…but his post was from June 2006. Two years ago his comments may have been appropriate…
Thank you.
I’m quoting that again as I’m sure someone will be along to call me names over my two year old post.
Oh, and the rails are still out of spec. I can shoot with a non channeled rail system bare handed, but I can’t with the “canal” rails. I can’t remember the last time I shot a railed rifle with out a VFG, but it’s still a possible issue to me. That and I think the canal looks really dumb.
And if someone gave me an XCR I’d run it. I really like the way they look with short barrels too.
…could you explain that one a bit better to the apparently less intelligent? I’m not understanding how you can shoot a gun with “non-channeled” rails but can’t shoot them bare handed with “canals”? And also, what are you getting at with the VFG that works 100% on both systems?
I agree with Itstock that the folder is pretty slick. COmpared to folders on my HK, AK, or micro galil, the B&T and the XCR are tied for tops. Both are adjustable for lockup and folding tension. None of the other designs I have used offer that. Both are just as solid as fixed when open.
On a Mil Spec rail I can grip it on the flats of the outward rail slots.
Mil Spec rails have smooth flats on the outward rail slots that are more easily gripped. Canaled rails have crevices with four more sharp edges where a Mil Spec rail is flat and smooth.
As for using VFG’s primarily on railed hand guards (out of spec or not), there was no secret coding. I primarily use VFG’s, but I still prefer a Mil Spec rail because there’s always a chance I’ll be shooting with out a VFG, and I find out of spec rails more degrading to my bare handed shooting comfort.
I’m sorry again, I know I said this to another poster, but have you handled an XCR? I can guarentee that the edges of the XCR are a million times smoother than the Midwest industries edges that I have, or any other rail that I have felt.
Here are a couple of quick pictures I took to give you a better idea…note the vertical fore grip, which I just got done carrying the gun by. No signs of slippage what so ever.
As you can see, there are CLEARLY no edges that make bare handing the gun uncomfortable by any stretch of the imagination.
Well piss on me, I was wrong. Looks like RobArms angle cuts them inwards. I wish other makers would take that route when they go out of their way to make un-Mil Spec rails.
That said, channeled rails still look extremely stupid.
I guess “looking extremely stupid” is a valid argument IF that’s your opinion. I don’t see it.
As to making them “un-mil spec”, how EXACTLY, are they “un-mil spec”? I understand that they have a channel unlike other traditional rails, but I don’t see them not meeting mil spec requirements? They are the correct width, spacing, and depth to meet the MIL-STD0-1913 requirements. If I’m wrong, please feel free to correct me. However, as far as I’m concerned, “looking stupid” doesn’t make the rails “un-mil spec”.
So you have never seen an XCR, never handled an XCR, and obviously have done little reading on the XCR. Could I ask what is your dislike with the XCR? Curiosity has the best of me. I understand if that was your opinion 2 years ago, but you might want to reconsider what you are stating. That’s just my suggestion.
I just read through, and there is no section that states that a channel puts the rail out of spec. There wasn’t much to read, but I clearly could have missed it. I didn’t see any section that required that profile to go from point to point, however, I suppose that the “wedge shape” as defined puts this out of “Mil-STD-1913” (however, that would have nothing to do with cutting the groove/channel in the rail, they could have retained the wedge shape and still cut grooves, and it would have 100% satisfied MIL-1913 requirements). Thanks for sharing that. According to the initial acceptance in to the SOCOM/SCAR trials, I guess “MIL SPEC” isn’t that important any more. It’s ashame people will find flaw in it. Perhaps that is because it was back in 1995, or for other un-known reasons.
Lastly, I’m fairly certain that RA claims this rail to still be MIL-STD-1913, if not, it’s still claimed, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IS, a 1913 rail. So they found a more effective way to do a 1913 rail, and some consider this a problem? (unmil-spec??? If it is the case, THIS is what you care about???)
Yes, the rails looking stupid is my opinion. Do you think my opinion is not valid to myself, or are you just trying to get more exposure by arguing my own opinion you can’t change?
As to making them “un-mil spec”, how EXACTLY, are they “un-mil spec”? I understand that they have a channel unlike other traditional rails, but I don’t see them not meeting mil spec requirements? They are the correct width, spacing, and depth to meet the MIL-STD0-1913 requirements. If I’m wrong, please feel free to correct me. However, as far as I’m concerned, “looking stupid” doesn’t make the rails “un-mil spec”.
So you say they are Mil Spec? Tell me where in the M1913 requirements they list a channel. Could you also provide drafting pictures that oppose the original M1913 drafts and show a canal?
Didn’t think so. Here’s the original military draft of the M1913 rail, as the military envisioned it.
So you have never seen an XCR, never handled an XCR, and obviously have done little reading on the XCR. Could I ask what is your dislike with the XCR? Curiosity has the best of me. I understand if that was your opinion 2 years ago, but you might want to reconsider what you are stating. That’s just my suggestion.
Did I ever say I shot an XCR, or are you just instigating as usual? :rolleyes:
I said I don’t like out of spec rails and wire stocks. That opinion still stands, no matter how much propagandic arguing you do.
What the hell would I reconsider? Did I ever say the XCR was a bad rifle, or are you just instigating yet again. Seriously, you might want to “reconsider”, because I don’t think you’ll be selling any more XCR’s by showing your ass here, pal.
There is nothing wrong with YOUR opinion, but it is OPINION. I said that I disagree with your opinion, just as you disagree with mine. No arguing there.
So you say they are Mil Spec? Tell me where in the M1913 requirements they list a channel. Could you also provide drafting pictures that oppose the original M1913 drafts and show a canal?
