Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/13/2004 8:28:55 PM EST
This might be off topic.

www.robarm.com/xcrtm_modular_weapon_system.htm

Well, that's different.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 8:38:51 PM EST
Looks nice but the site is all fluff and talk. "it is more durable". How so? Why is it the "finest assault rifel" ever built???? I'll wait till it is proven in several wars before I spend my $$ on it. To many good guns out there to buy.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 8:39:58 PM EST
I defected to a RobArms M96 for almost a year.. now I own, well, many AR pattern rifles and no M96. I wonder if they learned anything this time around?

-z
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 8:44:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 8:51:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 8:52:51 PM EST by Dave_A]
Piston driven and 'Finest Assault Rifle' do not belong in the same sentance...

Basically, that gun in 6.8 or 7.62xwhatever is the M16-hater's wet dream...

Unfortunately, aside from the quick-change barrel, none of the 'mods' are usefull...

They got rid of the AR's bolt & gas system (the best part of the design)...

So you get AK accuracy with a 5.56 or 6.8 cartridge... Oh-booyyee...

PASS... Might as well get a SAR-3 and save some $$$
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 9:11:22 PM EST
I bet that thing runs over $1600.00............Looks good though
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 9:15:05 PM EST

SCAR entry?


Jason
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 9:18:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Oh my...I bet it has a piston driven upper everyone will spooge all over themselves about.


Interesting. Screwed up with the folder instead of going collapsible in my opinion.
The .308 version might be interesting.




Agree 100%. You took those words right out of my mouth. Not modular as ARM16 family...don't like that.

/S2
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 9:21:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 9:22:42 PM EST by JackBurton]

Originally Posted By Zak-Smith:
I defected to a RobArms M96 for almost a year.. now I own, well, many AR pattern rifles and no M96. I wonder if they learned anything this time around?

-z



Same here, I liked my M96 because I admire the Stoner 63. It was a great rifle, but it had a number of issues that took it out of the "if this was my only rifle..." category. The biggest being the pins that hold the upper and lower together that can be knocked loose. Sold it and now have two ARs.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:56:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 9:04:29 PM EST by BESAFE]
HOOO boy.
Boys, you really do not know what you are talking about. I have seen, held and fired this rifle first hand. I have assisted in the manufacturing setup to produce this rifle. If you still think the carbon dumping gas system in the AR is the best part then I wonder what you would call the worst part.
The gas driven piston system is proven to be more reliable.
And as for accuracy, this is no AK, I have seen 5 shot 1" groups at 100 yds with the 16" light weight barrel in .223 and under 1/2 inch groups with the heavy barrel 6.8 with complete reliability.
It is a upper and lower setup and is completely modular, the rails are integral so you don't have to mess around with hanging anything on the front end like the AR. The barrels are fully free floating from the get go. And the rails and quick change barrel bore will be machined together in one setup, you can't get any more aligned than that.
The barrel can be changed in about sixty seconds, you can take a 24 "barrel/scope combination that you have previously zeroed, swap out the existing 16" barrel setup using open sights with the longer barrel/scope setup in about sixty seconds and have complete point of impact repeatability. You can them switch back to the short barrel setup and again have the repeatability, all with one upper. If you change the caliber this will take a little longer, maybe 3 minutes becuase you have to change the bolt but even then you will have no change in the point of impact from a previously zeroed setup. I am not saying all three barrels will shoot to the same zero with one set of sights, but a worked in sight/ barrel combination will hit in the same dialed in position every time. I have not seen an AR with this capability. Plus you can have multiple uppers if you like.
The AR is a great weapons system, I own 2, but this is better.
But again this is just my informed opinion, you are correct, only time will prove it.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:03:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:04:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By BESAFE:
HOOO boy.
Boys, you really do not know what you are talking about. I have seen, held and fired this rifle first hand. I have assisted in the manufacturing setup to produce this rifle. If you still think the carbon dumping gas system in the AR is the best part then I wonder what you would call the worst part.
The gas driven system is proven to be more reliable.


Reliable like my M96's gas piston breaking after approx 1500 rounds, rendering it inoperable for the 2-3 months it took to get a replacement? Don't bother excusing it; I learned that lesson.

