View Full Version : new rifle, AR15 build, or a newer generation rifle?
July 5, 2012, 05:38 AM
hey everyone, im looking for a new 5.56mm rifle, looking at either an AR-15 build from parts, or something newer such as a robinson XCR or remington/bushmaster ACR if anyone can make a compelling arguement for one of these two rifles, im aware of their specs, features, and differences, but dont havent actually fired any of the newer rifles yet..
for the AR-15, should i build one i dont think im going to do anything too special with it, just a flat top, SAW style grip (which i find very comfortable), free floating forearm, etc...
ive done my research on the piston options, and i really get the impression the manufacturers of these systems are trying to make AR owners believe theres a problem that isnt really there so theyll buy a product they dont really need... you lose accuracy, gain weight, and technically the AR-15 is already a short-stroke system, most these kits being short-stroke i dont see how it would add to reliability.. maybe make them quicker and easier to clean, but no more reliable
and the long stroke pistons, though may increase reliability by forcing the carrier back all the way, allowing it to power through an obstacle that may cause a jam, you end up with the same problems an AK has with barrel whip and loss of accuracy, as well as more perceived recoil...
so, could anyone supply a compelling arguement towards either gas system or the XCR-L, ACR, could possibly throw a SCAR-L and MSAR in there as well, though the MSAR (AUG) is almost as old a design as the M16 itself, its still a design ive always had a lot of respect for
in short, im looking for a capable, expandable, even modular, nato/stanag compliant rifle... do any of these really beat the classic AR15?
July 5, 2012, 11:14 PM
you know.. you could add the sig 556 sig as an option willing to consider.. but i did a comparison of features, and specs between the XCR, ACR, and SCAR and have found that atleast on paper the XCR looks like a more versitile, better set up piece of equipment, lower priced too, so itll probably boil down to this or the AR-15 build which im getting more and more interested in when i see some of the more custom setups people have put together
July 5, 2012, 11:26 PM
Just to make it even harder for you
- Daewoo k2, ar100, dr200
- Ar 180b (can be had for around $800 on GB)
July 5, 2012, 11:30 PM
I have little experience with newer generation semis but I seriously hated the ACR when I shot it. I can understand bushmaster wanting to make a rifle that comparable to none but it seems like every single control is in a bad place. safety, mag release, stock adjust, nothing was in a good spot and the sights were impossible to adjust. it was incapable of hitting a bullseye in a 25 yard indoor range. I rented it with a buddy who plays a little too much call of duty and by the time both of us had shot 10 rounds we were more than happy to exchange it for an M16.
other than that the only newer platform I've fired is the FS2000 bullpup. again, everything is in a goofy place but not where literally can't find it like the ACR, the safety is inside the triggerguard, the charging handle is on the left side of the reciever, the mag release is at the base of the magwell, all are places that are conducive to maintaining positive control of the firearm(for right handed shooters anyway) without removing the firing hand. the major drawbacks are the factory iron sights and the trigger. the trigger, like all bullpups is a big, plastic, goofy thing that is pretty hard to fight with an the rear aperture is so tiny that it was difficult to even pick up in the low light environment of an indoor range. even with those major drawbacks though the accuracy was fairly decent with a number of shots making it inside the bullseye. if you were to get a set of flip ups or a red dot for the FS 2000 I think it would do quite nicely as a home defense/hunting rifle.
that's about it for my modern firearms use...I still love my ancient and dated AR15s :D
July 5, 2012, 11:58 PM
im not a big fan of the bullpup gimmick in general, the AUG, unlike most bullpups is well proven.. but for the most part its quicker to learn and difficult to master, so i do prefer conventional setups...
ive worked on rifle designs of my own creation, atleast in the design aspect, never made any prototypes yet... but what ive come to decide on is that all these designs of mine are best to be compatible with the AR-15 lower receiver for a few reasons... stanag compatible magwell, safeties, buttons, and levers in a familiar place, a massive pre-existing aftermarket, and an easy to find trigger group... it puts all the important parts youd like to keep in the design into the lower, so the action itself can be designed into a quick swap upper...
ive designed blowback designs, long stroke piston designs, different carrier ideas, ambidextrous ejecting, heck one design i actually designed a doughnut shaped piston that fit between two tubes mounted around the barrel for a long-stroke piston that wouldnt cause the barrel to whip and place all recoiling mass in a straight line with the barrel...
