XCR, SCAR, sig 556, &...; next gen rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cbrgator

Some of the differences with rifles such as the XCR that show the difference in the whole platform is that it has been torn down, reviewed and rebuilt from the ground up to address the legacy issues with the current Mxx platform.

Examples from the XCR for example, (I'll forgo the whole DI versus piston charge as it just leads to knee jerk reaction flame wars......:D )

Take the cock, charge, chamber, lock, fire, extract, eject cycle. We will assume the user is right handed throughout

Cock
The Mxx platform uses a cocking handle/latch that runs in a straight line back along the top of the butt, in a direct line with your head, when you have a sight picture.

Scenario is you are standing and firing or prone and firing

To cock the weapon you cannot maintain a sight picture, you have to either take your right hand off the grip, move your head slightly to the side and use your right hand or move/rotate the weapon to clear your body to use your left hand.
It is physically impossible for a rightie to cock the weapon with the left hand without moving the rifle away from the shoulder.

The XCR uses a non reciprocating cocking handle mounted on the left hand side of the rifle in the same location as a FAL. To cock the weapon, you maintain sight picture, maintain pistol grip and move your left hand down the barrel, grasp pull, let fly.

Ergonomically a far better option

Charging
The Mxx bolt carrier and bolt move forward, strips a round off the magazine and feed the round up and into the chamber.

XCR was re-engineered with the magazine at a higher point in the rifle so that the feed is almost in a direct line with the chamber. This means less "lift" and reduces potential feed ramp issues.

Chamber and Lock
The Mxx platform uses a daisy head bolt with 7 small lugs, the XCR uses a 3 large lug AK style design.

From basic mechanics, it's easier to clean 6 lug surfaces as opposed to 14, 3 big lugs are individually stronger than 7 small lugs, fewer mating and moving surfaces are better then more.

The chamber/lock element also ties into the XCR's calibre change system. By design the mechanism in the XCR means that no headspacing is require when the barrel and calibre is changed, with the Mxx you have to change the entire upper, just changing the barrel is an armourer level job at least.

Extract/Eject

In the Mxx platform, the ejection of the spent cartridge requires the use of a plunger ejector, yet more moving parts with concomitant maintenance, cleaning etc.

The XCR ejector is a simple blade of steel, no moving parts, no springs, no cleaning or specific maintenance.

The working parts of the Mxx platform, to return to battery, uses a buffer tube, yet more parts which lead to another potential single point of failure, broken butt can lead to the weapon failing completely.

The XCR return mechanism is all within the upper and an integral part of the piston mechanism

The changes are not on the same level as say a bullpup form caseless ammunition firing rifle.......:D...... They do address core concerns.
 
I like the DI system on my AR and the piston system on my M14 and AKM.
All of them have proven themselves reliable in heat of modern battle fields.
 
Some of the differences with rifles such as the XCR that show the difference in the whole platform is that it has been torn down, reviewed and rebuilt from the ground up to address the legacy issues with the current Mxx platform.

The XCR is pretty much a Daewoo with a charging handle on the left. There are some minor differences, however it hasn't been built up from nothing.

Nice try though.
 
It is physically impossible for a rightie to cock the weapon with the left hand without moving the rifle away from the shoulder.

Non sense. I can cock an AK under handed and over handed without even letting the rifle dip downward, let alone taking the stock off of my shoulder.

From basic mechanics, it's easier to clean 6 lug surfaces as opposed to 14

That doesn't matter a bit. Gas operated rifles don't get their bolts dirty enough in a quick period of time for difficulty in cleaning to sustain.

3 big lugs are individually stronger than 7 small lugs,

Again, doesn't matter. As I understand, the m4 family's biggest operating failures relating to the bolt is snapping in half at the cam pin hole, not shearing of the lugs. There are very few instances of lug shearing in the m4 short barreled rifles that were attributed to improper gas length to barrel length ratio (civilian rifles). The number may be even practically non existant for rifles based on the ar18 that use a 7 lug bolt, probably becuase of the way the piston deals with unlocking a bolt at lower pressures.