Carbon fouling blowing into the AR15 action is minor compared to the dust that will infiltrate a rifle's action. Bringing up the "M16 shits where it eats" is a red herring in this discussion - it just doesn't matter. Sand, gravel, enough fine rock dust, sure, will slow down an AR action an eventually cause malfs, but powder fouling, no way. A stock Rock River doesn't need to be cleaned for a couple thousand rounds at least. Are you implying that guys who live in the field don't clean their weapons - regardless of type - any chance they get?

The barrel can be changed in about sixty seconds, you can take a 24 "barrel/scope combination that you have previously zeroed, swap a 16" barrel setup using open sights with the 24" barrel/scope setup in about sixty seconds and have complete point of impact repeatability.
Just like you can with an MRP, 'cept I think it's quicker on an MRP


You can them switch back to the short barrel setup and again have the repeatability, all with one upper. If you change caliber this take a little longer becuae you have to chage the bolt but even then you will have no cahnge in the point of impact from a previously zeroed setup. I am not saying all three barrels will shoot to the same zero with one set of sights, but a worked in sight/ barrel combination will hit in the same dialed in position every time. I have not seen an AR with this capability.

MRP.

-z
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:13:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By BESAFE:
HOOO boy.
Boys, you really do not know what you are talking about.



Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I'll just go on living in ignorance if you dont mind.


Aww, cut him some slack, he is after all an independent source of info on this spectacular bullet hose.


Price is gonna be a deciding factor. Anything over the price of your average AR and Robinson Arms can go back into weapons manufactuer obscurity for all I care.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:19:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 9:39:59 PM EST by BESAFE]
Looks like I may have stirred up something here. The lessons from the past have been taken into consideration. I am sure you have all seen the response to the group buy for the piston driven H K Ar15 upper on this forum, I doubt there would be so much interest if there was not something to the piston setup.
I would never imply that those who carry firearms for their survivial would not properly take care of them.
I think that there is a bit of "turf protecting" going on here.
Like I said time will tell. New designs do come around now and then and they can be an improvement, I think that anyone who thinks that an AR design is the "end all" of gun designs is limiting themselves.
I am pretty sure that this reply will get flamed so I will not respond again.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:24:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:29:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By BESAFE:
HOOO boy.
Boys, you really do not know what you are talking about. I have seen, held and fired this rifle first hand. I have assisted in the manufacturing setup to produce this rifle. If you still think the carbon dumping gas system in the AR is the best part then I wonder what you would call the worst part.
The gas driven piston system is proven to be more reliable.
And as for accuracy, this is no AK, I have seen 5 shot 1" groups at 100 yds with the 16" light weight barrel in .223 and under 1/2 inch groups with the heavy barrel 6.8 with complete reliability.
It is a upper and lower setup and is completely modular, the rails are integral so you don't have to mess around with hanging anything on the front end like the AR. The barrels are fully free floating from the get go. And the rails and quick change barrel bore will be machined together in one setup, you can't get any more aligned than that.
The barrel can be changed in about sixty seconds, you can take a 24 "barrel/scope combination that you have previously zeroed, swap out the existing 16" barrel setup using open sights with the longer barrel/scope setup in about sixty seconds and have complete point of impact repeatability. You can them switch back to the short barrel setup and again have the repeatability, all with one upper. If you change the caliber this will take a little longer, maybe 3 minutes becuase you have to change the bolt but even then you will have no change in the point of impact from a previously zeroed setup. I am not saying all three barrels will shoot to the same zero with one set of sights, but a worked in sight/ barrel combination will hit in the same dialed in position every time. I have not seen an AR with this capability. Plus you can have multiple uppers if you like.
The AR is a great weapons system, I own 2, but this is better.
But again this is just my informed opinion, you are correct, only time will prove it.



You seem to have missed alot:

1) The AR gas system is 'the best part' because of the accuracy potential it provides.

2) 'Gas piston reliability' is meaningless in comparison to the AR. It does not matter if the gas-piston gun can shoot 10 combat-loads between cleaning and the AR can shoot 7... No profesisonal soldier is going to shoot 7 loadouts without cleaning enough to prevent malfunctions (eg a 5min chore that can save your life)... And if they do, well, it's not a flaw in the weapons system, it's an operator-headspace issue...

3) Put the XCR up against a similarly priced AR, open sights, 300m. See which groups smaller... My money would be on the AR.

4) The standard AR equivalent is swapping uppers. This allows you to have one iron-sight setting for each rifle, AND/OR one optic setting... As opposed to a pile of optics & barrels, and no assurance that the barrel & optic will seat in the exact same position for return to zero.

