XCR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know that this is going to spark debate and maybe an argument or two. But I need to ask it, because I'm looking at purchasing my "last" rifle. So this question is a serious one. I realize that the XCR went head to head with the SCAR and because of some stupid SNAFU regarding magazines (forgive me if I messed that up) SOCOM gave the contract to those bastards at FN. I'm not just saying this I hate FN as a company with a passion! :ninja: I seriously think that they have not produced a decent weapon in years and ride the coat tails of those that come before them! Colt...and others. Anyway, I have not seen any articles that do an in-depth analysis of the XCR-L. Why? I mean small arms did a review on Patriot Ordnance's 416/415 all with a ballistic stress test show casing what the rifle can do. During the XCR trials didn't they stress test the rifle against the SCAR? Why hasn't Robinson put out something along those lines - I mean competing for SOCOM ownership is huge - even if you came in 2nd because of a political DQ (that's what it sounded like to me). But if something like that were out there, yes, Robinson has it's loyal followers but it would put a lot of the speculation to rest, and would answer a lot of questions like is the XCR-L really all that it is cracked up to be. I've jumped onto the ar15.com forum, and they list the gun as just another "AR" variant. Come on! Seriously, this is a gun that is supposed to make that rifle obsolete because of the gas system and the single caliber/no conversion capability.
Ok, on to my questions regarding reliability. When HK started marketing their USP back in the 90s, they had retailers loaded to the gills with literature on their stress testing of the hand gun - submersion in mud, water, battery acid, etc. They even tried to intentionally foul the gun during their 1000 plus round shoot outs all during the submersion/drop/drag testing. This is something that would be a feather in Robinson's cap, if they could show how this rifle does overall. There is talk about firing pins failing, people complaining of "shavings" in and around the bolt carrier and internals...what is normal...when does the rifle fail? Does it fail with these problems and how easy is it to fix...even with the ease of stripping as seen on countless youtube videos. Seriously, I understand the loyalty of people who love the company. But the company's selling points are a bit disappointing - some folks on line have talked about "recalls" on the rifle. Even with the communications on the forum, Robinson needs to be doing something with their site and the people who answer their phones.
I would love to buy this rifle, if I knew that this rifle is what they claim it to be. How do I know the claims are valid? Put the hard proof out their - on their site - on this forum - not just by a post by a person who took it out into the field and dropped it a couple of times and claimed it worked when they picked it back up. Yes, that is a sort of validation. But come on, realistically that is what it ends up looking like - "hearsay". I am a consumer that likes a product that is going to last - I don't like hearing stuff like "Well, it has moving parts so there is no guaranty that it won't ever fail." right on the heels of someone claiming that a range had two of the guns that went down during a training session. That's just plain stupid. This weapon system went up for a SOCOM competition - was it jump qualified, dive qualified, etc? I mean those tests would have yielded some data that Robinson would have. Is it out there? If it is please point me in the right direction so that I (and others like me) can make a well-informed decision about whether or not to invest in Robinson's product.
Again, it sounds like a "rant" and there are those that are going to take this the wrong way. But look at it from the stand point that if "this was the LAST gun/rifle that you would ever buy, and you expected it to perform in protecting yourself or providing meals for the family - would you want to invest everything you had into it?"

Apologies if this sparks something of an ugly debate. No insults were intended - I've just become frustrated in trying to find information that doesn't seem to be out there anywhere. Sincerest thanks to those that help me come to a decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Did you review the stress testing on any other arms you own?

You can believe that any testing the government did can't be trusted as unbiased.
Just get your hands on one and have at it. :machinegun2:

It is a good tool in my opinion and a great family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Did you review the stress testing on any other arms you own?

