Bushmaster ACR is now Remington ACR!
Murdoc spotted a video where a Remington VC referred to the ACR, formerly Magpul Masada, as the Remington ACR. It looks like the rifle, or at least the marketing, has been transfered from Bushmaster to the military devision of their sister company Remington.
I found this Remington promotion material online.
Click to expand.
It says that the rifle will be available in 5.56mm NATO, 6.8mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendel.
There is no indication that Remington will be offering civilian sales.
IIRC Remington is doing the military version and Bushmaster will handle the civilian model.
Not 100% sure though, thought I read that somewhere.
That…really looks like an FN SCAR.
I can only hope this means that Remington can push their 6.8mm and this rifle to our armed forces/DOD and get it to them within a few years. It looks like a good system and they have had a lot of time to work the bugs out.
It looks less complex than the SCAR and more robust. The 6.8mm round would eliminate the need for both the 5.56mm and the 7.62 within the squad organization and the 7.62 can go back to being for snipers and medium machine guns.
The 6.8mm round as far as I have read was designed for a shorter barrel so the standard weapon would have a 16″ barrel. I have also seen and read reports that even with a 7 inch barrel the 6.8mm was accurate to 300 meters.
Lets hope this is the vessel meaning Remington that gets the BEST weapon into the hands of our fighting men and women and retires the M-16/M-4 and it’s 5.56mm round.
hmmm Grendel :]
And how doesn’t FN get all worked up about this?
Looks exactly like the SCAR…
I suspect that is right.
After Magpul developed the concept, they partnered with Bushmaster to commercialize it. e.g., Magpul realized they are great at product concept work but didn’t have the expertise to “productize” a firearm…at least not yet.
Of course, then Bushmaster…along with Remington, DPMS and a few others…were (and still are) purchased by Cerberus , nee Freedom Group.
Remington is being used to hit hunters on the “civilian” side and mil/police on the government side…leveraging the name and already established go-to-market channels. I suspect that Bushmaster will remain the tactical brand they go to market with for civilians.
Oh, I forgot to note…I will buy one when they are available to civvies. I like it better than the FN SCAR (after playing with them at the NRA show last year).
Yeah, I heard the same thing. Remington Military will be handling marketing and promotion to .mil. Bushmaster continues to be handling civilian production and sales. Again, that’s only hearsay though.
“Remington VC referred to the ACR, formally Magpul Masada, as the Remington ACR.”
I think you mean formerly, or did you mean this rifle should only be fired while wearing a tuxedo?
6.5mm and the 18″ barrel and you have a nice light gun that can make the job past 800 meters.
Timmeehh, lol, its fixed. Thanks.
I watched the video, and think that lefties might have a problem with hot brass in their faces. There seems to be a small black deflector looking thing rear of the ejection port, but it doesn’t seem to work. Note the last eject on the first magazine.
I can’t decide if i want a green or brown one. Black is such an unnatural color.
It appears that Remington has removed the charging handle from the right side of the receiver; only the left side handle remains — seems like a step backwards from the previously entirely ambidextrous design.
No more 5.45×39? I’m out. That was the one feature about the Masada that I liked more than the other designs, and they dropped it. STOO-PED!
Plus, Remington totally screwed up the 6.8 SPC when they submitted it to SAAMI, which is why 6.8SPC fans don’t buy 6.8 SPC from Remington (Also, because Remington seems devoted to ignoring the SPC’s existence, now that they’ve screwed it up so thoroughly).
These look totally sweet, i cant wait to get one and see how they stack up against my AR collection.
Looks great.
I still like real charging handles like the scar, m14,ak,sig etc. have..
Seems the spec ops folks do too..
Those of you saying it looks like the scar should take a look at its original design. Ever since Bushmaster and now Remington took over, it has changed in design.
This is the original MAGPUL Masada
http://www.gunpundit.com/2007/magpul_masada_shot_show_2007.jpg
(note the different forward hand grip and the cocking handle is above the ejection port.)
