robinson's one early expeditionary rifle, and one late model recon.  Very handsome rifles...but that's as far as it goes.  Unreliable, fragile, and a PIA to take apart.  I imagine parts will be hard to get someday, because if the two I had are any indication of design and execution, RA won't be around to make them.  I switched over to ARs and haven't looked back.  I REALLY wanted to like the M96s, but I wanted a gun that works too.  My stable now consists of FALs and ARs.  They work.

My M96 has never had a problem, and went bang every time I pulled the trigger, and is as accurate as I need it to be. it has about 6000 rounds thru it. Very easy to take apart, the upper receiver stays very clean, and I use Remington DRY LUBRICANT only in this rifle.

However, there is that niggling detail that if it's true that the XCR is no longer in the running for the SCAR program (somebody please confirm), then I'd like to know what THEY didn't like about it.

I heard they got bumped because someone forgot to include a blank firing adaptor with the entry.[DOH!]

Well, I don't know anything about it.  Looks like an AR-15/AR-70/FNFAL hack job to me.  You guys go buy them all up.  I'll not give any opinions about it as I just dont know.  I do have one AR-15, one SKS, and one AK-47.  I'd say each has its own benefits and limitations.  As far as cool guns go I'd be happy if someone gave me one of those thingys off of Star Trek.  I could vaporize my neihbor and noone would ever know.  Or if my wife was bitching I could stun her and stop that too.  Perfect weopon with no ballistics, magazine problems, or unsitely gun oil :)


Think about it!!!

Wes

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it. . . . A note regarding inventors who are seen as arrogant jerks: It's usually best to look past their personality flaws and focus on the quality of their technical innovations. Consider J. Walter Christie in the 1930s. His genius was greatly advancing the military tank technology of the day, but he was an arrogant jerk who finally pissed off the wrong people and could only find a reception in Russia. The Soviets developed his concepts into the T34, which, all things considered, many consider the best tank of World War Two.

John

--------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Y'all must have been asleep.  This is a dupe!