With the AR you have that assurance...

5) Where do you get your 'informed' opinion, anyway? Snopes.com?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:42:28 PM EST
BESAFE,

As background for you, I am an engineer by trade. My main hobby is competing in 3Gun, other tactical rifle matches, and IPSC-type pistol. I shoot about 10,000 rounds a year, conservatively. I have owned something like 8 AR15's, 1 RobArms M96, an AR10, several FALs, and I have trigger time on full-auto M4s, HK G36s, FALs, AK47/74 & Krinkov, and subguns.

Let's just say I'm extremely skeptical of the hype based on the following:

1. Personal experience with M96 rifle,
2. Personal lack of customer service from RobArm,
3. Repeated mantra of "gas guns bad, piston guns good" when carbon fouling just isn't a problem,

4. Indicators of bad ergonomics and poor features, such as:

a. trigger group. I demand to be able to choose either a best-in-class two-stage trigger or a best-in-class single-stage trigger. The RRA 2-stage NM trigger exemplifies the first, and the JP SS exemplifies the latter. The last RobArms rifle I shot had a trigger barely better than a FAL, or a Glock. Come on.

b. useable adjustable/telescoping stock. WTF are they thinking with a tubular metal folding stock? The great advantage of the AR15 telescoping stocks is that you can pull them out for conventional shooting styles, or prone, and then shorten them up if you're squaring off to the targest to CQB-type shooting. The other important point here is the cheeck weld. The Magpul M93 stock provides both rock-solid and consistent cheek weld.

c. sight plane / cheek weld ergonomics. This is another thing the M16 got right, and the M14, FAL, AK47, M96, et al, got wrong. Modern carbines and rifles use optics, and those optics must be mounted some distance above the mounting surface (ie, the rail). The M96's stock was designed so a proper cheekweld put your eye in the right position to use low-mounted iron sights, like the Garand, M1A, FAL, AK, etc. When you mount optics another 1" higher, your cheek weld disappears and your head needs to float in space. It looks like the XCR repeated this mistake yet again.

d. Eye relief. Does anyone actually understand this except people who shoot a lot? Certainly people who set up demo photos don't. Look at how the ACOG is mounted in the last picture and tell me how that's going to work.

I'm sure the list goes on, but I've only seen pictures of it so far.

Oh, and 5, general making-an-ass-of-one's-self-in-public: www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116942

-z
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:21:51 PM EST
Simply put, an AR15 is a Rifelmans Rifle.

If I want a piston driven rifle designed for abuse and reliability with a handful of sand in the receiver, I'll spend $500 on a high quality AK clone, not $1500+.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:34:31 PM EST
That gun will probably wind up being around a $1400 to $1600 novelty. They carge about that much for the M96. It will have to be under $1000 or it will be a complete failure. I'll stick with my three ARs thank you. BTW, my ARs don't jam and the beat to shit M-16A2s I was issued in the Marines didn't jam either.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:15:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
Simply put, an AR15 is a Rifelmans Rifle.



That title was reserved for the Winchester 70.

The AR15/M-16 is the mouse that roared.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:40:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 1:43:24 AM EST by Master_Blaster]

Originally Posted By Zak-Smith:
...general making-an-ass-of-one's-self-in-public: www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116942
-z



If it is the real Alex Robinson in that thread, then color me nonplussed.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:48:15 AM EST
DAVE A, you make a good argument when you basically say there's a point of "reliability overkill," whereby nobody can carry and fire a ton of rounds per day in real combat anyway. (And if you're in that heavy of combat constantly, your odds for this world are probably not long!) But this is where I get skeptical: You seem to be saying, "Sure, an M16/M4 will jam after many thousands of rounds, but if you just keep it clean it will be as reliable as any gun." You imply that if one simply cleans his M16/M4 every night that in the morning he's then "starting over" in the reliability cycle. If that were true, then you'd have invented a "jam-free" rifle, just by virture of keeping it clean! Is that what you're saying? And if that's true, why does the military waste all that time and money "torture-testing" weapons, if the answer is maintenance?

Anyway, Dave, to your credit I have to admit I'm having a hard time answering your "reliability overkill" argument. I see what you're saying and it makes sense on a certain level, but I'm still mulling it over. But we can visit that again some other time; I've got questions for BESAFE.

BESAFE, is the buttstock system on the XCR modular in the sense that ARs are? Your website says they will be making changes to the buttstock system on production guns; what will those changes be?

