New Remington ACR

At AUSA Remington Debuted a new version of the Remington ACR. This version is the model that the company plans on submitting to the Army Improved Carbine competition. It features a magnesium lower, with standard AR-15 grip and trigger guard, adjustable but non-foldable stock, carbine-length gas system, no quick change barrel (it has a new barrel nut), folding charging handle and new metal finishes. These changes help shave 1.8 lbs of weight from the gun. Photos and information are courtesy of TenPoundMonkey.

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • JamesD

    Looks interesting but I liked the folding stock.
    But they will probably offer a separate version with that at some point.

  • William C.

    Good to see they are continuing to develop the ACR.

    I think the ACR would have a lot of potential if Bushmaster/Remington/Whoever would stop screwing up everything from pricing to quality control.

  • Al

    I feel they did the right thing of removing all the useless features that would be needed for a basic infantryman such as the quick change barrel as well as removing the weight. The M16 pistol grip is a nice edition but I think the folding stock should’ve been kept but was probably removed to save on cost.

  • calool

    magnesium lower? i assume its a magnesium alloy, it would be useless if it exploded every time it rained! also i do like the ACR’s design, but from what i hear the functionality is less than perfect. I dont think that the ACR or anything like it will be adopted by the US army, most of the guns in the running for the next main army weapon aren’t as good as the AR-15 line of guns, the ar15 range is so customiseablethat it doesn’t matter if the barrel is too short, or that the sights aren’t to your taste, you can swap it all out, it’s brilliant that you can swap out some parts and go from .22 to 5.56.

    • TATim

      Magnesium wouldn’t explode when it comes into contact with rain. It would burn pretty well in steam but that wouldn’t happen all that often I’d hope. Bear in mind that a fairly thin layer of MgO would prevent reaction with water. You might want to read up on the chemical properties of magnesium before suggesting it will burst into flames!

      • 18D

        Only pure magnesium reacts violently with water. Even then it must be in shards, ribbons, or already burning. The magnesium used in the ACR receiver is oxidized alloy. It won’t explode in water.

      • Canthros

        There’s also an article about the difficulty involved in burning a NeXT cube. The NeXT computer was a project Steve Jobs worked on in the late 1980s while he was away from Apple. Some of the NeXT machines were sold in a cube-shaped case made of a magnesium alloy.

        So, no, ‘magnesium’ does not always burn in the spectacular way we all learned in chemistry classes.

    • ragnarok220

      I think they meant Magnalium, it’s basically 5000 series Aluminium alloy.
      Not as strong as 6000/7000 series but offers better corrosion resistance.

      • ThomasD

        I hope you are correct.

        The rather unlikely ‘dangers’ of water (or steam) aside, combat weapons are sometimes exposed to other ignition sources, ie. enemy fire including HE and incendiary ammo. Magnesium is pretty much inextinguishable by normal means once it is ignited, and the subsequent vapors are pretty damn dangerous to boot.

    • W

      other future contenders not as good as the AR15?

      what defines good? the AR15 is so popular not because it is the best, but simply because now it is the most popular weapon of its class fielded by a major military. Due to the expanding US wars in the Near East, M4/M16 weapons are relatively inexpensive to produce, spare parts are abundant, and its ergonomics are relatively modern. Popularity by default.

      don’t worry, you aren’t the only one ambiguously defining the M4/M16 as “good”. this term (even applied to describe how better the M4/M16 are than what Russia and China uses) has been applied more than once.

      Nevertheless, i strongly disagree. Given the opportunity to iron out teething problems, not to mention being adopted by a military facing post-2008 economic crisis budget cuts, many of these rifles are outstanding, evolutionary designs that are not given the opportunity to prove themselves. Interestingly, if not ironic, the M16 faced the same scrutiny before it was adopted (Its made of plastic. its aluminum. its futuristic…ad nauseum). Seeing many of these posts just provides me with much needed amusement.

      Kudos to Remington for actually putting forth the effort to adequately build the ACR as magpul intended.

  • Josh

    It won’t be adopted,plain and simple. Nobody offers a carbine that is so much better than the M4A1 that’s it’s worth spending this much on retraining and re-equipping. It isn’t cheaper,lighter,or much better in any significant way. Our next carbine will be a major step forward,not an expensive baby step. Possibly the new LSAT rifles.

    • 18D

      The original ACR was substantially better than the M4 until you fired it. The modular features and outstanding ergonomics made the ACR one of a kind. However, it was too heavy, too inaccurate, too unreliable, and not durable enough to hang with the M4. In the end you can have all the bells and whistles, but if it breaks won’t run, it’s worthless. In other words, it’s the future until you start running it.

      • Austin

        The lack of accuracy is an interesting claim. I’ve shot many sub-MOA groups through my Bushmaster ACR (you know, the one with the “inaccurate” quick-change barrel system). around 1500 rounds have shown me that my average group size tends to be between .68 and .75 inches, significantly better than the M4s and M16s I’ve shot and qualified on in the past. Looking around, many reviews online indicate the same thing, which implies that my rifle is not a fluke. By what standard, exactly, is the ACR less accurate than our current platform? For reference, most of the M-16 pattern weapons I’ve fired hovered between 2-6 MOA. I’m sure that there’s some goodago special ops standard out there that shows how 6 MOA is more accurate than .68 MOA, but since i’m not a high-speed, low-drag operator, I’m just woefully uneducated about these things. Enlighten me, please.

      • 18D

        Austin, I don’t know why you’re so offended? Iam glad that you have an accurate ACR. I have no experience with the commercial Bushmaster ACR, and I don’t claim to know what kind of accuracy shooters are getting with that variant. However, the Remington ACR showed inconsistent accuracy to day the least. We certainly had glimmer of hope, but for every 1 MOA gun we tested, we had at least 3 more that shot substantially less. I guess in a way the Remington ACR was consistent, in that it shot poorly most of the time. Furthermore, the gun exhibited reliability issues, with parts breakage and magazine compatibility problems surfacing after hard use.

        Let’s get one thing straight. Iam not an ACR hater. I love the concept and the modularity of the weapon system. The ergonomics and shootability were outstanding. I’m hoping that this improved version has taken care of all the accuracy and reliability issues. I think this gun could be a great standard issue Army rifle. On the outside, it appears the same as it’s always been. I hope it doesn’t have the same performance.

  • Mr Evilwrench

    Magnesium isn’t the stuff that reacts with water. It’s a lot like aluminum, just even lighter. How does this do with sand? Any better than an M4? That’s the biggest complaint I’ve heard.

    • 18D

      Pure magnesium does combustion in water.

      • Brian P.

        No, it does not spontaneously combust in water. Water simply makes it burn more once it’s already burning. Simply putting it in water will not make it burn.