Now for arguments sake, theoretically the ar18 style carrier/bolt (doesnt matter how many lugs) may be better than the XCR's system. The reason is quite a simple one, and also probably is why the ar18 system is so redundant across the world. The ar18 bolt (including the ar15 bolt) is FREE FLOATING. The round is the only object that will be shoved into the chamber.

The AK and XCR bolts both ride on rails. If dirt/grime accumulates in the weapon, chances are some of it will get onto the rails, which leads to the bolt shoving dirt into the chamber/trunnion area. This is especially true with the AK, but the AK has very loose tolerances to counter that. I can wiggle the bolt side to side while it's resting the the rails. That just goes to show.

The XCR looks like it has a free floating bolt because of the internal and operating systems' analogous space, but it does not. The bolt has to ride on rails otherwise the bolt wil rotate into the locking position as it tries to strip a round from the mag. So it would be better to have the XCR bolt use intitially 2 big lugs to ride on the rails, which it does.

In the Mxx platform, the ejection of the spent cartridge requires the use of a plunger ejector, yet more moving parts with concomitant maintenance, cleaning etc.

The XCR ejector is a simple blade of steel, no moving parts, no springs, no cleaning or specific maintenance.

I agree that a fixed ejector is better, but there is a reason why both are common.

If the rifle is going to have a bolt that rides on rails, then it would be smart to use a fixed ejector. It's just simpler that way.

If the rifle is going to have a free floating bolt like the ar15/18, a plunger ejector may be neccessary. It's easier and simpler to incorporate it into the bolt than to use a fixed ejector along with the slot cut out (which may not be a good engineering move on a 7 lug bolt if you're worried about strength).
 
The XCR is pretty much a Daewoo with a charging handle on the left. There are some minor differences, however it hasn't been built up from nothing.

Nice try though.

The XCR has a little in common in a couple of guns. But you are correct in saying that no gun is built up from nothing. All the new designs borrow here and there from platforms throughout the 20th century

However, the XCR was designed from the ground up with a focus on not having the same issues the AR15 has, so the feeding, extraction, and ejection are all much stronger, with beefier parts.
 
Bartowski

I said reviewed and rebuilt from the ground up, new designs, best of breed etc.

Are you talking about the K1 or K2, neither of which is anything like the XCR. Two quick examples, the K1 is a DI and the K2 uses an M16 derived bolt and bolt carrier.

Have a look at the weapons before opining on them.

Evilmonkey

Non sense. I can cock an AK under handed and over handed without even letting the rifle dip downward, let alone taking the stock off of my shoulder

We are talking about the Mxx platform not the AK, no mention of the AK platform at any point.

That doesn't matter a bit. Gas operated rifles don't get their bolts dirty enough in a quick period of time for difficulty in cleaning to sustain.

The DI system and daisy bolt head of the Mxx/ARxx platform doesn't get dirty and isn't fiddly to clean......Completely opposite to the experience of pretty much every user.

Again, doesn't matter. As I understand, the m4 family's biggest operating failures relating to the bolt is snapping in half at the cam pin hole, not shearing of the lugs

The 7 lug daisy head bolt when viewed is inherently asymmetrical. it, in effect, starts as if it was symmetrical 8 lug system with one lug removed for the extractor. This asymmetry causes the bolt to apply approx 80% of the recoil force to the two lugs adjacent to the extractor (Armalites own figures). Various workarounds have been applied by changing the profile of the lugs, recessing one lug to simulate an evenly balanced 6 lug system etc.

As opposed to re-engineering an inherently flawed design. It now works well but has had to be tweaked and played with over the last 40+ years to maintain reliability.


The AK and XCR bolts both ride on rails. If dirt/grime accumulates in the weapon, chances are some of it will get onto the rails, which leads to the bolt shoving dirt into the chamber/trunnion area.

