Armory Sponsor
MCX: Generation 3/SPEAR LT (Page 44 of 47)
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: He didn't respond in the HK thread, either, so I'm guessing this was not normal use. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: He didn't respond in the HK thread, either, so I'm guessing this was not normal use. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Who is "our"? |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: He didn't respond in the HK thread, either, so I'm guessing this was not normal use. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Please go into detail on this test. What parameters were utilized? What was the end goal? How was the upper configured? Was the handguard on? Was it dropped? Was it put into a vice at the weakest point and yanked on? Details, please. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2024
Posts:
624
EE: 0% (0)
CHL
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: COC #6. Congratulations, you just made it to my ignore list. Why you think you can condescend to me for no reason is a reflection of your character. [Click]. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: What test, troll? COC #6. Congratulations, you just made it to my ignore list. Why you think you can condescend to me for no reason is a reflection of your character. [Click]. You may want to thicken your skin around here if that sets you off. lol What organization did this "test" and what were the protocols? |
|
He hasn't answered yet, and instead deflected several times. If he answers, it'll still be a lie. It looks like it was run over by a truck without the barrel being present. I would anticipate that any force directed in such a way would have resulted in deformation of the upper in the barrel recess. |
Don't feed the troll - account registered a month ago, 600+ posts and nothing but GD-level trolling comments across every forum - while spouting off about the rules  Post style is very similar to another troll user, wouldn't surprise me if it's the same person |
|
Originally Posted By JAG2955: He hasn't answered yet, and instead deflected several times. If he answers, it'll still be a lie. It looks like it was run over by a truck without the barrel being present. I would anticipate that any force directed in such a way would have resulted in deformation of the upper in the barrel recess. As a tester myself, I can appreciate edge cases on both hardware and software. However, it needs to be taken into context. Having a hard crash or catastrophic failure induced from circumstances that'll never be experienced in the field or by end users is still fun information to know. I just want to know the details. |
| Has Sig done any Grendel or Arc barrels? I always assumed these must be hard to make barrels for because there doesn't seem to be much of an aftermarket. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It's actually worse than that. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: He didn't respond in the HK thread, either, so I'm guessing this was not normal use. It's actually worse than that. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Posting up some photos of a trashed upper with a vague single sentence blurb about “testing protocol” is on the verge of trolling. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2024
Posts:
626
EE: 0% (0)
CHL
|
Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Originally Posted By WUPHF: If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. |
Communists Aren't People.
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Originally Posted By WUPHF: If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. You're full of shit. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Originally Posted By WUPHF: If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. No, you have yet to explain the test in which it failed. I can make just about any product fail, any tester worth his salt can especially when talking about edge cases It's important to understand the context of a test in which a failure resulted and not just discuss the failure itself. Your conclusion is bullshit. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Originally Posted By WUPHF: If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. I said you were intentionally being vague, not that you intentionally damaged the part. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to elaborate on what these tests consisted of could leave some wondering if the damage was intentional, though. It’s a relevant question. Dropping a rifle off of a 50ft shooting platform onto concrete could certainly be considered a test, although I’d struggle to see the relevancy for the vast majority of end users, especially without a direct side by side comparison of the same test with other platforms. The funniest part here, I don’t even own a SPEAR LT. I just find it asinine someone would purchase a multi thousand dollar firearm with the intention of running it through a bunch of tests, but then steadfastly refuse to report anything of material value about said test. Why even share in the first place? “Hey guys, I broke this part! I won’t tell you how it broke or what I did to it to make it break, but just so you know, it’s capable of being broken!” Great, the same can be said for every firearm in existence. Thanks for the info, I guess? |
|
Originally Posted By WUPHF: I said you were intentionally being vague, not that you intentionally damaged the part. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to elaborate on what these tests consisted of could leave some wondering if the damage was intentional, though. It’s a relevant question. Dropping a rifle off of a 50ft shooting platform onto concrete could certainly be considered a test, although I’d struggle to see the relevancy for the vast majority of end users, especially without a direct side by side comparison of the same test with other platforms. The funniest part here, I don’t even own a SPEAR LT. I just find it asinine someone would purchase a multi thousand dollar firearm with the intention of running it through a bunch of tests, but then steadfastly refuse to report anything of material value about said test. Why even share in the first place? “Hey guys, I broke this part! I won’t tell you how it broke or what I did to it to make it break, but just so you know, it’s capable of being broken!” Great, the same can be said for every firearm in existence. Thanks for the info, I guess? Well said. This test may be legitimate or not, it really doesn’t matter. The results are only interpretable if you also know what the test was, how it was conducted and what the motivations to conduct such a test were. Showing only the results and expecting a proper discussion to follow is foolish Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References |
Looking for No forge code, square forge, forward assist upper, GX-5857 spec. IM me if you have one for sale.
