[variablebinary]

One of the most common complaints you hear from the less informed souls on the internet is the XCR is too heavy...Too heavy compared to what is the real question?

Well is it true? Lets see how the XCR compares to other piston driven new guns on the market.

XCR-L: 16" Light barrel - 7.5lbs; 16" HBAR 8.1lbs

SIG 556: 16" light barrel - 7.8lbs

SIG 556 SWAT (Quad rail): 16" light barrel - 8.7lbs

HK 416 (D145RS): 14.5" Govt profile barrel - 7.7lbs

Bushmaster ACR (Standard Model): 14.5" light barrel - 7.4lbs

FN SCAR-L: 14" light barrel - 7.4lbs

So the truth is, the XCR is not heavy in its segment. In fact it is the lightest in its segment when you consider other products buff their stats by using shorter, pencil barrels. Apples to apples with 16" barrels all of the above mentioned firearms are either heavier or equal in weight to the XCR.

In addition, the XCR maintains the durability of all metal throughout the design. The SCAR and Masada keep the weight, but employ much less durable polymer in their guns. The SCAR and Masada have a weight penalty and lose the durability of metal.

**All the above stats were provided by the manufacturers**

 

[gr8santini]

Great post. Thanks for the research!!

 

[MrSmitty]

I thought the gun was heavy too. At least until I took it to the range. Then it didn't feel so heavy anymore. It is front heavy but thats because I have a 18inch heavy profile barrel on mine thanks to Lame Canadian laws and the US state Department export regulations. I have learned to love my XCR and it really isn't as heavy as alot of people make it out to be.

 

[Sloan441]

The HK91 is heavy. The M14 is heavy. The XCR ain't heavy.

 

[gunner69]

In a past life I had occassion to tote an FN/L1A1 a good distance or more........ in comparison the XCR is LITE! :duh: In retrospect that 7.62x51 sure could shoot through palm trees and other obstructions. >

 

[Martens]

I compared my XCR with light, BUIS's, and red dot to a 12 inch AR with all the same equipment and the XCR was 3-4 ounces heavier. This was a pretty fair test as both had collapsible stocks and the light and sight were the same. The rear sights were the same and the AR had a front sight post and the XCR had a flip up.

 

[magikbullet]

anyone who does their homework knows that this has been an empty argument from the start. sure doesn't stop some people though.

 

[ny32182]

Indeed, its only heavy compared to an AR15 with standard handguards. Its usually doing much better in any sort of apples to apples comparison in my experience.

 

[Bravo]

I haven't seen my personal troll around here in quite a while, so here's testing the waters.

But let's look at this question of weight in another direction.....

When they took away the M14 and handed out the M16A1, everyone thought the '16 was light. And it was. When we went to the M16A2 though, it was (not exactly but danged close to) as heavy as a '14, but with much less energy on target. In my mind, the A2 was too heavy - for what it was.

So that set up two different weight categories in my mind - because I loved the A2 on the range, until I had to carry it much. There's carbine weight and rifle weight. The HK91, M14 (what I made my name with and love), and FAL are 7.62 NATO rifles. As such, we expect they'll weigh more due to the energy they put on target.

When I compare carbine weights, I compare to what I thought was ideal: the Colt SP1 carbine. Since that hasn't been around in a long time in that guise, one of the Bushmaster lightweights would be a good comparison. The weight on these is at / under 6 pounds empty.

And I know I don't do myself any favors, but with a small light (aluminum and small aluminum mount), rail covers, and an Aimpoint in a LaRue mount, full magazine inserted, and a sling attached (in other words pretty stripped, no fuzzy dice or cup holders) we were at 11.5 pounds for the XCR. The same thing on the Colt came in at a touch under 10 pounds.

So I'm not saying that the XCR isn't lighter than the direct competition - it is. What I'm saying is that I'd love it if somehow I could 'delete' a pound and a half from the overall weight without changing capabilities. Those little lightweights handle like dreams, quick maneuvering and easy to carry all day. The XCR isn't "bad" in these regards by a longshot, but lighter is always better - until it gets into the realm of weight versus recoil. Since the XCR recoils SO much less than the AR types, that's just not a consideration in my mind.

