ACR revamp sheds 1.8 lbs and quick change barrel [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : ACR revamp sheds 1.8 lbs and quick change barrel


humanguerrilla
10-17-2011, 19:54
goes with magnesium lower and ar grip.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/14/new-remington-acr/

crazymoose
10-17-2011, 21:00
This might save the design. I've thought the QC barrel nut was a waste of weight and an unnecessary capability from day one, and it has proven to cause some zero issues, as well. Also, the new lower opens up a lot of ergonomic options.

AK_Stick
10-17-2011, 22:50
I rather like the QC barrel function as I could have a 6.8 and 5.56 in the same gun.


Just wish they'd actually gotten the damn gun right. Its been ********* since Magpul gave it to bush-hampster.

crazymoose
10-18-2011, 02:11
I think they could have retained a quick change function with something like the mechanism the SCAR uses. The tool-less setup was what I had a problem with. My feeling is that if you're going to carry an extra barrel, bolt, ammo, and mags, a small torque wrench isn't too cumbersome to also carry.

M&P15T
10-18-2011, 07:37
Interesting. The article mentioned a carbine-length gas system. Are we to understand this version of the ACR is DI?

WoodenPlank
10-18-2011, 07:43
Interesting. The article mentioned a carbine-length gas system. Are we to understand this version of the ACR is DI?

One of the photos clearly showed the front end of a piston system. I assume that it's just a shorter gas piston system, and similar or identical length to a DI carbine system.

Am I the only one that finds magnesium as an odd choice for a lower receiver material?

cyrsequipment
10-18-2011, 07:45
Am I the only one that finds magnesium as an odd choice for a lower receiver material?

No, no you're not...:dunno:

Mayhem like Me
10-18-2011, 09:54
I rather like the QC barrel function as I could have a 6.8 and 5.56 in the same gun.


Just wish they'd actually gotten the damn gun right. Its been ********* since Magpul gave it to bush-hampster.

Having been in on the project I can tell you that your information is skewed.. The Magpul offering was not ready for mass production AT ALL.. And quite a bit of effort and testing went into the Bushmaster ACR to make it a viable platform.. If Magpul could have pulled it off they would have.. there is a reason they took the money and ran.

ACR marketed to civilian gun owners Quick change barrel and other stuff..marketing for stuff consumers want..
Mailitary version has no need for Quick change and for once they listened to the professional they have been consulting with.

Mayhem like Me
10-18-2011, 09:57
One of the photos clearly showed the front end of a piston system. I assume that it's just a shorter gas piston system, and similar or identical length to a DI carbine system.

Am I the only one that finds magnesium as an odd choice for a lower receiver material?

At roughly 2/3rds the weight and very competritive in cost why not...

nastytrigger
10-18-2011, 10:02
Any price change too?

AK_Stick
10-18-2011, 12:32
Having been in on the project I can tell you that your information is skewed.. The Magpul offering was not ready for mass production AT ALL.. And quite a bit of effort and testing went into the Bushmaster ACR to make it a viable platform.. If Magpul could have pulled it off they would have.. there is a reason they took the money and ran.

ACR marketed to civilian gun owners Quick change barrel and other stuff..marketing for stuff consumers want..
Mailitary version has no need for Quick change and for once they listened to the professional they have been consulting with.


Honestly, the military has no need for an ACR, so thats a dog that doesn't hunt. This gun was never anything more than a cool looking rifle for civilian shooters and possibly at best, some police. It was never, and will never be a contender for military service.


However, I never said that the product was ready when magpul had it, but bush-hampster ****** it up before they released it by making several stupid choices in the way they set it up before they released it, and the result was the almost across the board flop that it was.



And Crazy, I agree, I just wish they'd stuck with something short of changing out whole uppers.

Mayhem like Me
10-18-2011, 13:18
Trust me, dealing with corporate types who think they know what you need/want is infuriating.
The Masada as an original concept was a very good idea.

And I disagree that a new more effective rifle is not needed, a true intermediate caliber along the lines of a 6.8 or 7mm short could be a very viable alternative for what is issued now, sadly, the way procurment trials are run and the amount of people that have their hands in the pie makes the water very murky for "improved" weapons.

AK_Stick
10-18-2011, 13:25
Oh dude, I'm not saying a new IMC carbine or rifle wouldn't be the cats ass, but the Army isn't going that way, atleast not right now. And when they do, they won't even offer a sideways glance at the ACR, not that its right or doesn't deserve a shot, but because the winner is already per-ordained.

If we do get a new rifle, it will be the SCAR-L. The writing is on the wall. It did far too well with the Rangers and SF/AWG.