      • 18D

        Yes it will.

      • anon

        Pure magnesium reacts slowly with water and forms hydrogen, which is combustible.
        That said, in air, magnesium forms a protective oxide. It’s not a dangerous material. The slang ‘mag wheels’ came from early light-weight magnesium wheels.

        Most industrial uses alloy it with aluminum. BMW even makes engine blocks with the stuff.

        18D are you perhaps thinking of Sodium or Potassium?

      • 18D


      • BoneOboe

        You’re thinking Sodium or Potassium.

      • 18D

        Still NO.

    • W

      First of all,

      1.) magnesium reacts to oxygen….what is your point?
      2.) magnesium’s oxide layer prevents it from reacting, therefore, purified magnesium can react.
      3.) magnesium is comparatively less dense than aluminum. it is still strong and lightweight.
      4.) magnesium can react to water (the oxygen in H20) forming Magnesium oxide)

      2nd, since Remington employs metallurgists (metallurgy is essential to obtain a gunsmith certification), I’m sure they have provided plenty of insight as to constructing the ACR lower.

      • W

        sorry goodwrench. not at you 😉 this was meant for calool as a extension to my other post.

  • MarkM

    Magnesium means Remington still isn’t comfortable getting into polymer design. Normal, as they specialize in building and selling rifles to a customer base so conservative that using any form of Direct Impingement hunting rifle would be a jarring introduction into the future.

    Despite all the hard work and any actual improvement, will it still be the Great Leap Forward that the competition is already biased to produce? No. There’s not one major feature a well kitted battle rifle doesn’t already have. It’s just another me-too in a field already tarnished with the SCAR, XCR, and it’s own Gen2 appearance. The Beretta ARX at least can claim being fielded, but right down to it, it’s still a 5.56 launcher using a generally available optic.

    I’m convinced it’s a well intentioned dog and pony show to placate Congressional inquiries with hard data that there’s really nothing better on the market – yet, while dangling the premise that the LSAT can do what their looking for.

    • 18D

      The original ACR had a polymer receiver. They added the magnalium receiver because it’s lighter.

  • Theodoric

    The tan is a bit too yellowish. We all know faded tan is the new black.

    • Rev. Clint

      its like baby shit tan

      • 6677

        More like metallic dog turd

  • Rev. Clint

    still with the terrible AR15 pistol grip?

    • jdun1911

      What’s wrong with the pistol grip other than getting brainwashed by marketing that told you it is bad. People that actually used their weapon in combat have no complaints on it for over 30 years.

      • Al

        I have no complaint of the A2 grip but if you don’t like it just get a MIAD or something…

      • Rev. Clint

        the grip doesnt fit my hands nor does it fit many peoples hands or else there wouldnt be a cottage industry of companies making improved grips… including the people who designed the ACR.

      • jdun

        Rev. Clint,

        It’s called marketing. Suddenly over 40 years of used between A1/A2 grip without any complaints from combat troops is now bad.

        It’s a grip. There are much more things to worry about than a pistol grip. It does what is suppose to do and it does it well. The AR has one of the best if not the best ergo design of any active combat rifles. That’s why you see so many new design copying it including the ACR.

    • Probably chosen for cost for the IC submission. It works.

    • 18D

      So you’re talking about the A2 pistol grip? Not the AR grip in general?

    • W

      I agree with Jdun. The “old” style grip works just fine. The success associated with other grips was accomplished by economics 101. A modified hold with your ring finger above the top notch seems to suit soldiers well.

  • Dmitry

    Low quality design and implementation.

  • 6677

    How longs the barrel on that?

    • There was a 10″ and a 14.5″ there.

  • 18D

    This is essentially the ACR we have already come to know, only without the features that make it unique. WTF?

    They lost the quick change barrel, which is a good and bad thing. Good because you can’t give conventional soldiers an option like that. The average soldier isn’t trained or dialed in enough to make use of that feature. Good too, because the POI shift and accuracy was mediocre at best with the QCB’s. Bad because more highly trained operator types could really make use of the QCB.

    Losing the folding stock isn’t really a good idea either. However for the same reasons I stated above, it can be a good thing too.

    Overall the rifle is the same as it’s always been. Magnalium receiver, AR15 pistol grip, and five sided forend are all pretty much the same. The angled charging handle and the lighter weight were definently needed and a nice touch. I’m just wondering if Remington fixed the poor reliability and durability issues. That is more important than anything else. The ACR has had problems with reliability from the start! Let’s hope they fixed those issues also, because if the gun won’t run, the improvements are worthless.

    • 543

      Where you joking when you suggested that regular U.S. Infantry couldn’t handle on an intellectual/practical level the use of quick change short-barreled options to their rifles? I can tell you from personal experience today’s U.S. infantry performs multiple intellectually/physically demanding roles in very difficult environments. Suggesting that somehow where a bunch of dumbos with low IQ’s doesn’t win you points in my mind and doesn’t reflect reality.

      • 18D

        I didn’t say anyone had a low IQ or was dumb. I didn’t say our conventional troops couldn’t perform physically demanding and intellectual tasks in harsh environments. I said that conventional troops don’t have the training required to make use of the Quick Change Barrel system originally designed for the ACR. It’s unfortunate, but true. I’ve been trying to make changes in the Armys training for years. Unfortunately the Army is very stuck in their ways.

  • Brian P.

    So…it’s basically nothing special. Perhaps if they used a gas piston system like that of the HK 416, it might be worth it. This, however, seems to just be a lightweight AR-15.

    • Canthros

      It does use a gas piston “like the HK416”. And, it’s probably still heavier than an AR-15, because of the gas piston, among other things. The AR design is very light.

      In addition to the gas system, the ACR also features ergonomic improvements, like the bolt catch and charging handle.

    • 18D

      The ACR uses a gas piston just like the HK 416. The piston is one of the reasons the ACR is so heavy (was so heavy). It’s far from an AR15. It has different fire controls that are completely ambi. It also has a side charging handle and uses a completely different action. The ACR is completely different than the AR15.

  • Lance

    Im with other the whole Individual Carbine Competition is a shame and probably wont survives the budget cuts coming this year and next year. Fact is the Army wants a 5.56mm rifle and there no point to goto another platform when the M-4 and M-16 do the job far better than most plastic guns made by FN and Remington. Fact is the Army is already working with S&W to make a new bolt and bolt carrier for the new improved M-4A1/2 coming into service soon. Most entrees in the competition are improved M-4s any way like the HK 416, LWRC M-6, Barret Rec-7, and the Ruger SR 556. The Army will be the heaviest hit by the budget cuts and Sec of Defense has not made his mind up on what programs to kill yet. The new Army radio system was the first yesterday to by cancelled by the Pentagon. And the F-35 and JLTV on the chopping block I doubt guns will be a priority over them and this and other infantry joke competitions will be cut to save funds for the BIG systems.

