Bushmaster ACR = Failure?


PDA






Matt304
August 21, 2010, 07:56 PM
So would you all agree that the ACR became a failure with Bushmaster taking over the design and jacking the price up?

The price on these guns is over $2000. I believe that price is too high. When I type in Bushmaster ACR on Gunbroker, out of ALL the guns, there is only 1 single bid. That bid is at $1600. It appears people agree with me.

I would buy a POF before a plastic Bushmaster at that price.

So what's going to happen with this gun, do you think Bushmaster will be forced to lower the price? :confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Bushmaster ACR = Failure?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zerodefect
August 21, 2010, 08:13 PM
I think Bushmaster will be forced to rebuild the ACR into the Masada.

Tips for Shrubby:
-use a real barrel
-better ambi safety
-folding stock
-rifle length forgrips and throw in some Moe rails

A $2000 Masada would be flying out the door. A $2k ACr, not so much. Bushy wasn't paying attention to what customers wanted. Shame Magpul decided not to sell rifles.

Then again it deosn't do anything that a custom Ar deosn't allready do better.

The LMT .308 and Larue OBR are eating all of shrubbies sales.

ThePunisher'sArmory
August 21, 2010, 08:14 PM
Its their anwser to the FN SCAR. I for one would not buy either. Ill stick with my old M4s. Lastly yes they should both lower their prices.

Dionysusigma
August 21, 2010, 09:57 PM
It's notably heavier than the SCAR, too. I got the rare chance to handle both side by side the other day, due to a stroke of luck the local shop had. I agree with TPA--I wouldn't buy either of them, since 1) they both throw the same caliber downrange as two other rifles I own do, 2) they do it just as accurately, 3) they do it just as reliably, and 4) they do it just as fast. Also, 5) for what I already have, I can get spare parts, 6) they're a proven design by a major military, 7) they're 1/3 the price, and 8) I was able to assemble them myself.

The only thing the SCAR or ACR seem to have going for them is that they look like something out of a movie or video game. And for me, that's not enough.

brian923
August 21, 2010, 10:43 PM
I think Magpul saw into the future... What I mean is that they were building a rifle that was going to compete in the military tryout for a new rifle to replace the M4. When they saw that tons of manufatures were offering similar caliber rifles that don't have any significant offering over the M4, they found someone to dump the rifle on to break out even at the bank. Along comes bushmaster... And the rest is history. I do think that if they brought the price down to even high quality AR price levels, ($1200-$1500) I'd bet they'd fly off the shelves becasue of the cool factor and all the video gamers... That's why I want one! the ACR kicks ass in MW2! ;)

LHRGunslinger
August 21, 2010, 10:50 PM
May I point out that Bushmaster is ONLY producing the CIVILIAN version of the ACR. Remington is manufacturing the MILITARY version.

W L Johnson
August 21, 2010, 11:17 PM
May I point out that Bushmaster is ONLY producing the CIVILIAN version of the ACR. Remington is manufacturing the MILITARY version.
They're both owned by the same company which also owns DPMS.

12131
August 21, 2010, 11:21 PM
As long as the ACR and SCAR hover around $2k, not many will buy.

Carter
August 21, 2010, 11:24 PM
I like my XCR over both of them...but I'm weird.

Z-Michigan
August 21, 2010, 11:36 PM
I like my XCR over both of them...but I'm weird.

It also came out what, like 4 years earlier? I wonder why it doesn't get more attention.

The ACR as it now exists is DOA. Shrubbie will get a few fanboy sales, but people wanting a serious rifle in 5.56 will be buying the SCAR, or just getting a pair or even trio of high-end AR15s for the same money.

The ACR would be very good, not quite great, at under $1000. There's nothing in its design or materials that should require an average retail price over $700. I'll bet it's significantly easier to put together than a Ruger Mini-14, not to mention a standard AR. Yes, R&D and tooling costs money, but that money has already been sunk, might as well pay it off in a couple years at a modest profit then try to get a 70% profit margin and good luck ever paying it off.

Carter
August 21, 2010, 11:43 PM
It also came out what, like 4 years earlier? I wonder why it doesn't get more attention

Its under gone various upgrades and changes since then, and their .308 version is just now about to come out.
I haven't owned mine too long, but its an amazing rifle. However, due to company problems the market for it gets extremely limited. It also seems to be more of a cult classic. The price is very nice compared to the other options though.

Juice Boxes
August 22, 2010, 12:47 AM
The unenhanced version made the design fail on the civilian market.

Zerodefect
August 22, 2010, 12:54 AM
May I point out that Bushmaster is ONLY producing the CIVILIAN version of the ACR. Remington is manufacturing the MILITARY version.

Oh there's a great marketing stategy. Make the civvy rifle way worse than the milspec. Bushy sure is out of touch. Deos anyone at Bushy actually shoot anything anymore?

