Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 6
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:17:21 AM EDT
Quoted:
No but I have handled them. They are very nice. But not comparable to a LWRCI. Not to mention you can't change the lowers out or do too much in custom stuff. At least to my knowledge.


Hmmmm........no and my knowledge is not a good way to reinforce your argument.

Why would you want to change out a lower?

Do not get me wrong, I love my AR15s and AR10s yet my M1A is the sexiest beast I own.  However, the XCR is fast becoming one of my favorites.

Whatever accessories you can bolt on an AR15 you can bolt on an XCR.

Does the LWRC have a true monolithic receiver platform, quick change barrel assemblies, tool-less adjustable gas system, folding stock capabilites?

My biggest concern with AR15s that use a piston driven system is carrier tilt and that the op rod is miniscule (compared to the XCR's which is based off of the proven AK design).

The XCR's biggest weakness right now is the trigger, but that was greatly improved with a $10 JP Enterprises Reduced Power FCG spring.

Robinson Arms reputation is the worst thing going for the XCR.  So far they have been doing farely well.........



WooHoo, I own page 7!


Link Posted: 2/9/2009 11:01:56 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys who have not tried a LWRC or XCR do not know what you are missing.  I love AR's too, but I am not going to blindly defend them when there are clearly better choices.


What is it that you think is better?  I don;t get the whole piston craze thing.  Don;t get me wrong, I like fine, and will probably own a piston gun sometime, but my AR's have been 100% reliable... what is it I'm supposed to be missing?


Well I see you only read that post and not my others.  I don't mind repeating myself and have no problems saying it over and over again.

I think AR's are fine weapons as long as you keep them clean.  XCR's and LWRC you don't need to clean.  Trust me on this, shoot 500 rounds through the XCR and you will see there is really nothing to clean while the AR is absolutely filthy.  The XCR and LWRC runs a lot cooler, cooler is truly better, this goes for everything and not just guns.  Cars, manufacturing equimpment, computers, etc.  A cleaner and cooler piece of equipment will last longer.

The bolt on the M4 is the weak point.  An AR shooting only in semi auto will outlast most of us.  But if you read the US Army reports, it is recommended to swap out the bolt at 6000 rounds, and most definitely should be replaced at the 10,000 point.  This is for an M4 under easy usage, a M4 bolt that has been run hard in mostly full auto should be replaced much sooner.  The weak point of the M4 bolts are the lugs and cam pin hole, this is where the breakage will occur.   The XCR bolt will not have this breakage problem.  As for the LWRC, it's basically the same M4 DI bolt with the same weakness with little lugs and big cam pin hole with little walls.  But the LWRC bolts will last much longer because because like I said, it runs much cooler.  No high pressure gasses and heat to destroy the bolt like the DI M4.

But really though, this all is a moot point for 99% of us, most of us don't own FA weapons, and very few of us shoot 10,000 rounds through one weapon.  I always believed the AR to be good enough.  I believe the Garand and Mausers to be good enough too.  But I also believe in better than good enough.  

I won't fault those that are dead set on a DI AR.  There is no crime if you want to keep your AR and not try anything new and better.  There are people out there who still use their 1972 Chevelle and they are content and happy, they have no need to try anything new or better, so why should you?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 12:13:46 PM EDT
Just a few comments -

- We didn't replace bolts on M4A1s until 10k rounds. Standard M4s were almost always fired in semi auto, and didn't have true full auto available anyway.

- Bolt breakage is an issue that has a lot more to do with other issues like receiver flex, especially with the M4/KAC rail/VFG setup, the barrel was actually being forced a little out of alignment, causing the locking lugs of the bolt to not be in alignment with the lugs in the barrel extension, this is why certain lugs kept breaking. Not simply a "weak lug/lots of heat" argument. Also some piston systems (not LWRC to my knowledge) have similar problems due to excessive carrier tilt and again, the lugs of the bolt not evenly engaging the lugs of the barrel extension.

- This forum is especially troublesome, considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 1:21:44 PM EDT
Quoted:
Just a few comments -

- We didn't replace bolts on M4A1s until 10k rounds. Standard M4s were almost always fired in semi auto, and didn't have true full auto available anyway.

- Bolt breakage is an issue that has a lot more to do with other issues like receiver flex, especially with the M4/KAC rail/VFG setup, the barrel was actually being forced a little out of alignment, causing the locking lugs of the bolt to not be in alignment with the lugs in the barrel extension, this is why certain lugs kept breaking. Not simply a "weak lug/lots of heat" argument. Also some piston systems (not LWRC to my knowledge) have similar problems due to excessive carrier tilt and again, the lugs of the bolt not evenly engaging the lugs of the barrel extension.

- This forum is especially troublesome, considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.


My take is the bolt breakage problem is a weakness inherent of the carbine design. Stands to reason the higher port and residual chamber pressures produce extra stresses on the bolt. Bolt breakage was never an "issue" with the M16/A1/A2 and still isn't on rifle length gas system guns.
I do not believe the receiver flex theory. I would suspect variations of manufacture in bolts and barrel extensions instead. Also the loads applied to mine and all AR bolts are not evenly distributed due to the "missing lug" design, I.E. extractor location.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 1:28:14 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a few comments -

- We didn't replace bolts on M4A1s until 10k rounds. Standard M4s were almost always fired in semi auto, and didn't have true full auto available anyway.

- Bolt breakage is an issue that has a lot more to do with other issues like receiver flex, especially with the M4/KAC rail/VFG setup, the barrel was actually being forced a little out of alignment, causing the locking lugs of the bolt to not be in alignment with the lugs in the barrel extension, this is why certain lugs kept breaking. Not simply a "weak lug/lots of heat" argument. Also some piston systems (not LWRC to my knowledge) have similar problems due to excessive carrier tilt and again, the lugs of the bolt not evenly engaging the lugs of the barrel extension.

- This forum is especially troublesome, considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.