This is the Bushmaster ACR
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bushmaster-acr-1.jpg
(note the grip is the same with the Masada but the cocking handle is now forward of the ejection port)
You can see their improvements over the Masada here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoa-rJkHReM&feature=PlayList&p=5965E5CC8ABA810E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27
And btw, it is bigger then the all beloved AR15 but its actually lighter.
Cool. This is a somewhat promising step in the right direction. In the latest issue of American Rifleman there was an article about the SCAR and how it is in the early stages of being adopted for US special forces. This is exciting because it is not too late to change that. The SCAR seems like a really capable platform, but from what I have read, I would take an ACR over the SCAR any day. Hopefully Remington can push this platform on the powers that be fairly soon. It seems rediculous to me that Belgium should have such a rediculous monopoly on American military arms when there is a domestic manufacturer with an equal if not better platform and a whole army of un-employed automotive workers who could readily produce them.
I read somewhere that the biggest problem that Magpul had in marketing this thing to the military was that they had no real connections and could not submit it for testing at the same time as the SCAR. They are a fairly small company and were completley out of the loop when trying to figure out how to get into contact with the right people.
Its all politics, if they really wanted an advance in infantry weapons they would adopt a bullpup rifle (hopefully forward ejecting), like every other developed country in the world who doesn’t have such a corrupt arms procurement system.
The only reason they haven’t adopted the no-big-deal FN scar as the standard rifle is because its much too expensive. But FN was fortunate enough to hoodwink the smaller sof.
Seems like a reasonable design. I like the placement of the controls. I wonder how the ACR price compares to the SCAR. Odds are the ACR is cheaper.
One defect that seems apparent from the illustration is that the stock when in the folded position seems to interfere with both the ejection port and trigger access.
Bullpup configurations have advantages in theory but in practice a conventional configuration seems more practical and adaptable.
That was once arguable, but now with bullpups that eject forward, there is no excuse.
The bullpup design is a 100 year failure. If it were a great design then the UK, French, Australia, ect Special Ops would adopt it instead of using the conventional design, right?
The ACR is AR18 just like the SCAR. It used a modified AR18 action. It uses a single recoil spring instead the standard double springs that are on AR18 rifles.
@jdun1911
your points about the ACR’s single recoil spring are very cogent. The original dual recoil spring design was very good, and attempts to go to a single recoil spring (like the SA80) have tended to work less well.
Bullpups have historically been failures due to the need to rapidly switch shooting shoulders when shooting from behind cover. The forward-ejecting designs like the RFB solve that problem (and some others as well); but they still have some other limitations.
Magazine changes on a bullpup are not as convenient as on a conventional rifle design.
Magzines are necessarily more limited in size… fitting a drum magazine on a bullpup is an exercise in silliness; and really long magazines may more easily interfere on pouches and other gear. Large magazines may also cause the balance to be too far to the rear, making the gun hard to point well. (A Tippman PM-68 paintball gun with a big gas bottle stock is a prime example of a gun with awful balance because there’s too much weight at the rear).
The main reason I’ve been looking forward to the ACR is the interchangeable lowers. This allows a simple swap of a non-registered part, to change between the AR15 magazine (which is broken by design and has held back smallarms development for 40+ years in the name of backwards compatibility), and more sensible magazine designs (such as the AK mag, even if it doesn’t have a last-shot-holdback).
AK magazines are very durable, but they are heavy, and having to rock them in and out of the rifle does not make for fast reloads.
@Suburban
your point is true and well taken.
The perfect assault rifle magazine has not yet been built.
That all said; I’d rather have a magazine that I can put more faith in, even if it’s a tad slower to reload. I’ve never been a combat soldier, so I can’t speak from personal experience; but I know someone who’s seen combat with both an AK and an M16, and he unequivocally would take the AK.
What would be the best assault rifle in your opinion for the next generation solider?
The space available here does not suit a lengthy debate over the best assault rifle design.