I mean nobody wants a milspec Ar15 right? Wait never mind, Bushys AR's kind stink right now as well. So I guess they are just way out of touch.

Masada.

nwilliams
August 22, 2010, 03:12 AM
A marketing failure, yes.

Is the ACR itself a failure? I don't think it is.

The fact is that if you consider all the specs of the ACR (especially the enhanced version) you would be spending close to the same amount if you were to buy a gas piston AR with the same specs. People are basing whether or not the ACR is worth the money based on budget Bushmaster AR models that offer a whole lot less than the ACR does. If the enhanced version of the ACR sold for around $1,800 and basic version for around $1,500 I would say that they would be a bargain when you consider what you are getting.

What I think really hurts the ACR has nothing to do with the design or cost of the gun, it has to do with the Bushmaster name that's associated with it. Most people associate Bushmaster with producing mid to bottom tier AR's and that reputation is being applied to the ACR.

Honestly ask yourself this. If the ACR was being manufactured exactly the same as it is now by Colt, LMT or LWRC for the same price that it's going for now would you be so quick to say that it's overpriced?

The only thing the SCAR or ACR seem to have going for them is that they look like something out of a movie or video game. And for me, that's not enough.
Actually I have to disagree highly on this. Both the Masada(ACR) and the SCAR offer a number of innovative design features that make them highly desirable, especially to the military. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the AR-15/M16 and always will be but the SCAR and Masada/ACR do have a lot going for them and I can understand why the military is interested in them. There's nothing really wrong with the AR design but there is room for improvement and I think both the Masada and SCAR capitalize upon that.

yongxingfreesty
August 22, 2010, 05:39 AM
It's fail to me. Just like the scar and sig 556.

C-grunt
August 22, 2010, 06:56 AM
They killed it with the pricing.

There is a market out there for expensive military type rifles. Its not uncommon for someone to drop 2k on an AR-15. But these 2k dollar Noveske, KAC, LWRCi, LMT etc... are not your run of the mill rifles. The people that pay for these want the proven reliability, many times from combat, that these rifles provide.

Any of these guys looking to step out of the AR world are probably going to go with the SCAR as it has shown itself reliable in combat. Combat will show the weak parts of a design with a quickness. The SCAR has been through it, the ACR has not.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 22, 2010, 10:54 AM
Well, I think the biggest issue with the ACR right now is the weight. 8+ pounds for a rifle made out of aluminium and plastic is not only puzzling, it is something that will guarantee the rifle never gets accepted by the military.

As to the pricing issues, here is how I see it. The ACR was built to compete for the M4 replacement trials. As a result, price had to be high (to guarantee price flexibility during the competition). Bushmaster took a gamble that consumers would be so eager to buy the ACR that they would pay top dollar for a rifle that still wasn't completely ready for prime time. They certainly had no shortage of people screaming at them about not releasing the ACR. However, at the end of the day, people realized that for $2,600, they could live just fine without most of the features the ACR offered.

Having had a chance to handle the SCAR and ACR side by side, I think the ACR has the better ergonomics of the two rifles. Sadly, the SCAR has the better balance, less weight, and I'd trust FN's ability to produce a reliable weapon long before I would trust Bushmaster or Remington's ability. However, I think the ACR still has some potential. It just hasn't been realized yet and won't until the M4 trials are over.

Prion
August 22, 2010, 11:09 AM
The one and only ACR in a shop in my area has been sitting for months now. No way am I paying that much for it. In fact, I don't really want one at any price.

52grain
August 22, 2010, 11:27 AM
It's probably too early to tell if the ACR is DOA, but if Rhododendronwerks doesn't change some things (like the price and features), it won't be around too long.

Hatterasguy
August 22, 2010, 12:11 PM
I saw one at the range, and talked to the owner about it for awhile. My impression is that its like a SCAR just no where near as good. Plus its heavy, and made by Bushmaster. FN is a better company with a more proven track record of military rifles, they have a very long history of making some the best rifles around. Side by side the ACR just didn't do it for me, didn't feel as good as the SCAR or a nice AR for that matter.

I wouldn't even consider buying one.

Mags
August 22, 2010, 12:23 PM
There has been a FDE basic model sitting in my favorite shop for 1650 for a few months now. Every time I talk to the shop keep about the ACR he tells me for the weight I should get an AR in 308.

Evil Monkey
August 22, 2010, 01:16 PM
$1,500 tops for an infantry rifle. These new rifles, in my opinion, offer nothing worth the asking price.

The way they market these "ergonomic/ambidextrious" features is as if you're going to be clearing buildings by yourself. It's unrealistic and silly, and definitely not worth the 2K+++ price.