    Good riddance the M-4 is a decent weapon that is far better than the guns Russia and China use anyway.

    • noob

      how much money do you think the army can recoup by selling all the old M16s and M4s to other countries, or as parts kits on the civvy market.

      Or imagine if they repealed the 1986 ban and offered “new” selective fire rifles to the American public.

  • Tinkerer

    So, after years of effort, design, and money-burning, they come up with a metallic G36?

  • Lance


    Your right to a certain extent the fact is regular infantry isn’t rained or dosnt really want to have to completely disassemble a firearm to change barrels and have to resight there weapon with different barrel lengths with different scopes IE ACOG EOtech AIMpoint ect. Fact is in battel there no time/room to change barrels or different lengths. Infantry uses more basic firearms.

    Also the fact is that no repeat NO other US Armed Service is looking at the ICC competition The defunct JCP and Modular Pistol had USMC and USAF backing to replace the M-9 and they’re defunct now. The USMC said while they always look into new technologies they will NOT replace the M-16A4 or M-4 for infantry units. The USAF and Navy is silent but it implies the same thing the M-4 is here to stay in there service. the whole competition was political grand standing after the dust test in 07 brought poltical back lash from senators with other gun makers in there districts. that ws in the Bush years with near unlimited funds going into the Military… Times have changed and the M-4 has reproved itself in other areas of combat.

  • Nadnerbus

    I’m with the others, this has no chance of becoming the next Army carbine. But I do like where Remington has gone with this. The weight savings was a critical must, and almost two pounds is huge. My only question is, will either Bushmaster do the same with their version soon, or will Remington make a semi-auto available to the public? For about $1000 less than the original ACR I might add?

    I would actually really love to own this thing, there’s just no chance of me spending 3 grand for a tricked out carbine. C’mon Remington/Bushmaster! Civilian sales are the only thing that is going to keep this design afloat and viable. Enough civilian adopters and military and police agencies might actually give it another look too.

  • 543

    If an infantryman wants a 10inch M4 upper as opposed to an 14.5 inch one, why not provide the option in a urban close quarter environment or if part of your job involves being inside vehicles a lot or if your MOS is non-infantry wouldn’t it make more sense to issue a M4 in SBR configuration for example to a MP unit in relatively urban Kandahar, Afghanistan or does it make sense to just issue an M9 as some soldiers/airmen/sailors in Afghanistan are rather than a M4 SBR that doesn’t get in the way of doing their jobs. What’s the harm in issuing a M4 in SBR configuration to a units sniper/designated marksmen as a back-up or to the poor medics humping heavy rucks all over dusty mountainous terrain. I never knew a soldier while deployed who didn’t take great care in making sure that his issued weapon was in functioning order after all your life depends on it even the sloppiest or slow ones were aware of that. This is my frustration with the Army it can blow 30 billion on botched programs in a 10 year time frame but get stingy at procuring the things that are ready and have an actual need in the field. Grunts always get the shit-end of the stick in more ways than one and it doesn’t help when your superior officers are a bunch of yes-men because their chasing assignments or promotions.

    • There are 10.5″ uppers in the system. I think it’s called the Mk.18. LMT supplied some of them.

  • Brandon

    Impressive weight savings, but I wonder if the magnesium lower can be cost competitive. Like other posters, I’m skeptical that any of the competitors can overthrow the M4: as SOCOM discovered with the SCAR, these new models don’t “provide enough of a performance advantage” to justify their price.
    I think the M16/M4 platform has plenty of life left in it. The commercial market is bristling with all sorts of new products: monolithic uppers, redesigned bolts and extractors, melonite and nickle-boron finishes. The military can figure out what works and what doesn’t and then implement it for far less money than adopting a new rifle. I’d trust my life to a high quality direct gas Stoner design (LMT, KAC, Daniel Defense, Noveske, ect.) over and of these newfangled designs.

    • It seems though, that the military doesn’t want to upgrade the M4/M-16 series. To paraphrase Patrick Sweeny from The Gun Digest Book of the AR-15, “The barrel steel is state of the art for 1978.” If it doesn’t meet the “mil-spec,” then it gets rejected. The mil-spec is the bible for procurement. I guess keeping track of what is and isn’t upgraded would be too difficult, but that may be trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.

      • jdun

        There is no new design that comes even close to the requirements that the military wants. That is a clear advantage over the the AR in every category.

        Almost all new small arms are just a rehash of old designs. The ACR is no exception. The ACR like the G36 are AR18 variant. The US has a long history of rejecting the AR18 design. I don’t see that changing.

        The AR15 is so accepted into the civilian market that spawn countless companies making improvement on the design. For the military to change to another system it will set them back for at least 20 years.

  • Lance


    The FN and ACR dont offer anything outstanding the M-4 dosnt. Both shoot 5.56mm bother have rails to put stuff on and the ACR and FN are WAY more expensive and in case of stocks alot more flimsy. Fact is with BIG cuts being given the Military has no money to buy new guns if it wanted. Plus Most NATO and now middle eastern US allies use M-16 and M-4s now many forced to or chose to dropped the AK-47 and AKM for them. They are more accurate action than a FN or ACR since they have far less moving parts they have.

    The ACR is an interesting weapon buts its not a wonder gun Remington makes it to be.

    • W


      “The FN and ACR dont offer anything outstanding the M-4 dosnt. Both shoot 5.56mm bother have rails to put stuff on and the ACR and FN are WAY more expensive and in case of stocks alot more flimsy.”

      and i never said they did. I’m saying they never received the privilege of being introduced to a military with a cold war-era budget. That speaks for itself.

      “Fact is with BIG cuts being given the Military has no money to buy new guns if it wanted.”

      yes, and heaven forbid, the wet dream that is the Future Combat Systems (or whatever bureaucratic equivalent name they coined it), super smart missiles, and stealth aircraft ever gets tampered with…those programs are certainly more important than a human being’s primary weapon! (LOL)

      “Plus Most NATO and now middle eastern US allies use M-16 and M-4s now many forced to or chose to dropped the AK-47 and AKM for them.”

      Factually incorrect. Many soldiers in the Iraqi army fielded M16s because they were required to submit biometrics and enroll in a electronic database before they received the US rifle. It was part of helping build trust with US forces…not because the M16 was a better rifle…but that will be your little secret.

      “They are more accurate action than a FN or ACR since they have far less moving parts they have.”