In any case, I’m just a gun geek and armchair gun designer. Anything I come up with, Jim Sullivan or some other competent designer will find flaws with (and rightly so). The things I’ve learned by reading Small Arms Review (the best source for modern gun design knowledge) and other places have primarily been that:
– Automatic weapons design is *hard*. Making dozens of parts slam around at high rates of speed in perfect synchronization is really tough, even with modern tools. Really makes you appreciate how smart Hiram Maxim was.
– Backwards compatibility is a killer to best theoretical design, and a necessity to bureacracies (who typically have an unimagineable resources tied up in stuff they’ve bought already). To build a better design, you need a smooth migration path.
Thanks for the Info. Lets just forget all the bureaucrat BS for a short sweet second. I know that every Assault rifle and caliber has a different advantage and disadvantage. Well I have chosen some different Assault rifles and calibers for different situations. All I’m looking for your opinion on what should be different. This is just for the average infantry solider.
For urban combat the .50 Beowulf or the 6.5 general 6.8 SPC.
For jungle combat 6.5 general or the 6.8 SPC.
For mountainous (Afghanistan) combat 6.5 general or 6.8 SPC.
For desert combat 6.5 general SPC.
Here is some references http://www.alexanderarms.com/grendel.htm
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_rec7.aspx
Am I in the ball park of what caliber should be used in these environments?
I have looked at other companies like Rock River Arms and found .458 SOCOM RRA LAR-.458 CAR A4 rifle. Would .458 Caliber be the best of both worlds between the .50 Beowulf, 6.5 general and 6.8 SPC? I know the amount and weight of ammunition comes into play as well. Which the 6.5 general or 6.8 SPC has the advantage.
If I’m wrong in anyway please correct me.
Here’s my opinion (and maybe it stinks less than most people’s, but I’m not placing any bets).
You need to start with what you want your cartridge to do. Is low recoil and rapid fire the desired criterion, or lots of striking power? How much? Is a 7gram bullet (~107gr) about right, or more or less? 2400fps might be quite adequate for an urban rifle; do you need 3200fps for mountainous terrain?
The closest I’ve come to being shot at is with a paintball gun. I gave good account of myself by virtue of aimed fire; but there is value in ‘reconnaisance by fire’ or ’suppressive fire’, where a .22 would work as well as a .50 since most of your shots won’t be near the target anyway. Remember that small-unit tactics (and the logistic concerns of them) will be notably different than individual tactics.
Once you get past those issues of what we want the *bullet* to do, *then* we can worry about mechanical design.
I am of the opinion that most american cartridges are designed first and foremost for the hunting field or the target range. They’re mediocre for military purposes. Contrast Russian and American cartridges:
– 7.62×54R has a rim and a heavily tapered body. The rim means headspacing is less of an issue, so you’re less likely to get casehead separations. The Russian manufacturing industry couldn’t hold tight tolerances in 1891, and the designers knew it, so they compensated. The heavily tapered body means feeding and extraction are much more reliable under adverse conditions (steel-cased ammo, dirty gun, corroded ammo, sloppy construction of gun or ammo, gun held at a wierd angle or upside down… all the things that *will* happen out in a real military world).
7.62×39 is rimless for better feeding from magazines or belts; but still is heavily tapered for reliability. This is why steel-cased ammo works fine in 7.62×39 or x54R, but tends to jam up most every other cartridge design. Fire some steel-cased ammo in a revolver and compare the extraction force required to the force required to extract brass cases… it won’t happen every time; but sometimes it’s substantially harder. Steel cases aren’t self-lubricating like brass is, and don’t spring back after obduration in quite the same way, so they’re harder to push in and pull out of the chamber.
– 6.5 Grendel is a target cartridge and nothing but. It has a steep shoulder and a straight body, which may allow you to pack more powder into the same action length, and may improve accuracy, but it’s hell on feed reliability because the cartridge shoulders are bouncing off feed ramps and the top of the chamber on the way in, and that case is trying to tear itself apart linearly as it fires with the casehead opposed to the steep shoulder. Sure, it works… but does it work when situations are less than ideal?
Those are the extreme examples, but I hope I got the point across. Heavily tapered cases are more reliable out in a world that is dirty and unpredictable. They don’t pack quite as neatly for logistic purposes (which may be why the 5.45×39mm round is straighter-walled and has a different casehead from 7.62×39mm.. I’d really like to know); but they are reliable.
