First off, I don’t mean any of this as criticism. I’ve gone on record as saying that in my opinion the XCR is one of the largest steps forward in a very long time – and I stand by that statement! That having been said, here are 10 little touches. Just things here and there that I’d like to see, that would make it a bit more user friendly in my opinion.
1. Lighten this weapon. As-is, she’s about the same weight as an M4, which I don’t like. Dropping a pound to a pound and three quarters would be IDEAL. I view 6 pounds unloaded / naked as a ‘perfect’ mark. Not that a reduction to exactly 6 pounds would be possible, but the closer the better.
2. The barrel-retaining bolt had to go. I use the front of the magwell as my forward grip, and that bolt head worked over my first finger. Heck, the guys showing up to the CQB course with vertical grips all tossed ‘em or weren’t using them by not that many days into the course – they were going to the front of the magwell too. I say “had to go” in the past tense because I found a good alternative, so I “modded” mine. Had to purchase a bag of 100, so anyone wanting to do the same can drop me a note and whatever a stamp costs – I’ll send the part.
3. The sling attachment point on the rear of the receiver should change too, although I’m not positive how to change it ‘for the best’. I’ve battered the heck out of my sling snap with the rear of the oprod. What I came up with works fine, but the sling isn’t quick-detachable from the XCR any more. Moving that point would be nice – or something else.
4. And speaking of sling attachment points, there’s no provision for attaching a standard 2-point sling at the rear for precision shooting. As in there’s no sling swivel at the toe of the buttstock. I had my machinist fix that, now mine has an M16A2 sling swivel at the butt, and it works GREAT! I know it’s a carbine, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like using mine at mid (400 to 600) ranges. And yes, from a good prone, hitting pepper poppers at 400 is almost too easy.
Note: Don’t take this as I’ve proven either 5 or 6 really need to be done – at least not yet. Last year I got sick during the harsh winter, and never got to put the XCR through the –40 testing I had planned. Hopefully in another month or so, I’ll have some experience in this matter (I’m planning on it) and can say whether I could make it malf in the cold and wet. Subsequent to that, it’ll get to play in the sand before slogging through the Oklahoma mud in June.
5. I’d like to see some lightening cuts inside the upper as well – in the cylindrical part that the carrier rides in. The way I see it, part of the reason the FNC did so well in the sand and the arctic was because of the ‘slop room’ for sand and ice to get around in within the upper. Since the XCR is a derivative of the FNC, it would only make sense. I’m thinking something along the lines of narrow grooves cut into the upper, so that it looks a bit like the chamber of an HK roller locker. That way there is still ample surface area for the carrier to slide on and lots of strength, but lots of ‘goop room’ as well. Not that the flutes need to be all that deep or anything. I can’t help but believe the ‘goop room’ of the formed sheet metal upper that made the FNC work so well also is part of the reason the Kalashnikov has such incredible reliability... Or looking at it from the other direction, when water gets between the carrier and the upper, I can’t see it taking much to essentially ‘ice weld’ the carrier in place. Lots of close surface area between the carrier and the upper. The flutes would reduce that surface area dramatically.
6. And just out of curiosity, why were the driving bands on the prototype bolt carrier done away with? That was absolutely ingenious in my opinion – something I’d like to see brought back. Same reason as the above.
7. If I could, I’d like to have a bolt that would be easily disassembled – without tools preferably. It’s probably just me, but I like being able to run a pipe cleaner in the firing pin channel, and wipe down the pin itself. Especially when going into really cold areas. Yes, the spray type degreasers work well enough, but I prefer to do it manually so I just KNOW it’s right.
8. If I had my preferences on stocks, I’d opt for a fixed synthetic type, with a short length of pull. Something with a compartment for cleaning stuff, so I can get rid of at least some stuff in one vest pouch. On the AR, I prefer a Sully stock – and yes, I had my ‘smith wallow out the inside of that too – modified with an A2 buttplate for the trap door. When the initial ‘modified 96 stock’ idea didn’t work out, I cuddled my M14 for days (GRIN). If nothing else, a mount similar to the one for the M4 type stock – except it would accept a standard A1/A2 buffer tube. Then I could twist that one out, put the shorty tube in, and run a Sully stock!
9. Iron sights! Not that I think the XCR should come with them – I think it’s a TREMENDOUS thing that it doesn’t! Here’s the thing though... maybe it’s my face, but I’ve always come up “low” on the sights when using an M4 / CAR type stock (which is a good portion of why I like the fixed stocks!). The tubular stock on the XCR is the same thing. To fix that, I use the lower LaRue Aimpoint mount – it centers at 1.140” off the deck instead of the traditional 1.410” off the deck. As far as BUIS, nobody – and I mean nobody – makes anything but 1.410” centered stuff. Something a bit shorter would be ideal. There are shorter fixed iron sights, but not BUIS – I’d LOVE to see RA making some of them! One request though – I like my Trijicon front sight blades, so please make ‘em so that they’ll accept the Trijicon blade.
Note: Of course, the fixed synthetic stock might bring my cheek up high enough I don’t need the lower optics and such – that’d be a simple fix! HA! Thinking of this, Alex, are you going to have some different stocks and BUIS on the XCRs at the SHOT show? I’d LOVE to be able to try before I spend more money LOL!
10. And lastly, something I’m going to officially term the Jack-a-dot. This would be a REALLY simple modification to the right side of the bolt carrier. This way one could easily swipe a finger over the carrier, through the ejection port, and feel for a divot. If the divot was positioned towards the front (say a hemispherical divot centered on the radius of the front of the ejection port) of the carrier where it should be, the bolt is known to be fully forward. A purely tactile way of doing a chamber inspection. As I said, I use the magwell as my forward gripping surface – pivoting my finger around slightly allows me to feel the carrier through the ejection port at the most forward position. But the carrier goes so much farther forward than the front of the ejection port, if the bolt isn’t in battery by a significant distance, I still can’t feel the front shoulder of the carrier through the ejection port.
Just some things to think about – congrats on successful production of such a tremendous design!