Don't construe this to be in opposition to what VB posted - that's not the case. His facts are what they are - and I agree. I just look at things a bit differently. And I'm not advocating a lightweight AR over the XCR either. Got back from another class about a month ago, the conditions there were harsh. Colt Commandos were malfing, Sabre carbines were malfing, RRA carbines were malfing, S&W M&P carbines were malfing. There were two that were 'foolproof': my XCR and my buddies 18" M14. My XCR went T-U in the last half of the last exercise on the last day: I thought the ejector bolts were loctited in on the new ones, and didn't check (my fault). NOW they're loctited on my new one too ;D In my mind, that kind of reliability is worth the extra pound and a half.

If I could have my cake and eat it too though, I'd have the XCR as-is, at a pound and a half less weight.

 

[Prizm]

Very well said, Bravo. When I first started posting on this forum I always made statements about the weight of the XCR. If you could see my old posts you'd see that consistently. I appreciate the "on paper" info that VB posted but I still claim that the XCR is "heavy"... or maybe I just mean it could be lighter.

I have several SBR's and weighed all of them one day on regular digital household scale and with the set up on my XCR it was 11+lbs. I think my lightest was my UMP conversion at 5. something lbs. But it's polymer and not a good comparison but my XCR was heavier than my SBR AR in 9mm and .223.

Another point, my wife just started shooting and wants an SBR. So I took the XCR in 11.5" trim and eotech with buis, no grip or extras. I also took an LWRC 10.5" piston with aimpoint, buis, and no other extras. And my wife, as honestly as a new shooter can tell you mentioned the weight from the word go. You could see it in her body and stance when she shot each one... the XCR is just plain heavier. But she did note how much smoother and pleasant it was to shoot the XCR vs. the LWRC.

So depending on set up I guess the "feel" of the XCR can vary greatly. Sometimes I think the weight is more centralized on the XCR and that's why it feels different. But I believe it could be lighter. :2cents:

 

[aziator]

I don't think it is TOO heavy but it is a little hefty. Compared to my 9" AR the XCR is a beast but shoots better. I would like for the XCR to be a little lighter but I don't have any issues with it. if I were kicking doors and jumping over walls and stuff then every ounce would count. For what I ask of it the XCR does just fine.

 

[Bohemus]

The HK91 is heavy. The M14 is heavy. The XCR ain't heavy.

Thankyou! Try a Galil 308 ARM on for size. A beast but bad as hell for sure! I could tote her around all day if necessary. Feels like whoop ass in your hands. Know what I mean?

 

[Chieftain]

My XCR is the first EBR I bought. Until then I used my M1A that closely copies the M14 I carried in Combat. My M14 had a selector, which I rarely used.

When they told us the new rifle was going to be real light, particularly compared to the M14 we got excited. It was. They had been real slow to tell us about the cartridge though. To a man, the unit I was with did not want to give up our M14's. Even after we FAM fired the M16E1's we didn't like them. I will not own one of those widow makers.

The weight of the M14 was reassuring. And it worked well. The nice and light M16's didn't, reassure or work well.

My point is that every grunt that has ever lived wants a lighter load. But I never met a grunt with lot's of combat experience that would choose a few pounds for a less powerful load. Hell, I had a Gunny that complained about the weakass 7.62 NATO. He felt the only REAL fighting cartridge was the 30-06. And we will not talk about his religious belief in the M1 Garand and the Springfield '03. (I also of both of them too)

In today's Corps, they put a lot of gear on the rifles/carbines to increase hit probability and from what I read, hear, and see, those boy's are doing a hell of a job too. But all that gear adds weight. Most of those weapons tricked out, weigh more than our M14's. But the trade off is more combat hits, and I don't know a grunt worth his salt that would trade down for less weight that would give him less hits.

It is like all things, it's about value. Is the weight worth it. I believe in the XCR it is. I don't march to the guns any more, and I no longer fight the NVA, just the VA. But there are some things that don't change for the grunt.