Could you get RobArm to show pictures on your site of the left side of the gun? That would be informative.

What can you tell us about the XCR and it's relationship to the SCAR program?

Finally, I might dig for some questions, but I'm not intending to make you defensive. I think the XCR "looks promising" and have posted as such on another thread in this forum.

John

-------------------------
6.5 Grendel: The new .30-06
www.65grendel.com
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:02:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:

What can you tell us about the XCR and it's relationship to the SCAR program?

John




From what I heard and that is mentioned on other threads is that the XCR is NOT in the running for SCAR, but it was Robinson's intention to use the XCR in the trials (if it didn't fail on the first day).

ls
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:12:33 AM EST
LordStoner, so the XCR has not been torture tested by an independent entity? Not the biggest deal in the world, but it would have been nice to have had that info as things move forward.

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: The New .30-06
www.65grendel.com
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:49:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
LordStoner, so the XCR has not been torture tested by an independent entity? Not the biggest deal in the world, but it would have been nice to have had that info as things move forward.

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: The New .30-06
www.65grendel.com



From what I've heard, the XCR failed SCAR because the each rifle kit wasn't complete (missing the Blank-Firing Attachment). I wonder if Rob fired the guys that packed those rifles for Crane....

Either way, I think the only testing this rifle system has seen is from the employees and friends of RobArms.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:49:13 AM EST
I've handled and shot the XCR prototype during design and testing. I live in the Salt Lake area, and I'm a local 3gun nut, so that's how I got invovled.

I will try to answer the questions, but I do not work for the company, and there are plenty of things that I don't know. Zak and I have already gone around about this over on THR. :) I respect and value his opinions because looking at the matches that he has attended and how he scores, he is a better 3gunner than I am.

This gun is way different than the M96. Internally they are very different guns. The M96 still had a stoner style bolt, (except for the fixed ejector) and the op rod disconnected from the bolt carrier when stripped. On the XCR the op rod is attached to the bolt carrier like on an AK. It is much more solid.

As for accuracy, I have only shot one of them from the bench. Using a knock off of a Leatherwood scope, 14 inch light weight barrel, (which had about 5,000 rounds of full auto through it) I was able to shoot several groups that were around MOA at 100 yards. This was with PMC ammo. Many of the groups were three touching, other two a little bit apart. I am not the best bench shooter, and I imagine that this is a sub MOA rifle easily. The barrel is free floated.

The stock design has been mentioned. I do know that this is not the final stock design. I have not seen it yet, but I have been told about it. I don't know if I'm at liberty to discuss it, but it will be adjustable for length, and will be modular in design. To address some of Zak's points, I believe that the regular stock will be changeable for a higher version for better cheek weld when using higher optics. This is one of the things that I spoke with them about while I played with it.

I used the gun with AR irons (GG&G flip up), the Leatherwood, and some no name red dot. With the scope, and red dot it was a good cheek weld even with the tube stock. At first I thought that the irons would be too high, but they were not as bad as I thought. They are about 1/2 an inch higher than on an AR I believe. Though like I said, the stock on it is not going to be the final stock.

On the more durable claims, I can only go off of what I've seen. The whole upper is one solid chunk of machined aluminum. It feels very strong. There is no cam slot hole in the bolt. It is a round piece of steel machined right off of the bolt that rotates in the carrier. So no breaking at the cam slot. There are three great big lugs on the bolt instead of several little ones. The ejector is fixed.

It is an interesting design with some neat features. After being involved with the development of the prototype, I want one. I do not know what the price is going to be, but I think that it will be comparable with a nice AR after you put on a good rail system.

I do not have a left side picture. I will pass that request along the next time I speak with Robarm. The charging handle is similar to an Izzy FAL (w/ forward assist).

I believe that the XCR was originally designed for the SCAR testing. I do not know anything about where that is at, or what is going on. I'm just a beta tester.

In my opinion I think that it is a very nice gun with a whole lot of potential.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:37:30 AM EST
Thanks, Correia, it still looks promising.

Questions: 1. What's that piece of metal held on by two pins that's mounted directly to the rear of the ejection port? 2. If the buttstock is modular, is it modular for RobArm proprietary parts or for stock AR parts or some other existing gun parts?

John

--------------------
6.5 Grendel: The New .30-06
www.65grendel.com
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:36:59 AM EST
I believe the thing you are talking about is a brass deflector. I know that one was pinned on, but I don't know about the final.