You can believe that any testing the government did can't be trusted as unbiased.
Just get your hands on one and have at it. :machinegun2:

It is a good tool in my opinion and a great family.
No, I didn't personally stress test my 3 USPs. However, there was enough published data from the parent company that was independently verified! So that if I had stressed tested the guns the way that they were in the field tests - the performances would be very similar if not closely identical. I hate to say it but buying a rifle isn't like going out and buying a normal consumable item - that's the US military's thought process and look at the crap it has consistently purchased for the troops. M-16A1, MOPP suits that don't work, gas masks that leak, etc. Their attitude was "Just get your hands on one" and let time sort things out. RELIABILITY should be something that can be proven. I'm not saying that Robinson isn't a reputable company or that the XCR is not reliable. I would like to see something in proven data that shows it - because I'm going to be very honest here, there is very little other than hearsay that says that it is. There is more out there that slams it for being a good idea...just not a reliable one - those claiming weapon failure, recalls out of a series of batches, mechanical issues with the bolt carrier, etc. I don't think that HK had any recalls with their USP line when it launched. That is the reason for the stress testing, the publishing of the testing, the marketing to illustrate the testing, and the guaranty that under the same conditions that the tests were conducted - CONSISTENCY.

This is what I have been trying to find in my researching whether or not this rifle is what the company claims it to be. So, once again...the argument posed to me "for the rifle" is once again - someone who bought it...saying just pick it up. I'd hate to shop around for a physician or general contractor or in the processes of buying a brand new car - using the same methodology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
Here are some things to consider.Robinson unlike Hk.FN,Colt or any of the other "major" manufacturers,is not a large company with unlimited resources devoted to advertisement.I don't mean that the claims of durability/reliability made by differant companies is not valid,but for a small company to expend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in ammunition expenditure and testing that these large companies can,is an unfair expectation.
You also have to have a set of requirements for standardized testing between a given group of weapons to be able to compare fairly.Not to mention you should compare multiple examples of each given weapon in order to get a more accurate result.In other words an independent test comparing all competing designs with nothing to gain from the results.
Another question is whose word do you take? We all know the gun magazines are in the tank for gun companies that fill their pockets with advertising dollars.That might be why you do see allot of reviews on guns that are aimed at a low price point or aren't as well funded and large as the big names are.You don't have to take our word for it either as we are obviously biased towards the XCR,but on the same token,some of the people that flame the XCR on ar15.com don't like to think that there is any weapon made BUT the ar15.So who do you believe?And by the way what large company hasn't had a recall at one point in their history
I can't speak for anyone else but I've been to well recommended doctors that I didn't care for.I've also hired contractors that didn't stay employed long.My point is that YOU have to make the ultimate decision.It's not like you can't sell it for as least as much as you paid for it.Life is an experiment,we all buy things we thought we wanted or liked,only to find out it wasn't quite what we expected it to be.Allot boils down to personal opinion,which is subjective to each individual
Nothing made by the hand of man is perfect,and any machine can be broken or made to malfunction given enough abuse.If you want my opinion,here it is.The XCR is a combination of the AK,FN-FAL,and the AR15,combining reliability,ergonomics,reliability,machined picatinny rails,the ability to use a folding stock and caliber interchangeability.Is it perfect,nope.Would I trust my or my families life on it to go bang on demand,FUCKIN A.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Again, I appreciate the passion that you are defending the product. However, the argument is made that yes the magazines and periodicals and websites might be shills for the big guys. But when there are consistent tests that prove a point - by several sources and the tests while they aren't exact, all share similar conclusions, branding...company name...all gel to form an opinion - and that is something that is more valuable than the product. It is a backed up and solidified guaranty. I know that nothing is "perfect". But give you an example of a car manufacture FORD. The Ford motor company, KIA motors can hire all the hired help they want. Hell, even BMTroubleYou can do the same - but that is just it. A company with all the $$$ in the world and the "claims" they make hold no water when it comes to the tests and the data that the OTHER guys produce. Ford claims their Escort gets the better gas mileage than the Honda Civic. Ok, Honda puts their civic to the test on a track, on a freeway, on a sidestreet, etc. Then they publish the data. Honda also challenges independents to do the same - put their car to the test. The numbers aren't exact but they sure as hell are very close and similar. Then they put it up against what Ford claimed. Case-in-point. The claims, the fans, everything gels and the data does not lie. It is QUALITY. You answered the question of whether you'd rely on the XCR to protect you and yours. Fine. Would you really stake your life on it, if it meant humping that bad boy through the shit in Afghanistan on a 3 week no re-supply patrol? Would you trust it if you went out hunting in the Yukon and you fell into a stream with it? Ok, simple still you are in the midst of defending your family from a home invasion, and you let the rifle drop business end first from a second story. If it was the last firearm you had at that moment and it came time to use it, would you trust it? That is something that other companies like HK, Sig, and yes they are all BIG name brands with $$$$ lay claim to, because they publish their stress test as well as live fire testing of their weapons. But the claim and the $$$ has nothing to do with my point about the TEST DATA regarding the XCR. Part of my question should be able to be found - if not put out there for people to see, and how & why is that? The XCR was tested by the US SOCOM. What happened to that data? Robinson Arms should have that tucked away...how else were improvements/modifications made during the trials? When the mods went through for re-test where did that data go? It's paper/electronic data that should be available for the consumer to see. Just like it is on the side of a car window - sticker info when you are at a car lot. Consumer knowledge based on a trust that you get from a company's claim regarding their product. Because if you buy it and there is a HUGE deviation from the claim, the consumer would know that the product is defective. Also a good thing to know regarding what the limitations are on the product. It shouldn't just be a random guestimate of some ball park figure. A gun is a precision piece of equipment not some T-shirt off the rack that is predicted to last 4 washings before the stitching falls apart. I understand the loyalty that this forum has toward the XCR weapon system. But the trust and the admiration for this rifle cannot be as blind as those that believe the only rifle should be the M4, and that is what I am trying to convey. The ar15 guys argue JUST BECAUSE...I would like to believe that the XCR folk would be able to say..."NO, and THIS (PROOF) is why!" (Not just field stripping it, not just cleaning it, but because of a lot more) And call me crazy or demanding to see "a lot more", but it is that "a lot more" that immortalizes a rifle from being just another gun. :2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Good luck on this one.

