The Future of the Bushmaster / Remington ACR

There has been a lot of speculation about the future of the Bushmaster / Remington ACR. The rifle has not been selling well, but neither have any other non-AR-15 semi-automatic rifles. A company that supplies parts to many rifle manufactures told me today that about 70% of their business is now supplying AR-15 components. Non-AR-15 rifles are simply not selling.

Some have suggested Magpul now has the capital to start manufacturing their owns firearms.

The rights to the ACR design revert back to Magpul only if Rem/Bushmaster do not meet a minimum sales requirement. The minimum number of rifles they are required to sell is low and, I am told, they will easily meet the target. In the unlikely event Remington thought they could not meet the target, they would simply lower the price in order to increase sales.

Remington has invested a lot into the ACR. They took Magpul’s prototype and turned it into a production gun. Their latest military model will be entered into the Army’s carbine competition. If the ACR wins and becomes the next Army carbine the company will have a guaranteed revenue stream for the next 20 years. Consumers, LEO enforcement and foreign-militaries would all want to own the same gun used by the troops. I suspect the Freedom Group would then resume efforts to go public.

Magpul has designed a few firearms and has a powerful brand. If they wanted to, they could easily sell firearms. On the other hand, why would they produce low-margin firearms when they are selling high-margin accessories. My prediction is that they will instead start producing more and more high-end aluminum and steel rails, mounts and accessories.

(Richard, if you are reading this, please check your inbox 😉

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.


  • Tomas G. Brewer

    The original MSRP when it was the Magpul masada was $1400.00. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say we lost a lot of interest in the rifle when it was released at nearly twice that price. Its hard to beat a $700-900 ar-15. I think the SCAR, the AUG, and the ACR all suffered from this, sadly.

    • jdun1911

      Magpul reps was hawking sub $1500 days before the launch. That was unrealistic due to the tooling up and labor cost. While it use a modified Sullivan action the vast majority of parts can’t be obtain cheaply from third party sources. Bushmaster has to make it and that increase the price.

      You can’t place the blame on Bushmaster for the price. The blame goes to Magpul marketing.

    • The ACR is selling for the about the same MSRP I estimated long before it went on sale. Without the economies of scale that AR-15s have, it just is not possible to sell a gun like the ACR for that price and still make a reasonable return on the investment.

      • GregK

        Can someone expand a bit more on this “massive” tooling investment involved in building the ACR?

        The ACR lower, handguard, stocks and controls are all injection molded parts produced by Magpul. Magpul is – for all intents and purposes – an injection molding focused business with a massive capital investment in tooling platforms for large polymer components already completed. They seem to be able to sell low-volume/specialty stocks of comparable complexity to the ACR components with retail prices in the $250 range. Large volume stocks they seem to be able to retail at a sub $100 price point. While the tooling costs for these components is extremely high, those costs are somewhat mitigated by Magpul’s experience and the fact that the marginal cost to produce each part is very very low.

        The ACR upper receiver is built from an extrusion. I’ve worked with custom extrusions and the tools don’t cost very much (~$2000 for a very high quality tool that could produce the ACR upper). This is finish machined with the requisite features and rail addresses in a process that requires the sort of CNC machined Remington/Bushmaster have dozens of already. The tooling for those operations to be efficient in production is something a competent machinist can knock out with relative ease.

        The barrel is a readily available AR part that features a custom trunion and gas block. The trigger mechanism are straight-up AR components in a custom extruded housing. The bolt, gas block, trunion parts and other assorted bits are all relatively easy to machine small parts (perhaps a dozen of them). None of these items require significant tooling or massive complexity to produce.

        While the injection molds are unquestionably a high capital investment component, this is more than offset by the extremely low production cost of the final parts themselves. The rest of the ACR strikes me as a relatively easy weapon to produce as it was designed expressly for large volume production with the hope of winning military contracts.

        The point of all this is to say that the tragedy of the ACR – as delivered by Bushmaster – is that they have set the price point far beyond where the market sees the value. How many comments have we seen where folks are itching to buy this thing at $1500-$1700? There is nothing about the ACR that precludes Remington or Bushmaster from selling boatloads of them at this price point while making a *very* healthy margin.

