I swear I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious, not stirring the pot… I don’t know much of anything about these and I’ve never seen one in person.
What’s the big deal with this rifle? Just glancing at it, what does it do that other ARs don’t? Two things that jump out immediately: It’s a piston (which seems to be a big negative here) and has quick change barrels (another negative here).
Doesn’t the XCR have a history of tight chambers, terrible customer service and something wrong with some of their triggers or firing pins (I can’t remember exactly what, just remember reading it).
The rifle does look interesting and I for one, do like QC barrels. It’s nice that they seem to have multiple barrel lengths that are ahem available.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with piston guns in general – it’s retrofitting a piston onto an AR that is typically less than ideal. The AR was designed as a direct impingement rifle and does not have design features that make it a good candidate for piston operation.
As for quick-change barrels – LMT does it pretty well on an AR, so I think it’s less about the feature and more about the implementation.
There’s nothing at all wrong with a gas piston system that was designed from the ground up to use a gas piston, like an AK, FN FAL, FN FNC, FN SCAR, HK G36, Armalite AR-18 (original)…etc.
It’s when you take a rifle system that was designed to work with a DI system and try to re-engineer it to take a piston that you run into problems.
I agree that LMT does it well. I think the SCAR does it well too…it would be nice if they had extra barrels available though. What about LMT’s piston barrel? I haven’t read of anyone having a problem with it.
Isn’t a big part of the complaint the extra weight the QC brings to the rifle?
ETA: Not trying to get away from the XCR. If people are complaining about the QC feature on the SCAR, 901, MRP, etc…how is it any different on the XCR?
The QC feature is a single allen head bolt (with a thread locking helicoil insert in the aluminum receiver) on the underside of the rifle that indexes into the barrel extension. You can see the head of the bolt just forward of the mag well on the underside of the forend. Little to no weight penalty associated with this setup. I tend to think the LMT set up (clamping the receiver around a proprietary barrel extension) is a bit more robust, but you pay a weight premium with the beefed up receiver and barrel extension.
I really like my XCR, but I understand what it is and isn’t. It is a good performing rifle for someone who is “into guns” and frequently goes through, takes care of, and checks their gear. It isn’t a general issue type rifle where it can be handed out to anyone and everyone and it be trusted to run and run forever (like a good quality AR/AK). Everything on an XCR is held on with threaded fasteners. Not the best arrangement for long term neglect. It’s a fun gun for sure, but I think that most casual shooters would be better served with an AR. The performance tradeoffs aren’t, in my opinion, significant enough to warrant the additional attention the XCR needs. Buy one to play with, but I’d suggest taking the time to really learn it before using it as a serious use rifle.
It’s a next generation rifle, and close to the best of the breed at that. It has it’s idiosyncracies like any gun tho.
the benefit and hallmark of a next generation arm is that they are largely modular allowing the operator to change configuration and service the rifle with a very moderate amount of skill and no specialty tools. in this respect the XCR leads the pack. The entire rifle can be torn down to the component level with a folding hex wrench set, a screwdriver, a 1/4" box wrench and a crescent wrench.
It’s not for the conscript level owner, but most others might benefit from the system.
Since it’s a QC barrel, how well does it retain zero b/w barrel changes of the same length? If I pop out a 14.5, go to 10, and then back to 14.5, will it retain the zero of the 14.5?
Yeah, I was really jazzed about the XCR until I read that (and some other posts dating back to 2008 or so). Not gonna give them any of my money, despite the fact I like a lot of the design features they’ve created. My desire for toys said yes but my brain said :stop:.
The Xcr-M needs to be able to be converted to run 7.62x54r. So i can make use of all the cheap surplus sitting around. If its able to that is. God i’ve been looking for a good handling 7.62x54r carbine/rifle forever.
This rifle is a step up in ergos. Now with the adjust folder should be able to adjust to 95% body types / armor / techniques. I look forward to American innovation. As it evolves, does it run?
Iraqgunz - I have handled both the XCR-L w/pencil barrel in 16 inch and SBR “standard” weight barrel at 12 inches, both in 5.56. I actually preferred the pencil for balance. YMMV of course.
I own a 6.8 1/11 Spec II XCR with the updated standardized rails and initial accuracy is very promising with no issues in function or reliability.
So far only SSA or Hornady 110 gr hunting loads - nice cloverleaf at 100 with the Hornady.
Not very scientific I know but I haven’t had chance to wring out 10 groups of 10 yet. But, it is a nice system given what it brings.
I have had an M96, VEPR II 16in and VEPR II 20 inch from Robarm. They have been good to deal with for me.
FWIW, I agree with others in that while they are slow to market, they seem to be moving fwd and lack the bureacratic inertia that ties up the bigger companies.
I’ll likely get the .308 going fwd if it is nicely done as my 6.8.