These are very good questions.

You entered the forum with both guns a blazing!

Until the XCR is tested and QC is exactly like Colts how can they be any good? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
I don't take ANYONE's word for how good a product is.

Would a company have something to gain by publishing "proof" that their product works? Of course.

And would a government have something to gain by publishing "proof" that their adopted weapon is wonderful? Most assuredly.

I got my first XCR and ran it pretty hard - I wanted to prove to myself that it'd stand up through anything I needed it to. Sure, a learning curve was involved. But I figured out what needed to be watched and what didn't. That first XCR went with me to Gunsite, and was one of the VERY few weapons in that course to not hiccup.

Two years later (there was an advanced sniper course in between - the XCR didn't apply LOL!) I took another XCR to another CQB course. Why another one? Because I believe in having multiples of everything important - and I took the "new" XCR so that I could make sure it ran 100% as well.

At this point, both of 'em have somewhere in the 5000 to 6000 round neighborhood through 'em. The last course was interesting, 'cause of where it was and how demanding the environment was. We had Colt Commados (the 11.5" M16, complete with giggle switch) that were continually malfing - they needed maintenance more than once per day. Lots of 'top manufacturer' ARs malfing too, same thing. There were TWO weapons in that course that didn't have problems running, with little to no maintenance per day (or in my case -by my choice- per week) - an 18" M14 and my XCR.

I know for a fact how my XCR will react when 400 rounds goes down the tube in approximately 5 minutes, and I constantly run expert scores (the COF goes 100 to 400) snuggled down into a comfy prone, and everything inbetween.

Both XCRs went through their courses with very minimal cleaning and no relube. The only days that I "cleaned" them was after I'd been doing a lot of firing with the ejection port 4" off the deck and pointed down (goofy position, but it works WELL when firing under cars) - and "cleaned" more means "wiped the upper out with a paper towel" than anything else. I liked the new gas system improvements so much, after that course I retrofitted the new system onto the first XCR.