The stock is going to be proprietary. I think.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:24:47 AM EST
From its build it looks like a G3 meets a G36 (AR Knock off anyhow) on top of an AR. You guys should stop talking smack until it gets reviewed by more folks. At least it is an American Co. trying to make a new firearm.

ie. Springfield Armory & Colt have been making the same damn thing for 50 years or more.. now that is something to make fun of...
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:37:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By NODDAH:
At least it is an American Co. trying to make a new firearm.




That I will give Robinson credit for. They're taking a chance with a new design in hopes of success. I wish them luck. If they can keep the price down to a reasonable level, it may be a fun firearm to mess with.

Link Posted: 9/22/2004 12:39:54 PM EST
Correia,

If you know, why doesn't the XCR use a port dust cover?
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 1:05:47 PM EST
Master Blaster, I don't know.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 2:41:48 PM EST
Some one pointed out on the M94.org forum that the XCR resembles the HAC-7. What do you guys think? Personally, they look similar, but the only thing similar internally is the gas piston design. The HAC-7 has a unique bolt carrier assembly design which ads in initial extraction.

XCR



HAC-7
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 3:20:03 PM EST
It also looks like a refined version of the 1970's Bushmaster Assault rifle with rails and flip up sights



Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:38:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 5:40:31 AM EST by SIGNAL4L]
This issue needs to be resolved before I would consider a Robarm product. The possibi;ity of brain injury/death and a lack of product liability insurance is a bit of a turn off

http://www.biggerhammer.net/m96/wwwboard/index.cgi?read=5987
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:54:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By SIGNAL4L:
This issue needs to be resolved before I would consider a Robarm product. The possibi;ity of brain injury/death and a lack of product liability insurance is a bit of a turn off

http://www.biggerhammer.net/m96/wwwboard/index.cgi?read=5987



From my understanding, from an engineering standpoint it has been resolved. Mods have been made to prevent these occurrences from happening. The main beef though with RobArms has been that when they discover they have a design flaw, they don't offer free, or at least discounted upgrades, to customers with the defective product -- they just let customers know an improved part is available for sale. I know this ahs been the case with their op rod redesign. I wouldn't have any qualms about purchasing a current generation M96 because the bugs have been worked out by this point. Problem is, the things are pretty pricey.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:06:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By SIGNAL4L:
This issue needs to be resolved before I would consider a Robarm product. The possibi;ity of brain injury/death and a lack of product liability insurance is a bit of a turn off

http://www.biggerhammer.net/m96/wwwboard/index.cgi?read=5987



That's some scary shit! It makes you think about buying a used M96.

Here's a hotlink to the write-up: M96 goes BOOM!

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:30:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 6:30:38 AM EST by _DR]
deleted
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:28:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
DAVE A, you make a good argument when you basically say there's a point of "reliability overkill," whereby nobody can carry and fire a ton of rounds per day in real combat anyway. (And if you're in that heavy of combat constantly, your odds for this world are probably not long!) But this is where I get skeptical: You seem to be saying, "Sure, an M16/M4 will jam after many thousands of rounds, but if you just keep it clean it will be as reliable as any gun." You imply that if one simply cleans his M16/M4 every night that in the morning he's then "starting over" in the reliability cycle. If that were true, then you'd have invented a "jam-free" rifle, just by virture of keeping it clean! Is that what you're saying? And if that's true, why does the military waste all that time and money "torture-testing" weapons, if the answer is maintenance?

Anyway, Dave, to your credit I have to admit I'm having a hard time answering your "reliability overkill" argument. I see what you're saying and it makes sense on a certain level, but I'm still mulling it over. But we can visit that again some other time; A jam-proof rifle is impossible, however a functionally reliable rifle is. The point is that with proper maintanance, the MTBF for either system will be indistinguishable.

Army AAR studies from OIF indicate that proper maintanance IS the distinction between units with weapon jamming problems and those where it all works properly. And since we are talking about units like the 507th that jammed guns using every operating system from blowback to direct gas, to gas piston, the AR system is not to be blamed at all in these areas, if it was the M249s & M240s (gas pistons) as well as M2HBs (blowback) would not have jammed. That gun jamming problems tend to be accross-the-board sould indicate it's an operator problem, not a gun problem...


I've got questions for BESAFE.

BESAFE, is the buttstock system on the XCR modular in the sense that ARs are? Your website says they will be making changes to the buttstock system on production guns; what will those changes be?