No trunnions in the XCR and once again why are we talking about the AK? The "rails" in the XCR don't run close into or up to the chamber and I fail to see how they are capable of shoving dirt into the chamber?
 
Usual response is, more accurate than the majority of users.......

Typical user reports for the rifle

5.56 seems to average at 1.0 -1.5 MOA

6.8SPC ditto

7.62x39 seems nearer 2.0 MOA

Accuracy is reported as generally better after a Bill Springfield trigger job.

General comments are that the recoil seems more straight in line, climb is lower and immediate follow up shots more accurate when folks compare them to their AR's.

No extensive, peer reviewed, statistically sliced and diced figures and tables yet.

Relatively few folks bench rest the rifle, more carbine classes, informal and "combat" style, few folks report they shoot past 300m.
 
We are talking about the Mxx platform not the AK, no mention of the AK platform at any point.

What you said about being physically impossible to charge a rifle with your left hand seemed like you were talking about every rifle except the XCR. So I mentioned the AK because it's one of the worst rifles ergonomically speaking, in order to prove that what you said did not apply.

The DI system and daisy bolt head of the Mxx/ARxx platform doesn't get dirty and isn't fiddly to clean......Completely opposite to the experience of pretty much every user.

I should have been more specific. I was comparing piston operated rifles against each other that used both the large 2 or 3 lug bolt and the multiple 6 and 7 lug bolts. They hardly get dirty enough to prevent correct functioning of the rifle in a short period of time.

The 7 lug daisy head bolt when viewed is inherently asymmetrical. it, in effect, starts as if it was symmetrical 8 lug system with one lug removed for the extractor. This asymmetry causes the bolt to apply approx 80% of the recoil force to the two lugs adjacent to the extractor (Armalites own figures). Various workarounds have been applied by changing the profile of the lugs, recessing one lug to simulate an evenly balanced 6 lug system etc.

Copy-Paste. But it's alright.

As opposed to re-engineering an inherently flawed design. It now works well but has had to be tweaked and played with over the last 40+ years to maintain reliability.

There's hardly any evidence out there that show the lugs on the daisy bolt are known to break off except for the instances I've shared. Where are the reports of lugs breaking off of daisy bolts on other rifles? I haven't heard anything. I don't think anybody has. Bolt failures are serious business and if they were happening left and right, you'd be hearing about it.

No trunnions in the XCR and once again why are we talking about the AK? The "rails" in the XCR don't run close into or up to the chamber and I fail to see how they are capable of shoving dirt into the chamber?

i mentioned the AK because it's an easy example. Also I never specifically stated that the XCR shoves dirt into the chamber. I'm just saying that many rifles that are setup as such tend to shove debris into the chamber because of the rails and their postioning towards the chamber area.

BTW, the XCR does have a trunion. The upper is extruded aluminum, you HAVE to have a trunion.
 
K2 uses an M16 derived bolt and bolt carrier.

Yep so it can't be anything like it right? It uses a long stroke piston like the AK and XCR, and the lower reciever is very similar to the XCR. So other than the charging handle placement, BCG they are the same.
 
Without direct military involvement none of these platforms is going to proceed past the hobby stage.

Without a contractual obligation to meet a standard, virtually none of these companies will.

I see no reason to leave behind a perfectly good platform in the DI AR/M4 just to be bleeding edge.

The future should include a more modular designed rifle, with an integrated power supply for optics/lights/lasers, and should fire caseless (yet more effective) rounds. Even then the civilian market for same would take 10-20 years to be viable.

Barring that, nothing posted about in this thread offers any real tangible improvement over the AR/M4, and most have a whole slew of potential liabilities.
 
XCR12A.jpg

Can you weigh that, as it sits?
 
Can you weigh that, as it sits?

want to bet that that thing is lighter then the average tacticool AR?
weight in general is secondary if you keep it within a certain limit, ~8lb of Gun are about the maximum.
 
Yep so it can't be anything like it right? It uses a long stroke piston like the AK and XCR, and the lower reciever is very similar to the XCR. So other than the charging handle placement, BCG they are the same.