The only great features are the barrel change ability and operating systems. I figure the op systems have been refined as to not beat up the bolt carrier group, and the barrel change capability allows for changing the weapons purpose without buying another one, saving you $$$.

Blakenzy
August 22, 2010, 03:52 PM
Speaking strictly as a consumer, the first impression I got from the ACR is that it was an attempt to cash in on the SCAR buzz and that it would fill the niche as a "poorman's" alternative to the expensive SCAR in the civilian market. However, they totally...TOTALLY blew that opportunity with the asking price.

Evil Monkey
August 22, 2010, 06:52 PM
I don't understand why the XCR doesn't pop up in internet forums much, considering it offers exactly what is wanted in a next gen rifle but at a lower price............oh that's right, it's never been in a video game.

nwilliams
August 22, 2010, 07:12 PM
Having had a chance to handle the SCAR and ACR side by side, I think the ACR has the better ergonomics of the two rifles. Sadly, the SCAR has the better balance, less weight, and I'd trust FN's ability to produce a reliable weapon long before I would trust Bushmaster or Remington's ability. However, I think the ACR still has some potential. It just hasn't been realized yet and won't until the M4 trials are over.
I agree completely, however I don't think the ergonomics of the SCAR are bad by any means.

I really wanted an ACR until I was able to compare it side by side with the SCAR, once I did I knew there was no question that I would take the SCAR over the ACR without thinking twice about it. Besides the SCAR that the shop was selling was just a little more than the ACR so really it was a no brainer. I'm a huge fan of FN products and I know that my SCAR is going to function and be reliable. I ended up selling three guns in order to finally fund my SCAR but they were three guns I didn't really care too much for anyway so there was no love lost.

The one thing that that really bugged me about the ACR that I handled was the length of the fixed stock, it seemed way too short for me. I think if I would have handled the enhanced version of the ACR I would have liked it a lot better.

I would certainly never say that I will never own an ACR. As I mentioned earlier there is a lot to admire about the design and features of the ACR and for those who want something different in their collection besides and AR and without shelling out big bucks for a SCAR or FS2000 the ACR will fill the gap nicely I think, once the price of the enhanced version drops below $2k.

For now I'm going to stick with my AR, MSAR and SCAR but at some point in the future I can see an ACR joining the heard as well.

E304life
August 22, 2010, 07:30 PM
I don't understand why the XCR doesn't pop up in internet forums much, considering it offers exactly what is wanted in a next gen rifle but at a lower price............oh that's right, it's never been in a video game.
Man, I'd love an XCR. The concept is fantastic, but I get scared away by Robinson's internet reputation and internet rumors of single nuts and bolts causing failures. It would be great if the design got picked up by a reputable manufacturer. Oh, and a video game appearance would do wonders for marketing. I'm hoping the XCR takes of eventually.

Carter
August 22, 2010, 09:12 PM
Man, I'd love an XCR. The concept is fantastic, but I get scared away by Robinson's internet reputation and internet rumors of single nuts and bolts causing failures. It would be great if the design got picked up by a reputable manufacturer. Oh, and a video game appearance would do wonders for marketing. I'm hoping the XCR takes of eventually.
The XCR is a fantastic rifle. It is fully servicable on the user level. The trick is to loctite everything, OBEY the manuel, and if you order directly from RA you better be willing to wait. They recently changed around a lot of staff members so things from the company's side may be improving but idk. The thing about RA is its a small company and the guy who owns it is a genius and those people tend to be a little cooky. The company could use some improvement, but they put out a great product.

Their earlier product was good, but then they changed it a little and things went bad, and now they're back to good again (from my reading and experience). Its a metal/alluminum body that is lighter than the ACR, really accurate (although not quite AR accurate), great price, and almost entirely customizable. You can change barrel length's, calibers, sights, stocks, rail lengths, add an accessories, etc. The only things holding it back are the company itself (but be realistic people they have their limitations due to size), it wasn't in a video game, and rumors/earlier problems while the design was coming in to its own. But if I remember correctly, the AR wasn't perfect right away either.


All I can say is I'll take two XCR's for the price of one SCAR any day. The ACR can stay in video game land.

Tirod
August 22, 2010, 10:49 PM
The wow factor of video gamers will have no affect on any of these being adopted.

The US Government showed pretty conclusively that a second string commercial maker won't ever get a contract. It's why Armalite sold to Colt, who's made some 9 million variants, plus licensed makers out of the country. For the XCR or Masada, there's no way a contract would be landed. At least now that the ACR has appeared under the Remington label, it will get an honest review by the military.

One important thing often forgotten by this discussion as it's popped up since January is the complete lack of including the Beretta ARX, already fielded and in production. Once the military contracts are fulfilled, who's to say it won't be assembled in Beretta's US plant to meet the Improved Carbine requirements? It has many of the same features of both, in 5.56. Considering Beretta's previous track record, to ignore it now could be embarrassing.