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=201547

Quoted: I was hoping we civvies would get some innovative guns out of the SCAR program, and if the XCR is basically what Robinson Armament submitted, I applaud them for their effort. From briefly reading about this XCR, it looks like it fulfills a lot of my "wish list" items for an optimized assault rifle. 1. Reliability. I don't care HOW you make it reliable, just make progress toward the "holy grail" of a gun that never, ever jams. Gas-pistons may or may not be the best science for accomplishing this, but they do seem to be in the lead. RgrGordo says the XM8 has an 80% better MTBF rate than the current M16/M4 series. Frank of POF says his gas-piston AR is getting phenomenal reliability. HipFiredGun says pistons are leading in their reliability tests. I want reliability, and the state-of-the-art says it lies in a gas-piston.And again, we are talking theoretical conditions vs real world use. Once you surpass 2-3x the man-portable rounds count, you're in 'theoretical' territory, as no one is going to neglect their weapon that badly, and if they do a gas piston won't save them (see MAG-58/M240 in Iraq - folks who don't maintain get jammed MGs).... You can chase the holy grail if you want, but you will never reach it, and you'll give up alot along the way In general, the fewer and simpler the parts the better! Someone else has mentioned the XCR bolt has a few big lugs, a big extractor, and there's a fixed ejector. To my mind, these are all good for reliability. but bad for accuracy. Note that even the Stoner bolt has become quite common in other maker's designs, even those which are not direct gas I've been told that a bullet is 25 feet out of the barrel before gas-piston parts even START to move, so there's no technical reason those working parts should ruin accuracy. (Someone with more knowledge, please confirm.) Accuracy referrs to a semi-auto-fire group, not a first shot. In order for the 2nd shot to fire, the gun must of course cycle completely. The in-line operating system sends the recoil straight back. When you place a piston, perticularly an AK-style one ABOVE the line of the bore, you add a 'rocking' force to the gun, which decreases accuracy.. Since we are apparently talking military weapons, it should be obvious that this is even more pronounced with heavier cartridges and/or full-auto fire  And here's a stab at why AK-style gas-pistons have a reputation for reliability under combat field conditions: the heavier weight of the bolt carrier with the operating rod attached have more momentum to blast crud out of the way than a light bolt system. But since the gas doesn't enter the upper, nothing gets 'blasted' out of the way, the carrier just rides over it, untill you have an eventual jam. Since the AK is built to such an imprecise level, it theoretically can ride over more, but folks have managed to jam them in Iraq (That point is pure conjecture, but it seems reasonable.) Anyway, the tests showing better MTBF reliability for gas-pistons are not conjecture. So it's a plus that this new XCR is based on one. Not really, unless you just want it to go 'bang' in situations that will never be encountered (20,000 rounds or 7,000. It makes no difference, as NO ONE who's betting their life on their gun will ever shoot either number without a field cleaning in there somewhere), or hate cleaning guns 2. Accuracy. Depends on how well the gun fits the individual shooter, the quality of its construction and tolerances, and the standard deviation of the velocity of its ammo, as well as bullet quality. Did I mention the shooter's personal skill? We are talking inherant accuracy. Mount both guns in a fixed vise, and fire off 10rds at a 300yd target. Which one groups smaller? A poor shooter with an accurate gun will shoot better than a poor shooter with an innacurate one. As far as the XCR, we don't know at this point how accurate it is. However, the only technical reason I can think of why it might be bad is if the easy-change barrel uses a method that allows the barrel to wobble. I'm not saying it does, and it probably doesn't, but it's something to watch in any easy-change barrel system. 3-lug bolt, gas piston operation, and primitive-at-best sights, obviously intended 'for backup use only' (looks like a FAL-style sight, no elevation adjustment, etc)... 3. Ergonomics. Controls should be ambidextrous, intuitive, easy to reach, and gun should fit and balance nicely. The AR15 has for a long time lead small arms in this department. I personally think all controls---selector switch, magazine release, and bolt release---should all be operated by the trigger finger. I envision either the system used in the Bushmaster .308s or the new XM8, where both mag- and bolt-release are operable by a left or right trigger finger. And, it's my personal preference, but I'd put the selector switch above and a bit forward of the trigger, so it can be operated by the trigger finger (the current placement seems a bit clumsy). Anyway, the XCR has most of these features, and thus scores points in the ergonomics department. Current placement of AR ergonomics is 'convenient' because of the comonality between the AR and either the 1911 or 92FS. If you're used to flipping the safety & dropping mags with your thumb, it's easy to do the same on a rifle. Paddle releases & AK-style selectors are awkward for exactly this reason.... Even though I think the current stock does look good, real "businesslike," I can see that cheek weld on the metal folding stock is perhaps less than optimal for both irons and optics (the SIG550 has a more ergonomic folding stock that is more like a traditional stock). I also like the ACE Skeleton stock with the foam sleeve. Anyway, if the XCR's buttstock system is modular so a different one can easily be switched in, then all this is not a problem. 4. Modularity. Again, another strength of the AR15 series, and any optimized assault rifle should follow its example, as, indeed, new guns like the XM8 do. Buttstocks, pistol grips, foregrips, optics, barrel lengths and calibers should all be modular and customizable to any individual's preferences and any mission's requirements.But not by removing barrels themselves, the entire unit with optics should come off (ala AR & XM-8 (it does not have a quick-change bbl, even though the brocure says it does. It has a quick-change upper)... The XCR has rails for optics and for hanging stuff on the front end, and I like that the rails are built in. It's pistol grip is stock AR. Buttstock modular? Don't know. Barrels and calibers switchable? Yes, but the system must be well-engineered. I'd like one that shoots both 7.62x39 for cheap blasting and 6.5 Grendel for hunting and targets (same case head size, one bolt). Which is best accomplished with different uppers, due to the sighting issues and possible accuracy problems involving a removable barrel and return-to-zero The XCR looks good in the modularity department. 5. Recoil Mitigation. Any assault rifle should have as little recoil as possible. The Russians are making progress in this area, but their AN-94 is so UGLY! The best idea seems to be the Ultimax 100 LMG. Next-generation assault rifles should take advantage of some of that science, but none do, and the XCR doesn't. No points there, but doesn't matter because the competition doesn't either. Want light recoil? Shoot 5.56. But it'd be nice to shoot 7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, and 6.5 Grendel with little recoil (muzzles brakes don't count because of the downside of blast).AR system does this via the buffer-tube and linear recoil transmission design. Another advantage of direct impingement over the old system. The AN-94 uses a real complicated design to produce a similar effect (talk about extra parts, ugh.. Makes the gas-driven bolt on the AR seem simplistic). 6. Affordability. Any world-class assault rifle must have amazing features and yet be able to be mass-produced dirt cheap. Not saying the XCR is the next U.S. Army mass-produced weapon, but it should be affordable. Past pricing policies of RobArms is not encouraging, but, obviously, the jury is out until we see what they list it for. Bottom line: The XCR looks promising. I'm glad they did it and I wish them success. It is perhaps the best physical embodiment to date of my "wish list" concept for an optimized assault rifle, provided production guns actually work! Different strokes for different folks... I see these concepts (XM8 included) as the distrubing chance that the next US service rifle may be incapable of exceeding the prior design in inherant accuracy, in the same way that the M16 did for the M14, and the M14 did for the M1, and so on) However, there is that niggling detail that if it's true that the XCR is no longer in the running for the SCAR program (somebody please confirm), then I'd like to know what THEY didn't like about it. John -------------------------- 6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body www.65grendel.com

