[variablebinary]

The following is a joint statement from both Magpul and Bushmaster.

“The ACR is being redesigned to be a superior offering to compete for the next generation US Army infantry carbine and subcompact weapon requirement and will be available to select customers in 2009.”

Here is a statement just from Magpul

What Bushmaster wants to do is to get as much information from the military as to the requirements of the M4 replacement so they can include testing and any changes required into a production line PRIOR to setting up the production/inspection pipeline

So my question is, what happens if say the proposed military carbine has nothing in common with the ACR?

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=791181&page=1

 

[MickeyC]

The problems here is athat what the military wants is probably not viable. They seem to want such a huge leap in technology and "effectiveness" that it just isn't possible today. They have had thes eopportunities with piston driven rifles, 6.8/6.5 ammunition and rail mounting systems to provide support for every accessory you could want.

Bushmaster has missed an opportunity to deliver a rifle into the civilian market that might have driver partial and then larger military sales. The SDM and SPR concepts, after all is said and done, came from civilian shooters. The SDM and SPR are basically Varmint rifles after all.

Bushmaster could have sold a large number of rifles to Civilians long before a ban came in, instead they chose to wait, and wait, and wait.

 

[DSM]

I concur Mickey. I was looking forward to this guy like VB likes the Sigs!

 

[Guest]

ummmmmm....

FAIL

 

[i303]

BM is stalling. I smell trouble....

 

[DSM]

BM also has a known cash-cow with their AR's and parts and the truckload of backorders they have now. Stopping a part of that production line to tool up for something else would cause those backordered folks to canx and go somewheres else.

Magpul is getting a black eye from it but since they built their market on accessories they'll weather the storm and move on. And probably take a fair amount of poo throwing about "where's that rifle y'all designed." I honestly think Rich wants to get it out for sale but since they've sold production rights they've lost more control than was originally anticipated.

 

[aziator]

I suspect that the masada is getting further and further from reality for us.

 

[Cruzzer]

If Alex could make an XCR upper compatible with an AR-15 lower...and keep the price around $1000 to $1400 the darn things would fly out like Prada purses at a Neiman Marcus after Christmas Sale. ZM Weapons makes their LR 300 kits for $1700 in any caliber you want, as long as it's 5.56. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I think this is where the market is going, one standard receiver that could handle multiple calibers. I love my XCR and I want another one but think of all these guys with AR lowers that would like to have a piston driven, multiple caliber capable rifle with a monolithic rail and the ability to have a folding stock. And an additional caliber conversion kits for around $550.

I'm not an engineer and I don't know how feasible this would be modifying one platform to fit another, but does anyone else see any appeal to this concept? At this juncture, for the civilian market, I'm prepared to throw the Masada and SCAR under the bus, Bushmaster/Magpul and FNH have.

Bushmaster/Magpul here are some facts to consider.
1) Since the sun setting of the AWB, the gun grabbers have been constantly bitching that the law should be reenacted, so for the past four years everyone that I know that went through the Clinton AWB knew that our freedoms were not at all guaranteed, and our ability to purchase magazine fed rifles were tenuous at best so the safe bet was to get it while the getting was good. Alex, congratulations on getting the XCR out on the market before the competition.
2) The Army and DOD have a long history of going with contractors and vendors they know, particularly with new and innovative weapon systems, which is why the Army would not even let the XCR compete due to something bogus like BFA's being included with demo guns. Colt and FNH are the two, that's one and two, sole source major small arms vendors to the US Military. Yes there are a few others but even HK's 416 has had to take the bench for some unknown reason, their XM-8 has only consisted of a few demo rifles, and Sabre Defense has only now been given a contract for 4000 M-16's to the Marine Corps.
3) The only market that was left two years ago was the civilian market. FNH already has the SCAR contract, what the heck was Bushmaster/Magpul thinking? Guys my facts my be off a little but I hope you see my point, in the US the civilian market would have been the place to look for new markets and the the place to sell new concepts. As was noted by the Masada furor a few years ago that concept was sound, based on civilian interest. As much as the grunts on the ground would have wanted the thing, they were not the guys to impress, it was the Army Colonel in procurement that needed to be impressed. And trust me, rarely is some "West Point ring knocker" going to be impressed by some young upstart former Recon Marine Sergeant.

Bushmaster/Magpul, I hope you guys are enjoying your rifles, you're the only ones that are going to get to.

Semper Fi!
Cruzzer

 

[variablebinary]

Cruzzer,

Alex has spoken about this from time to time, as have other gun developers. When you start trying to shoe-horn new products into an AR15 envelope, out the gate you inheret limitations. For example, I really like my XCR ambi bolt release location, and that would be impossible on an XCR on AR15 conversion kit

Keep in mind Magpul has stated the Masada started out as a converion kit for AR15 lowers, but they got fed up with trying to work around the barriers of the lower when it comes to new concepts and improved ergos.

At some point, the industry has to move on. I know there are a lot of fan boys, and people that are cheap or too lazy to learn a new platform. But we cant let that slow down innovation, even if on a surface there is merit to sticking to the tried and true

 

[Cruzzer]

Yep you're right. I'm just thinking long term about if/when they enact the next AWB and we can't buy anymore whatever, it might be nice to upgrade and modify the stuff we've got on hand. I like the idea of getting around whatever arbitrary rules that may be enacted.