They can get unmanned aircraft and ships. They can have unmanned Tanks. But no one has been able to invent an unmanned grunt. Besides, who would dig the four hole'er. Why? Cause unless there is a MAN there, no machine can own that piece of ground.

Marine grunts, unlike SpecOps, they ain't allowed to run from a fight.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Sloan441]

Back when we--as members of a "free" society--could just buy things like Galils fresh from the Levant, I had a friend who had a .308 Galil ARM. The thing was a pig. Great shooter, though. Still, when you could heft it or a full up HK91 and barely tell the difference, something was wrong.

So, a conversion to the AR pattern was indicated. The bipod was removed and the idiotic wooden handguard introduced to the trashcan. An HK91 (we all had them back in the '80s-early '90s) slimline forend went under the dremel and was adapted to fit the Galil. Presto, insta-homebuilt Galil AR and it lost about 3lbs. Much handier and easier to tote rifle. He eventually sold it off to finance some other project, but I'd always wanted one myself. Unfortunately, todays going price of $3k+ is a bit too much for what that gun was. I still have my 91--and it's still a pig.

 

[variablebinary]

My point wasnt to suggest to XCR couldnt spare a couple of ounces. Hell, lets be honest, all of us would want a carbine that weighs a little less. I am a fan of my 6520 for this reason

Rather, I wanted clarify that the XCR is competitive in its segment. Among piston driven weapons introduced in the past 5 years the XCR has either parity or is lighter, doesnt skimp by using plastic, and is also a MWS platform.

Apples to apples, you'll be hard pressed to cram all the features the XCR has into a gun that weighs dramatically less without compromising somewhere.

 

[Bohemus]

Apples to apples, you'll be hard pressed to cram all the features the XCR has into a gun that weighs dramatically less without compromising somewhere.

Exactly! Right on point VB. The makers of the XCR are the innovators. The ACR & SCAR strike me as a might portly considering their liberal use of polymers.

I still have my 91--and it's still a pig.

I had a SAR8, I called it the sledge. Traded it for the Galil as a matter of fact. Looking hard at getting one of the new 91 clones though. My .308 MBR collection is incomplete without it.

 

[Bravo]

The first time I got to tear down an XM8, I was surprised. The HK rep asked what I thought, and I said something to the effect of "it's really nice..... for a repackaged AR18". But then HK reps never have really liked me for some reason (maybe they just dislike all customers).

The SCAR? Well, I didn't much care for the balance. I know VB said he thought the balance was similar to the XCR (and I admit that perception is an individual thing) but it just didn't "feel right" in my hands. Not something quantifiable, it just felt dead. Unresponsive. But it's not bad for a $3000 repackaged AR18, I guess.

Interestingly, I thought that the balance of the Masada was much better - I'll admit to not having messed with the Bushmaster ACR adaptation of the Masada though, so my comment shouldn't be taken as pertaining to the ACR. But the Masada / ACR is also...... a repackaged AR18.

The XCR though is a step above. The FNC was always a demonstratably better design than the AR18, and Alex's "Americanization" and improvements on the FNC were well thought out and implemented. That's why I prefer it over the competition - and as I said before, why I believe the reliability and durability added is worth the extra pound and a half over the AR design.

That having been said, if I've got my choice of 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO, there are few times I'll take the 5.56 NATO. Sadly, there just aren't that many 7.62 NATO battle rifle designs. We've got the FAL, M14, Kalashnikov family (Valmet, Galil, etc), HK G3 family, and what I'll refer to as the ratgun family (AR10, SR25, DPMS, etc, etc). Only the last one excels with optics - unfortunately it just doesn't excel in other regards.

I've still got (again) my "big 3" - the M14, FAL, and G3. I don't see that changing any time soon. What I would like *HINT HINT* is my XCR in 7.62 NATO. Especially if it's in the "M14 with synthetic stock" weight class. Optics capability - for those of us now having problems with iron sights -, reliability, durability, and good weight? Sounds like a true winner for me!

Now where do I sign up?