After shooting several hundred rounds thru the XCR, I have a basic review pre-paired. The long detailed one will be published very soon, hopefully in one of the trade magazines. In short, it is a pretty good weapon system.
The good:
• Coming to the XCR as a long time M4 shooter, the ergonomics are very good. The bolt release is in the right spot and the selector lever is in the familiar spot.
• For such a pencil thin barrel, it is quite accurate. I have gotten the weapon zeroed and the barrel broken in with green tip, but I have not had a chance to bench the gun to see what kind of groups I can get at 100M and 200M.
• The stock is very comfortable. But it won’t be with armor on, for big people or for short people. It has an average length of pull. A stock with an adjustable length of pull and cheek piece would make it much nicer.
• Trigger pull is nice with a crisp break.
• The way the recoil spring locks the two receivers is very clever.
• The gas system keeps the receiver very clean inside.
• The forward assist, while not original is very clever too.
• The single point sling attachment point on the back of the receiver is nice.
The bad:
• The barrel is too thin for mounting a suppressor on. The Ops Inc can uses a sleeve at the back of the can to block and gasses and keep the suppressor from moving as it heats up. This allows the hole for the bullet to be smaller in diameter. The current barrel makes it impossible to use one on it because it steps down behind the flash hider to the pencil thin diameter. Maybe mounting a Tactical Innovations can on it will work, but I am skeptical that the results will be good adding that much weight on a barrel that thin.
• The twist rate for LEO’s that use 55gr 5.56 ammo is wrong. For heavier rounds it is going to be fine, but many agencies are required to use the 55gr round. If RA made one for the LEO customer base in a quicker twist rate, it would make it more attractive to the LEO community.
• The receiver does not rock open very far to clear a shell or wipe out the action. Another 15-20 degrees would make a HUGE difference.
• The “peg” on the back of the recoil spring needs to be tapered on the bottom so that a soldier or officer could snap it shut in a hurry. As it is, it needs to be pushed in while you close the receiver.
• The bolt design sucks in that when you pull the carrier out, the bolt just falls apart and away from the carrier. That means you need to have your hand ready to catch it when you extract the carrier group. It just is a pain in the butt and slow. In a rifle made for combat the way it works is not user or speed friendly.
• There are a lot of brass shavings inside the receiver. I have not inspected the spent cases yet, but I bet based on the amount of brass shavings that it chews them up pretty good. Not good for re-loaders.
• The YHM rear sight is ok, but not nearly as good as the Matech. I am going to swap the YHM sight for the Matech because it flips up, has windage and elevation adjustments.
• There is no sling attachment point on the front of the rail.
• The top of the stock needs to be raised to even with, or nearly even with the top of the receiver. This would aid in recoil management and give a better cheek weld when using the BUIS and optics that sit higher.
• There needs to be a hammer block in the lower receiver. Just firing the weapon once with the receivers apart bashed up the lower pretty good.
Other changes or options that the system needs besides the heavier barrel is a 20” barrel, 12” barrel and a different stock.
More details are coming, as are pics.
The good:
• Coming to the XCR as a long time M4 shooter, the ergonomics are very good. The bolt release is in the right spot and the selector lever is in the familiar spot.
• For such a pencil thin barrel, it is quite accurate. I have gotten the weapon zeroed and the barrel broken in with green tip, but I have not had a chance to bench the gun to see what kind of groups I can get at 100M and 200M.
• The stock is very comfortable. But it won’t be with armor on, for big people or for short people. It has an average length of pull. A stock with an adjustable length of pull and cheek piece would make it much nicer.
• Trigger pull is nice with a crisp break.
• The way the recoil spring locks the two receivers is very clever.
• The gas system keeps the receiver very clean inside.
• The forward assist, while not original is very clever too.
• The single point sling attachment point on the back of the receiver is nice.
The bad:
• The barrel is too thin for mounting a suppressor on. The Ops Inc can uses a sleeve at the back of the can to block and gasses and keep the suppressor from moving as it heats up. This allows the hole for the bullet to be smaller in diameter. The current barrel makes it impossible to use one on it because it steps down behind the flash hider to the pencil thin diameter. Maybe mounting a Tactical Innovations can on it will work, but I am skeptical that the results will be good adding that much weight on a barrel that thin.
• The twist rate for LEO’s that use 55gr 5.56 ammo is wrong. For heavier rounds it is going to be fine, but many agencies are required to use the 55gr round. If RA made one for the LEO customer base in a quicker twist rate, it would make it more attractive to the LEO community.
• The receiver does not rock open very far to clear a shell or wipe out the action. Another 15-20 degrees would make a HUGE difference.
• The “peg” on the back of the recoil spring needs to be tapered on the bottom so that a soldier or officer could snap it shut in a hurry. As it is, it needs to be pushed in while you close the receiver.
• The bolt design sucks in that when you pull the carrier out, the bolt just falls apart and away from the carrier. That means you need to have your hand ready to catch it when you extract the carrier group. It just is a pain in the butt and slow. In a rifle made for combat the way it works is not user or speed friendly.
• There are a lot of brass shavings inside the receiver. I have not inspected the spent cases yet, but I bet based on the amount of brass shavings that it chews them up pretty good. Not good for re-loaders.
• The YHM rear sight is ok, but not nearly as good as the Matech. I am going to swap the YHM sight for the Matech because it flips up, has windage and elevation adjustments.
• There is no sling attachment point on the front of the rail.
• The top of the stock needs to be raised to even with, or nearly even with the top of the receiver. This would aid in recoil management and give a better cheek weld when using the BUIS and optics that sit higher.
• There needs to be a hammer block in the lower receiver. Just firing the weapon once with the receivers apart bashed up the lower pretty good.
Other changes or options that the system needs besides the heavier barrel is a 20” barrel, 12” barrel and a different stock.
More details are coming, as are pics.