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Has Sig done any Grendel or Arc barrels? I always assumed these must be hard to make barrels for because there doesn't seem to be much of an aftermarket. I have seen a pic of a sig upper on display that was 6mm arc, said US Army under it. I'll try to find it and post it. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Let's kick the shenanigans into high gear! @coregon  I would have loved to have known the mechanism of action that caused the failure, but the poster decided to be vague about who, why, and how in multiple threads and in multiple replies, thus my callout. I don't see a failure of that magnitude occurring without some serious abuse. |
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Has Sig done any Grendel or Arc barrels? I always assumed these must be hard to make barrels for because there doesn't seem to be much of an aftermarket. 6mm arc |
|
Originally Posted By Gunslinger97: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Has Sig done any Grendel or Arc barrels? I always assumed these must be hard to make barrels for because there doesn't seem to be much of an aftermarket. 6mm arc Just need them to make one in the 6 ARC pmag receiver dimensions. Would sell stuff to grab that. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By WUPHF: You’re being extremely vague, I’d venture to guess intentionally at this point. I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Originally Posted By WUPHF: If there’s a legitimate concern for durability, I’m sure everyone would love to hear about it. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. Do us a favor. As my dad would say “put up or s—t up” Post what you did or pull the post. Otherwise you lack any credibility and your post is low class. This is a tech Fourm not a troll forum. |
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: I mean, it was tested . . . it failed. Are tests where you don't *want* the product to fail, but it does anyway "intentional?" Maybe. I assure you that we did not set out to intentionally ruin a $600 (ish) part. We purchased the rifle with our own funds. It's very presumptuous and frankly offensive for you to make such a conclusion that we would intentionally ruin a perfectly good gun/gun part. The fact of the matter is that this was not a good part. Moreover, it's perplexing that you would attack me with such an allegation. I'm sorry if I disrupted your worldview about the LT. Res ipsa loquitur, man. I didn't just share the photos of the aftermath, I provided enough of an explanation as to *why* it happened. It's a design flaw. The upside of it is that they do make the part available for replacement. So if your department or agency does want to take the risk, it's not like this kind of failure would be irreparable. My conclusion is that this forum is for people who don't want their worldview about the MCX Spear LT, so I'll kindly see myself out. Hope you all have a good rest of your 2025. 
|
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It's actually worse than that. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Originally Posted By T-Minus: Originally Posted By JAG2955: He didn't respond in the HK thread, either, so I'm guessing this was not normal use. It's actually worse than that. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. Looks like the “ran over it with a truck” protocol to me. Or maybe the good old Russian “pushups while balanced on top of your rifle” protocol. Ether way, it goes beyond the use case of a rifle. You can cave a man’s skull in with it if that’s important to you, you just have to use a little technique and not be a neanderthal. If you use your rifle like a 12 pound hammer, you’ll break it. |
|
Does anyone know if the 11.5" 5.56 upper assembly has actually been discontinued? I've seen "discontinued" on a few reseller sites, but the Sig site just shows OOS. I have a 6.75" 300BLK Rattler and want to get a 5.56 upper for it. This is the specific one I'm referring to... https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-spear-lt-11-5-ar-conversion-kit-5-56-nato-black.html |
|
Proven Arms & Outfitters shows them in stock MCX Spear Lt 11.5 |
|
Originally Posted By methical20: Any chance that we will see a 10.5" CSAW release on the commercial side? I don't like the 11.5". But I'll absolutely buy a 10 5". |
|
Originally Posted By Daggertt: I've been holding out for this. Before the LT was released, there were photos floating around of a 10.5" version which i was very hopeful would be in the new LT lineup and was disappointed when it wasn't. I don't like the 11.5". But I'll absolutely buy a 10 5". Attached File Attached File Attached File |
On Time. On Target.
| Bro where can I get one? |
|
Originally Posted By coregon: Originally Posted By Daggertt: I've been holding out for this. Before the LT was released, there were photos floating around of a 10.5" version which i was very hopeful would be in the new LT lineup and was disappointed when it wasn't. I don't like the 11.5". But I'll absolutely buy a 10 5". https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232800/IMG_2769_jpg-3447712.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232800/IMG_1998_jpg-3447713.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232800/IMG_1997_jpg-3447714.JPG Nice. Here's hoping y'all offer it in your anodized coyote tan and not just black. |
|
Originally Posted By Cops66: Just means they put a contract upper on a consumer lower. Doesn’t mean anything. Originally Posted By Cops66: Originally Posted By methical20: No third pin.. so is that a yes? Just means they put a contract upper on a consumer lower. Doesn’t mean anything. True, however Coregon's blushing face emoji to the question if the 10.5 is coming to civilian side tells us that something is coming. |
|
Don't give me hope like that Coregon. |
|
Tell us more about that birdcage clutch-lok mount. |
|
Originally Posted By T-Minus: It's actually worse than that. It wasn't undergoing any use at all. It's brand new and unused. The rifle had never been fired. It failed our testing protocol. I suspect your "testing protocol" involves laying the upper across a gap and jumping up & down on it.  Obvious Troll is Obvious. |
Joined:
Feb 2025
Posts:
1
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
I wanted a Draco but got this instead Attached File Attached File |
|
Just stumbled on this in one of the mcx fb groups. Seems like a cool idea. Pre orders only for now though. Adjustable gas valve |
''Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.''
|
New version of the old Kate Moss. $250. I will stick with the original until the price come down. https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-mpx-trax-stock-assembly-locking-hinge-black.html |
|
Originally Posted By triode: New version of the old Kate Moss. $250. I will stick with the original until the price come down. https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-mpx-trax-stock-assembly-locking-hinge-black.html Nice. Looks like about a .75" rise with the plastic clip on? |
|
Originally Posted By triode: New version of the old Kate Moss. $250. I will stick with the original until the price come down. https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-mpx-trax-stock-assembly-locking-hinge-black.html I have both and went right back to the kate moss lol. Also the plastic riser fits the kate moss tightly even without the inside plastic piece. |
MCX: Generation 3/SPEAR LT (Page 44 of 47)
Armory Sponsor