XCR Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Those are neat.
I don't think I had heard of them before, so I will have to investigate those.

...but, didn't Canada just finish banning everything remotely AR-ish?

Or is their law based on name, instead of description?
(Their law specifically names "Robinson XCR".)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I find it odd that Canadians, whenever pointedly asked about what's going on with their semi-auto gun ban....just fail to give answer.

Are they under the impression that if they don't talk about it, they aren't banned? Are they worried their oppressive (as ours is) government is monitoring them?

I guess we're only as free as we act.
The only thing I have seen or heard was a couple days ago Alberta province announced that they were not going to participate in the confiscation program.

The name-game system was never made clear. I am surprised that the manufacturers are not simply renaming their products and continuing to sell them. Maybe Robinson does not have time for this kind of game, but the large manufacturers stand to make a lot of money by running a batch of rifles with a different name printed on the side, truck them across the border, and take a wheelbarrow full of money to the bank. Then Canada adds the new name to the banned list, and the manufacturer repeats the cycle with a new name.

Not sure how long it takes for the Canadian government to add a new name to the list, or of they can do that in batches for all the different new names.
Also, it would be logical that all these things go on the instant confiscation list as soon as the name is added to the banned list. So, they are allowed to move it across the border and sell it until the paperwork is updated. The Canadian citizen gets to legally own and operate it until the paperwork is updated. Then it has to be hidden from the mounties and another one purchased to be possessed and operated in public. That's the kind of system that should sell a lot of rifles.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
The photos and description state "T6061 aluminum". I assume that is supposed to be 6061-T6.

I can not find what Robinson is using.
Talking with machinists, they always want to go with 7075 aluminum on something like a firearm.

I did find statements that the Robinson upper is forged and non-stressed.
And the videos of the rifles mentioned above have discussions of the receivers being milled from solid billet, which accounts for much of the cost of those rifles.

It looks like there is some difference between the material used, but its not clear what that difference is.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Both forged and cast can be, and most often are, machined (cnc or otherwise) as part of finishing off the product. Both leave pretty nasty looking surfaces. It is normal to cut at least the mating surfaces back into the better material in the interior, so that these surfaces are smooth, clean, and true.

Cast or forged does not result in a finished part that is ready for assembly.
Most of the benefit of casting is in reducing wasted material and the labor involved in cutting that material away. Casting provides a piece that is much closer to being finished, but it still has to be finished so that it can be used.
Forging provides a similar jump to a piece that is already roughed out and closer to finished, but the process yields a piece that is structurally stronger.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
TFBTV did an overview of the Crusader Templar.


Interesting points:

1. upper/lower not compatible with standard AR uppers/lowers.

2. AR triggers and other small parts ARE compatible.

3. mid length gas.

4. 6061 billet aluminum.



Personally, for $1,800, I'd rather save up a little and get a CZ Bren instead. This would be nice as a collectors item though.
The "Clever Legal Workaround" mentioned in the video description, explains a lot about their law.

"We moved the front and rear pins about a millimeter and made it non-interchangeable with any AR upper or lower, and that makes it legal."

The XCR is not interchangeable, but existed at the time the law was written, and they named everything that was not AR that existed at the time the law was written.

So, their game is to change the dimensions slightly, then wait for the next round of laws and new names to be added to the list.

The group of new Canadian products looks to be squarely in the middle, between the ARs and the SCAR/ACR/XCR/etc. group. If it weren't for the legality situation, they might not be viable at the price point they are at. I'm not saying they are overpriced. The labor cost may justify every penny. But if those others were available, the "For a couple hundred dollars more, I could get a fill_in_the_blank" argument would really cut the market down.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Thanks for the explanation.....

If that's the case, I really question the intelligence of the legislators of Canada. It'd be far simpler to ban features and semi-autos as categories rather than listing by name.
It sounds like their law has the dimensional drawings for the standard AR-15 upper and lower, banning everything that fits those dimensions, and then the names of everything else.
They talk in the video about it being an evolution of the AR-180, they are not sure if parts are interchangeable, but that the law does not address the AR-180 (at least by dimensions).

This is that thing with people who don't know anything about a subject, writing laws and rules about that subject. They think the rest of the world is going to follow the spirit of their oppression, not look for the freedom in what they omit. And anyone involved in competition that involves equipment or machinery along with a human operator (like auto racing), looks at a rule set differently. It's what the rules say specifically, and anything the rules do not say specifically, is allowed.

Edit/Additional:
Here's a story from 2019 discussing this, so it's been in the works for a while:
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top