Remington ACR
The specifications of the Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) have finally been published. Bushmaster and Magpul are both still very much involved in the development of the rifle although I can see very little that has changed since the original Magpul Masada was unveiled.
Original Magpul Masada. Original handguard is not mentioned on Remington’s website.
Remington ACR.
The ACR is made up of an aluminum upper receiver and lower polymer receiver.
The lower receiver resembles the AR-15 and SCAR lower receivers. Like the polymer AR-15 lower receivers made by Calvary Arms, the ACR’s pistol grip is part of the mould and cannot be removed. The trigger group has a two stage trigger that has a pull weight of 6.25 lbs. The trigger group parts are compatible with the AR-15 / M16. Modes of operation are semi-automatic or fully automatic. All the controls are all ambidextrous.
The operating system was inspired by the AR-18. It uses a short stroke piston system – meaning the piston slams into the bolt carrier knocking is back and cycling the action. The AR-18 bolt carrier design has been improved, at least in my opinion, although it would be more costly to manufacture than the AR-18. The AR-18 has twin guide rods and twin recoil springs, see the photo below. The ACR has a recoil spring that inserts into the bolt carrier and is guided by steel rails that are attached to the receiver.
The bolt is in the AR-15 style with 8 lugs, one of which is an extractor. The bolt can be easily swapped out and a 6.8 mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel bolt swapped in.
AR-180 (semi-auto version of the AR-18). Photo from carteach0’s blog.
ACR bolt carrier.
Steel guide rails indicated by arrow.
The rate of fire is 650-700 RPM. This is slightly higher than the SCAR which features a larger/heavier bolt carrier.
The side mounted charging handle does not reciprocate, unlike the SCAR, but can engage the bolt carrier and used as a forward assist.
Barrels offered will 10.5”, 14.5”, 16.5” and 18” in length and can be changed by the operator without tools. Magpul originally touted compatibility with standard M16 barrels, although Remington does not mention this on their website.
Two stocks will be offered: a foldable / adjustable stock and a fixed stock.
The 14.5″ carbine version of the ACR weights 7 lbs (unloaded)
Drake from Magpul posted these photos online:
More info at Remington Military
Hat Tip: ITS Tactical
What about a 16 inch barrel to be legal with out staking the flash suppressor on the 14.5 inch barrel?
i want this
so
friggin
bad.
I seriously think that the only way I’d buy this now is if they have the polymer hand guard.
The single recoil spring on ar18 action has a very bad track record. So it would be interesting to see if it actually work with a high rounds count.
They probably need to replace the 6.25lbs trigger pull with something heavier. Unless it is intended for snipers the US military do not like light trigger pull weight.
The two stage trigger need to go I think. It doesn’t have good reputation for high rounds count.
What’s that sniper rifle in the 8th photos do ya see any chance this gettin in hands of US Millitary, will it be offered to export to other countries, i heard India placin a contract for 300000 ARs 4 COIN Troops
why did the charging handle design changed so much during the evolution of the gun?first it was on the back,then near the end of the hand guard(and it was on both sides),and now,on the other side of the gun…
IIRC but don’t quote me on it, the M16/M4 trigger pull is around 9.5 or 9 lbs.
For a plastic rifle it sure weight a lot. A standard M4 weight around 6 lbs.
Dannyon,
It could be the Massoud in 7.62. Magpul did not sell the right to it.
As a rule of thumb DI rifles have better accuracies then their piston counter parts. So I doubt they will use the Massoud.
I believe the other rifle shown in the second picture is the new Remington MSR.
Considering the ACR is bulkier,its not really surprising it weighs more. One pound is a moot point. Im not a fan of polymer main parts on a military rifle. It gives it a “disposable” look, IMHO. Also, durability is in question.
I am not saying polymer lower is a good thing, but there once was a time, not long ago, when aluminum receivers were considered bad and plastic was not considered good enough for stocks.
I see many new and improved military rifle designs.. but one thing is lacking.. a new and improved cartridge.. these new rifles are still all chamber for the crappy 223 or 5.56.. we need an new and improved cartridge and magazine system for these new rifles.. and get away of trying to see what we can fit into the current AR15 magazine..
Hey, this model isn’t showing up on Remington’s website yet. Is this actually slated for public availability? The design definitely resembles the SCAR…
Magpul polymer isnt ok for a rifle but plastics that arent as good as Magpuls is ok for pistols.