Designing the gun is a discussion as big as all this. All I will say at the moment (because my time is limited) is, get ahold of an AK and an AR, put them side by side, and take them apart. See how the parts move, see how far the parts move, consider how long it would take for them to travel in their paths, consider where dirt would go if it got into the works, consider the feed paths of the cartridges, consider how the magazines lock up and the way they rattle and the way the ammo feeds even when the magazine is pushed in some wierd way. (Do this with dummy ammo!)
M. Kalashnikov was as brilliant in his own way as Saint John Moses Browning himself. He designed with the limitations of Russian weather and manufacturing in mind tho. He started out as a shot-up tanker fighting the Germans, and not a hunter from Utah. Is the AK perfect? Far from it. However, for its design critera, it’s a brilliant design. Everything is made for cheap construction and high reliability.
If you’re willing to assume a higher cost of production for the rifle, and assume a more highly trained operator (also much more expensive), you can make different decisions. Keep in mind that the US bought AKs for the Iraqis from Bulgaria for _$65_ each. Colt gets substantially more than an order of magnitude more money for each M4 or M16.
I should shut up before I start pointing out the problems with the M16. Suffice it to say that the AR18 cured many of the AR15s biggest problems, but the Army rejected the design in 1968 because they’d invested $9 million in the rights and tooling for the AR15.
I keep contemplating the perfect assault rifle in my head, and it keeps changing as I learn more and more about all these factors. I don’t want to put down something here that I’ll look back on later and say ‘that was asinine!’, because in the end my opinion likely doesn’t matter.
Get yourself a subscription to Small Arms Review. It’ll teach you more in a few issues than you ever thought.
Redchrome, thanks for your comment!
Wow. OK. Ill subscribe to Small Arms Review. One last question. What model of AK and AR should I buy to best compare/redesign?
Off subject ,but I have a clip on paint balling i think you would like.
It is of me shooting this thing. hedge hog 003 1:18
Sorry for the bad camera work. My brothers where laughing and trying to film.
If at all possible, just borrow a friend’s AK and AR.
Make & model isn’t terribly important.
It’s noteworthy that the AK is designed such that many of the parts can be 1/16″ of an inch out of tolerance (i.e. make-it-with-a-hacksaw tolerances) and it’ll still feed & fire until the end of days. Even a garbage-grade Romanian AK will work fine. (Tho you might find it hard to hit things… the Romanians sometimes have crooked sight towers).
6.8 ballistics suck- round drops like a rock past 300.
There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 round other than a lack of marksmanship from those who detest it. We have several recorded kills past 500m using an M4 with standard CQB optics and a fist sized grouping is easily achieveable past 300m on an M4 with a 10.5 inch barrel when using a 50m zero. Proper marksmanship and correct shot placement beats calibur any day of the week on soft targets.
A lot of the 5.56 vs 6.8 controversy is propaganda and hype. Anybody who disagrees should test this for themselves. In fact, I hope nobody agrees and everyone goes out to test it for themselves. I’m not suggesting that any of the rounds larger than 5.56 are flawed, but I am suggesting that the 5.56 is more than capable of doing the job for which it is intended.
Perspective from a practitioner of combat arms with over 17 years of military experience and practical application. Take it or leave it, but never let charts or rumor mill dictate your decision making ability.
On a final note: I like the ACR, but I like the M4 as well.
@Jim M
your point is good. Lots of people have been killed just as dead with a 5.56×45 as they would be if killed with a nuke. My main issue with .22 cartridges (even centerfire ones) is that the bore is so small it’s harder to clean and keep clear of obstructions than a larger bore. Also, the bullets have less resistance to flexing in the caseneck and getting misaligned as they slam across the feedramps, than a larger bullet would. (This may be largely theoretical, especially considering how well some of those target ARs shoot).
The army experimented with .14 caliber rifles; but one of the problems they had was that water would persist in the barrel due to surface tension, instead of draining out. There are some practical lower limits to bore size for guns used out in the muddy, dirty, wet Real World.