My take is the bolt breakage problem is a weakness inherent of the carbine design. Stands to reason the higher port and residual chamber pressures produce extra stresses on the bolt. Bolt breakage was never an "issue" with the M16/A1/A2 and still isn't on rifle length gas system guns.
I do not believe the receiver flex theory. I would suspect variations of manufacture in bolts and barrel extensions instead. Also the loads applied to mine and all AR bolts are not evenly distributed due to the "missing lug" design, I.E. extractor location.


A major manufacturer spent a good bit of money on research and that's what they came up with. Not many rifle length guns in use by people who put VFGs on them and wrench on them all day long.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 1:29:53 PM EDT
I would like to put a question to the XCR backers regarding the system they support being a "step forward".

First, could you define what step the XCR is taking forward?
**Reliability... Well its nice to see a gun can go a long way without malfunctioning but at what point is this simply wasted capability better spent elsewhere? I point to the modern gas ICE engine versus the modern diesel.... These days, with Camrys getting over 250k without anything but oil changes, do I really need a diesel with its 450k capability if I never haul anything and expect the car frame to rust away or the suspension to die or the steering to fail before then?  So then the ability to fire 7k rounds between cleanings (as another pointed out) is nice but I'm a trained marksman and the idea of not ensuring that, at all times when possible, that my weapon was clean and 100% ready for action seems to reek of unprofessionalism.

**Design... As another forum member put it, its a gun combining two 50+ year old designs... Good if it works, but the weapon is a "locked" proprietary design... making the ultimate availability of parts fairly limited. With severely limited production and the legal inability for others to "fill the need", the gun, no matter its qualities, the gun may go the way of the Sharps rifle... Superior platform but ultimately a footnote to most of the world. And a possible death certificate to the poor owner whose rifle, lacking proper part replacement, fails when s/he needs it most.

**Options... From my understanding, many attachments can be commonly shared between the AR and XCR platforms. That's great. But for professionals who can tell the difference between a 4.5 and 5.5 ounce trigger pull (not that I like either... I prefer 4.5-6.5 range myself), the ability to have a wide, deep market availability of parts of all kinds, costs, qualities, and types makes for a superior all-round platform for each person to decide the features they want. The ability to change chamberings is nice but honestly, so can the AR. In addition, an upper receiver unit costs what? $500 or so? With each upper, you can have a different range zeroed, proper headspacing, and even multiple carbine/battle-rifle/target rifle configurations and all from a multitude of manufacturers with a deep parts market.  So, is the XCR really a step forward? I can't say I see the benefit.



Second, if always taking a step forward represents the inevitable path of superiority, then why is the 1911 (almost 100 years old) still one of the preferred weapons system for professional marksmen, private individuals, USMC, SWAT teams, and others? Well, I think it comes down to the three points above. No handgun has the parts market, manufacturer spread, and configuration depth of the 1911. At some point (which I believe the chemical propellent firearm is at now), new designs are not really new at all, but improvements (or alterations or attempted improvements). And why does the fastest handgunner in the world use a revolver?



I have more thoughts to put forward but I'll leave these for now... (besides, laundry calls)
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 1:30:44 PM EDT
Quoted:

My take is the bolt breakage problem is a weakness inherent of the carbine design. Stands to reason the higher port and residual chamber pressures produce extra stresses on the bolt. Bolt breakage was never an "issue" with the M16/A1/A2 and still isn't on rifle length gas system guns.
I do not believe the receiver flex theory. I would suspect variations of manufacture in bolts and barrel extensions instead. Also the loads applied to mine and all AR bolts are not evenly distributed due to the "missing lug" design, I.E. extractor location.


The broken bolt issue came up when we started wearing guns out from shooting and not cleaning.  Prior to the war, it was unusual to put as many rounds through our guns as we do now.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 1:55:05 PM EDT
Page from the Crane Report.  

They are wrong though, you guys that say the M4 bolt will go 20k rounds know more than Crane.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:00:10 PM EDT
Quoted:
Page from the Crane Report.  

They are wrong though, you guys that say the M4 bolt will go 20k rounds know more than Crane.

http://images21.fotki.com/v759/photos/9/932051/5424951/M4Bolt-vi.jpg


Who said the bolt would go at 20k?

All the internal documents I've seen say 10k.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:05:20 PM EDT
Quoted:

... considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.



Reason you don't see XCR being made everywhere is because there is a patent and currently Robinson does not license the design out.  AR's, 1911's, and AK"s patents have long since expired.  Even you can manufacture an AK if you wanted to.  

LMT and Colts are good guns, but they are still DI's that run dirty and hot (even semi auto's can run hot under rapid fire).  DI's are good, XCR's are better, in my book anything that runs cooler and cleaner are better.  XCR's have some malfs here and there, but so does AR's.  Biggest problem I found with my XCR was the ejector screws were not loctited, once I added loctite this problem went away.  There are a lot of screws and such on the XCR, but this is a good thing, we can easily service the weapon ourselves.   If you don't mind carrying a vice and special tools to service or modify your AR, then that is ok too, as for me, given the task to complete, I will take less work over more work any day.  If you don't mind spending more time cleaning or servicing your AR, then it's all good.

There is nothing wrong with loving an AR, I just think some guys love the design too much when there are better alternatives.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:06:44 PM EDT
Quoted:
Page from the Crane Report.  

They are wrong though, you guys that say the M4 bolt will go 20k rounds know more than Crane.

http://images21.fotki.com/v759/photos/9/932051/5424951/M4Bolt-vi.jpg



XCR bolts will go much longer than 10k rounds.  
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:08:57 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

... considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.



Reason you don't see XCR being made everywhere is because there is a patent and currently Robinson does not license the design out.  AR's, 1911's, and AK"s patents have long since expired.  Even you can manufacture an AK if you wanted to.  