      This is half true. yes they have less moving parts (cutting out the piston), are they more accurate? that depends on what you are comparing. A factory Colt M4 is equivalent to a SCAR or ACR in terms of accuracy. These class of “assault rifles” are generally 2-3 MOA.

      “The ACR is an interesting weapon buts its not a wonder gun Remington makes it to be.”

      Right because Remington has no idea what they’re getting into (LOL)…this is their first time dealing with a firearm and army bureaucracy…

      • 18D

        I take it that last comment was sarcasm.

      • jdun

        “Yes, and heaven forbid, the wet dream that is the Future Combat Systems (or whatever bureaucratic equivalent name they coined it), super smart missiles, and stealth aircraft ever gets tampered with…those programs are certainly more important than a human being’s primary weapon! (LOL)”

        Here the honest brutal truth about modern combat. WHOEVER HAVE THE BIGGER GUNS AND ABLE TO GET IT TO THE BATTLEFIELD, WINS.

        Personal primary weapons doesn’t win wars. Smart bombs, stealth aircraft, ships, artillery, tanks, etc do. Like it or not Heavy weapons are much more important than small arms.

      • W

        Thats exactly the point i was getting at jdun. The US military is too focused on wonder weapons, like Future Combat Systems, that typically weigh 30 tons per vehicle. a blatant act of further increasing weight and increasing the need for more logistical accommodations (especially in a era of skyrocketing energy prices). The F22 was largely shelved anyways. In a era of 4GW (a term coined for 4th generation warfare, as described by author John Poole), the infantryman on the ground matters. Their continued presence, patrolling, winning hearts and minds, and joint operations with indigenous forces are essential to winning these wars. Are the days of theater wide-warfare gone? not necessarily. Individual soldier’s personal weaponry, especially more effective and logistically sound firearms, are essential. Now is the M4 horrible? not by a long shot.

        and yes 18D, that was sarcasm 🙂

    • The ACR offers ambi bolt catch, and ambi mag catch over the M4/M-16s. It also offers a single-point sling attachment, and QD sling sockets for 2-point slings.

      The ACR manual says not to lubricate it, so you don’t have to “run it wet.” My experience shows that the ACR can be run dry.

      Also keep in mind that military and LEO would not be paying retail, or even gun shop prices.

      I believe that the ACR does at least offer some features that would be useful for advanced shooters, although I admit that it may be overkill for someone with only basic weapons training, and there are certainly many advanced shooters who have happily gotten by with less – Gabe Suarez comes to mind.

  • Lance

    Im Sorry but Iraqi Solders have said that they do like the M-16A4s Iraq bought them and they are glad to say good by to the old AKM they used since the 60s. And the US gave them those weapons to be compatible to US weapons. The old AKMs worked but didn’t offer any advantage over NATO weapons. And sorry not all Iraqi troops hung onto AKMs fact is many where so worn out they where dangerous to fire. Fact is the US tried to sell them AK-101s from Bulgaria but the plan fell apart and the AK system never worked too well with western cartridges. Afghan troops have also in a slower manner went to M-16s and M-4s. Both army’s have high approval of the M-16 in there ranks.

    As for your wet dream of “Future Weapons” fact is the M-4 is as good as new guns and other more powerful weapons like the F-35 and Virginia class subs are far more important than getting a .223 pea shooter to replace a .223 pea shooter. Not worth it a new caliber will and should be a new platform but the Army is staying with 5.56mm NATO. The M-4 in that caliber dose the job just as good as any other European gun on the market. If NATO adopts the 6.5 Grendel and the US goes with it then YES new weapons could be looked at.

    • jay

      The “Iraqi soldiers wanted the m16” load of bull has been exposed by wiky leaks. Everyone knows nobody cared or asked what rifle the iraqi soldiers wanted.
      Please don’t spread it any more. It just makes you look silly.

    • W

      “Im Sorry but Iraqi Solders have said that they do like the M-16A4s Iraq bought them and they are glad to say good by to the old AKM they used since the 60s.”

      Interesting perspective. On account that they are a corrupt, incompetent military force without a reliable logistics chain, they will not love their M16s very long…that is assuming they love them in the first place. I suppose if M4’s and M16’s make them look high speed (similar how iraq’s army and police love to have american-like gear) they do like them.

      “And the US gave them those weapons to be compatible to US weapons. The old AKMs worked but didn’t offer any advantage over NATO weapons. And sorry not all Iraqi troops hung onto AKMs fact is many where so worn out they where dangerous to fire. Fact is the US tried to sell them AK-101s from Bulgaria but the plan fell apart and the AK system never worked too well with western cartridges. Afghan troops have also in a slower manner went to M-16s and M-4s. Both army’s have high approval of the M-16 in there ranks.”

      the same reason we equipped them with M16s is politics. plain and simple. That i will not discuss any further. can anybody say “conflict of interest”?

      “As for your wet dream of “Future Weapons” fact is the M-4 is as good as new guns and other more powerful weapons like the F-35 and Virginia class subs are far more important than getting a .223 pea shooter to replace a .223 pea shooter.”

      Yes, the glamorous F35 that has been delayed and has had severe cost overruns for a fighter that the wise brass thinks is too sophisticated to have to dog fight (when did we say that before??? oh Vietnam). But its the OODA loop i tell ya!!!

      And more advanced naval vessels to defeat enemy naves that are a fraction of our size and sophistication. Not only is ours the largest, by far…but is also the most advanced. Programs that matter, i believe, since many military experts foresee the US continuing to be involved 4th generation warfare, focus on the soldier/marine on the ground. another 223? I am optimistic of the LSAT’s effectiveness should it come out.

      “Not worth it a new caliber will and should be a new platform but the Army is staying with 5.56mm NATO. The M-4 in that caliber dose the job just as good as any other European gun on the market. If NATO adopts the 6.5 Grendel and the US goes with it then YES new weapons could be looked at.”

      That i cant disagree with. Looking from a bigger perspective, i think it is foolish to adopt another 5.56mm weapon. Looking at the ACR objectively, i believe it is a fine weapon system and I like remington’s tweaks. Just because i support further research into the ACR, doesn’t mean i necessarily think it should be adopted. A 270-280 sized caliber? yes and that is another topic of discussion.

  • Hrachya Hayrapetyan

    What happened??? IMHO main new thing in ACR (compared to AR15) was quick change barrel , so you can quickly change calibers and barrel lengths, thus increasing modularity level of this gun ! Also it had folding stock (which AR 15 haven’t) … which disappeared as well !?!?
    I think they’d better to change also the name of this gun … for example:
    NACR – Non Advanced Combat Rifle !

    • Having the barrel wrench attached to the barrel all the time is unnecessary, and contributed to the ACR being overweight. I’d rather have one with a barrel nut and separate wrench.

