Comments on: Remington ACR http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/ Firearms not Politics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:17:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: kurt http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-28313 kurt Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:48:17 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-28313 ok in my eyes a pound dosent matter... if it was 2 or 3 i wouldent touch it but todays rounds are so accurate that you never need the 20in barrel a 14in is all ill ever need... im not going out to shoot flies out of the sky so if its 1in off at 200yards big woop... you should still be able to hit center mass witht the shorter barrel... honstly all i care about is hitting within the 5in circle of center mass im not lookn to shoot your nipples out so why be so accurate when it dosent matter,,,,,,,,just sayn and its truley an opinion so im just giving my 2 cents ok in my eyes a pound dosent matter… if it was 2 or 3 i wouldent touch it but todays rounds are so accurate that you never need the 20in barrel a 14in is all ill ever need… im not going out to shoot flies out of the sky so if its 1in off at 200yards big woop… you should still be able to hit center mass witht the shorter barrel… honstly all i care about is hitting within the 5in circle of center mass im not lookn to shoot your nipples out so why be so accurate when it dosent matter,,,,,,,,just sayn and its truley an opinion so im just giving my 2 cents

]]> By: ACR Promo Video « Warrior Times http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-24056 ACR Promo Video « Warrior Times Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:56:04 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-24056 [...] http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/ [...] [...] http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/ [...]

]]> By: Brenden http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-23706 Brenden Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:59:40 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-23706 Charging handle is forwar. Tha gas system has multiple settings for suppressed and unsuppressed firing so no undue stress is put on the system. The gas system is connected to each barrel so there is no issue with changing barrel lengths. A grenade launcher could easily be made to fit where the front hand guard attaches using capture pin and the same type of barrel clamp the tavor grenade launcher uses. Charging handle is forwar. Tha gas system has multiple settings for suppressed and unsuppressed firing so no undue stress is put on the system. The gas system is connected to each barrel so there is no issue with changing barrel lengths. A grenade launcher could easily be made to fit where the front hand guard attaches using capture pin and the same type of barrel clamp the tavor grenade launcher uses.

]]> By: Jade Slade http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-23405 Jade Slade Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:26:43 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-23405 This is one ragin' bitchin' rifle. Shot one last month. It is cool. This is one ragin’ bitchin’ rifle. Shot one last month. It is cool.

]]> By: Jake http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-23331 Jake Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:28:50 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-23331 What I'd like to see is an ACR equipped with an under-barrel grenade launcher. Until a carbine is able to fulfill the roles of rifleman and grenadier, it won't be adopted by the military. I don't have much experience in the field (though I do plan on enlisting after graduation), but I can honestly say (for now) that I wouldn't at all mind having the extra punch of a 40mm when and if I need it, even if it means a bit of added weight. Then again, the added weight can be a bonus, as Rakkasan and SeanN have pointed out-- more weight equals less recoil and better repositioning, THUS closer grouping. What I’d like to see is an ACR equipped with an under-barrel grenade launcher. Until a carbine is able to fulfill the roles of rifleman and grenadier, it won’t be adopted by the military.

I don’t have much experience in the field (though I do plan on enlisting after graduation), but I can honestly say (for now) that I wouldn’t at all mind having the extra punch of a 40mm when and if I need it, even if it means a bit of added weight. Then again, the added weight can be a bonus, as Rakkasan and SeanN have pointed out– more weight equals less recoil and better repositioning, THUS closer grouping.

]]> By: SkYLiNe17 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-23282 SkYLiNe17 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:58:45 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-23282 Apprantley its is going for around $1400 USD Apprantley its is going for around $1400 USD

]]> By: Cleen http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-23217 Cleen Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:11:48 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-23217 What is the expected msrp on the remington acr? when it finally comes out that is. What is the expected msrp on the remington acr? when it finally comes out that is.

]]> By: Zquez http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-19829 Zquez Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:44:43 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-19829 One of the things that gets me is how the same gas system will work with different length barrels. If the carbine length is designed for 10.5 - 14.5" barrels, wouldn't there be some kind of reliability issue with using a carbine length gas system on a 18" barrel? Didn't the mid-length AR come about because it was better suited to the civilian 16" barrels? Also, does this piston system efficiently handle suppressed as well as unsuppressed fire? I do have to admit that the ACR is starting to look a lot like the SCAR. Especially with that two-tone flat dark earth. One of the things that gets me is how the same gas system will work with different length barrels. If the carbine length is designed for 10.5 – 14.5″ barrels, wouldn’t there be some kind of reliability issue with using a carbine length gas system on a 18″ barrel? Didn’t the mid-length AR come about because it was better suited to the civilian 16″ barrels? Also, does this piston system efficiently handle suppressed as well as unsuppressed fire? I do have to admit that the ACR is starting to look a lot like the SCAR. Especially with that two-tone flat dark earth.