LMT and Colts are good guns, but they are still DI's that run dirty and hot (even semi auto's can run hot under rapid fire).  DI's are good, XCR's are better, in my book anything that runs cooler and cleaner are better.  XCR's have some malfs here and there, but so does AR's.  Biggest problem I found with my XCR was the ejector screws were not loctited, once I added loctite this problem went away.  There are a lot of screws and such on the XCR, but this is a good thing, we can easily service the weapon ourselves.   If you don't mind carrying a vice and special tools to service or modify your AR, then that is ok too, as for me, given the task to complete, I will take less work over more work any day.  If you don't mind spending more time cleaning or servicing your AR, then it's all good.

There is nothing wrong with loving an AR, I just think some guys love the design too much when there are better alternatives.


I never had to carry a vise to get my Colt M4 to run in Iraq. Neither did anyone in my platoon. Did you?

You needed to loctite a brand new $1300 weapon to get it to work, that's great. Are you sure Kimber had nothing to do with the XCR?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:09:31 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Page from the Crane Report.  

They are wrong though, you guys that say the M4 bolt will go 20k rounds know more than Crane.

http://images21.fotki.com/v759/photos/9/932051/5424951/M4Bolt-vi.jpg



XCR bolts will go much longer than 10k rounds.  


That's great, who said that the M4 bolt would go 20k rounds?

Do you have 10k rounds through your XCR?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:12:36 PM EDT
Quoted:

I never had to carry a vise to get my Colt M4 to run in Iraq. Neither did anyone in my platoon. Did you?

You needed to loctite a brand new $1300 weapon to get it to work, that's great. Are you sure Kimber had nothing to do with the XCR?


That's because you did not have a caliber conversion kit.  Soldiers are given one gun and expected to shoot it, they are not required to be armorers.  They do not have the option of going from DMR to PDW like us civilians can with our XCR's.

Soldiers are expected to do KP and Dig foxholes.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:13:53 PM EDT
Quoted:

That's great, who said that the M4 bolt would go 20k rounds?

Do you have 10k rounds through your XCR?



I have about 400 rounds through my XCR.

There are guys on the XCR forum who has had 10k rounds though, and so far no one has complained of early bolt failures.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:14:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:16:27 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

I never had to carry a vise to get my Colt M4 to run in Iraq. Neither did anyone in my platoon. Did you?

You needed to loctite a brand new $1300 weapon to get it to work, that's great. Are you sure Kimber had nothing to do with the XCR?


That's because you did not have a caliber conversion kit.  Soldiers are given one gun and expected to shoot it, they are not required to be armorers.  They do not have the option of going from DMR to PDW like us civilians can with our XCR's.

Soldiers are expected to do KP and Dig foxholes.


So what does needing a vise have to do with servicing the weapon?

I guess the XCR would be better at digging foxholes if you could lock the stock perpendicular to the rifle?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:18:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:18:14 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

That's great, who said that the M4 bolt would go 20k rounds?

Do you have 10k rounds through your XCR?



I have about 400 rounds through my XCR.

There are guys on the XCR forum who has had 10k rounds though, and so far no one has complained of early bolt failures.



Well then, in 400 rounds, you've certainly proven the weapon.

I fired more than twice that many the first day I was issued my Colt M4, and I had a single malfunction at the 850 round mark, a stuck case. Mortar, a little lube, off I went.

Care to share how many malfunctions you've experienced, including the pre-loctite era?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:20:28 PM EDT
Quoted:

So what does needing a vise have to do with servicing the weapon?

I guess the XCR would be better at digging foxholes if you could lock the stock perpendicular to the rifle?


Why do you need to lock the stock perpendicluar?  It is not a pick, but a shovel right?  

XCR makes a better shovel, you can bend the buttstock of the XCR and the rifle still will be serviceable, hell you can even break off the buttstock and the XCR will still shoot.  Bend a M4 buttstock tube and rifle is no longer serviceable.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:22:27 PM EDT
Quoted:

Well then, in 400 rounds, you've certainly proven the weapon.

I fired more than twice that many the first day I was issued my Colt M4, and I had a single malfunction at the 850 round mark, a stuck case. Mortar, a little lube, off I went.

Care to share how many malfunctions you've experienced, including the pre-loctite era?



I am not here to prove weapons or test the durability or reliability of them.  It's only a hobby to me.  I enjoy new stuff.  I love M4's, I love XCRs, I love LWRC, and I am hoping to one day enjoy a SABR and maybe even a SCAR.

You asked me how many rounds I shot through my XCR and I answered.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:24:38 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Page from the Crane Report.  

They are wrong though, you guys that say the M4 bolt will go 20k rounds know more than Crane.

http://images21.fotki.com/v759/photos/9/932051/5424951/M4Bolt-vi.jpg


Supposedly the E3 bolt by KAC will, im working on it now, check back with me in a few years ;) I'd trust the KAC guys over oh I dont know, some unknown on a forum.
Each is not a standard Ar/M16 bolt however.


How much do one of those bolts run?  Would it not be cheaper just to buy an entire LWRC?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:26:18 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

So what does needing a vise have to do with servicing the weapon?

I guess the XCR would be better at digging foxholes if you could lock the stock perpendicular to the rifle?


Why do you need to lock the stock perpendicluar?  It is not a pick, but a shovel right?  

XCR makes a better shovel, you can bend the buttstock of the XCR and the rifle still will be serviceable, hell you can even break off the buttstock and the XCR will still shoot.  Bend a M4 buttstock tube and rifle is no longer serviceable.



Only M4s I've seen rendered unserviceable by outside physical force are those damaged by IED or other explosions.

Never saw anyone try to open a door with one, when we have a black bag full of heavy tools and shotguns with breaching rounds, why bother?

The problem you speak of is essentially nonexistant.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:29:02 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

Well then, in 400 rounds, you've certainly proven the weapon.

I fired more than twice that many the first day I was issued my Colt M4, and I had a single malfunction at the 850 round mark, a stuck case. Mortar, a little lube, off I went.

Care to share how many malfunctions you've experienced, including the pre-loctite era?



I am not here to prove weapons or test the durability or reliability of them.  It's only a hobby to me.  I enjoy new stuff.  I love M4's, I love XCRs, I love LWRC, and I am hoping to one day enjoy a SABR and maybe even a SCAR.