but thats getting way off topic... but i look at the ACR, SCAR, XCR, and they all seem to try copying in some way the AR-15 lower and try to offer a modular platform thats been present in the M16/M4 for decades so i just cant imagine these rifles offer anything you cant get in some aftermarket form to the AR15 itself
so i think the most logical choice would be to stay with the proven, even more modular AR15 with what i expect to be more aftermarket support than any of these other rifles will ever receive in their lifetime, and use the money i save to personally select the individual components i like, and build a couple extra uppers for it
i think for the uppers though, i want one standard M4 style upper in .223, direct impinged,
id like to buy an extra .300 AAC blackout barrel and bolt because this is a cartridge thats sparked a lot of interest with me, being literally the ballistic medium between .223 and .308, achieving .30-40 kragg ballistics...
and finally, i seen an AR-15 piston in which the builder had installed a long-stroke gas piston system with the recoil spring mounted over the piston rod itself, which allowed them to remove the buffer tube entirely, id like to experiement with this idea myself as long-stroke recoil systems are the only one i really think offer a real tradeoff over direct impinged, as direct impinged itself is essentially a short-stroke system anyway
July 6, 2012, 08:50 AM
im currently doing more research into the rifles stated.. looked further into the ACR design, and the XCR and neither of these stack up to the AR15 yet, it still has every rifle beat....
i like how these new rifles boast about how you can change barrels to be modular, to go from compact to long range.. however, what they dont explain is how if youre going from compact to long range, you might want to replace your sights with a scope, take off a forward grip and put on a bipod... well now, wouldnt it just be easier to replace the upper receiver entirely.. each upper being already set up for whatever it is youre wanting to do with it?..
so... yeah, ill leave this forum up if anyone thinks they can convince me to change my mind on one of the options, but i think ill go with the AR-15 build
July 6, 2012, 11:52 AM
that's what I would do. good choice in my opinion, the AR has it's limitations just like any other design but most of them are negligible at best.
July 6, 2012, 01:43 PM
I've looked at the acr and scar rifles. They cost way more than my Ar15s and they dont really do anything the ar won't.
Piston systems for ar... Meh. Doesn't get me excited. My direct impingement ar's have never choked for lack of a piston system.
Scar? Not in my town.
Acr? Not in my town.
Ar15? Six stores in my town of fifty thousand selling ar parts.
I've no idea what the parts cost for the other rifles, but ar parts are cheep. I worry over parts support because I break stuff on all my toys. I've worn out several sets of gas rings and misc. small parts on my heavy use ar's. It's nice to be able to get them local.
July 7, 2012, 09:33 AM
the only reason i COULD get behind a piston driven AR is if the recoil spring was installed behind the piston itself to eliminate bolt tilt, but this would require switching to a side charging handle, but on the up side would allow you to eliminate the buffer tube as well.. but you could do all of this while remaining direct impinged as well...
so if i could build something like that with no carrier tilt i would consider it because it just seems so much easier to open the front of the gas block, pull out the piston assembly and go through it with a small bore brush than it would be to clean each individual internal component when i do end up disassembling a rifle for cleaning, and cleaning within the locking lugs is a bit annoying, besides resolving an annoyance, theres really no other advantage, question is just how lazy am i?...
oh.. also, what i said about chopping the back end of the bolt carrier off, building a new key thatll operate with a new captive guide rod / spring assembly with a conversion to a side charging handle on a forward-assistless upper receiver is kind of what i have in mind right now to actually simplify and lighten the rifle, and then either find or fab a side-folding adapter to use conventional AR-15 stocks (probably a magpul style) with the added ability of folding since i wont need that buffer tube anymore..
for other accessories im thinking of a standard set of rail sights, a larger grip (for my large hands) and an angled forward grip since it gives me the same level of control as not using a forward grip at all, feels more familiar to me, but is overall more comfortable with most likely a 16" barrel in the M16 carbine fashion (not full M4 size)
im not going to get too wild with rails though, would like a full length top rail though for versatility, but mostly for the rail sights, and of the angled forward grip... but since i primarily shoot only with open sights, i would invest a little more into quality flip up sights with fiber optics or tritium for visability
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.