Could you get RobArm to show pictures on your site of the left side of the gun? That would be informative.

What can you tell us about the XCR and it's relationship to the SCAR program?

Finally, I might dig for some questions, but I'm not intending to make you defensive. I think the XCR "looks promising" and have posted as such on another thread in this forum.

John

-------------------------
6.5 Grendel: The new .30-06
www.65grendel.com

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:31:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By NODDAH:
From its build it looks like a G3 meets a G36 (AR Knock off anyhow) on top of an AR. You guys should stop talking smack until it gets reviewed by more folks. At least it is an American Co. trying to make a new firearm.

ie. Springfield Armory & Colt have been making the same damn thing for 50 years or more.. now that is something to make fun of...



You don't see me bashing LMT for their MRP, do you?

I just have a heavy distaste for the 'Cult of the AK gas system'....
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:54:19 PM EST
I think the LTC that was pitching the XM-8 on Ermy's Mail Call had a part in this quote:
Caliber changes only require the replacement of the barrel, bolt, and magazine. The change can be made in less than 5 minutes with little loss of zero. Available in 5.56 NATO and 6.8 calibers in barrel lengths of 11.5”, 14.5”, 16.2, 18.5” , and 20”.
Other than that, I can't form an opinion until I shoot one. Unless this is going to be the new XM-9
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 12:44:51 AM EST
Ok, I have been waiting a few years for this product to come in from Robinson Armament personally. I like some of the design especially the piston driven system, big fan personally. When I go home on leave in a few weeks I plan to visit Robinson Armament and buy a VEPR in 7.62x51 and possibly an XCR-depends on how close it is to what some of the proposed modifications that were put in it from the original program.
BTW (Idon't mean to be a jerk here), but the M-2 is recoil operated. Also is it not possible that a gas piston gun may not require the exact cleaning an M16/M-4 requires in these climes. Is it also not possible foregoing maintenance like the above mentioned army unit did lead to disaster for them, but I am kind of curious if the same level of neglect would produce the same results in a gas piston operated gun??? Just shooting at the moon here I could be wrong (been so before). I pesonally think the direct gas system is crap and always has been-it requires too many things to be perfect.
Yes, it probably is more accurate than a piston driven gun-but accurarcy is secondary to having the stupid thing work more often. I personally am not overly fond of the M16 series, because everytime I have to point it at somebody I wonder to myself if this piece of crap that I spend 6-8 hours a week cleaning is going to work. When in comparison I spent 6-8 hours a month cleaning my AK and never having any doubts when I have done the same. (Personal opinion here). I know it will stir up a hornets nest but hey it's my opinion.
Also what ground are you doomsayers standing on about this weapon, how many of you have ever actaully seen, held or fired one???? I'll hold my opinion on it until I actually shoot it then we'll see. But then of course I could be wrong it happens...

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 2:41:46 AM EST
You worry if your AR will fire? What knd of POS AR do you have? Mine has never misfired unless it was a bad mag which causes multiple jams per magazine (like the old 10 round Bushmaster frankenmag) other than that it is perfect. Its just as reliable as my AK was.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:05:32 AM EST
Well first of all I do not carry an AR15 I carry an M16A4 at this time. I consider the magazine which is also a major cause of malfunctions part of the weapon and not an accessory. Sometimes you only get one chance to make sure it works. I have already seen too many malfunctions in the M16/M4 over here to make me feel comfortable. I've carried AK's that were made in the 40's and 50's that had shoddy maintenance and care done and felt more safe with one of those than my out of the box G.I. Issue M16A4 (personal opinion here again). And, yes AK's do jam and break-just in my experience not as often.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:49:50 AM EST
Has anyone got a pic of the left side of this rifle? I've only seen a pics of this rifle from one angle. More pics please.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:53:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By KMFDM:
Well first of all I do not carry an AR15 I carry an M16A4 at this time.




An M16A4 is one version of an AR15. AR15 is an all inclusive term which the M16A4, M4A1, M16A1, etc. are a version of.

Just because you have a select fire AR15 doesn't nescessarly make it an M16.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:22:46 AM EST
Using phrases like "at this time" and "over here," I think KMFDM is telling you that he is in Iraq and his issued rifle is the M-16A4.

Cheers
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:51:31 AM EST
Anyone who says that an AR isnt reliable and requires a piston is full of shit, misinformed, or selling something.