You asked me how many rounds I shot through my XCR and I answered.


And yet you claim the XCR is newer and better.

It's technically newer, but if you have to loctite parts after malfunctions, it's not better. And therefore I am not unjustified in clinging to my aging ARs.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:33:30 PM EDT
Quoted:

Only M4s I've seen rendered unserviceable by outside physical force are those damaged by IED or other explosions.

Never saw anyone try to open a door with one, when we have a black bag full of heavy tools and shotguns with breaching rounds, why bother?

The problem you speak of is essentially nonexistant.


You asked and I answered, you were the one that wanted to use the weapon as a shovel, not me.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:40:23 PM EDT
Quoted:
I
**Options... From my understanding, many attachments can be commonly shared between the AR and XCR platforms. That's great. But for professionals who can tell the difference between a 4.5 and 5.5 ounce trigger pull (not that I like either... I prefer 4.5-6.5 range myself), the ability to have a wide, deep market availability of parts of all kinds, costs, qualities, and types makes for a superior all-round platform for each person to decide the features they want. The ability to change chamberings is nice but honestly, so can the AR. In addition, an upper receiver unit costs what? $500 or so? With each upper, you can have a different range zeroed, proper headspacing, and even multiple carbine/battle-rifle/target rifle configurations and all from a multitude of manufacturers with a deep parts market.  So, is the XCR really a step forward? I can't say I see the benefit.

I have more thoughts to put forward but I'll leave these for now... (besides, laundry calls)


Not in today's market.  Show me one vendor who has a complete upper (even with std handguards) w/ BCG for $500 in stock and I will buy 10.

If Robinson Arms was smart they should entice barrel makers to start making barrels for the XCR free of licensing but to their exact specs for waranty issues.  Look how bad Bill Alexander screwed the pooch with the 6.5 Grendel and that was only for a cartridge design.

How long did it take for someone else to make AUG clone?  How long did it take for a competitor to rise up against Amalite's AR10.  Yeah, Knight's has been around but their goods are not directed at the civilian market.  In those terms, the XCR is still in the womb.

WOW I own page 8 too!  Ok who's messing me?
 

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 2:43:47 PM EDT
Quoted:

And yet you claim the XCR is newer and better.

It's technically newer, but if you have to loctite parts after malfunctions, it's not better. And therefore I am not unjustified in clinging to my aging ARs.


Yes it is newer and better.  But if you don't think so, that is ok too.  There are guys who still believe Garands and iron sites are all you need.

The extractor is the only thing you really need to loctite, but if you don't think this is enough then you can always get it riveted in.  Rivets are cheap and easy to take off.  If you don't feel comfortable riveting it then I am sure Robinson can do it fo you.  I myself like that RobArms gave us the option to use screws.  I don't ever plan to replace the extractor on mine so I have it in there with red loctite.  I am not afraid of red loctite as I have taken off many bolts with it by just using a lighter.

Lets go over why XCR is better.  Now this list might now work for you but it works for me:

1) Runs cooler (but it's ok if you like a weapon that runs hotter)
2) Runs cleaner (but this might not work for you as you like to clean weapons)
3) Has quick barrel change option (but you don't like this option, you feel more comfortable taking it to a gunsmith)
4) One piece upper (you think this is a gimmick, take any design that does the same thing, I'll take the simpler)
5) Folding stock (but you don't like stocks that fold)
6) Can use it has a door pounder or shovel.  
7) Bolts last much longer (don't know what the negative here is, but this must be a gimmick too?)


Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:01:21 PM EDT
GeorgeCostanza:  In my experience you don't NEED to loctite the ejector in place.  I didn't do it on mine and I am way past the 12,000 round mark with a very tight ejector.  There have only been a few cases that keep getting repeated over and over again on all the Forums out of the 5,000 or so XCR out there.

And for those of you who think wanting to loctite a part is synanomis with a bad design, what about carrier keys or extension nuts?  Both those parts on AR's are supposed to be "staked" properly to insure proper function.  Loctite - stakeiing, what's the difference?  What about AR's inherrant weak extractor where people are always adding aftermarket springs or funny little O-rings to maintain proper pressure.

ETA: People keep saying "Extractor".  It is not the extractor that has loostened on some rifles prompting the use of loctite.  It is the "Ejector".  Two very different parts.  XCR "Extractors" are massive, and much more robust than an AR extractors which have been prone to fail.

Dog
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:03:01 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

And yet you claim the XCR is newer and better.

It's technically newer, but if you have to loctite parts after malfunctions, it's not better. And therefore I am not unjustified in clinging to my aging ARs.


Yes it is newer and better.  But if you don't think so, that is ok too.  There are guys who still believe Garands and iron sites are all you need.

The extractor is the only thing you really need to loctite, but if you don't think this is enough then you can always get it riveted in.  Rivets are cheap and easy to take off.  If you don't feel comfortable riveting it then I am sure Robinson can do it fo you.  I myself like that RobArms gave us the option to use screws.  I don't ever plan to replace the extractor on mine so I have it in there with red loctite.  I am not afraid of red loctite as I have taken off many bolts with it by just using a lighter.

Lets go over why XCR is better.  Now this list might now work for you but it works for me:

1) Runs cooler (but it's ok if you like a weapon that runs hotter)
2) Runs cleaner (but this might not work for you as you like to clean weapons)
3) Has quick barrel change option (but you don't like this option, you feel more comfortable taking it to a gunsmith)
4) One piece upper (you think this is a gimmick, take any design that does the same thing, I'll take the simpler)
5) Folding stock (but you don't like stocks that fold)
6) Can use it has a door pounder or shovel.  
7) Bolts last much longer (don't know what the negative here is, but this must be a gimmick too?)




Here's the stickler for me:

Requires modification to work properly immediately upon delivery of BRAND NEW weapon.

I clean my weapons once or twice a year. I shoot a lot, too. Several thousand rounds a month. I just keep adding lube.