  • Jason

    That’s easy. Go look at the price or that or the SCAR or the MR556. I’m sure none are really selling well. I could be described as a “high end” gun buyer and I’m not in line to buy any of those except the MR556 and that’s due to some weird HK addiction I have and nothing else.

    How can you wonder why a buyer standing at a table looking at injection molded ACRs and SCARs isn’t throwing down the cash? You want them to sell? DROP THE PRICE.

    • jdun1911

      They can drop the price and sale it at a lost to try to gain market share. I doubt that will happen tho.

    • Joseph

      In my experience, SCAR’s sell despite their high price.

  • jdun1911

    It will be at a very high cost if Magpul decides to tool up and produce their own firearms. How much firearms do Magpul needs to sell to make a profit from their multi-million investments?

    The reasons why AR are inexpensive because all the tooling has been paid for. I remember 15 years ago a forged AR15 receiver cost over $300. Now you can buy it for $49.

    So it is easy to go to AR15 manufactures and asks for parts at a really good price. Assemble the firearm and sell it. A S&W AR15 now cost sub $550 retail for the complete gun san rear sight.

  • Jesse

    Magpul might have the capitol but they can’t even meet current demand for their products so I’m not sure if it’d be a good idea for them to start producing guns even if they wanted to.

  • Other Steve

    If I could buy a folding stock, quick barrel change, magnesium lower, and all the other modern ACR features for $1500 retail, count me in.

    Otherwise, ACR can go ahead and disappear and Magpul can make my dreams come true with a PDR/PDW in 300blk.

  • TheAmdMAN

    $1500 – $1700 for the enhanced and I’d pick one up. Not a penny more…

  • Scott

    If Bushmaster were to actually offer all of the additions to what they preach, i.e. the different length barrels/bolts then yeah I would buy it for their current price. But, I am not interested in a 16″ BBL with a 1/9!! And therefor am not buying.

    • John H

      Outside of sticker shock, I think one of the reasons the ACR has not sold well is in part because Bushmaster has done little to fulfill the promise of the system. One of the great appeals of the system is the capability for easy user serviceable changes, like a barrel swap (which still holds true on the new ACR, even if it is not from a built-in wrench), different stock options, and adaptability to different calibers. To date, no barrels or caliber conversions are available, so the system gets a knock (rightfully so) that it is just a fancy AR-18. And I say this with much frustration, since I own an ACR and still have hope in it, although my hope is waning.

      • 18D

        John, I agree with you. I would like to add though, that if you did want a different barrel length, you could do it. While the caliber change capability is still not available to the public, the ability to change barrel lengths IS……..sort of. A good friend of mine was able to make a 10.39 in barrel for his ACR by using an AR15 barrel. Of course it took some modification but he was able to adapt it. So, if you ever wanted a shorter barrel (or longer one) you could do that.

        I’m still upset that neither Bushmaster nor Remington has released a quick change caliber kit to the public. I would’ve been more interested in the gun if different stocks, forends, trigger groups, and barrels with other caliber were also available.

  • Jeff

    I think the comments here only reinforces the Army’s original perspective before being forced to look for a new carbine… with all the improvements these different rifles have, none are so significant as to justify the investment costs in creating a whole new rifle. Even if any of these companies “win” the competition it doesn’t guarantee a contract… I’m inclined to believe the most we’ll see is a contract to integrate the desired features into the M16/Ar15 platform. I think we’ll just see something that looks like the M27 with 2 inches cut from the barrel.

    Beyond that purely as a matter of dealing with the politics, I’d recommend they machine the upper section to look less “standard,” just so the politicians can feel accomplished in providing a more modern weapon by virtue of some visual distinctiveness.

  • Joseph

    Once we get the cool lower and the Remington style handguard I’ll buy one… or if Remington sells their own make.

    Until then, I don’t want to have something less than it should be for the price of two AR-15’s that have more. I will also mention the commercial brand of Bushmaster isn’t a very respected one. I for sure can say they have not advertised or upheld the ACR good enough. There’s almost no prestige to the ACR other than that Remington makes one, and Magpul originally designed it. Do we really go “it’s great because it’s Bushmaster” ? ? ? ?