Any semiauto magazine fed rifle retailing for more $1000 is too costly to manufacture effectively, overpriced, or somebody's trying to gouge you.

Take two ARs that are identical save for one having a piston system, they'll shoot the same as eachother.

The gas tube/direct impingement system of the AR is superior to a piston design because it has less moving parts. There are FAR more handguard options possible with a stock AR gas system.

There is a reason that the free and civilized world (and most all specops) use the AR15/M16 versus the AK, FAL, M14, SIG55X, G36 (super hunk of shit), or even the FAMAS.

Let me finish all this by saying that I have piston operated uppers for sale right now. The standard AR gas system is unreliable and must be changed!!!11!!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 3:41:27 AM EST
Ok I guess I am full of S**t then. Oh well, I guess I can live with that. hehehehe.

I am not saying the M16 is not reliable, It is just not reliable enough for my taste. Mine more often than not works but also there a 3 others in my squad + 13 others in my platoon (A "little" understrength) that I have to rely on to also possibly give cover to myself and others that don't take as good care of their weapon as is required, because the weapon requires too much maintenance to often for the average soldier to care about in my experience. My buddy got in a firefight last week (the only one in my company thus far) and "jammomatic" was the name of the day for him-and yes he cleaned his weapon the night before. I have seen too many times in this climate weapons malfunction.

If the M-4/M16 is so reliable then why do I replace so many parts on it so often in my other job (mostly M-4 mind you)???????????. It causes more headaches for guys I work for than the SAW.

Why then is USASOC and the big army running replacement programs now-i.e. SCAR and XM-8?

Modularity is nice I like it. The M-16/M4 is very good for that it is very "user friendly" in a lot of ways-I can dangle all sorts of new and improved heavy things on the front of my rifle now that catch on all sorts of things on my way out of my 'track and Humvee while trying to pull security after an IED has gone off. I don't know what they do for reliability. But I can probably add a tactical can opening device under my flashlight so I can see enough to open a can of "beenie weenies" in the dark, yum-yum while doing an IED call (hey you out there, there must be somebody who can make the can opening device-there probably is someone dumb enough to buy one out there=I'll buy one: I can see it now the "XM-69A1E3 Tactical D.C.O. (Device, Can Opening)-improments over earlier models It has a stand-alone system that allows it to be used when detached from the weapon, It has an A.R.M.S. quick release mount A laser pointer to guide in alignment (visible and an additional I.R. filter at a low price of just 69.99). A titanium blade, carbon fibre handle and of course a no glare phosphated finish. At a cost of only 799.00 per unit.

Maybe I can find a way to add an AKSU on the Picatinney rail system so I'll stop bitching and shut up about carriying an M16 and that would probably make people more happy with me here. Oh snaggle-puss, wait a second the REMF's in Bn. HQ Co. got all the full length rail systems to decorate their M16's (that never leave the FOB, BTW) and the M68 CQB optics and almost all of the ACOGs. Doggone it, I guess I'll have to keep on bitching then, hehehehe

If that is what being full of S**t is well then I can live with that.......

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:39:46 AM EST
Well this is a primary example of one Key board commando thinking he knows more than the actual guys fielding these weapons. Look we all like the AR series otherwise we wouldn't be here. Is it the best rifle out there? Well that of course is debatible but I know this for one thing, it is not the finest weapon that will ever be built. And knowing that I'm realistic enough to know when a 40 year old design can and will be replaced when necessary. Is it the Robarm? probably not, but the XCR looks like a fine rifle in itself. There is nothing wrong with talking up their own products. If people want one and can afford, they will. I happen to like my m16A1 in USAF better than the A2's.......and on top of that I like my FAL the best. Just my personal preference.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:54:40 PM EST
FWIW
I have owned 2-AR's And two AK's and I admitt to likeing both. Each one has there good point's as well as there not so good points. Would I want and AK for Urban combat out to 300 yards? N0!
But then again I wouldn't want an AR-15/M-16 over in Iraq either. Sand in the receiver of an AR-15 Would make me as nervous as a Long Tailed Cat in a room full of Rocking Chairs, I can understand
why some of our men oversea's in Iraq Aren't completely comfortable with their M-16's. But If someone could develop a new Rifle that had the ergonomics and accurracy of the AR-15 with the abilty to take on a little sand in the receiver without worrying about in failing to perform,.. I would take a good hard look at it myself.....I just Hope the XCR is it!!..
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top