I can change barrels or uppers in my garage. I can have a monolithic upper, or a lighter weapon if I want too. I'm not doing PSD work in my Mini so the folding stock is of limited value, but I could just buy an AK again if I wanted that.

When 10,000 or 100,000 XCRs hit 10k rounds without broken bolts, I'll be impressed. Because half a dozen people on the internet claim to have done so does not impress me.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:04:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:24:03 PM EDT
Quoted:

Here's the stickler for me:

Requires modification to work properly immediately upon delivery of BRAND NEW weapon.

I clean my weapons once or twice a year. I shoot a lot, too. Several thousand rounds a month. I just keep adding lube.

I can change barrels or uppers in my garage. I can have a monolithic upper, or a lighter weapon if I want too. I'm not doing PSD work in my Mini so the folding stock is of limited value, but I could just buy an AK again if I wanted that.

When 10,000 or 100,000 XCRs hit 10k rounds without broken bolts, I'll be impressed. Because half a dozen people on the internet claim to have done so does not impress me.



Robinson now loctites all the ejectors (thanks for the clarification maddog!).  Also as Maddog said, how about carrier keys needing loctite and even staking?  Is that not a bad design?  So if both weapons need loctite how come the XCR is a bad design and the AR is not?  If needing loctite makes something a bad design, then that means every race car and race motorcycle must also be a bad design.  AR needs loctite but yet it is a good design... I am getting confused now.  I guess we have to consult you first on what is and what is not a bad design?  

So you are telling me you go thousands of rounds between cleaning?  I guess if it works it works.  As for me, I clean my AR's after every 500 rounds or so, that is dirty enough for me.  The AR is just caked with junk at the 500 round point, I just feel better when it's clean.  The XCR on the other hand, there is really nothing to clean at 500 rounds.

Not that many XCR's are out there, but it seems those that do own them are happy with them and the overall design.  

Again I just want reiterate is nothing wrong with loving an old design.  Nothing wrong with loving Garands or AR's.  Just don't bash those of us that like something newer and better and for thinking the XCR is newer and better.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 3:25:42 PM EDT
Quoted:

If you have money to burn its not really an issue
They are sold in the new SR-15 E3, not a stand alone item... I'd prefer KAC over LWRC. they just have the legs to back everything up... but thats just me and well a few others belief ;)

You guys have beaten this issue to death. It will fall into the dust pan of history like other xyz v abc threads.
Do remember you are in AR DISCUSSION, not "piston system like an AR but not discussion", as such of course this is going to be AR15  fan club with end users supporting it strongly.



I think we are doing a pretty good job of keeping it technical for a A vs. B thread.  

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 4:07:07 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

Here's the stickler for me:

Requires modification to work properly immediately upon delivery of BRAND NEW weapon.

I clean my weapons once or twice a year. I shoot a lot, too. Several thousand rounds a month. I just keep adding lube.

I can change barrels or uppers in my garage. I can have a monolithic upper, or a lighter weapon if I want too. I'm not doing PSD work in my Mini so the folding stock is of limited value, but I could just buy an AK again if I wanted that.

When 10,000 or 100,000 XCRs hit 10k rounds without broken bolts, I'll be impressed. Because half a dozen people on the internet claim to have done so does not impress me.



Robinson now loctites all the ejectors (thanks for the clarification maddog!).  Also as Maddog said, how about carrier keys needing loctite and even staking?  Is that not a bad design?  So if both weapons need loctite how come the XCR is a bad design and the AR is not?  If needing loctite makes something a bad design, then that means every race car and race motorcycle must also be a bad design.  AR needs loctite but yet it is a good design... I am getting confused now.  I guess we have to consult you first on what is and what is not a bad design?  

So you are telling me you go thousands of rounds between cleaning?  I guess if it works it works.  As for me, I clean my AR's after every 500 rounds or so, that is dirty enough for me.  The AR is just caked with junk at the 500 round point, I just feel better when it's clean.  The XCR on the other hand, there is really nothing to clean at 500 rounds.

Not that many XCR's are out there, but it seems those that do own them are happy with them and the overall design.  

Again I just want reiterate is nothing wrong with loving an old design.  Nothing wrong with loving Garands or AR's.  Just don't bash those of us that like something newer and better and for thinking the XCR is newer and better.



Loctite is not a requirement per TM. Staking is. It's something that any good AR manufacturer will do prior to delivering the rifle to the end user.

Your argument that Robinson "gives you the option" of loctiting parts on the XCR is like saying that a shitty AR manufacturer "gives me the option" of carrier key staking. If it is required for function, it should be done before I ever see the rifle.

This goes back to my earlier point, about the varying quality between AR manufacturers. If I buy a good AR it will come staked. But if I buy an XCR it may be loctited? Or it may not be?

You keep saying the XCR is newer and better, but it is just a combination of two 50+ year old designs (so how is it newer, in any sort of technical sense?), and it offers nothing that other weapons on the market (such as the Sig 556) offer (so how is it better?).

Yes, I have put thousands of rounds between cleanings, with no malfunctions, even did so with a 5.45 AR-15 shooting corrosive ammo.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 5:10:45 PM EDT
Quoted:

Loctite is not a requirement per TM. Staking is. It's something that any good AR manufacturer will do prior to delivering the rifle to the end user.

Your argument that Robinson "gives you the option" of loctiting parts on the XCR is like saying that a shitty AR manufacturer "gives me the option" of carrier key staking. If it is required for function, it should be done before I ever see the rifle.

This goes back to my earlier point, about the varying quality between AR manufacturers. If I buy a good AR it will come staked. But if I buy an XCR it may be loctited? Or it may not be?

You keep saying the XCR is newer and better, but it is just a combination of two 50+ year old designs (so how is it newer, in any sort of technical sense?), and it offers nothing that other weapons on the market (such as the Sig 556) offer (so how is it better?).

Yes, I have put thousands of rounds between cleanings, with no malfunctions, even did so with a 5.45 AR-15 shooting corrosive ammo.