The XCR is designed right, built right, and flatly works. I've not only stashed my AR platform carbines, but also my Kalashnikovs. The XCR is the ONLY carbine I keep out now. Because it has proven itself better than the others IN MY EXPERIENCE. As a matter of fact, the XCR I took to that second school still has lots of red all over it - from the soil. I know I ought to clean it, but you know, it's kind of a badge of accomplishment. The internals are clean, but I haven't taken the soil off the outside. Besides, it matches my boots this way ;-)

Hope that's what you're looking for, and helps somewhat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I don't take ANYONE's word for how good a product is.

Would a company have something to gain by publishing "proof" that their product works? Of course.

And would a government have something to gain by publishing "proof" that their adopted weapon is wonderful? Most assuredly.

I got my first XCR and ran it pretty hard - I wanted to prove to myself that it'd stand up through anything I needed it to. Sure, a learning curve was involved. But I figured out what needed to be watched and what didn't. That first XCR went with me to Gunsite, and was one of the VERY few weapons in that course to not hiccup.

Two years later (there was an advanced sniper course in between - the XCR didn't apply LOL!) I took another XCR to another CQB course. Why another one? Because I believe in having multiples of everything important - and I took the "new" XCR so that I could make sure it ran 100% as well.

At this point, both of 'em have somewhere in the 5000 to 6000 round neighborhood through 'em. The last course was interesting, 'cause of where it was and how demanding the environment was. We had Colt Commados (the 11.5" M16, complete with giggle switch) that were continually malfing - they needed maintenance more than once per day. Lots of 'top manufacturer' ARs malfing too, same thing. There were TWO weapons in that course that didn't have problems running, with little to no maintenance per day (or in my case -by my choice- per week) - an 18" M14 and my XCR.

I know for a fact how my XCR will react when 400 rounds goes down the tube in approximately 5 minutes, and I constantly run expert scores (the COF goes 100 to 400) snuggled down into a comfy prone, and everything inbetween.

Both XCRs went through their courses with very minimal cleaning and no relube. The only days that I "cleaned" them was after I'd been doing a lot of firing with the ejection port 4" off the deck and pointed down (goofy position, but it works WELL when firing under cars) - and "cleaned" more means "wiped the upper out with a paper towel" than anything else. I liked the new gas system improvements so much, after that course I retrofitted the new system onto the first XCR.

The XCR is designed right, built right, and flatly works. I've not only stashed my AR platform carbines, but also my Kalashnikovs. The XCR is the ONLY carbine I keep out now. Because it has proven itself better than the others IN MY EXPERIENCE. As a matter of fact, the XCR I took to that second school still has lots of red all over it - from the soil. I know I ought to clean it, but you know, it's kind of a badge of accomplishment. The internals are clean, but I haven't taken the soil off the outside. Besides, it matches my boots this way ;-)

Hope that's what you're looking for, and helps somewhat.
Much appreciated, but still want more. It is good to know that you were able to exact what you needed during those drills and that you actually keep count of what is going on through your system. Predictability is good. You've got yours dialed in pretty well I'd say. 8) Great job.

Now, I hate to sound like a broken record. But it is still the fans that are supporting the product. Which is good in a way. But the argument that was made regarding it being too expensive for the company to publish it's own findings and test data is just still ridiculous. If you were able to find the kinks and work around them. Wouldn't you have gained a faster foot hold in attuning yourself to your weapon a head of time? If the XCR did win the contract with SOCOM, Robinson I think would have needed to tell the guys, well based on the design specs, the gun will have a "hiccup" at about 400 rounds in the breakin period. Or "we've fixed that issue and now the rifle can eat 10,000 rounds before a needed bolt change." It is data like that I believe someone has, and why it can't be shared is really making me wonder. More importantly, it makes me worried that this stuff is not out there for the consumer who is so ready to defend the product.

Again, not trying to start a fight. I want this to be an educated and well-informed decision. I am also not trying to sway anyone ANYWAY towards other guns or companies. I would like to know that if this is the last gun I'm going to buy, then it is a gun that is not going to fail me or be that proverbial "lemon".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
The XCR never got to compete or it was rejected in the SOCOM trials becuse the gun and the blank firing adapter where shipped seperatly, the blank firing adapter arrived late. Im trying to find the PDF on that, Robinson Arms has posted it several times. Those tests your talking about are pretty much just huge companys with insane marketing like H&K and SIG as far as I know. I agree though it would be nice to have that hard data written up for all to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
While it would be nice to see the hard data, I wouldn't believe it.