For the sake of reliability alone, I’ll take the moderately large bore, heavily tapered 7.62×39 any day. The gun needs to go bang before we worry about what the bullet will do when it hits the target.
My experience with steel-cased 5.56×45 jamming up in a lot of different guns (even an XCR with it’s AK-ish mechanism) has really soured me on the reliability of the cartridge design.
5.45×39 (also really about .22″, just like the American cartridges, in spite of the different nominal size) is pretty darn well designed, all things considered. Kalashnikov didn’t think much of it compared to 7.62×39 tho; and I think he may have some good reasons. I’m surprised the Russians didn’t go to a nice round number like 6mm bore or even 5.5mm… it’s not like they need compatibility with out reloading components.
Still, I’d rather whack the enemy with something 6mm or bigger; and if operating by myself or in a very small unit, I’d rather hit with something 7mm or bigger. I think .276 Pedersen was one of the best cartridges ever designed. A .22 may be adequate; but I want some measure of extra insurance.
“US bought AKs for the Iraqis from Bulgaria for _$65_ each.”
If you are going to make claims, then site the source.
Just another opinion from a seventeen year old, but what about the .260 Remington as a battle rifle cartridge? It has good downrange terminal ballistics, low recoil, and it does a good job at bucking the wind and maintaining a flat trajectory. Before anyone says anything about feeding it has the same taper as a 7.62 x 51 NATO so it feeds fine. Another plus is that 7.62 machinery doesn’t require much modification to produce .260 Rem Ammunition.
@RedChrome.
I am a Marine who’s been to combat and has used both systems and I’ll be the first to say that a Stoner design (AKA M16, M4A1, AR) is far more comfortable and shooter friendly than the clumsy AK47. I know its all to preference, but inexperienced “gun nuts” always bash the AR design and go apeshit over an AK. And its always the uneducated response of “its more reliable.” Perhaps you could make that arguement in Vietnam, when the AR was in its infant stages. But todays AR is totally dependable and with the new piston configurations its just as dependable in performance as an AK. The facts are this: AR design is user-friendly, easier to reload, lightweight, modular, extremely accurate and now reliable. The AK is very “clacky” (anyone who’s fired one knows that I’m talking about that obnoxious sound the bolt makes) inaccurate, has too many parts that can snag (aka not ergonomic) and has some weight to it. Personally I say the AR is superior. Now I’m looking forward to the ACR coming out. It can shoot with water and sand in it which is optimal for mission performance, plus its mostly of polymer composite which is fantastic because it will expand less and wont burn your hands from overheating.
@wehrwolfe
I respect your opinion and your choices. Your experiences are perfectly valid and I will not (severely) disagree with what they have taught you.
I will not disagree with you that the AK has all kinds of flaws. Some are accuracy-related (the stubby bullet, the slant-cut muzzle brake); many more are shootability-related (crappy trigger, crappy sights); and then there’s the battlefield tradeoffs… where you, as a technologically-savvy American in 2009 are very different from a Siberian peasant in 1949.
The AR may be dependable *as long as you keep it clean*. I don’t know what your battlefield experience has been; but I’ve spent some time on muddy shooting ranges and digging holes in all kinds of dirt; and I know how nasty the real world gets. I want my gun to work under less than perfect conditions. That’s not to say the AR *won’t* (there’s been some very good videos lately that indicate it will work even under pretty bad conditions); but I do think some things about it could be better.
- The AR15 magazine has a ‘kink’ in it, because the magwell was originally designed for a straight 25-rounder (which didn’t work, so they went to a 20-rounder); but you need curve in it to feel 30 rounds reliably.
- There’s not enough bolt overtravel; so there’s less time for the next round from the magazine to get up into line with the bolt. This is one of the reasons why AKs will feed happily from 40 or 50-round magazines, while ARs have trouble with more than 30.