"I won't buy a new fangled rifle" usually falls flat on it's face when the Government issues a contract. Then the latest greatest becomes the standard, and all the sour grapes retreat back to yesteryears rifles and their overrated construction, or belly up and pay up.

Winchester and Springfield Armory both had mini M14's on trial against the AR-15, they didn't win - it was Colt.

I imagine the conversations weren't much different back then, and the surprise and chagrin will be about the same.

Joe Demko
August 22, 2010, 11:10 PM
None of these new rifles interest me enough to buy one. What does interest me is the level of emotional investment in promoting or hating one over the other by people who have no direct experience with either. They're just rifles. When the government eventually gets around to replacing the M-16 series, the replacement will have problems; and it won't matter which rifle is chosen or who makes it. It happens every time and in every country.

SpeedAKL
August 23, 2010, 12:39 PM
It's clear that Bushy got far too aggressive with the price. At $1,400 the gun would sell quite well IMO, as it offers an impressive set of features. If they offered the military 1:7 twist barrel and lowered the price I'd imagine sales would improve significantly.

Joe Demko
August 23, 2010, 12:46 PM
It's been a notable year or so for stratospherically priced stuff. The near vaporware Kel-Tec bullpup is another example of a very high priced piece released in tiny numbers offered by a company with a reputation for spotty QC.

RoninPryyst
November 25, 2010, 11:01 PM
I have had Bushmasters for 20 years and I have never had a problem with them. I picked up an ACR about 3 months ago and it works fine. I have had no problems. They put in a new Titanium firing pin and a new spring, but I had not had any problems anyway. I am happy with it. I plan to pick up a SCAR next.

Birddog1911
November 25, 2010, 11:15 PM
I'll just say that they only thing about either of these platforms that I find appealing is a folding stock. Other than that, they really don't do anything that my BCM does.

Billy Shears
November 25, 2010, 11:32 PM
Well, I think the biggest issue with the ACR right now is the weight. 8+ pounds for a rifle made out of aluminium and plastic is not only puzzling, it is something that will guarantee the rifle never gets accepted by the military.
Absolutely right. I can tell you as a former infantryman that when you have to carry a rifle on a march with a rucksack that weighs anywhere from 60 to 100 pounds, you resent every extra ounce. We changed over from M60s to M240s when I was in, and the machine gunners may have had a better gun (well actually, there's no may about it), but they hated that it weighed a full five pounds more.

I understand that any rifle meant for the military has to be robust, and that any rifle that has a gas piston will weigh a bit more than a direct impingment design like the M16 series, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they couldn't make the ACR weigh less than it does. Hell, over forty years ago Armalite built an excellent short-stroke piston design -- the AR18 -- that weighed only a few ounces more than the AR15s as they were made at that time, despite being made out of stamped steel. I can't imagine why, today, a rifle that uses so much polymer and aluminum in its construction has to weight so much more than the current generation AR15s, piston or not.

I was hoping for more from the ACR, but I won't buy one at the prices they go for. I'd like to see a piston rifle that can really compete with the AR in weight, ergonomics, and adaptability the way the AR18 had the potential to do.

Quiet
November 26, 2010, 11:03 AM
FYI.

As of 10-15-2010, Bushmaster is recalling all ACR rifles due to a design defect that can cause the rifle to malfunction.

http://www.bushmaster.com/pdf/ACR-Web-Notification.pdf

Tirod
November 26, 2010, 11:22 AM
Not to forget, months ago SOCOM announced it was no longer purchasing SCAR L's as they did nothing better than the issue M4's, which came for free with the soldiers who transferred into their command.

They will continue to purchase a few more SCAR H's for the .308 capability. Apparently the Brits thought more of AR10's and bought those for Afghanistan.

All said and done, the Improved Carbine trials, and eventual long term plan for a new infantry rifle, will bring into service something with controls that will be easy to operate while keeping a sight picture. That means side charger bolt handles for the off hand. Those who have that already integrated have a better chance than those who don't. The other issue is the ability to break away from the fixed straight mag well. The Colt 901 can do that, so can Bushmaster. Anyone making a polymer lower can, too.

With a extruded upper and polymer lower, the ACR has more production versatility to accept government requirements without expensive redesign. It's not all about having a finished reliable design going in, the ability to accept future changes has to be met, too.

Birddog1911
November 26, 2010, 11:30 AM
None of these new rifles interest me enough to buy one. What does interest me is the level of emotional investment in promoting or hating one over the other by people who have no direct experience with either. They're just rifles. When the government eventually gets around to replacing the M-16 series, the replacement will have problems; and it won't matter which rifle is chosen or who makes it. It happens every time and in every country.
It does seem that the 1/7 twist barrels are now available. While their barrels are cold hammer forged, are their barrels MP or HPT tested? Are their bolts? What steel did they use in both of those parts?