Alright lets split hairs now for fun.. Sure I'll play along.  I am not a stubborn dude like you, I can agree on some points if the points are valid.  You on the other hand have some kind of personal agenda or something.

I myself follow the rule of using loctite for any small bolts and screws on a gun.  Scope mounts, scope screws, rail screws etc all have bolts that should be loctited.  I am sure if you have a modified AR, somewhere there will be a bolt that needs loctite.  

I am glad we have an expert on here telling us what is required for function and what is not.  So you say staking does not prove the design is flawed and that is "required" by the TM.  I am glad you speak of TM, what part of the TM where does it say you have to stake?  There is no TM for the XCR because the XCR is not Gov't rifle.  I guess all we need to do is put it in the TM and it becomes law!  

Also how come HK, XCR, FAL, and M14's don't require staking on their bolts?

I do agree with your point somewhat in that why did RobArms use bolts on the ejector instead of rivets?  It is not like I ever plan to replace the ejector.  However, loctite does work just fine, and few if any have reported problems when using loctite for ejector bolts, which now comes standard with loctite already on them from the factory.  Also you have to admit, it is nice to be able to replace the ejector yourself if it ever does fail.

I agree, the XCR is new but it nothing revolutionary, but yet it is the only rifle of it's kind.  It has ergo's of an AR (pistol grip, sights, safety selector), bolt design like an AK, and a charging handle like an FAL.  I believe at the time the AR was invented in the late 50's, gas guns were not a new concept either.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 5:18:19 PM EDT
I do not use loctite on any of my ARs. Optic mounts, yes. No other parts.

You call me stubborn yet you keep throwing around the phrase "newer and better" without anything to back it up.

There's nothing new about it, it's just a regurgitation of old designs. Doesn't matter if the AR was revolutionary or not 50 years ago, I don't care.

The XCR will never have a TM because it will never be adopted, in any way, shape, or form, by the US military.

Google "ARMY TM 9 1005 319 23&P", page 3-17.

This is immaterial. A good AR will already have the carrier key staked. AR-15s don't need the bolt staked, neither do FALs or any of the others you mentioned. Do you even have a concept of what we are discussing here?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 5:22:57 PM EDT
Quoted:
I do not use loctite on any of my ARs. Optic mounts, yes. No other parts.

You call me stubborn yet you keep throwing around the phrase "newer and better" without anything to back it up.

There's nothing new about it, it's just a regurgitation of old designs. Doesn't matter if the AR was revolutionary or not 50 years ago, I don't care.

The XCR will never have a TM because it will never be adopted, in any way, shape, or form, by the US military.

Google "ARMY TM 9 1005 319 23&P", page 3-17.

This is immaterial. A good AR will already have the carrier key staked. AR-15s don't need the bolt staked, neither do FALs or any of the others you mentioned. Do you even have a concept of what we are discussing here?



Carrier, Bolt Carrier, Bolt, its all the same to me.

The XCR is newer than the AR, it is also better.  I already went over why the XCR is better.  But I don't mind going over it again.

1) Runs cooler (but it's ok if you like a weapon that runs hotter)
2) Runs cleaner (but this might not work for you as you like to clean weapons)
3) Has quick barrel change option (but you don't like this option, you feel more comfortable taking it to a gunsmith)
4) One piece upper (you think this is a gimmick, take any design that does the same thing, I'll take the simpler)
5) Folding stock (but you don't like stocks that fold)
6) Can use it has a door pounder or shovel.
7) Bolts last much longer (don't know what the negative here is, but this must be a gimmick too?)

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 5:37:52 PM EDT
The bolt is main reason the XCR is better than the AR, lets go over the slides of Crane Research why the AR bolts sucks







I am thinking the Army should issue microscopes to go with each AR cleaning kit so all soldiers can inspect there lugs.  Safety first man!



Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:08:08 PM EDT
The next set of slides is from the same presentation will show how the heat and pressure leads to barrel throat erosion faster.  On top of that, not cleaning and AR can wear your barrel faster by getting more gunk in the throat area and unburned particles getting in the gas port.   Whether you like to admit it or not, not cleaning an AR is not something you should be practicing.

I will say again, shoot 500 rounds from an FAL, XCR, and LWRC and you will see there is really not much to clean.  The AR is absolutely filthy at this point .  On top of running under higher pressure, running hotter, it also runs dirty!  Dirty is not good.  Go thousands and thousands of rounds in your AR before cleaning if you want to, as for me I will not go past 500 rounds.   It is your rifle and you do with it as you please






Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:20:43 PM EDT
I pull a $1500 XCR out the box and it is a better gun than any of the $1200 Stag, or $2000 Colt, period

Unless AR15's suddenly learned to run cleaner, cooler, with all around stronger parts, with a QD barrel and multi-caliber option.

Obviously some will say they dont need such features. Bet your ass if the AR15 could do half of what the AR15 does it would be hailed as the 2nd coming.

And I own an LWRC and XCR. XCR is better
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:39:32 PM EDT
Quoted:
I pull a $1500 XCR out the box and it is a better gun than any of the $1200 Stag, or $2000 Colt, period

Unless AR15's suddenly learned to run cleaner, cooler, with all around stronger parts, with a QD barrel and multi-caliber option.

Obviously some will say they dont need such features. Bet your ass if the AR15 could do half of what the AR15 does it would be hailed as the 2nd coming.

And I own an LWRC and XCR. XCR is better


$1200 Stag? What?

Nark, a member here, just bought a NIB Colt 6520 for $1200. From a dealer.