Not as far as I could spit a dead rat.

The Colt Commandos worked WONDERFULLY in a wet environment. During the monsoons, they were forces to be reconed with. In the desert? Severely suckish.

So would you trust someone elses data - for an area that might not apply to you - to tell you what your carbine might or might not do?

There's one way to tell for sure. Do it yourself.

Since I've had grand amounts of experience in breaking stuff (GRIN) - it's nice to have something so durable and reliable. Of course, that's what we'd expect from a weapon in the direct lineage of the Kalashnikov.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The XCR never got to compete or it was rejected in the SOCOM trials becuse the gun and the blank firing adapter where shipped seperatly, the blank firing adapter arrived late. Im trying to find the PDF on that, Robinson Arms has posted it several times. Those tests your talking about are pretty much just huge companys with insane marketing like H&K and SIG as far as I know. I agree though it would be nice to have that hard data written up for all to see.
Yeah, but the stress tests that were done by HK and SIG were attempted by other outside sources to see if they were really up to muster or if they were full of crap. Suffice it to say, the tests were completed and the results again were NOT identical, but they were within a very NARROW margin of error. SO once again, the arguments made about the "big companies" having the money to "buy out" their tests or testers is a complete wash. There are questionable gun companies out there that lay claim to something and when the independents try to disprove them - the results are laughably in favor of the doubters of the product. Now, in regards to big companies doing their best to influence the results of their testing. How can an argument like that be made about a small company like POF putting out their 416/415 with their own pocket money - doing their own tests and then have "Small Arms Review" do 2 pieces on them putting in the product to test in the most obscene way - with 1000s of rounds of ammo? Ok, so the "SAR" has a the money to do it. But they did it with the same garbage WOLF ammo that other "black rifles" can't even stomach without choking! Mind you, I think the POF test did it with about maybe 5,000 - 8,000 in a afternoon. SAR tried to replicate the test and even took it a step further by pushing 10,000 - God knows what in a day - all on the same platform. The article was out there in .pdf format on ar15.com.
So why am I so hard up on finding out what Robinson has to offer? Again it's the consumer wanting more from what they purchase. Especially if I'm going to pay upwards of 2 grand for this system. How would a consumer look if they walked into a car shop and had the dealer tell you well the car works great up until about 1,000 miles give or take, and then you have to kinda look at it this way and maybe do this or that to it. I don't know about you, but I'm going with the car that "Consumer Affairs" and a few other independents have put through the trials. I know that even with those tests there are speculations. But testing with documentation actually goes a hell of a longer way than a sales person's word for it. Even if they have driven the bitch....it just doesn't make good decision making sense.
Back to the issue of the rifle. Colt in a monsoon or sumbmerged...good to go. Out in the Sahara - just a paperweight, right? Ok, lets look at a system like the XM8 and it's claim to be easy to use and change out...all that good stuff. The damn things melted in their trials in Iraq! HK put that out there. Just like they did with their full on stress tests of their HK416/417s that all did excellent being submerged in water, had mud dumped directly into the action, fired with x,000s of rounds all in the same test. Then they challenged people like Blackwater Security Personnel to do the same at their facility to validate the legitimacy of their claims. The testers came back with the same results. Sig had the "Gun Guys" on youtube do horrible things to their weapon systems - all to prove the CONSISTENCY of the results. Even still, challenged others to perform the same things to determine if someone could cause an adverse failure to their weapon.
What this did was create TRUST in the person buying that whatever they were buying would last even long after they had been wiped out! That is the guaranty that makes a person believe that if they went through the grinder - kinda like the situation Marcus Latrell was in in Afghanistan as the last survivor of a lost SEAL team. You raise that rifle not asking yourself, "Ok, I just took a nose dive off a 30 foot cliff in the middle of Iraqistan and the locals are going to mess me up if I can't fight back...dear God I hope my rifle works." That is the kinda crap we sent people into Vietnam with - and we still do with FN's M16's.
So in the opinion of this skeptic. PROVE MY DOUBTS WRONG - make me believe through action that this weapon is going to survive hell's wrath and still end up making the guy piss his shorts. It's not the money that make the testing - the testing should have been done before the marketing of this weapon. Out there, someone had to have put this gun through the ringer to find out if it could compete against the assholes at FN. It's bad business to compete and not know if your rifle is going to fail in the hands of the very people you are trying to sell it to.
Because ultimately, that is what it boils down to - FAILURE marks the loser, and if the weapon someone is carrying fails...well you can guess who the loser is probably going to be. Yes, failure is bound to happen to anyone at anytime. But if you KNOW your product, if a person asks - what is the failure rate of this system...you have the answer ready...how does it handle under normal rate of fire? If sand gets in the mechanism what happens to it? Have you dropped tested the rifle? Did it fire after that? How many rounds through before it failed? Did it fail? Consistently, this is what I have read, "Well, with my XCR it did this...at about x amount of rounds it did this...Well, this is what I heard from a guy at a range I was at....My bolt carrier failed after I did this...Metal shavings are here and there...." No consistency. No data to say ok, under these conditions this is what our product does, Under these conditions this is roughly what should happen after 4,500 rounds are put through it. Now if you are using xxxx ammo, you should be able to get 4,000 rounds through it before a jam. The carrier can take FMJ rounds from this company and put out a MOA group of ..... It's stuff like that that makes people say, it's NOT just another rifle - it is a ONE OF A KIND UNIQUE weapon.
Again, I'm not trying to degrade the system. Just give me something that is going to say that this gun failed because of a stupid DQ and not because it couldn't hold it's own against a "better" quality product. I want to believe, and it shouldn't cost me to "find out on my own" whether or not something I purchase is a lemon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
I wanted to know when my XCR would fail, if it wasn't cleaned or lubed.