Quoted: Quoted: www.robarm.com/XCR%20Vert%20Grip.jpg WTF? No carry handle? now how the hell are you supposed to carry this thing anywhere? www.fnmfg.com/products/m16/m16a2.gif ....that's more like it Ummmm...ever heard of one of these? www.profhk.com/product/accessor/image/handleh.jpg

Now you've got a handle, but no sights.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.robarm.com/XCR%20Vert%20Grip.jpg WTF? No carry handle? now how the hell are you supposed to carry this thing anywhere? www.fnmfg.com/products/m16/m16a2.gif ....that's more like it Ummmm...ever heard of one of these? www.profhk.com/product/accessor/image/handleh.jpg Now you've got a handle, but no sights.

I don't know that it needs it, though. 8 years in the Infantry and I never once carried my M16s like a "suitcase". I never carry it using the carry handle, always by the delta ring area. I suppose it depends on the individual, but that is not a factor for me.

Looks cool. I'd like to own it, and about 2 dozen other weapons as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Grendelizor posted:
"The best idea seems to be the Ultimax 100 LMG. Next-generation assault rifles should take advantage of some of that science, but none do, and the XCR doesn't."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ultimax LMG uses the long-recoil system to mitigate recoil impulse.
We, at MGI, worked with Jim Sullivan(designer of the Ultimax) on an AR15-compatible design which would get as close as possible to the Ultimax, and still work in a short-recoil system like an AR-15. The result is the MGI Rate/Recoil Reducing Buffer(RRB).

It is the closest thing to the Ultimax recoil system available for short-recoil designs, and is nothing short of "stunning" in performance for the AR15. So, the "next generation" of assault rifles DOES take advantage of some of that science, and is available today for the AR15.

TWL, it's good news that someone here in the U.S. is taking recoil reduction seriously for use in next-generation assault rifles. However, pardon my ignorance, but what does "MGI" stand for, and do you guys have a website? I'd like to learn more. I've seen a PowerPoint by Charlie Cutshaw, I think it was, on something like you describe.

Will this system work in taming the recoil of the intermediate cartridges: 7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, and 6.5 Grendel?

John

------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

gas piston design upper means: more muzzle climb... I dont like.

Watch someone fire a 5.56 galil once..... after five shots on auto its an anti-aircraft gun.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.robarm.com/XCR%20Vert%20Grip.jpg WTF? No carry handle? now how the hell are you supposed to carry this thing anywhere? www.fnmfg.com/products/m16/m16a2.gif ....that's more like it Ummmm...ever heard of one of these? www.profhk.com/product/accessor/image/handleh.jpg Now you've got a handle, but no sights. I don't know that it needs it, though. 8 years in the Infantry and I never once carried my M16s like a "suitcase". I never carry it using the carry handle, always by the delta ring area. I suppose it depends on the individual, but that is not a factor for me.

IIRC, they don't like it when folks use the carry handle in BCT... Something like 'It's a rifle, not a purse'....

Quoted: ------------------------------------------------------------- Grendelizor posted: "The best idea seems to be the Ultimax 100 LMG. Next-generation assault rifles should take advantage of some of that science, but none do, and the XCR doesn't." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Ultimax LMG uses the long-recoil system to mitigate recoil impulse. We, at MGI, worked with Jim Sullivan(designer of the Ultimax) on an AR15-compatible design which would get as close as possible to the Ultimax, and still work in a short-recoil system like an AR-15. The result is the MGI Rate/Recoil Reducing Buffer(RRB). It is the closest thing to the Ultimax recoil system available for short-recoil designs, and is nothing short of "stunning" in performance for the AR15. So, the "next generation" of assault rifles DOES take advantage of some of that science, and is available today for the AR15.

Without goofing up the gas system, I'd guess...

net-fart -> dupe post...

Somebody bring back the DELETE button....

tagged

I like it.   I like it a lot.