    No, I wish we could, though.

    On that note, I do know bushmaster has done a few very good varminting rifles?

  • Doug

    As much as I’m not really an AR guy, I really don’t see any reason that the army should be getting a whole new rifle platform. With the economy the way it is and the US pulling out of it’s foriegn wars in the next couple years, we can’t afford to spend a lot on massive new procurements.

    • Mang

      This is where we were at the beginning of the year. I agree that a new carbine seems like a potential waste of money considering current circumstances, but the m4 is still 1960’s technology with Picatinny rails and decades of product improvement. Colt (or whoever) is probably going to keep receiving corporate welfare with new contracts for a marginally improved rifle. Inertia wins. :/

      • W

        “Inertia wins. :/”

        bingo. that is the answer to the question that seems to elude many.

  • Matt G.

    As much as I love the ACR, I cant trust bushmaster very far. I may get one anyway but itll take a lot of testing before I trust it.

    • SpudGun

      If the ACR were to win the bid as the new Army rifle, I believe other companies will be brought in to help fill the order books. So if you don’t want / trust Bushmaster, they’ll be FN and Colt produced ACRs floating around.

      • Nadnerbus

        Remington is supposed to be the partner that fills LEO and military orders, should they come.

      • 18D

        Actually Remington MPD was only brought on to fill military orders. Bushmaster is the sole developer for LEO and civilian orders.

  • Lance

    First of all there is REAL doubt the military will replace Stoner based weapons for a SCAR or ACR. 1 budget cuts are too great right now anyway. Now with $600 billion in ore cuts anyway and $450 Billion on top of that now anyway. The Military wants to replace the HUMVEE and APCs in service and those programs are in danger now too. That mean most brass wants BIG toys before small things like guns anyway. 2nd there isn’t enough of a tech leap to warrant a replacement. Both designs are regurgitated AR-18 designs and the ACR submitted to the ICC competition lacks barrel change and folding but stock options other models have, it basically a piston AR then.

    Big FACT two is the USMC and Navy officially said now they will NOT buy any winner of the ICC competition and the USMC is launching a major upgraded to the M-16A4 rifle. The USAF is still buying M-4 now anyway. H&K is making a killing with the 416 internationally and with SOCOM and USMC and with making the M-320 GL in Army service I bet HK has BIG sway there anyway. fact is improving the M-4 would be more economical anyway since existing rifle can be rerofitted with new accessories and improvements. And too its cheaper.

    I don’t see the ICC as such a open chance to get anything in Gun makers complained about the selection being too closed minded and other major complaints from gun makers still persist. there too much hype on sits about it there many military rifle tests anyway. (ACR 1989 and MPR in 1968) are to key examples. With the army solely doing this there not the backing to go with a new weapon.

    • Joseph

      The fact we’ve seen some weapon systems adopted in the past two years tells everyone it’s possible. We assume the systems cost a lot, but it may not cost much more to replace the M-16/M4 platform if done correctly. Once upon a time the XM8 looked great, however… and that went nowhere. I do think with the fact other nations are adopting so much new ckrap America will do something as minute as adopting a new standard rifle over the next few years. When we see a nation replace a rifle we actually don’t think much of it do we???… then when the U.S. does we suddenly think it’s the biggest deal ever.

      I actually don’t see the replacement of our rifles to be as tough an ordeal as we make up. But thank goodness we have high standards on even the civilian level.

      All of this said for the sake of thought, I do think the M4/M16 system seems to be doing great still. I guess we could talk about 6.8 or 6.5 rounds being more important depending on how you look at it.

      • W

        i believe it is too late now to adopt a new rifle design, with the army missing its chance in 2005 after the cancellation of the outstanding XM8, which was ditched due to political bureaucracy of the carbine acquisition process.

        While the XM8 had a few flaws (most notably not utilizing a NATO rail, which can be easily remedied), it was a outstanding weapon that had every right to serve as the US military’s standard weapon.