I'm continuing to read the XCR troubleshooting forum, and it is enlightening to say the least. Before I came in this thread, I at least thought of the XCR as a quality, reliable weapon, just not something that floated my boat. Now I see that people are having issues right out of the box.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:39:58 PM EDT
Quoted:
The bolt is main reason the XCR is better than the AR, lets go over the slides of Crane Research why the AR bolts sucks

http://images26.fotki.com/v912/photos/9/932051/5424951/M1-vi.jpg

http://images21.fotki.com/v759/photos/9/932051/5424951/M4Bolt-vi.jpg

http://images42.fotki.com/v1447/photos/9/932051/5424951/m2-vi.jpg

I am thinking the Army should issue microscopes to go with each AR cleaning kit so all soldiers can inspect there lugs.  Safety first man!
http://images27.fotki.com/v980/photos/9/932051/5424951/m3-vi.jpg

http://images25.fotki.com/v946/photos/9/932051/5424951/m4-vi.jpg


So where are the slides showing long term testing of the XCR bolt?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:42:35 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
I
**Options... From my understanding, many attachments can be commonly shared between the AR and XCR platforms. That's great. But for professionals who can tell the difference between a 4.5 and 5.5 ounce trigger pull (not that I like either... I prefer 4.5-6.5 range myself), the ability to have a wide, deep market availability of parts of all kinds, costs, qualities, and types makes for a superior all-round platform for each person to decide the features they want. The ability to change chamberings is nice but honestly, so can the AR. In addition, an upper receiver unit costs what? $500 or so? With each upper, you can have a different range zeroed, proper headspacing, and even multiple carbine/battle-rifle/target rifle configurations and all from a multitude of manufacturers with a deep parts market.  So, is the XCR really a step forward? I can't say I see the benefit.

I have more thoughts to put forward but I'll leave these for now... (besides, laundry calls)


Not in today's market.  Show me one vendor who has a complete upper (even with std handguards) w/ BCG for $500 in stock and I will buy 10.

If Robinson Arms was smart they should entice barrel makers to start making barrels for the XCR free of licensing but to their exact specs for waranty issues.  Look how bad Bill Alexander screwed the pooch with the 6.5 Grendel and that was only for a cartridge design.

How long did it take for someone else to make AUG clone?  How long did it take for a competitor to rise up against Amalite's AR10.  Yeah, Knight's has been around but their goods are not directed at the civilian market.  In those terms, the XCR is still in the womb.

WOW I own page 8 too!  Ok who's messing me?
 



Per your request,

http://www.ar15-kits.com/
http://www.stagarms.com/index.php?cPath=14_24
http://www.texasstargroup.com/5.html
http://www.jtacsupply.com/ar15completeupperreceivers.aspx
http://www.ar15pro.com/category/263-AR15_Uppers.aspx

I can find more if you're looking for something specific...

In addition, I doubt many AR fans would care to own the first gen AR15/M16... I wouldn't. I never buy the first generation anything these days. Waiting for a third gen product ensures most of the "womb" issues are either sorted out and fixed or revealed and known. I know not what role others may have for their ARs or XCRs, but the one in this home will serve the same duty the RIA 1911 and the Rem. 870 do.

So, if the XCR is in the womb, then by that admission my first point (regarding the Reliability, Design, and Options/supply) bears out. The XCR is an un-proven platform. Time tells all things. So, my second point remains unanswered. Perhaps I should clarify. I believe that a weapon system using a metallic cartridge system (as opposed to black powder or paper) and of good performance for the duty it was designed or intended for cannot, until the day of magnetic or gravity impeller weapons or mass use of caseless weapons, be "outdated" in light of the simple fact that a gun which shoots well (again, given its purpose) and reliably over the expected operating intervals (ten rounds or 10,000). So, if a sniper cares to engage a target with a Sharps rifle or the latest .50cal, if there is only going to be one shot, who is to say the .50 really is the better gun?

By comparison, civilian shoot outs with criminals rarely last more than a few rounds; one side or the other normally dies or quits. So, the ability to fire 1k or 10k or 100k rounds in succession without cleaning or maintenance of any kind really seems like bragging that your car's engine will stand 50,000 miles without an oil change. Seeing as how few people ever see that kind of mileage in a year, much less the six month intervals... The capability seems nice, but pointless to the concerned car owner.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:44:13 PM EDT
Quoted:
The next set of slides is from the same presentation will show how the heat and pressure leads to barrel throat erosion faster.  On top of that, not cleaning and AR can wear your barrel faster by getting more gunk in the throat area and unburned particles getting in the gas port.   Whether you like to admit it or not, not cleaning an AR is not something you should be practicing.

I will say again, shoot 500 rounds from an FAL, XCR, and LWRC and you will see there is really not much to clean.  The AR is absolutely filthy at this point .  On top of running under higher pressure, running hotter, it also runs dirty!  Dirty is not good.  Go thousands and thousands of rounds in your AR before cleaning if you want to, as for me I will not go past 500 rounds.   It is your rifle and you do with it as you please


http://images42.fotki.com/v1447/photos/9/932051/5424951/m5-vi.jpg

http://images23.fotki.com/v766/photos/9/932051/5424951/m6-vi.jpg



The average range day for my platoon would encompass anywhere from 500 to 1500 rounds. We did not clean our rifles during this time. And yet I witnessed several rather amazing groups fired at the end of the day.

All these slides show is that throat erosion is bad, and gas port erosion is bad, no shit.

The rest of the conclusions are drawn by you and you alone.

You do know that in the ATEC test, every rifle - SCAR, HK416, XM8, M4 - had erosion to the point that headspace was way off and cases were being torn apart? B-B-But - I thought it was the heat and pressure of the AR-15 that caused erosion!
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:47:49 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm continuing to read the XCR troubleshooting forum, and it is enlightening to say the least. Before I came in this thread, I at least thought of the XCR as a quality, reliable weapon, just not something that floated my boat. Now I see that people are having issues right out of the box.



Hell, I read about 30 seconds worth and the AR15 design sucks ass...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=3&f=66
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 6:49:50 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm continuing to read the XCR troubleshooting forum, and it is enlightening to say the least. Before I came in this thread, I at least thought of the XCR as a quality, reliable weapon, just not something that floated my boat. Now I see that people are having issues right out of the box.



Hell, I read about 30 seconds worth and the AR15 design sucks ass...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=3&f=66


Allow me to repeat myself...