    • Canthros

      Remington is shooting to replace the M4/M16. The quick-change barrel and folding stock add weight and cost. The stock pictured above is still collapsible, and removing the quick-change barrel feature makes it no more difficult to change barrels than it is for standard AR receivers. It retains the ambidextrous bolt catch/release, ambidextrous magazine release, forward charging handle, and short-travel piston gas system.

      I’m more surprised that they’ve replaced the right-hand-side safety/selector with an indicator. I wouldn’t have thought the couple of grams would be worth worrying about.

      • TheAmdMAN


        I think they replaced the safety on that side because so many people have complained that when they flip the safety on the opposite side it hits their trigger finger.

        There are countless YouTube videos where users complain about this problem. Looks like that is one of the two main problems with the ACR:

        1. Safety Selector
        2. Barrel (Weight and Profile)

        If you put a pencil barrel on, *supposedly* the ACR will be the same weight as it’s neighbor the FN SCAR (which also has a pencil barrel)..

  • Lance

    @Hrachya Hayrapetyan


  • Holy crap, does anyone else find this new rating and comment display system AWFUL? How the F are we supposed to find/read new responses, when if we revisit the page, all the comments are in a different order? This is unusable…

    • DaveR

      You can sort the comments by “most recent”–that should keep them in order.

      Personally, I like the new rating/threading system.

      • Rijoenpial

        Hi guys

        My beef is with the most recent order… I’d rather have them in chronological order to follow the reasoning and response logic to the posts… This way, you have to read from bottom to top… which is illogical, since we all start from top to bottom…

    • 18D

      Jason, you’ve gotta be smart to understand the new system. Unfortunately you are not!

  • Raoul O’Shaughnessy

    At this rate, the ACR platform will be ready for the military and the ‘affordable’ civillian market just about the time we’re all making the transition to phased-pulse rifles.

  • Tinkerer

    Let’s face the facts. Killing -or disabling- an opposing fighter needs something more than what the non-expanding military NATO assault rifle rounds can do. We either go up in power -meaning less rounds and more weight per rifleman- or we start using much more effective projectiles. Since expanding bullets are out, and fragmentation is a matter of luck -reports that standard ball doesn’t reach enough velocity from carbine barrels to ensure reliable fragmentation- the next best thing would be yawing-tumbling bullets like the 5.45×39, or even the H&K 4.6 mm bullets. Put those bullets inside a caseless/telescopic polymer case like the ones from the LSAT program, fire them from a front- or bottom-ejecting bullpup like the FN F2000, the Kel-tec FBR, or the A-91M and derivatives, made with high-tech polymers like so many firearms from the last 40 years, with the gas system/quick change barrel from the Steyr AUG, and we might be onto something. And simply put, the ACR has nothing of the above. It’s just another run-of-the-mill rifle.

    • Nater

      Every rifle bullet tumbles when it strikes a human body. It’s just physics. The wounding effects of the 7N6 5.45x39mm look a lot like M995 5.56mm but without the AP capability. In other words, it’s not as good as M193, let alone something like Mk 318 Mod 0.

      Using HK’s 4.6x30mm projectile would be an unmitigated disaster. It, and FN’s similar if slightly superior cartridge, are solutions looking for a problem. They don’t give you any armor penetration advantage over 9mm AP, but you loose terminal effects after armor penetration. These are not cartridges powerful enough to replace 9x19mm, let alone 5.56x45mm. That’s an utter non-starter.

      Improving the stardard US carbines and rifles is really a no brainer if you’ve been paying any attention to ballistics over the past few years. If you’re stuck with the STANAG mag well, there is really only one choice. You adopt 6.8 SPC and quantify it.

      If you want an improved rifle, you get one based around Stoner’s old AR-16 operating mechanism. The SCAR would be been fine for this, it used that system, as do most Western assault rifles of the last forty-odd years. It is certainly a better design than the M16. The problem is that it’s not better enough to justify buying.

    • Nater

      Oh, and bullpups? Please. They completely fly in the face of everything that’s been learned about ergonomics and the human body. They’re a 1960s solution to the barrel length problem. You do get a longer barrel, but you loose out to a traditional rifle in every single other aspect.

      • Tinkerer

        Funny, that’s not what a lot of the world’s militaries think. Since the austrian AUG to the israeli Tavor, including the chinese QBZ-95, singaporean SAR-21, belgian F2000, UK’s L85, Australian and New Zealand F88, , french FAMAS, and even AK country Russia with the A-91M and derivatives, and many others -just in the assault rifle department- the bullpup layout has been adopted, and not once has it been abandoned for rifles with traditional design. It’s not a matter of intrinsic ergonomic flaw, but of training.

        As for the ammunition issues: I see the main problem to be that the STANAG magazine won’t allow for much room of improvement. 6.8 SPC is just a compromise, trying to cram the biggest available bullet in a magazine designed for 5.56. There can’t be much more improvement as long as we’re still restricted to the STANAG dimensions.

        An finally: my mention of the russian 5.45 and H&K 4.6 mm bullets was about the BULLETS themselves, not the whole cartridge. Those bullets were designed from the beginning to yaw reliably after impact, so my point was to use that kind of feature in a bullet for a brand new cartridge -not to adopt 5.45×39 or 4.6×30. Either I didn’t express myself clearly enough -and if so, I apologize-, or you have trouble comprehending written language.

    • Riceball

      The original 5.56 round fired out of the original M16’s were meant to tumble too and I think still can, however, as the M16 evolved the rifling twist in the barrels got tighter which gave the round more spin for greater accuracy and range at the expense of the tumbling action.

  • Lance

    The whole thing of conventional war being over is such bogas thinking. That line of thinking is kept being proved wrong. Desert Storm and 1st year of Iraqi freedom proved tanks and fighter proved necessary. So thats why we needed to invest into bigger weapons systems than guns. China and Russia upgrade of there navy proves we need more ships and subs to deter aggression.

  • Nicks87

    People still crying about how crappy the AR-15 platform is?

    You clowns need to stop looking for this magic weapon system that kills with one shot every time you point it in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger.

    Guess what?


    Markmanship and training trump caliber and weapon ALWAYS!

    For the people who say that the 5.56 isnt enough: my advice to you would be to work on your fundamentals of shooting…

    but thats probably too much to ask of a bunch of wannabes, never-wases and mall ninjas.

    • Tinkerer

      Jeez, chill a bit, man.