Mayhem like Me
10-18-2011, 13:53
Oh dude, I'm not saying a new IMC carbine or rifle wouldn't be the cats ass, but the Army isn't going that way, atleast not right now. And when they do, they won't even offer a sideways glance at the ACR, not that its right or doesn't deserve a shot, but because the winner is already per-ordained.

If we do get a new rifle, it will be the SCAR-L. The writing is on the wall. It did far too well with the Rangers and SF/AWG.

They(SCAR )are very nice I have an enhanced ACR for my efforts with a few tweaks and a teamate has a SCAR, They both shoot about the same with the SCAR getting the nod for lightweight ergonomics is split for me I dont like thae SCAR reciprocating handle,,, but I have ordered two Heavy SCAR for special use.

The remmingtion with a short tube in 6.8 is a real deal bang stick....

AK_Stick
10-18-2011, 15:00
I have absolutely no doubts. I would love a factory SBR 6.8 ACR. I'd be on that like a fat kid on a cupcake.

M&P15T
10-20-2011, 13:50
I'm getting the impression that version may not be made available (with a 16" barrel) for us civies.

Mayhem like Me
10-20-2011, 18:06
I'm getting the impression that version may not be made available (with a 16" barrel) for us civies.
I can tell you that I am 99.99999 percent sure you will never be able to purchase the Remmington version.........................legally.

KalashniKEV
10-20-2011, 18:15
I handled the rifle in the pics. It wasn't really that amazing.

WHY the one sided selector??

M&P15T
10-21-2011, 07:15
I handled the rifle in the pics. It wasn't really that amazing.

WHY the one sided selector??

There were problems with the original selector's dual sided nature. When manipulating it on one side with one's dominant hand's thumb, the other side would hit the shooter's hand above their index finger.

I'm willing to bet the selector is easy to change from one side to the other, giving it an ambidextrous nature, without that particular issue.


Since you got to paw at it, was it a short-barreled version? It looks like it in the pictures.

M&P15T
10-21-2011, 07:19
I can tell you that I am 99.99999 percent sure you will never be able to purchase the Remmington version.........................legally.


The better question upon reflection, is will Bushmaster adopt some of those positive changes in their version? I handled an enhanced ACR, and that sucker was heavy!! This Remmington version is the one that should be offered to us poor civilian folks.

Of course the price is the real deal-breaker.

PlasticGuy
10-21-2011, 08:43
The better question upon reflection, is will Bushmaster adopt some of those positive changes in their version? I handled an enhanced ACR, and that sucker was heavy!! This Remmington version is the one that should be offered to us poor civilian folks...
I told both Remington and Bushmaster that same thing two SHOT Shows ago when they were first released. The Bushy version was (and is) overpriced, overweight, crippled by a terrible choice of barrels, and with the worst ambi safety I've ever used.

Remington already had mil-spec lightweight barrels and magnesium parts in the testing phases, but Bushmaster said they had no intention of incorporating any of Remington's improvements. I told them that decision would cost them millions of dollars in sales. I think I've been proven very much correct in that prediction.

KalashniKEV
10-21-2011, 08:55
Since you got to paw at it, was it a short-barreled version? It looks like it in the pictures.

It was the exact same rifle.

I like the ambi selector to touch my trigger finger because I use my thumb to take it "off" and index finger to put it "on" doing ready ups.

If it's too long or low though I understand.

Mayhem like Me
10-21-2011, 09:24
The better question upon reflection, is will Bushmaster adopt some of those positive changes in their version? I handled an enhanced ACR, and that sucker was heavy!! This Remmington version is the one that should be offered to us poor civilian folks.

Of course the price is the real deal-breaker.


The Civvie ACR will not get military goodies in the near future...

vrex
10-21-2011, 17:31
:yawn:

fnfalman
10-21-2011, 22:02
Am I the only one that finds magnesium as an odd choice for a lower receiver material?

Why not? There are plastic receivered ARs running around. Magnesium is a step up. Perhaps you may have heard of magnesium racing wheels for autos and motos?

12131
10-21-2011, 23:09
The Civvie ACR will not get military goodies in the near future...
Well, then...:yawn:

Foxtrotx1
10-22-2011, 02:23
Lets look at the bright side. We have a wonderful new series of rifles (the SCAR) resulting from this whole 10 year mess.

WoodenPlank
10-22-2011, 07:42
Why not? There are plastic receivered ARs running around. Magnesium is a step up. Perhaps you may have heard of magnesium racing wheels for autos and motos?

Yeah, I had someone point that out later on. I found it odd since I haven't seen it before, and magnesium is highly flammable. Then again, so is aluminum, and both have very high ignition temperatures.