I started with a cleaned, lubed carbine, and started firing - this was with my first one, the old gas system. Using Winchester white-box, I found that on setting 2, it wanted to start short-stroking between 400 and 600 rounds. So what's the answer? Turn it up to 3. No malfs in the next few thousand rounds. And no, I didn't clean it or lube it for the whole time.

The only reason I cut off the experiment was 'cause I needed it for a class and didn't want to go THAT far. The results, as well as intermittent test reports, are on another forum.

In comparison, an HK416 didn't go nearly as long without lube. Cleaning is optional, but lube sure isn't. I KNOW that one - a friend was using it at a class.

IMO - having seen what I've seen - I'd take an XCR over an HK416 any day. Besides, I don't like the balance of the 416.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I wanted to know when my XCR would fail, if it wasn't cleaned or lubed.

I started with a cleaned, lubed carbine, and started firing - this was with my first one, the old gas system. Using Winchester white-box, I found that on setting 2, it wanted to start short-stroking between 400 and 600 rounds. So what's the answer? Turn it up to 3. No malfs in the next few thousand rounds. And no, I didn't clean it or lube it for the whole time.

The only reason I cut off the experiment was 'cause I needed it for a class and didn't want to go THAT far. The results, as well as intermittent test reports, are on another forum.

In comparison, an HK416 didn't go nearly as long without lube. Cleaning is optional, but lube sure isn't. I KNOW that one - a friend was using it at a class.