The XCR upper is monothithic and free floated, with a proprietary QD barrel mounting system...

Another key improvement to the XCR lower over that of an AR (besides the omission of the buffer tube, and improved FAL-like bolt catch, which are both very nice improvements), is that the magwell is shallower. This makes a difference for those who like to drop their mags free. I.e. my stash of PMAGS do not drop free from any AR lower in which I have tried them, yet all of them drop free very cleanly from the XCR lower. Another benefit is that it would enable the use of proprietary mags with more curve, for rounds like the 7.62x39, that could use it. Currently there isn't enough demand to build them, but the possibility is there.
 
I dont see a vast improvement over the current AR and AK systems. Sig makes a good gun ans of the choices id say they are the only one that I would pick, but id still rather have the AR platform. If your making a new gun that will cost me 5 times what my old one costs it better dang well be worth every stinking penny, and they arnt. The SCAR nice but not worth the 5k youll pay to get one , XCR just looks ugly from the get go (just my own 2 cents so please dont harp on that) and the Sig has issues with sand from what I have heard. But again if the next gen is always better who am I to complain. But heck they still haven't made a car as cool as the 1976 Stingray, or the 67 Shelby GT500 so new isn't always better in my mind.

If prices dropped then I might start to consider a SCAR but it would have to cost no more that $100 more than a decent AR system for me to even consider it, and basically Im impressed with the other options.

Before you go talking about how more reliable they are, remember that the AR-10 has some pretty darn impressive videos of it being tortured tested and id did just fine.
 
The Mxx platform uses a cocking handle/latch that runs in a straight line back along the top of the butt, in a direct line with your head, when you have a sight picture.

I wasn't intended to.:)

Medium%20Images%5CRifles%5CAR10B%20medium.jpg


But then again, if the gun is not malfunctioning, there's no reason I can think of to use the charging handle while maintaining a sight picture...
 
The XCR upper is monothithic and free floated, with a proprietary QD barrel mounting system...

Another key improvement to the XCR lower over that of an AR (besides the omission of the buffer tube, and improved FAL-like bolt catch, which are both very nice improvements), is that the magwell is shallower. This makes a difference for those who like to drop their mags free. I.e. my stash of PMAGS do not drop free from any AR lower in which I have tried them, yet all of them drop free very cleanly from the XCR lower. Another benefit is that it would enable the use of proprietary mags with more curve, for rounds like the 7.62x39, that could use it. Currently there isn't enough demand to build them, but the possibility is there.

Did you even bother to read the whole thread? Probably not.

I was comparing the Daewoo K2 to the XCR; not the XCR to an AR. Please read and understand a post before you reply to it.
 
Yep so it can't be anything like it right? It uses a long stroke piston like the AK and XCR, and the lower reciever is very similar to the XCR. So other than the charging handle placement, BCG they are the same.

Based on your obvious extensive handling of both weapons...?

Yes of course identical....

K2

daewoo_k2_1.jpg


XCR

XCR-M4.gif


Not mention, lets see.. the K2 has

M16 type bolt and bolt carrier
Reciprocating cocking handle
Cocking handle on the right not left of the receiver
Plunger ejector
No monolithic rail system
No capability of quick barrel or caliber change

Yeah.....just identical to each other
 
Im only basing that off of a few reports I heard from contractors in the sand box. But I have no experience with that. They were saying the tighter tolerances of the sig didnt help in that regard. Ive never heard anything else negative on Sig rifle (besides price). Again that might have just been scuttle butt from someone who didnt clean there gun but.....
 
Did you even bother to read the whole thread? Probably not.

I was comparing the Daewoo K2 to the XCR; not the XCR to an AR. Please read and understand a post before you reply to it.

Please understand that a new paragraph often indicates a subject transition, my previous post being such a case. :rolleyes:
 
The SIG 55X, while I'm sure its a nice rifle, is not in this conversation, really. It was not designed to meet the spec for the SCAR contract and does not have that sort of feature set in the upper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top