    • Burkefett

      By that reasoning, we should go back to using 1873 Springfield Trapdoor carbines. We’re not looking for a “magical weapon” to replace the M16 platforom. Nobody is denying that the M4/M16 are effective weapons. HOWEVER, it’s long since time that we moved to a superior platform. Weapon such as the SCAR, ACR, XCR, and others are more accurate, more reliable, and offer options for superior calibers to 5.56mm NATO (which is not a bad caliber, but the simple fact is that there are better caliber options available.) If we in the US want to remain at the forefront of the globe as far as military power is concerned, then the maxim “it’s good enough, we didn’t have it in the war of 1812, so why do we need it now” has to be thrown out in favor of actually adopting emerging and established new technologies for our warfighters.

      Continuing on, while marksmanship and training are certainly the most important and effective part of a weapons system, the more accurate a weapon is, the more effectively marksmanship and training can be put to use. Similarly, the more reliable a weapon is, the less time spent maintaining and fixing it in the field.

      • nicks87

        So are you going to donate these new weapons to our armed forces and pay to train them all on a new platform?

        My point was that in properly trained hands the AR can stand toe-to-toe with anything that any other country has.

        The stories of its “constant” malfunctions are mostly myths or isolated incidents.

        There are a lot of great assault rifles out there but none have a significant enough advantage to spend that kind of money, time and training. Also, what about NATO everyone still uses the vast surpluses of 5.56. Good luck telling them they need to change calibers.

      • W

        burkefett is looking at the facts, which are the ACR and other comparative weapons are superior to the M4. Nowhere did he say the army is going to drop the M4/M16 and adopt any of these weapons.

        There is no magical solution to small arms. The closest thing is a intermediate sized cartridge, which will not be adopted because of NATO and the US ammunition supply issue (lake city cannot simultaneously produce 5.56 and 6.8 or whatever)

        and nicks, the M4 can malfunction, though with adequate magazines, proper lubrication, and preventative maintenance, it is utterly reliable. Tests of properly lubricated AR15’s throwing down thousands of rounds without malfunction are not uncommon nor should be taken lightly. A major myth: the M4 doesn’t have to be white glove clean in order to be reliable.

    • Guardsman

      The AR-15 is an excellent platform. Constant updates have enabled it to evolve into the most reliable and soldier-friendly assault rifle system in service. Heavier barrels and piston systems have allowed short-barrel configurations and these have proved to be much more practical in CQB situations as well as for getting in an out of vehicles.

      The real issue here is calibre. 5.56 mm is extremely effective within its 300 metre range envelope. And if people are not getting the desired results, it may well because they need to improve their shot placement. However, it is now a well established fact that NATO forces need to shoot at ranges of above 500 metres. I know a 5.56 mm round can kill at 1,000 metres, but wind drift issues make it a 4 MOA round at best and that simply isn’t good enough for long range accuracy. Period. For this reason, we’ve seen the widespread re-adoption of 7.62 mm ammo and weapons.

      The UK experience with the LMT 7.62 mm sharpshooter rifle based on an AR-10 platform has been so well received that many British soldiers would be happy for this to be issued as the next standard rifle.

      I agree that incrementally-improved alternative designs of 5.56 mm assault rifles, such as the Rem. ACR, simply aren’t worth the effort and cost they would incur to field versus the legacy Colt M4.

      I would like to see a medium calibre M4/ M16 variant that can replace both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm platforms. I think 5.56 mm should be relegated to a carbine / sub-machine gun / PDW role, for which it was originally designed.

  • Lance


    Not going to happen both the M-4 being replaced and any older weapons being sold to US civilians.

  • Lance


    Your wrong the fact is its not just training. But the M-4 is just as accurate and is better than the FN and ACR they don’t offer anything really new and the fact is Improvements to the M-4 will iron what media faults given to it during fixed test over 4 years ago.

    Fact too is the e Military is not going to have funds for this and the new guns cost more and parts will cost more to overhaul and there is no clear improvement over the M-4 which is required to replace it.Also no other service is going to replace the M-4 and M-16 the USMC Navy and USAF all said they are staying with the Stoner system.

    Only a caliber change would bring the idea of a new gun to light. But were staying with 5.56mm so the M-4 is staying for much longer.

    • Colin

      As I understood it, there wasn’t a 5.56 limitation in this competition, so spc’s, grendel’s, etc, could (in theory) be selected…

      … In practice, the Army is just doing what its done for the last 2-3 competitions. I.e. sticking with the m4/16 from the start and just trying to get a lower price out of Colt / FN.

      Back on topic,

      If Remington does go ahead with this rifle they should also put the standard ACR in the competition as well. Some of the features that they left off (to save weight) are what made the ACR stand out in the first place.

    • Burkefett

      You might note that at no point did I say the only thing seperating the ACR from the M4 is training. I also noted that a caliber change is an option that I feel should be pursued. again (as stated in my original comment) not because 5.56mm is a poor, inferior choice, but because there exist calibers such as the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel that offer vastly increased performance while not drastically increasing weight.

      In addition, it is a proven fact that the M4/M16 are NOT more accurate than the modern platforms available. I believe (correct me if I am wrong, and actually cite the source if you do) that the M16 has an accuracy standard of 2MOA, as does the ammunition. These combine to give an average accuracy of 4MOA, while most factory examples of ACR rifles show subMOA accuracy, significantly better than the M4.

      Point 2, while the ACR and SCAR do not offer anything new, that does not automatically mean that the M4/M16 are superior rifles. In fact, they have a number of deficiencies that the ACR and SCAR both successfully correct, while maintaining the good parts of the older platform such as ergonomics.

      The question that has to be asked now is “can we continue to justify improvements to the M4, or is it time to retire the platform and adopt a new one that will permit future upgrades such as caliber changes to be made much more affordably?” WHile the cost of adopting an entirely new weapons system is indeed high, in the long run the benefits are worth it

      • Lance

        They are making M-4 improvements S@W and Remington signaled new M-4 designs and addible features making new M-4s.

  • Rijoenpial

    So, about the ‘new’ Remington ACR…

    I like it better over the Bushy model, and looked great in the AAC range shooting I saw on Youtube…

    Nevertheless, I think most new models will only see action in SpecOps… or in civilian market, because the M4 is cheaper to produce in an age of financial restraints, it has been here for ages, hence having all the perks optimised, lots of attachment gear and data/XP in the field…

    The SCAR, the XCR, the ACR will be better off in off-US market, such as Europe and other countries, but since they also are in financial restraining mode, it is gonna look bleak for these companies unless they do what they should: invest on the civilian market!

    Until this global financial crisis dissipates or at least mitigates, I don’t see any bright future for any new weapon, especially in the 5.56 category!