IMO - having seen what I've seen - I'd take an XCR over an HK416 any day. Besides, I don't like the balance of the 416.
Thanks again for your response to my question. I do appreciate you input and your personal experience with the rifle. However, it still does not answer the burning question of how in the world this rifle came to be on the open market with so little performance data from the parent company. Ok, let's put aside stress testing. I haven't seen or read anything anywhere regarding R&D for the gun. I mean BASIC stuff like on such and such a date. We had our final prototype out at this range - place location time date. We were using 5 boxes of x-ammo; 6 boxes of y-ammo; 15 boxes of q-ammo; etc. With brand X we had 10 overall jams resulting in......With brand y we had no issues whatsoever; but stability for MOA shoot was not possible due to ..... BASIC stuff like that. Come on, you cannot tell me that this gun was thrown together over a few months; tossed into a competition for a HUGE DOD contract for a group of VERY ELITE WARRIORS (then DQ'd); and then the company tossed an "untested" weapon system onto the open market. If you were a "newby" at buy firearms, this would either be a "no-brainer" buy the system and hope to God it doesn't explode in your hands. Or you'd be in my shoes to some extent, wondering - WHY is the public doing the R&D and feedback on a system that makes it's claim to be the better alternative to the "multi-caliber" question of rifle weapon systems. I understand the companies develop stuff in hopes of winning DOD approval and purchase - have their patent bought out and letting the Military finalize the design. However, in order to prove that the thing is up to spec and it WORKS as it should - the DOD/Military require DATA from the parent company regarding the performance of the system from conception to final "beta" production which is then supposed to be tested by the guys doing the bid approvals. It is scary that a lot of people are in fact taken with this system (which is perfectly fine for people "in the know") - but for people who are just blindly buying into an "UNKNOWN" with very little information coming from Robinson - performance wise - that is scary. I have read the website and the updates are "barrel size XXX is being tested...will be shipped on this date...." I mean seriously that's the gist. Claims are made and should be backed by the company with actual data - data from consumers should SUPPORT that data - NOT SUPPORT THE ENTIRE COMPANY'S CLAIM! It's frustrating, because there are those that think that I am on this site to make trouble. I am not! I am a consumer that would like to purchase a weapon that is more than trustworthy - a system that has repeat use without the fear of "wait did I get the right batch, and why isn't my gun no where near the performance level of this other guys - when our settings are EXACTLY the same?!" There has to be consistency, and without anything from Robinson actually showing something like that...this seems to be an untested system that was just thrown out on the market to make money...and when you are dealing with something that deals death on it's business end - THAT IS A SCARY/VERY EXPENSIVE prospect to be the un-compensated/unofficial R&D department for the company.
Sorry, guys and gals....until I get the answers I'm looking for. I am going to be that skeptical consumer advocate, who demands a hell of a lot from the guys taking my $2,000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Have you called or emailed Robinson Arms?
All you are going to get from us are our experience, I doubt any one here has the resources to do any of those test, aside form the water and dirt tests, but stuff like 10k rounds in a day...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Take Rain Aways advice and check with R.A. If I may ask, what are you planning on using this "last" rifle for? (In my world I hope ther is no such thing as a last rifle >:D)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Yeah....

Way back when, I was talking to Alex about magazines. I prefer some that are MUCH more durable than USGI - those wear out too quick for my taste.

Alex was talking about how he agreed, and that USGI mags wouldn't last the weekend - because when he tested the XCR during R&D, 10,000 round weekends weren't uncommon. It was a defacto mag test too, 'cause few were used to feed all those rounds.

Ask Terra about their "high mileage" weapon - and how it's been going.