Birddog1911
November 26, 2010, 11:31 AM
Oops, wrong quote. I was trying to quote the one asking about the barrel twist.

tkopp
November 26, 2010, 12:24 PM
It's been a notable year or so for stratospherically priced stuff. The near vaporware Kel-Tec bullpup is another example of a very high priced piece released in tiny numbers offered by a company with a reputation for spotty QC.

To be fair there, the dealer price has always been reasonable. Individuals reported getting RFBs for a little over $1200. The rest was scarcity, demand, and big dealer markups.

leadcounsel
November 26, 2010, 12:39 PM
Vaporware... you can't buy what you can't 1) handle or 2) afford... with today's engineering capabilities, CAD, etc, I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a rifle up to speed and to the market at a low ($1300ish) cost.

I read about the Masada in early 2008 in a gun review. I was excited to see, shoot, and even buy one.

Here it is nearly 2011 and I've never even seen one in person. And believe me I have been to plenty of gunstores and gun shows. I don't have much of an opinion of the weapon, either way, other than it took too long and the excitement is over at that pricetag.

I've fired the military SCAR and it was cool, but the civilian price is staggering. I've seen one at the gun range and when the guy told me what he paid I went back and happily shot my $600 AR15.

I've read about the Keltec RFB, but have also never held or seen one in person. Settled on a MSAR for $1300 and am pretty happy with it.

My opinion is that these companies really missed the boat. They could have sold every one of them for under $2000 each had they gotten trucks of them to the market in 2008-2009.

But now, with unemployment at 10% going on 2 years, and all of the other problems with the economy, and the gun market flooded with EBRs, these companies are probably going to have a hard time getting these guns sold at >$1500...

Taurus 617 CCW
November 26, 2010, 01:03 PM
Never handled one and have never been impressed with the look of them. I don't see the advantage of making a gun with more plastic yet heavier than a regular M-4.

Birddog1911
November 26, 2010, 01:26 PM
I have handled, but not shot one. Ergonomics didn't impress me. I absolutely despised the safety selector. It was heavy.

Lead, you have some lousy shops around you; I've seen them at two different shops here. Come to Colorado!

Quiet
November 26, 2010, 03:17 PM
Apparently the Brits thought more of AR10's and bought those for Afghanistan.

Actually, the UK adopted the LMT MWS-308.
They chose it over the Armalite AR-10, KAC SR-25, FN SCAR-H and H&K HK-417.

type5
December 26, 2010, 05:32 PM
It has been a month since the last post above. I just ordered a Black Enhanced ACR for $1858.00 shipped. So those that say it is a failure because of the price point might have a little less to complain about price. Prices do seem to be coming down although Gunbroker prices are still more.
I am happy to have another offering and another choice. There are tons of SCARS around and I chose the new offering 1st because it is not common.
I love FN but in the 80's I could not afford or justify a FAL. I will get a SCAR next but I am holding out for FN 17's to come down some.
I have had a couple of Bustmastre AR type rifles with no problems what so ever. I expect no problems with this on either - but who knows?
Like in most things, time will tell if the ACR will be a failure!

kwelz
December 26, 2010, 06:29 PM
Price is only one aspect of it. Weight, barrel, and general lack of promised features play a bigger part of it.

Hani Pasha
December 27, 2010, 05:21 AM
I might be convinced to pay $1800 for an ACR, but it would have to be marginally better in terms of weight--and it would absolutely have to have the ability to swap calibers that Magpul promised us. The ability to have two rifles in one like that--an AK and an AR--was one of the biggest selling of the ACR for me. It was hyped and hyped and hyped and hyped, but as far as I know, there hasn't been a word on the stuff for the 7.62x39mm ACR. That was severely disappointing to me, and we can only hope that Magpul has learned from this debacle and will do better with their Massoud rifle.

As to why the XCR hasn't been popular, I honestly don't really know. Not being in any video games is a big part of it, but I think the bigger problem is simply a lack of marketing. Apart from that it is also 7.5 lbs empty, and doesn't look very good at all either. Finally, while it does use standard AR/M16 magazines, the website implies that proprietary 7.62x39mm magazines are used, whereas the ACR supposedly will use standard AK magazines in 7.62x39mm configuration.

stubbicatt
December 27, 2010, 08:27 AM
OK. Someone 'splain it to me: How is an interchangeable barrel a feature? After one changes out the barrel, he will have to re-zero his irons and his optic. Wouldn't it be better to have two, less expensive, optics ready rifles, or one lower and a couple upper receivers to obtain this "feature?" Won't have to rezero the piece.