    • Lance

      But its not just cost per unit Joe fact is the military wont have much money for anything and there isn’t a leap big enough to replace the M-4 anyway.

      the second BIG thing is that the USMC that mean navy too said they wont buy the ICC winner and said they will upgraded the USMC M-16A4 to A5 anyway. W/O other services with them the program will run into BIG hurdles to be a Army only option and require possibly new mags ammo and even accessories than the other services M-4s and M-16s. Plus a mess of parts to go threw too.

      • Joseph

        Good point. Lots of parts. Although, I suppose when the time comes that will have to not matter. There’s maybe not enough improvements to harbor a need for a new system.

        I will make this point, however (for reference of thought)
        The ACR and other rifles are being made to save money. We all forget that the only way to have two or more rifles with one AR platform while keeping zero in a timely manner is to change out the entire upper- at that we can’t turn them into a 7.62NATO without other whole units ($$$). With the newer “modular” weapons there’s a great ability to save. The CM901 has a unique approach by offering one lower that “does it all” for example.

  • Lance

    Note both Steve and Jdun1911 can agree with articles we read bout this.

    Here is the link to previous ARC limited version.

  • I owe a SCAR and I i like it a lot. A couple of friends owned ACRs and I got to shoot them. I didn’t care for them. One friend sold his. The other sbr’d his.

  • Nater

    I just don’t see why one would buy an ACR when one could buy a SCAR. The Advanced ACR and the SCAR-16S are very close in price and features. The ACR doesn’t have a reciprocating charging handle and has a better bolt catch/release. Unfortunately it has an annoying safety to go along with it. The SCAR has a stock that locks folded and a good ambi safety.

    The SCAR is also made by FN, a company with a very good reputation from the FAL, MAG, and Minimi. Bushmaster? Not so much.

    As for rifles that aren’t AR-15s. I’d really like a Sig 551, but I’m just not so sure on Sig’s quality anymore.

    • The ACR is more ambidextrous than the SCAR, and has a more robust folding stock.

      The bolt knob also won’t hurt you if grab the magwell with your support hand with your thumb extended. To an extent, this can be overcome if you train a lot with a SCAR, but stuff happens when you’re injured and getting shot at, or if your gun broke and you pick up someonelse’s rifle.

      • Nadnerbus

        See, I like the ACR style charging handle better too, but I don’t see the SCARs as a fatal flaw or anything. M1s and M14s have a reciprocating charging handle on the right side, as does the AK. People learn to deal with it. In the Garand design, you have part of the op rode exposed on the right side where the support hand can wrap around and potentially get bitten. If it is that big of an issue on the SCAR, put it on the right side away from you support hand thumb.

        They’re both interesting designs. SCAR is a bit more conservative and it shows in some areas. Nothing wrong with that.

    • W

      I would have to say the non reciprocating charging handle is more advantageous, especially when dealing with a rifle that has endured very harsh conditions. The people that use the SCAR in battle actually hold a carbine the way it is supposed to be held; the magwell grip is fundamentally and practically wrong in every way.

      I praise the SCAR’s design as being more conservative and simple, being a protege of the KISS concept.

      • mosinman

        im no fan of the SCAR but i love what you said about the whole magwell grip issue

  • GVD

    Bushmaster/Remington had the most popular kid on the block when they purchased the rights to the Magpul Masada. But it became more expensive, heavier, and modified some core components before it was finished as the ACR. After that, they released a rifle that basically couldn’t reliably shoot the ammo it was supposed to shoot.

    Gee, I wonder why everyone defaulted back to the cheap & plenty reliable & highly modular AR15?

    As for there no being any money in anything but AR15s? I’m sure FN-H, Steyr, Sig & Beretta are laughing their ass off.
    I hope Magpul throws a Massoud on the market with another partner than Rem/Bush and that it outsells the ACR overnight. 😛

    • Nadnerbus

      I have to cut them a little slack. It is hard to compete on price point with a fifty year old, now basically open source design with tons of sunk costs already paid for by the military. It would take a Microsoft Windows-level of giving it away first to gain market share strategy to even begin to compete with the AR.