I trust the XCR because of what I've done with it - but having been in on the project for a couple of years before they were on the market didn't hurt either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I have to agree with you hitman2actual. Robarms has done a great job in rifles before, such as their VEPR and M96. But with the XCR there seem to a little more issues. Nothing to serious but disconcerning. My father has sold VEPRs in the past and when the XCR came out there seemed to be a lot of issues such as parts and dates. He asked asked when the rifle was going to be produced and Alex kept on moving the dates back for a minimum of a year until my father finally gave up asking. I remember my father talking about how Robarms seemed to loose or had to let go of some good people in years past for whatever reason. Another problem I have encountered and my father also, is incorrect info or lies. I am waiting on a 6.8 XCR and I have called and asked for updates and one week they have the barrels in and the next week they were waiting for them. Now for over a week it has been they have to do some grinding on the barrels. Like the M16, the XCR has had to go through changes to make it better. Why can't they tell its costumers the problem or what they are doing to make it better. When made properly, it seems like the XCR runs beautifully, but there also have been some that seem to have there problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I have to agree with you hitman2actual. Robarms has done a great job in rifles before, such as their VEPR and M96. But with the XCR there seem to a little more issues. Nothing to serious but disconcerning. My father has sold VEPRs in the past and when the XCR came out there seemed to be a lot of issues such as parts and dates. He asked asked when the rifle was going to be produced and Alex kept on moving the dates back for a minimum of a year until my father finally gave up asking. I remember my father talking about how Robarms seemed to loose or had to let go of some good people in years past for whatever reason. Another problem I have encountered and my father also, is incorrect info or lies. I am waiting on a 6.8 XCR and I have called and asked for updates and one week they have the barrels in and the next week they were waiting for them. Now for over a week it has been they have to do some grinding on the barrels. Like the M16, the XCR has had to go through changes to make it better. Why can't they tell its costumers the problem or what they are doing to make it better. When made properly, it seems like the XCR runs beautifully, but there also have been some that seem to have there problems.
Thanks for your :2cents: minuteman. Folks, this is what I am talking about. It is plain as the English all of this is typed in. Robinson Arms needs to clarify what the heck is going on. A weapon system with little more than the word of consumers who've paid the HUGE price for a system, only to be used as the "Control Group" in what seems to be a loosely established experiment is NOT how a company should sell, market, or make claims on a products reliability. For the folks that have bought into the system. How much more satisfied would you have been had you been able to see in black in white what the limitations on the rifle were. What the actual break-in period is, as opposed to a guestimate which is what it seems to be. It's like the timing on a ROLEX versus a Timex. Yeah, the Timex keeps on ticking even if you drop it, and God forbid you drop a Rolex. But if the price on the Timex was just as expensive as a Rolex. I think people would choose the Rolex because of the nature of the way it is manufactured and the fact that because of the precision machining of the gears...the ROLEX would be ticking long after the Timex took a dump. Same thing with a rifle. You want to know these thing, you need to know these thing, and by God you should DEMAND these things - and not make excuses for a company not being able to PRODUCE it when asked for it. This is the whole premise of knowing that this machined piece of equipment is going to react better than its competitor. Was the SCAR a better platform? Did it win because of something that the testers foresaw? Without these answers, compounded by the issue of what minuteman stated about "lies" and "stall tactics". This coming from someone who dealt with the company for the VEPRs and M96, is now in a position to question the honesty and integrity of the company. Silence is not golden when it comes to this situation - not saying that there is dishonesty or a lack of integrity - but there is a nagging feeling that that is what is going on. Was the rifle rushed to production too quickly? Were promises made that could not be kept? Maybe Robinson needs to outsource to a bigger company - kind of like what Magpul did with the Masada and Bushmaster. I know that companies like Bushmaster have had their share of issues in the gun world. But there is one thing to have issues and then "better" themselves progressively - like what Patriot Ordnance did with their production line, they were backed up quite a while; but with good decision making, they started pumping out quality products without huge delays. And they were able to still back up their claims of consistent quality with independent write ups that were marketing strategies on their part. Regardless, though, their products showed consistency through those test and were augmented by the testimonials of customers on line. However, with Robinson, there seems to be more questions than anything else. I would love for the guys/gals at the company to say - "Ok, to put the doubts to rest - we are pulling 3 random rifles (not our betas) off the line, and we are going to show case how we arrived at the current design. We will then put 10,000 rounds through each 2,000 non-stop; 2,000 after the gun has been buried in sand and then fired uncleaned; and then fire another 2,000 after the rifle has been submerged in mud; Etc. Etc. Even if the rifle failed at some point - that data would mean a lot to the fans because it gives them a baseline to go from. Furthermore, just like with fans of the M16 platform - improvements will be made that can be put on this forum that will make the rifle even better for the future production models. It's a win win situation, and even if you need to take a kick in the balls to get there, honesty makes for repeat patronage and loyalty beyond the "BIG companies" like FN, HK, and Colt. Call me a cynic or a doubter, but wanting to believe in something "man-made" calls for something more than just blind-faith.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top