Perhaps if the barrel is shot out it would be nice to be able to readily replace it, but otherwise I do not understand why people think this is a desirable feature?

sturmgewehr
December 27, 2010, 12:54 PM
As to why the XCR hasn't been popular, I honestly don't really know. Not being in any video games is a big part of it, but I think the bigger problem is simply a lack of marketing. Apart from that it is also 7.5 lbs empty, and doesn't look very good at all either. Finally, while it does use standard AR/M16 magazines, the website implies that proprietary 7.62x39mm magazines are used, whereas the ACR supposedly will use standard AK magazines in 7.62x39mm configuration.
The XCR hasn't been a smashing hit because of RobArms. They're a small shop with limited funds as they keep focusing on different projects vs. dedicating themselves to a single product. They worked and worked on the M96 project and finally got it to a place where people liked them and they worked well... but they never delivered on the various models they promised including the beltfed kit.

Then, part way through the M96's development cycle, they decided to focus on a new rifle due to the military announcing their interest in a new rifle for SOCOM. So, they dumped their M96 and focused on the XCR. They left the M96 crowd hanging in the wind...

Like the M96, the XCR has had its teething problems with various mistakes being made and manufacturing problems. Since RobArms is a relatively small company, it takes them a while to improve things and get those improvements into production.

I'm glad RobArms is doing what they're doing, I loved my M96 but sold it when it became obvious they were ditching the rifle and dashing my hopes for a Stoner 63A semi-auto belt fed. But today I've decided I'm not beta testing their products anymore and hoping they don't abruptly shift their focus away from the rifle I just bought from them like they did with the M96.

sturmgewehr
December 27, 2010, 01:08 PM
The Masada died when Bushmaster bought the rights. Bushmaster will probably eventually work the fleas out, but they may dump the project due to extremely poor sales and ongoing problems before they actually get it working properly.

Here's an example of some of the issues with the rifle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-v7Jc60zE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqTpz_B_Ew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXcteqHaM_o

Keep in mind the guy in that video is a fan of the rifle. He's been very patient and has defended the ACR against those who have attacked it for being a poorly designed/made rifle.

The rifle is plagued with issues. Bushmaster is redesigning gas plugs, springs and gas piston rods still! I mean seriously, this stuff should have been hammered out before the rifle hit the market. Telling your customers the ACR isn't designed to handle the 5.56mm NATO and is designed only for .223 is absolutely ridiculous... the barrel is marked "5.56 NATO".

Anyway, the ACR is an over priced beta rifle that I have no interest in investing in right now. If Bushmaster doesn't cancel the project and actually gets the fleas worked out, I might buy one for review down the road.

Jaws
December 27, 2010, 01:53 PM
SCAR L's does nothing better than M4

This is plain False. The lie of the year. :D
SCAR does a lot of things better than M4.

Here's an outstanding in dept technical article, by Hootiewho, that will open the eyes to anyone that cares to read it:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889

sturmgewehr
December 27, 2010, 02:24 PM
Jaws,

I own several AR's and even a Colt M16A2. I've been a life long fan of the AR/M16 platform and have served with it in the USMC as an 0311.

I love the rifle.

But I also now own a SCAR. While I haven't used the SCAR for 20+ years like I have the AR, it has impressed me significantly. It is, IMHO, a superior rifle in a number of areas. Ergonomically, it's superior... which is hard for even me to believe. But it is.

I can't speak to the long term reliability yet as I've not owned the SCAR long enough to properly test it and say with certainty that I know it's more reliable than the AR/M16.

As for SOCOM dumping it, even the cited article spells that decision out pretty clearly.

COST.

They have chosen to spend their money elsewhere given their limited budget. If the SCAR was vastly superior to the M4, they could justify the cost. But alas, I don't believe any 5.56mm rifle is vastly superior to the M4. The cost of maintaining the SCAR-L is simply too much for SOCOM to bare. It's totally understandable. I just wish they would have come to this conclusion before wasting millions of tax payers dollars opening trials, testing, buying, deploying, THEN deciding they can't afford it.

Typical government non-sense.

Jaws
December 27, 2010, 02:53 PM
True.
Is one thing to say it is not "vastly" superior to M4 to justify the change and another thing to say "it does nothing M4 doesn't". This my only observation. :)

And i agree. SOCOM is to blame here. They pulled this companies trough all this mess and in the end said: "Hoops. We changed our mind. Hahaha." :barf:
Why waste all this money on this BS if you are not serious about it? First they say "M4 can't fulfil our requirenments anymore and we need a new rifle, then many years and millions later, when the new rifle is ready and tuned up into exactly what hey wanted, they go saying "well we changed our mind."
I guess it's ok. Is not their money they F*ck around with. Is just tax payer money and whaterver FN invested in this platform.:rolleyes:
Looks like the curent army "carabine competition" is setup the same way. To make sure nothing new survives out of it. :barf:

Bartholomew Roberts
December 27, 2010, 03:34 PM
It is also worth keeping in mind that reportedly the Mk17 (SCAR-H) is only about 0.5lb heavier than the Mk16 (SCAR-L); but it can shoot 5.56mm and use AR mags with a conversion kit.