]]> By: MHD http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-18747 MHD Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:14:43 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-18747 It has been a long time since I carried a rifle in a hostile environment. But, experience from that time tells me that no matter where you shave weight, the "amount" you carry will stay the same. In other words, if you shave a pound from the rifle, you'll carry extra ammo, water, food, etc. If you shave weight on armor, you'll carry extra ammo, demo, water, etc. Infantry has been carrying between 50 and 100 lbs of gear since the Roman's were kicking butt. Until we can get bearers to carry our gear, we'll be hauling a lot of "stuff" around. In a hostile environment....what I want is reliable and effective. Weight would fall in there at about 3rd or 4th place. It has been a long time since I carried a rifle in a hostile environment. But, experience from that time tells me that no matter where you shave weight, the “amount” you carry will stay the same. In other words, if you shave a pound from the rifle, you’ll carry extra ammo, water, food, etc. If you shave weight on armor, you’ll carry extra ammo, demo, water, etc. Infantry has been carrying between 50 and 100 lbs of gear since the Roman’s were kicking butt. Until we can get bearers to carry our gear, we’ll be hauling a lot of “stuff” around. In a hostile environment….what I want is reliable and effective. Weight would fall in there at about 3rd or 4th place.

]]> By: Rakkasan http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-16379 Rakkasan Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:21:16 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-16379 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. 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.

]]> By: uzim16 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-13752 uzim16 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:18:34 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-13752 nice! how much is it? nice! how much is it?

]]> By: SeanN http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12560 SeanN Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:39:42 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12560 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. 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.

]]> By: D http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12548 D Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:37:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12548 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. 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.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12544 Ken Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12544 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? 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?

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12540 jdun1911 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:13:17 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12540 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. 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.

]]> By: Bobby http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12526 Bobby Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:19:22 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12526 Yet another reason to buy a different rifle. I'm sticking with my LWRC setup... Yet another reason to buy a different rifle.

I’m sticking with my LWRC setup…

]]> By: DSS http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12517 DSS Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:54:31 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12517 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. 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.

]]> By: Mikeone http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12486 Mikeone Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:17:26 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12486 WOOO more stuff we will never be able to buy!!!! Common Cerebus sell us the bolt gun at least !! This just makes me laugh . WOOO more stuff we will never be able to buy!!!!

Common Cerebus sell us the bolt gun at least !!

This just makes me laugh .

]]> By: Ken http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12481 Ken Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:51:36 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12481 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? 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?

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12463 jdun1911 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:57:58 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12463 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. 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.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12455 Ken Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:45:22 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12455 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. 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.

]]> By: Gutao http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12445 Gutao Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:23:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12445 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)? 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)?

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12444 jdun1911 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:14:53 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12444 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. 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.

]]> By: D http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12435 D Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:14:01 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12435 "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. “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.

]]> By: D http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12434 D Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:12:07 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12434 Magpul polymer isnt ok for a rifle but plastics that arent as good as Magpuls is ok for pistols. Magpul polymer isnt ok for a rifle but plastics that arent as good as Magpuls is ok for pistols.

]]> By: John http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12433 John Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:16:50 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12433 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... 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…

]]> By: Tom http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12429 Tom Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:20:07 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12429 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.. 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..

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12426 Steve Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:24:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12426 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 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.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12425 Ken Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:20:07 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12425 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. 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.

]]> By: Cade http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12423 Cade Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:43 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12423 I believe the other rifle shown in the second picture is the new Remington MSR. I believe the other rifle shown in the second picture is the new Remington MSR.

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12416 jdun1911 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:09:48 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12416 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. 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.

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12412 jdun1911 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:50:16 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12412 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. 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.

]]> By: Gutao http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12407 Gutao Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:21:29 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12407 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... 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…

]]> By: Danny http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12406 Danny Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:18:28 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12406 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 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

]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12405 jdun1911 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:23:00 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12405 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. 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.

]]> By: Phil http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12403 Phil Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:08:44 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12403 I seriously think that the only way I'd buy this now is if they have the polymer hand guard. I seriously think that the only way I’d buy this now is if they have the polymer hand guard.

]]> By: Eddy A http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12399 Eddy A Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:20:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12399 i want this so friggin bad. i want this
so
friggin
bad.

]]> By: b http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/22/remington-acr/#comment-12396 b Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:49:35 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=7177#comment-12396 What about a 16 inch barrel to be legal with out staking the flash suppressor on the 14.5 inch barrel? What about a 16 inch barrel to be legal with out staking the flash suppressor on the 14.5 inch barrel?

]]>