    Those are my two-cents on this…


  • Lance

    Sorry Burkefett

    But the SCAR is about the same in accuracy as a M-4 from Colt. about 2-3 MOA and the action is NOT far superior to the M-4 the SOCOM users ditched the 5.56mm version because it didn’t offer anything really superior over the M-4 and I have read report and complaints about the crappy stocks on them braking in rough handling. Fact and the FACT is there is NO repeat NO money for the next 5-7 year for a replacement. even Rijoenpal which we disagree over weapons agree that the budget wont allow any new guns for years to come. The military is saving what money it has to save the F-35 the EFV and the Virgina class subs, new guns wont make the budget its NOT that BIG of a leap that justifies millions for new rifles and billions for new parts and retire older weapons. Fact too is the Military is already spending billions in improving the M-4 S@W announced it has developed new bolt/carrier design for it so millions are already spent to make a new M-4 in A1 and A2 standard. And like ive been saying only the Army which has political enemy over its all carbine policy has the competition USMC and USAF and Navy will NOT change weapons.

    You may not like the M-4 and you may think all plastic guns are the best BUT you forget the money isn’t there and no other service wants them.

    • Burkefett

      Lance, I’m not sure where you get your information, but every single piece of literature and every review I’ve read on the SCAR states that its level of accuracy is below 1MOA. I would sincerely appreciate it if you actually *read* my comments before replying. You might note that I never claimed that the action of the SCAR was “far superior” to that of the M4. I said,if you will recall, that both the ACR and the SCAR offer improvements to the M4 platform while retaining the good features that the M4 is known for. I, too, have heard of the issues that the SCAR has with the buttstock, but the beautiful thing about that is that unlike actions, a buttstock is easily redesigned. THe other thing I will note is that while I mentoned the SCAR as an option comparable to the ACR as a modern platform, the ACR is the weapon under consideration here. ALso, while I fully agree that there is currently no money in the budget for a new weapon system, that’s not the purpose of my comment. My point has been from the very beginning that we need to consider a new weapons system for our warfighters, because there are modern options available that are, in fact, superior in action, caliber, and accuracy.

      As a side note, please cease with the personal attacks. I never stated a “love affair” for plastic weapons, and again, reading my comments would help you to understand that i do not in fact consider the M4/M16 bad weapons. Contrary to it, I feel that they are quite capable for certain types of operations. Allow me to refer you to the excellent paper on the subject, “Taking back the Infantry Half Kilometer” by Major Thomas P. Erhardt, US Army, of the Advanced School of Military Studies. It is an excellent and well-established resource that more people should read before forming opinions one way or the other on the subject.

      If you’d like to continue the discussion, please utilize the “reply” option found at the top of my comment, so we stop cluttering up the comments section.

      • W

        Burkefett is correct. I purchased a SCAR 16S about two years ago (I also own the 308 “17” variant) and with black hills 77 gr ammunition, mine can get about .85 MOA and anywhere between 1.5-2 with wolf 55 gr. I cannot say the same about the ACR, though the SCAR i definitely can and the H&K 416 i can…the 416 retains comparable accuracy.

        That goes without saying, my AR15’s are highly accurate also, both the gas piston and direct impingement ones. Perhaps my most accurate one is the Noveske 16″ Recce upper, though my Bushmaster gas piston and LWRC are comparable (the bushy is more accurate with 77gr than the noveske…but that is a average based on my shooting ability).

        My entire point is: Those are military-style assault rifles (save the political BS…i’m speaking from a military perspective), they do not need to be sub-MOA. Sub-MOA is a category for sniper rifles, not assault rifles, which are made for close combat, rapid fire. Anybody who thinks a assault rifle needs to be sub-MOA is in serious need of a head check.

        Btw, i find it interesting on how there is money for radical super weapons, which get cancelled because their performance expectations are unfeasible (such as the F35…which i personally hate), but not for adopting a common caliber, rifle platform, and automatic rifle to reduce logistical costs and allow for easier parts procurement. A in depth study of the Soviet rifle team will show they were far ahead of their time.

  • Will
    I read this a few months back.

  • Lance


    Dont mean to be personal but my experience seeing the SCAR and ACR in actual shooting and in shoots on and others the ACRs and FNs accuracy is overrated and is about the same as a premium Colt M-4A1. The whole piston crease is over rated and doesn’t offer any real advantage over DI. Only clean up time might be a bit quicker, BUT in combat they both get dirty from crappy powder used in some Military ammo. Another main case is that SOCOM ditched the 5.56mm SCAR under a year after its been put into service SOCOM discovered it wasn’t a real advantage over the M-4 and its crappy lower and butstock range the death bell for it. They kept the Heavy model for the need for a compact 7.62 NATO caliber assault rifle which the military never made a M-14 or M-110 version of. Also pin point accuracy isnt needed in a SBRed assault rifle in combat every test showed 3-4 MOA to be more than needed to shoot a enemy solder 300 yards away. While nice to have a A1 or other gun to have sniper grade accuracy its isn’t needed in urban and forest combat settings. Most solders even the best basic trained infantry wont be shooting 1/2 MOA in combat anyway or even training most are thought to shoot in spaces to make more internal damage to a opponent. I was trained that way and so do most armed personnel civilian and military more hole all over will cause more damage than a hole next to a whole in one area. And don’t matter in a group or not heart or brain your opponent is dead.

    Iam not a ACR hater but in 5.56mm NATO the M-4 is perfect for the job if we switched to 6.5mm or 6.8mm than a newer ACR or XCR platform would be logical. But its not happening and this fascination with guns in 5.56mm that are the same as a M-4 in layout and ammo capacity and weight is waste of money and with the DoD going to be shrunk to the year 2000 levels what money they have is needed elsewhere in airpower and tanks and ships which are far more older designs than the M-4 is.

  • Lance


    Im not trying to bang you down man. Ive studied and was trained by Army instructors in samll arms and read and trained with key defense experts so ive got my own information and experience to goto. If you love the ACR fine go and buy one but for 5.56mm its no better than a nice M-4A1 or A2 when they make one. this test you read on FN accuracy may be a DRM variant of the SCAR which they made some but the average one with a SBR barrel is not a real big improvement over a M-4A1. Most FNs in SOCOM use had short barrels for cqb situations in use.

    Any way fine you got your info you trust there many experts out there who have different looks at weapons and combat tactics. Many here are just as divided on the subject Jdun1911 and Tinkerer have my aspects W is one on yours. You’ll find this debate over M-4 or FN rifle for next 30 years is impassioned and is VERY political. And in many cases it’ll be the budget to determine the results. Too many not just in the Army but on Capital Hill are impassioned by arms debate on who makes it and what design and even some revolutionary designs like the LSAT and the dead XM-8 which in design offered a so called “NEW” improvement in small arms died to this. Many in the 21st century forgot what changes rifles in the US military caliber NOT make and model. Your best hope for a new rifle is to get the Army to retire 7.62x51mm and 5.56X45mm NATO rounds and go for 6.5mm or 6.8mmwhich would open new doors to weapons. Its not going to happen now or this decade probably but in 2018 or 2020 who knows. Im going by things I read and guns and shooter ive seen shoot and experts who trained me.