If you are buying a modular rifle and have a choice between the Mk16 and the Mk17, it seems like the Mk17 offers a lot more flexibility. I can't say whether that played into the SOCOM decision to lower the funding priority for the SCAR-L; but it would sure be a major factor in my own acquisitions process ;)

RockyMtnTactical
December 27, 2010, 08:42 PM
The price was just one area where they messed up with the ACR. The list goes on. Weight, no-chrome lined barrel, 1/9 twist, barrels are not AR15 barrels, etc...

JDMorris
December 28, 2010, 01:42 AM
I handled an ACR, a Scar 16, and a Scar 17. I would love to have the Scar 17, but I'd rather have an LMT .308 over all, and a Noveske or LWRC Midlength over the others.
I don't dig the polymer on rifles..

Tirod
December 28, 2010, 11:44 AM
Don't blame me for repeating what SOCOM said. What it boils down to is that the SCAR-L has to come out of SOCOM's operating budget, and the M4 is free. The fact that both launch a 5.56 bullet from an M16 magazine equally well is missed by SCAR fanboys.

The SCAR doesn't substantially do anything better than the M4. It isn't more accurate, they use the same optics, and the 2 MOA military specification means it better be cheaper to make a more accurate barrel, or why bother with the expense? About all the SCAR has standard are ambi controls, even the Marines add those to the M16A4, SOCOM has no problem doing the same. That leaves the charging handle, and when you get right down to it, either will do. You only chamber the first round anyway, that's back in the wire. The bolt hold open does the rest for you. Stoppages don't happen that often, we're talking SOCOM here, their guns work right, period. So do the soldiers.

Kit out an M4 with piston and all the extra parts, you get a heavy 8 pound gun, too. The ACR cannot defy physical laws in that regard. And fielding a SCAR - H with adaptor won't help it, either.

Whatever the Improved Carbine process comes up with, SOCOM will still get free guns with the soldiers who are part of their command. Whatever that gun is will be the DOD standard, SOCOM doesn't get much advantage having something different and spending extra money on it. However the budget was first set up, cutting expenses NOW in THIS administration is something they may have no control over, regardless of how it may make things look.

Anybody who thought the Masada was going to be cheap and better than the AR drank their own flavor-aid. Magpul was not a whole gun maker, their estimates had nothing to do with putting together and monitoring a TDP and milspec inspection standard, setting up production for hundreds of thousands of guns, and getting them into government hands. They sold to Remington out of due regard to their own admitted lack of expertise in pulling it off. Blaming Remington for "inflating" the cost and weight is sheer ignorance of marketing and production reality. It's right there in print and in the gun. If there is a point to the ACR complaint, it's in trying to deflect what was really a gross case of naivete. They should have known better.

After that, it's been the typical dogpile of ignorance and lack of thought.

sturmgewehr
December 28, 2010, 12:27 PM
Tirod,

You obviously have an emotional attachment to the M4. I don't think anyone here is being a "fanboy" for the SCAR. It is a fine rifle, but one that isn't really worth the cost of switching over from the M4. If we had unlimited funds, perhaps... but we don't. While it's functionally not vastly superior to the M4 (SOCOM mentions no functional issues with the SCAR, only cost issues), it does away with the direct impingement gas system which means it's easier to clean and maintain, and likely runs longer between cleanings. It has improved ergonomics, but this is subjective. The M16 family was ahead of its time and to this day is still a standard by which other systems are measured. Plus, the M4 is a known quantity. We know where it excels and we know where it fails. The SCAR is totally new and much like the early teething pains of the M16, it would also have issues to be resolved... which costs even more money.

I love the M16/M4 and will always own them. The SCAR is interesting, but in 5.56mm it really isn't "all that" and certainly not worth the investment to switch everything over, IMHO. I just wish our government would have thought this through before wasting millions of dollars on this wild goose chase.

As for your final statement, I see no reason to be so insulting to the other members of the board. Perhaps you think you're the end-all in firearms knowledge, God only knows there's no shortage of such people posting on the internet. But let's not fling unnecessary insults just because someone makes unflattering comments about our pet rifle system.