- Jim Sullivan, one of the original designers, has said that there’s not enough dwell time between the gas hitting the bolt carrier and the bolt unlocking. This is one of the reasons why ARs are prone to failing to extract; the bolt tries to go back while there’s still too much pressure in the case and it’s stuck to the chamber walls.
- The charging handle position on the AR is equally bad for both right and left-hand shooters. You need to break your position to operate it.
I won’t even bother to list the limitations of direct-impingement gas systems, since you’ve mentioned the advantages of piston conversions. However:
- the system wasn’t originally designed for a piston. The retrofit pistons are notably flimsier than many designs originally built for pistons.
- The system was designed for a ‘pressurized reciever’ to operate the bolt carrier. This means there’s comparatively little space for dirt & crud to get out of the way. An AK will jam up if it’s full of dirt too; but it’s less likely to.
There is no perfect gun, there is no ‘totally reliable’ gun. The best we can do is design to probablilities of functionality and reliability. In the end, it’s the nut behind the trigger that does the job.
Shit happens. And so long as you use a proper weapon oil and run that sucker wet, you’ll be good to go in the cleaning department.
Mags: Plenty of companies make damn near bomb proof mags for the AR. Magpul PMag and the Lancer L5 come to mind
Dwell time: A carbine, combined with a Heavy Buffer, M16 Bolt Carrier and upgraded extractor spring with O-ring pretty much nips any extraction problems in the bud.
Charging Handle: Yeah, I’ll agree with you there. lol Updates in the manual of arms help in charging handle manipulation to keep your weapon hand on fire control, but those go out the window when reaction side transitioning
Pistons for an AR: Quite frankly, your time is better spent on the DI unless you’re running a shorty suppressed. Piston AR’s have issues with carrier tilt; and as prolific as HK would like their weapon to be, a man with way more experience than I said it best with: “People that think they need piston guns don’t shoot enough to actually warrant them. People that shoot enough to sanction them aren’t foolish enough to buy them”
@Unothodox
your points are valid and I agree with them to a certain extent.
However, anytime one starts putting caveats on things (such as “use a proper oil”, “run it wet”, “keep it clean”) a design has inherently failed in some way. All designs fall short of perfection; but the more caveats you have to apply, the farther from perfection it is.
My point about mags is that it’s taken 40 years and a lot of really advanced chemistry and engineering to get AR15 mags to work well. Kalashnikov got his design to work dead-reliable in 1943 with technology no more advanced than a simple machine shop. Are there tradeoffs in Kalashnikov’s design? Yes. Could many of his ideas be profitably incorporated into a clean-sheet magazine design? Yes.
My take on the carrier-tilt debate is that you are correct; the AR15 was not designed as a piston gun, and attempts to retrofit pistons into it are inherently kludgy. They can still work well if engineered correctly; but they aren’t as good as a clean-sheet design like the ACR.
The reason FN isnt making a big stink is that the scar uses far more of Magpuls patents and designs in the scar than the Masada/ACR uses of FN’s patents.-Richard Fitzpatrick rough paraphrasing but an actual conversation none the less. The SCAR uses Magpuls stock design thats y it looks like the ACR.
As a brother in the profession of arms I agree with Jim M and Wehrwolfe. Most of the detractors of our currently issued rifle and round have no real world experience with them. First of all the 5.56×45mm NATO is just that, a NATO round. For those of you who don’t comprehend what that means, it means it was agreed on as the standard service rifle round for all NATO countries. So any change to the current round would have far ranging effects, not to mention the process isn’t gonna happen over night. Secondly, too many worry about calibers and not enough about the final resting place of the round they’ve fired. There are no magic guns, magic bullets, or magic people. What it comes down to is training. Are you better trained than your opponent? Is your desire to kill him stronger than his? The 5.56mm has been effectively killing America’s enemies for almost half a century now, so explain to me again how it’s an inferior round.
On a personal note if we’re gonna adopt a new rifle based on percieved cartridge performance I suggest we go with something in 7.62×51 NATO, so that way we can avoid any ammo hassles.
NRA’s “Shooting Illustrated” indicates Bushmaster is doing the civilian version and they indicated that “you’re gonna want one”.