 

[aziator]

At some point, the industry has to move on. I know there are a lot of fan boys, and people that are cheap or too lazy to learn a new platform. But we cant let that slow down innovation, even if on a surface there is merit to sticking to the tried and true

You know, that may be the smartest thing I have heard anyone say in a long time. I love the fact that we keep doing things just because "that is the way we have always done it". :duh:

Yes, the AR is established but there is better tech out there now. Look at the 1911, great pistol, love mine. I still think that some of the new striker fire designs are better (usually for cheaper too). Bottom line, we need to encourage manufacturers to inovate. Don't be happy with a re-design of yesterdays tech. Figure out a way to make it better.

 

[ny32182]

The AR15 has two things going for it:

-60 years of innovation, tweaks, upgrades, customization, etc, etc.
-Millions of parts of all kinds in circulation.

Those are big things, admittedly, and people who make good AR parts are going to sell lots of them for many years to come (hopefully, barring a ban). I have no plans to ever be AR15-less, ever.

But, what *attracts* me to the XCR is its innovation... The fact that it was built from a clean sheet of paper and nothing else. No compromises were made in the design of the rifle to make it compatibile with parts from systems that are no longer on the cutting edge (AR, AK). Just one example: all the hem-hawing about the interchangeable lowers of the Masada, and "boy I'll definitely buy one of those since I can use my 6 million AK mags!". I don't get that with regard to a next gen rifle. There are lots of AK's out there that use AK magazines. I don't wish to compromise the functionality of my next gen rifle by limiting it to AK magazine change ergos, just because there are a lot of AK mags out there.

Now, with regard to the lower specifically: While they look similar, I believe the XCR lower has several key improvements over the AR lower:

-The bolt catch, being implemented as a vertical post ala FAL, and then spread ambidextrously beneath the trigger is a superior design to anything that has come before it; period. This will never happen with an AR15 lower.
-The stock doesn't have to have a buffer tube in it. Finally. For those who want them, there is the adapter; you can have them... for those that don't... its finally gone, and a low profile folder is finally possible.
-Shallower magwell: twofold advantage: First, for those who like to drop-free the magazines, the XCR lower does it better than an AR lower. I've got plenty of mags that don't drop free from one or more of my AR lowers. I've never met a mag so far that wouldn't positively drop free from the XCR if I asked it to. Secondly, for rounds that benefit from more curvature in the magazine than the AR lower allows (*cough*7.62x39), magazines could be designed with more curve, and fit in the XCR lower, while not being able to fit in the AR lower. I presume the only reason we are limited to AR magazines here is pure market force of there not being enough demand for XCR specific mags. But the design of the lower could accomodate that if the market were right in the future.

I suspect the piston MRP is the most advanced package ever to be based around an AR15 lower, and the XCR has several advantages. Mostly in the lower, as mentioned.

What the XCR lacks compared to an AR, in my view, is thorough development of aftermarket barrels and triggers. If RA could find a way to push in that direction, I think they could sell a lot of components to improve what is, I believe, the most solid mechanical design base out there.

 

[MickeyC]

It is a shame that the XCR wasn't built around both the AR barrel and trigger. Then Alex would have an infinite supply of parts etc.. He could still have developed his own unique touches to the rifle. Indeed he could have used his own bolt if he gad developed a new Barrel extension to suit. Still the XCR is still a good platform, whether development will continue is a separate topic.

 

[smschulz]

What the XCR lacks compared to an AR, in my view, is thorough development of aftermarket barrels and triggers. If RA could find a way to push in that direction, I think they could sell a lot of components to improve what is, I believe, the most solid mechanical design base out there.

Yup

It is a shame that the XCR wasn't built around both the AR barrel and trigger. Then Alex would have an infinite supply of parts etc.. He could still have developed his own unique touches to the rifle. Indeed he could have used his own bolt if he gad developed a new Barrel extension to suit. Still the XCR is still a good platform, whether development will continue is a separate topic.

More Yup

I can't really add anything to this.

 

[variablebinary]

What the XCR lacks compared to an AR, in my view, is thorough development of aftermarket barrels and triggers. If RA could find a way to push in that direction, I think they could sell a lot of components to improve what is, I believe, the most solid mechanical design base out there.

That really boils down to market share. Alex has good contacts in the industry, which translated to very cool custom stuff done just for Robarm that I saw when I was there visiting. However, I doubt we will see a big push from the aftermarket sector until companies feel there is enough marketshare and potential customers to make it worth investing in.

As customers you need to be vocal. Start emailing and calling trigger and barrel makers and request XCR support. If enough people ask, it will happen.

 

[Master of Scholastics]

I don't really know anything about Magpul and only took a cursory look at the Masada, but I feel sorry for Magpul. They designed an innovative rifle and then gets screwed. I won't go as far as to say the BM purposely bought the rights (or whatever they did) to the Masada just to sabotage a potential competitor, but something doesn't smell right. If BM truly liked what it saw in the Masada, why not start production. They could always tweak it later for the military. Could Magpul have partnered with someone else. Could they have pulled off their own production, perhaps at the volume of Robarms?

I love the XCR and am not interested in the Masada, but I hate to see creativity stifled because creativity stimulates creativity in others.

 

[DSM]

Could Magpul have partnered with someone else. Could they have pulled off their own production, perhaps at the volume of Robarms?

There would be a waiting list a mile long and guaranteed income for years. Why would they have done that?

 

[MickeyC]

Their AR business is a cash cow. Why risk it by producing the ACR because it would have cost them some of their AR business. The fact that it would have taken AR business off their competitors missed them I suppose. Personally other then waiting to see the election result before seeking funding for tooling is the only thing I can think of to justify not releasing it.

 

[DSM]

maybe Alex should ask Magpul to mold a polymer lower for the XCR? Since they aren't makign Masada's, why not?!

 

[variablebinary]

Here is a gen3 pic. Personally all that plastic is a put off for me. Especially considering it still weighs more than an AR15, so what's the point