Jaws
December 28, 2010, 01:38 PM
The same SOCOM that said SCAR doesn't do much over M4 said this in 2001:

"In February 2001, USSOCOM published a study and analysis of alternatives focused on the M-4A1 carbine used by USSOCOM units. The study concludes that the M-4A1 design was fundamentally flawed—in part due to barrel and gas tube shortening—and that a variety of factors “led to alarming failures of the M-4A1 in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy
firing schedules common in SOF training and operations.”6 While USSOCOM concluded in 2001
that the M-4A1 carbine in its current configuration did not meet SOF requirements"

Jaws
December 28, 2010, 02:03 PM
When it comes to money we forget the big picture.
Just because SOCOM don't have to pay from their own budget for the M4, it doesn't mean the taxpayes won't get the bill. The taxpayer still pays for the rifles wether it comes from SOCOM budget or army budget.
With the SCAR they at least had a chance to save on production costs, parts and maintenance.
In the end the taxpayer and FN got screwed after this nine years adventure. :(

skwab
December 28, 2010, 03:06 PM
Recently I picked up a Sig 556 patrol SWAT and I love it - was under 1200 NIB from Bud's. At this price it was worth it - at 1800 or so 6 mos ago, not as much even though I love it. The ACR, needs to be priced to compete with other piston AR platforms - sub 1500 and this rifle will sell, at 2600, there's no way.

sturmgewehr
December 28, 2010, 03:53 PM
"In February 2001, USSOCOM published a study and analysis of alternatives focused on the M-4A1 carbine used by USSOCOM units. The study concludes that the M-4A1 design was fundamentally flawed—in part due to barrel and gas tube shortening—and that a variety of factors “led to alarming failures of the M-4A1 in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy
firing schedules common in SOF training and operations.”6 While USSOCOM concluded in 2001
that the M-4A1 carbine in its current configuration did not meet SOF requirements"
Funny, isn't it?

Even SOCOM is a bureaucracy that flip-flops in the wind. When they wanted a new toy, they claimed the current toy was flawed. Now that they can't afford their new toy and want to spend money elsewhere, they're saying "the new toy really isn't as good as we thought and the old toy isn't nearly as bad as we claimed".

Gotta love the government.

HorseSoldier
December 28, 2010, 04:47 PM
+1 -- they've managed to produce studies that said whatever they were trying to sell to Congress and other decision makers.

While it's functionally not vastly superior to the M4 (SOCOM mentions no functional issues with the SCAR, only cost issues), it does away with the direct impingement gas system which means it's easier to clean and maintain, and likely runs longer between cleanings.

There was some significant grumbling among end users in different units that fall under the SOCOM umbrella that not only led to CAG going with the HK416 instead but also significantly delayed fielding (the last unit I was in was "about" to get them several times starting in 2005, if I remember right, and we were still waiting when I ETS'ed at the end of 2008). And the idea SCAR might fall through entirely was already floating around for some time -- I recall my Sergeant Major coming back from a conference at Bragg and saying that SCAR might be delayed or scrubbed with Big Army talking about a new long gun for the masses (not a whole lot different than Big Army's tanking of SOCOM's attempt to replace the M9).

sturmgewehr
December 28, 2010, 06:44 PM
The HK416, from the surface, seems to make more sense as it's so similar to the existing issued rifle(s). The SCAR is quite similar too, but the training and manual of arms for the 416 would be nearly identical to the M4.

But the HK416 isn't without its fleas.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/03/hk416-production-suspended/

There are rumors that the Norwegians have had issues with their rifles and even that the US military has had issues with them.

I know that short stroke piston systems have been the dream of many in the AR community for years. But it's been a bumpy road trying to adapt the AR to the new gas system. It's met with failure by a number of firms and has given fits to others that have gone on to field it. It would seem we're mostly there, but in the case of the 416 there seems to be some daemons lurking still.

In the end, I wonder how much time and money it will take to convert the M16 into a reliable short stroke gas piston rifle and is it really worth it? That money could have gone to the development of a new system that improves upon the weaknesses of the old and is designed from the ground up to use an improved gas system... like the SCAR.

Who knows...

HKGuns
December 28, 2010, 07:03 PM
Why are you posting 2 year old rumors that were proven to be false? There was no production halt of the 416.

Contrary to anonymous source reports on the Internet, the U.S. military HAS
NOT encountered significant problems with HK Model 416s in combat
conditions. HK416s are currently being used in combat operations by U.S.
and NATO special operations forces.

Furthermore, Heckler & Koch HAS NOT suspended production of the HK416. The
HK416 continues to be one of Heckler & Koch's most successful and sought
after products.

Steve Galloway
Communications Director
Heckler & Koch
Ashburn, Virginia
3 April 2009

sturmgewehr
December 28, 2010, 07:38 PM
Thanks fo the clarification, despite your negative tone.

migkillertwo
December 28, 2010, 08:01 PM
Its their anwser to the FN SCAR. I for one would not buy either. Ill stick with my old M4s. Lastly yes they should both lower their prices.

I second this motion. 2500$ for an ACR when I can have a perfectly good M4gery for well under 1000$? Thanks but no thanks buddy

If you enjoyed reading about "Bushmaster ACR = Failure?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!