Quoted:
- This forum is especially troublesome, considering how the XCR is supposed to be a "step forward"; there's only one manufacturer of the XCR, and production is therefore controlled by one entity, unlike AKs or ARs or 1911s where the quality can vary greatly by manufacturer. If people were piecing together XCRs out of parts bins or there was a bargain basement XCR manufacturer selling them for $500, the amount of issues seen in this forum would be excusable. However, given the price, and the fact that there is only one manufacturer, one can hardly call the XCR at this point "better" than an AR in the same price range, such as an LMT or a Colt.


Why don't you dig through and see how many people are complaining about Colt or LMT or Bravo Company in the troubleshooting forum.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 7:05:40 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

My take is the bolt breakage problem is a weakness inherent of the carbine design. Stands to reason the higher port and residual chamber pressures produce extra stresses on the bolt. Bolt breakage was never an "issue" with the M16/A1/A2 and still isn't on rifle length gas system guns.
I do not believe the receiver flex theory. I would suspect variations of manufacture in bolts and barrel extensions instead. Also the loads applied to mine and all AR bolts are not evenly distributed due to the "missing lug" design, I.E. extractor location.


The broken bolt issue came up when we started wearing guns out from shooting and not cleaning.  Prior to the war, it was unusual to put as many rounds through our guns as we do now.


Again I disagree.  More M16s have been fielded than M4s.  The M16 is not famous for broken bolt syndrome. The M4 is.
Same thing goes for the AR-15 type rifle and M4 'Fourgery" type Carbine.

How many threads are there on broken rifle bolts?
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 7:40:31 PM EDT
Quoted:

The average range day for my platoon would encompass anywhere from 500 to 1500 rounds. We did not clean our rifles during this time. And yet I witnessed several rather amazing groups fired at the end of the day.

All these slides show is that throat erosion is bad, and gas port erosion is bad, no shit.

The rest of the conclusions are drawn by you and you alone.

You do know that in the ATEC test, every rifle - SCAR, HK416, XM8, M4 - had erosion to the point that headspace was way off and cases were being torn apart? B-B-But - I thought it was the heat and pressure of the AR-15 that caused erosion!



You guys shot for groups at the end of the day?  I thought you only did that at the beginning when zero'ing.   Recycling gunk is bad.   That is why you should clean your AR like the way you change your car oil.  Hot gases are bad, but hot gases with gunk is worse.  I am sure those 1500 round days were mostly in full auto right?  Probably did what 5 or 6 of those days without a clean and weapons still run flawless?

Please don't take no offense when I say I am going to believe a Crane Report over you.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 7:42:18 PM EDT
Quoted:
Again I disagree.  More M16s have been fielded than M4s.  The M16 is not famous for broken bolt syndrome. The M4 is.
Same thing goes for the AR-15 type rifle and M4 'Fourgery" type Carbine.

How many threads are there on broken rifle bolts?


When I was in we shot a lot of blanks, and had some live fire excercises, but they shoot way more now then we did back then.  Rifle system is easier than a carbine system, but I am sure if we would have shot our A3's the amount they shoot now, we would see a lot of failures too.

Link Posted: 2/9/2009 7:46:30 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:

The average range day for my platoon would encompass anywhere from 500 to 1500 rounds. We did not clean our rifles during this time. And yet I witnessed several rather amazing groups fired at the end of the day.

All these slides show is that throat erosion is bad, and gas port erosion is bad, no shit.

The rest of the conclusions are drawn by you and you alone.

You do know that in the ATEC test, every rifle - SCAR, HK416, XM8, M4 - had erosion to the point that headspace was way off and cases were being torn apart? B-B-But - I thought it was the heat and pressure of the AR-15 that caused erosion!



You guys shot for groups at the end of the day?  I thought you only did that at the beginning when zero'ing.   Recycling gunk is bad.   That is why you should clean your AR like the way you change your car oil.  Hot gases are bad, but hot gases with gunk is worse.  I am sure those 1500 round days were mostly in full auto right?  Probably did what 5 or 6 of those days without a clean and weapons still run flawless?

Please don't take no offense when I say I am going to believe a Crane Report over you.



We would check zero, then shoot all day and then shoot long distances, Gunny wanted us to do that because he said we wouldn't always be well rested and fresh when we had to shoot accurately.

We shot our M4s in semi, I think I fired a single 3 round burst in my entire time in the military, just not how we were trained.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 7:58:56 PM EDT
87GN, give it up this discussion is like dealin with H&K koolaid drinkers, I will never own a XCR after the disaster I had with the m96, all I recived from Robinson was BS answers while they had my m96 for months.  With todays climate Robinson could be out of business in a year, than what?  Hmmmmm like was posted above I sold all my Grendal parts and rifles thanks to AA making it as hard as possible to get parts, ammo, etc.  With a AR you will always be able to get parts.  Can you say that for the XCR?  I'm not saying the XCR is bad, but I dont see it a step forward, I dont see the Sig as one either.  Yes I had a Sig, it had no real advantaes over my AR's.  I have over 15000 rds in my Carbine, uess what it gets cleaned when I feel like it, I lube it and use it.  The bolt is still intact without crack, yes its a carbine, even worse its a Bushy.  It is acutualy being abused just to see wha it will take, I also have some LMTs (MRPs) and a custom middys.  No probs there either.  If I wanted a gas piston desing I would get a LMT or LWRC, never mind I did.  To me this is just a pissing contest, the DI design is proven, my 20" has never had one problem, come to think of the .mils have not either.  What I see here is XCR owners trying to justify their unproven platform on a proven platform to give it credibility.  To me the abilty to get parts down the road FAR outweight any of the arguments put forward.  When you use I shot 5000+ plus rounds without cleaning, with 100% reliabilty argument your saying I dont give a shit about my equipment, hell in every war when you were down you cleaned your weapons, from Springfields, M1 Garands and Carbines, Thompsons, M14, to M16's Hell even MaDuces are cleaned.  If your in a situation where your firing that many rounds you have far worse problems then a dirty weapon.

ETA, Do you change your oil in your car?
Page / 6
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.