    • W

      Factually, the SCAR mk 16 is superior to the M4. Though that alone doesn’t make it a likely candidate (along with the ACR) to replace the M4.

      It features more controllable recoil, superior accuracy, superior heat dissipation and reliability due to its gas system and block shaped bolt carrier, and can be produced more inexpensively and rapidly should the military adopt it. Its only weakness is its stock, which can be inexpensively and easily remedied with a aftermarket stock (such as Vltor’s SCAR stock). In terms of base model rifle vs another base model rifle, the SCAR and ACR are superior to Colt M4’s. Comparing them to premium, match rifles is unfair and undoes any comparison that takes place.

      Will the military adopt it? not the 5.56mm version, because it is not conducive to the national security defense budget to invest in another 5.56mm rifle. Now it is, in my opinion, conducive to replace the interm solution M14’s being rushed onto the field for the DMR role. Though the military, in all of its wisdom, has proven short sighted enough with small arms to not adopt a superior weapon system. Historically this has been proven as well.

      • DeeB

        I like the SCAR, but i wish the bolt release was ambi, also when going through auto/rapid fire the forend gets really hott! the upgrades from various companies seem like a welcome addition.

  • Tinkerer

    The weapons in use by each countries’ military are already donated by all of us. It’s called taxes.

    Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the AR-15 is a competent rifle -accurate, light, ergonomic-. But it has always been posible to manufacture rifles that are just as accurate, light and ergonmic, and still be more durable and reliable. That’s especially true with the switch to carbine-lenght gas systems. Gene Stoner designed his rifle to work properly with a 20″ barrel, dumping the hot, high pressure combustion gasses inside the bolt carrier. Now, the trend towards carbines of 14.5″ barrel lenght meant dumping hotter, higher pressure gasses -and a little unburnt powder- inside the bolt carrier that Gene designed for lesser heat and pressure. It’s no wonder the increase of malfunctions and even catastrophic failures. Yes, those issues can be addressed with more frequent cleaning and inspections, which is no problem for the civilian and LEO. But when in combat, sometimes you just don’t have the time to do a complete knock-down and service of your rifle. So, why take chances with a firearm design that is more sensitive to failure, even if it’s just a little?

    • Lance

      Thats why the AR piston system is getting popular. The USMC is getting the HK 416 and the M-4A2 will have a piston system and heavy barrel to eliminate the few problems the M-4 had.

      • Tinkerer

        If so, then it should be a matter of crunching some numbers, and see if modifying the truckloads of AR-15 rifles currently in storage and use to work with pistons is actually cheaper than procuring new rifles designed from the ground up to be piston-driven. I personally believe that a platform deigned during the fifties can only be upgraded and updated so much. The limitations to ammunition design based on the STANAG magazine is such a limitation. Change the entire platform for something with more room for future improvement is a must. Remember: the current generation of rail-strapped, telescopic-stocked carbines are the result of upgrading the old Stoner design. Imagine how far can be reached if starting from a fresh design.

    • Lance

      Thing is the FN and ACR don’t really offer a new system they are built up for AR mags and 5.56mm. The CM 901 you can argue that it can change to new bigger mags and caliber BUT the Army isn’t going to a new caliber. And you even admitted the budget of the next 5 year probably wont allow a new weapon to be adopted. The M-4 can be up dated to do everything you wanted in the new system and going to 6.5mm and 6.8mm is possible if they service got new calibers. Bust face it this is Army only all other services are staying with the AR system. BIG BIG cuts coming so not alot of money to spend billions on new guns and parts and accessories. And finally the current FN and ACR don’t offer anything really BIG over the M-4 SOCOM came to that solution too. You even said the Army is currently probably staying with the M-4.

  • subase

    All these ‘next generation rifles’ are lame. Are they ambidextrous bullpups? No. Do they have a recoil mitigating mechanism? No. Do they have ‘hyper burst’? No.

    So really these are just more refined AR’s that offer more convenience and comfort but no significant advantages. Wake me up when the next generation versions of the AN-94, AK-107 and FN F2000 come out.

  • W

    Subase, bullpups are not the future. They are ergonomic nightmares that are “back-heavy”, meaning that accuracy is affected negatively. Perhaps their only advantage is that they’re short and compact…

    Recoil mitigating mechanisms, as employed by the AN94 and AK107, add more parts and weight to a firearm, thus affecting reliability and cost to produce at the price of marginally increasing accuracy. The AN94 and AK107 will not have next generations, simply because their first generations have not, and will not, be adopted on any large scale because of the cost/effectiveness ratio. They cost too much and are too complex to overcome marginal advantages in decreased recoil and improved accuracy.

    Hyper burst? now that is something i can agree on, though this is unnecessary if you adopt a proper intermediate sized cartridge (whether caseless or not) that can be controllable in automatic fire and effective in providing adequate kinetic energy to human-sized targets.

    The future of assault rifles will be caseless technology or telescopic ammunition like the LSAT program (the H&K G11 program is also more than worthy of mention)

    • Nicks87

      Like I said 40 posts ago,

      The perfect weapon doesnt exist so train with the one you got/can afford.

  • Gage

    Couldn’t the fixed stock be manually replaced with the orgininal ACR folding stock?

    • Lance

      Cant really they redid the receiver with a new magnesium lower.

      • TheAmdMAN

        It appears from the pictures above the captive pin that holds the stock is still on that magnesium lower, so there should be no reason you couldn’t replace it with the folding stock.

        Looks from their website the only differences between the plastic and magnesium lower are the removable grip and some weight…

    • Lance

      On a commercial version you might but the Remington at AUSA said this version will not sport a folding stock.

      • TheAmdMAN

        Sport or Support?

  • Annoymous

    I think Remington made the wrong choice to down-grade the ACR to enter the Individual Carbine competition. They should have used their quick-change barrel version with a folding stock. The M16 grip is also a downside because it isn’t as ergonomic as the Magpul grip.

    • TW

      The reason they dropped the quick change barrel is the army wasn’t really looking for it so why not shave the weight. as for the stock i think they should of kept the folding stock but thats not going to make or break the gun. its still a great contender.

  • farcry666

    why would they do this the old one was way better and for people saying that well it needs a new cartridge these are the bullets it shoots 6.6 grendel 5.56 6.8 7.62 x 39 7.62×40