“why did the charging handle design changed so much during the evolution of the gun?first it was on the back,then near the end of the hand guard(and it was on both sides),and now,on the other side of the gun…”
charging handle used to be above the ejection port area, like in the first pic, but it interfered with some optics mounts, so they moved it forward. Good change IMO.
One pound isn’t moot. “More ounce more pain” or something like it.
One pound isn’t much to people that watch TV at home but to a grunt that carrying 100 lbs on their back for hours, that’s a lot of pain.
Every year there is one or two new cartridge entering the market. You know what happen? It dies one year later.
D
i knew that part of the opctics,but the 2nd design(the one with charging handles on the front) was kinda nice and “unique”,so,why did they change?is there any advantages(becides the reciprocation)?
Considering my weapon in the Army at one point was an M16A2 with a M203 on it,I consider 7 pounds “light”. No TV here. I understand the weight factor. I also understand that the weight of the gun is irrelevant because it is a necessary evil and will save your life.
Ken,
The M16A2 has a 20″ inch barrel and weight around 7.5lbs IIRC. The ACR with 14.5 inch barrel weight at 7 lbs. That’s a big difference.
This rifle is design from the onset to be adopted by the US military. That is the goal of the rifle creator, Magpul. They have stated this many times and I think it is the main reason why the sold the rights to Bushmaster. Otherwise it would have been in civilians hands by now.
Does that half pound make it a better gun? Anyone? I dont troll the internet for combat reports so…What does everyone think about the interchangeable barrel feature?
WOOO more stuff we will never be able to buy!!!!
Common Cerebus sell us the bolt gun at least !!
This just makes me laugh .
I am disappointed the forward charging handle was dropped. I liked the charging handle on the M16. I thought it was an ideal location for quite cocking. The rear charging handle makes this weapon look like a SCAR knock off.
Yet another reason to buy a different rifle.
I’m sticking with my LWRC setup…
Ken it sure does. You can ask anyone that been in Afghanistan. You can ask anyone that do high altitude fighting where the air is thin and every ounce weight a ton.
Steve posted an article few months back where serviceman that came back from Afghanistan and Iraq with mess up backs. Too much weight was the cause.
I rather carry extra ammo then carry a weapon that is one more pound heavier then it should be. It has been said here and in other boards that people will pay a premium to get a pound or two off their back.
The Infantry will always be over burdened. Sadly enough. Maybe some combat veterans can chime in? In my opinion I would rather have a rifle that was slightly heavier but accurate,reliable and would take a guy down all the time versus a high maintenance,flimsy, and low powered rifle. Steve maybe a poll on this?
not sure what yall are saying about a rear charging handle, it clearly is a forward charging handle. You can see it in the pic with the remmy sniper rifle. You cant see it on the other pics because you are looking at ejection port side.
i’ve weighed in on the weight issue before (infantryman, 10th Mountain, OEF VII/VIII), and while i concur with jdun that lighter is generally better, i don’t think half a pound is that big a deal. if you take a modern M4 which weighs, what, 7 lbs loaded? by the time you add the infrared, optic, and a flashlight, i’d bet you’re at 9-10 lbs. add a 203, that gets up to about 12 lbs, and each magazine weighs about half a pound…what i’m trying to say is that, as a man who’s carried a 12-ish pound 203, a 15 pound SAW, and a 25 pound M249, plus water, plus ammo, plus a thousand other things, when you’re carrying around that amount of weight, you really don’t notice half a pound. water bottles probably weigh about half a pound, but you stuff as many of those in your pack as possible, regardless of the weight. if the acr was half a pound lighter, that’d be swell, but that’s by no means a deal-breaker for me. in the great weight debate, i think the armor systems are a much bigger issue than a half-a-pound on a rifle.
nice! how much is it?
I was deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq with 2/187th Infantry 101st. I did enough humping in the mountains and through urban environments to realize that no matter what, as a grunt, you will always be carrying way too much weight. I don’t think half of a pound matters when you are looking at carrying anywhere from 70 to 100 lbs in other gear…so I have to agree with SeanN on that point. Personally, I appreciate a heavier more stable rifle that might cut back on some of the recoil and help send home some of those followup shots, especially a rifle that is spec’d for automatic fire. You start firing 750 rpm with a 6 lbs rifle, you’ll be throwing rounds all over the place. I understand with full auto you can’t expect surgical accuracy, but that weight makes a difference in recovery time. Its easy to get hung up on the little stuff, but when it boils down to the nuts and bolts of it all, I don’t think that the weight of this rifle is what they’ll be up against when it comes to making this the next service rifle. Versatility and adaptability are this rifles major selling points, not the weight.