Didn’t think so. Here’s the original military draft of the M1913 rail, as the military envisioned it.
I said that the channel does not put the XCR out of spec. Your posting implies that the channel puts the XCR out of mil spec. In the drawing that you posted, and the document Tom Jones posted, it does not include ANYTHING about the channel, it doesn’t make it an issue.
Did I ever say I shot an XCR, or are you just instigating as usual? :rolleyes:
No, but you said that it has sharp corners on the “un-mil spec” rails. I was simply asking if you have handled an xcr, as it was apparent that you did not. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t read in to it too much. Again, no arguing there.
I said I don’t like out of spec rails and wire stocks. That opinion still stands, no matter how much propagandic arguing you do.
Fair enough. I don’t like a lot of stocks that come on standard AR’s either, so I change them out. They ARE mil spec and can be switched (just an FYI). As you can see, my XCR doesn’t have a wire stock, and it came 100% stock with the rifle. You can get a couple of different options factory stock, including the VLTOR that is pictured (again, just an FYI, and also again, no arguing).
What the hell would I reconsider? Did I ever say the XCR was a bad rifle, or are you just instigating yet again. Seriously, you might want to “reconsider”, because I don’t think you’ll be selling any more XCR’s by showing your ass here, pal.
Actually, you clearly stated that if someone gave you an XCR, you would run it. Not only that, but TWO YEARS AGO, you listed the problems of than, and said that it was TOO EARLY to decide. Well things have changed and I pointed them out.
I like the thought of owning one some day, but it’s a little too early in my opinion. With the production delays, it’s obvious RobArm’s has some quirks they need to get worked out.[/QUOTE]
I never stated that you thought the XCR was a “bad rifle”. But you were under the influence that…
A) The rails are sharp and hard to hold (they aren’t sharp at all)
B) The rails aren’t mil spec because they have a channel (they aren’t “mil spec” because of the channels)
C) There is no longer a “waiting” period
However, your biggest grief seemed to be A, that the rails were sharp. They are not, so I was simply stating, if that is your biggest problem, perhaps you should reconsider since it was a false assumption. Again, no more, no less.
As to selling XCR’s, that’s not my job. The rifle sells itself .
I looked at the picture, and re-read the definition. Please point out where it stated that it is solid, without a channel. Better yet, please state the dimension. Again, I fully admit that I might be missing it, but with your post, and the previous, it does not have any mention of a channel, whether present or not. I guess it’s a moot point, not 100% mil spec is not 100% mil spec. I really wanted to just point out that the XCR does not have sharp edges, and the channel causes zero problems (well, I guess other than being ugly).
Not Mil Spec is not Mil Spec, so there’s no need to discuss it further.
No, but you said that it has sharp corners on the “un-mil spec” rails. I was simply asking if you have handled an xcr, as it was apparent that you did not. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t read in to it too much. Again, no arguing there.
So you dragged it out legitimately? :rolleyes: I admitted my impressions were incorrect, so why did you keep on nagging?
Fair enough. I don’t like a lot of stocks that come on standard AR’s either, so I change them out. They ARE mil spec and can be switched (just an FYI). As you can see, my XCR doesn’t have a wire stock, and it came 100% stock with the rifle. You can get a couple of different options factory stock, including the VLTOR that is pictured (again, just an FYI, and also again, no arguing).
Two years ago I don’t think they were available, and now I suspect it’s at an extra cost. Regardless, I’d much prefer a stock that’s similar in features to the SCAR or ACR. Not that a good AR stock with a folding mechanism is lacking, but I’d like to see more options for them that take advantage of the design.
No, but you were under the influence that…
A) The rails are sharp and hard to hold (they aren’t sharp at all)
B) The rails aren’t mil spec because they have a channel (they aren’t “mil spec” because of the channels)
C) There is no longer a “waiting” period
However, your biggest grief seemed to be A, that the rails were sharp. They are not, so I stating, if that is your biggest problem, perhaps you should reconsider since it was a false assumption. Again, no more, no less.
As to selling XCR’s, that’s not my job. The rifle sells itself .
You replied to my post where I took back my comments about them being sharp, then drilled me for it twice afterwards as if you refused to acknowledge that post.
If the rails are out of spec, they’re out of spec so there’s no sense in you arguing it to me.
My post about production issues from two years ago should have never been a current issue.
This isn’t the place to drag this BS out any further though, so I won’t comment on these events in this thread anymore. You can rant and rave all day, but my opinions are solid. If you don’t agree to my opinions that’s fine and dandy, but please refrain from out right making shit up and dragging out semantics.
You have just stated exactly what I posted, so you are correct, it is all done. As to “making shit up”, pot, kettle, black? Let’s let it go.
However, this thread is about the XCR, so getting all of the information ABOUT the XCR is pretty damn relative. Hopefully you learned a couple things about the XCR, just as I have. It actually turned about being a productive thread, information wise.
The picture the Military provided does not show a channel, nor did they list it in their specification requirements. It’s that simple.
If Colt started drilling holes in their uppers and lowers it might not technically violate Mil Spec, but that doesn’t mean that it is Mil Spec. There’s no barrel specifications that say anything about fluting, but go flute a government profile barrel and try to sell it as Mil Spec.
As you’ve stated they’re not Mil Spec in other areas anyways, so it’s a moot point anyways. They’re not Mil Spec, so let’s move on.
Thank you, I try to take care of my guns, and it’s only ever been at an outdoor range one time. However, pictures like that don’t exactly tell the whole story anyway.
doesn’t make the rails “un-mil spec”.