      That said, the hyping of the rifle by Magpul and Bushmaster types as being in the 1500 ish range probably was a really bad idea.

      The caliber modularity was supposed to be one of the biggest selling points, but from what I have read they are slow in releasing the parts for that.

      Maybe if they could sell the .223 version with a .22 conversion all for the base price, they could get their market niche.

  • 18D

    I haven’t taken the time to read other comments posted, so I apologize if I repeat what’s already been said.

    The ACR concept is the future. The ACR has the capability to be an outstanding weapon system. Unfortunately it has performed bad in key areas since Remington started producing it. It has had reliability issues and durability issues that have been well documented in the community.

    The other problem is in cost. Remington uses some proprietary manufacturing processes and surface treatments that make the gun way too expensive for LEO and Military to adopt such a rifle.

    The bottom line is that the gun has become too unreliable, too expensive, and too heavy to be a serious consideration for adoption by any large agency. Furthermore, civilians would rather have an accurate and reliable AR15 for half the price. When Remington and Bushmaster took over the ACR project, they made a number of mistakes. Freedom Group is now paying for those mistakes. If Magpul produced this rifle from the beginning, I believe it would have been a different story.

    • SpudGun

      ‘I haven’t taken the time to read other comments posted, so I apologize if I repeat what’s already been said.’

      Good call dude. Why have respect for others when you can just brush over everything and just make your own point? Rock on! Taking at least twelve seconds to read other points of view is just way too long.

      I will follow this way of posting in the future.

      • 18D

        Your comment makes no sense. The purpose of having a comments section is not to have a discussion forum. It’s to have a chance to voice your opinions/concerns on the subject and for the author to elaborate on details and answer questions about the story. It is not required nor is it common courtesy to read other comments before posting your own. With that being said, I always read the other comments when I get a chance.

        I’ll be sure to skip yours next time!

      • W

        Im with 18 on this. He has a right to write his own opinion without appeasing other people’s posts and opinions.

  • Got to play with one at the Fort Bliss PX. It’s /heavy/. The model for sale didn’t come with /any/ sights. The salesman had to help me cycle the weapon.

    The SCAR-S was nearby. Nice sights (I wear glasses), the controls were almost like my issue M-16.

    Any graduate of Relaxin’ Jackson can to inspection arms blindfolded.

    The ACR is too expensive (it was almost 3k) and the controls are just..odd. Odd gets you killed in combat.

    The AR-15/M-16/M-4 style weapons win or price and being the standard.

    The SCAR’s expensive (at ~2500) but the sights are nice and the controls (even with no CLP) feel like butter.

    Big Army has way too much invested in PMI, ARM and other training to get a rifle/carbine that’s too far off from the black rifle. I say that the SCAR’s a dark horse. It’s price tag is high but at least the controls are easy to use. The charging handle reciprocates, but thankfully you can mount it on either side. The sights are better than the black rifles. Still Colt’s spawn has a big following.

    If a piston gun wins (yay!) it’ll surprise me.

    You think you have a lot of CLP? Our arms room (and we’re an air defense unit) has several gallons of the stuff. Ditto stacks of TM’s and FM’s on using the M-16/M-4.

    The ACR may be fine for safe queens, or rich gun nuts, but I don’t see it winning the carbine competition. It’s just an odd duck. Too expensive to use out of the box and ditch years of training.

    • SoulTown

      @ Chockblock

      Actually the controls make a lot of sense. Ambi charging handle & bolt catch, and all the necessary manipulations (sending the bolt home, charging, locking the bolt back, etc) can be easily done without EVER having to move your firing hand from the grip.

      See the awesomeness of trigger-guard mounted bolt catch.

    • Jeff

      How did you not know how to cycle the weapon? there’s a charging handle which is self explanatory, the bolt release should be the only thing that would need explaining. every other configuration is pretty much the same as the m16

      • The bolt hold’s in a weird place compared to the M-16. And it felt heavy when I released the bolt. The damn thing feels way to heavy when compared to the SCAR-S and the M-16. Sights cost extra. For $2k they had an M-4 clone with a HWS, grip and surefire. The ACR came /naked/.

        Of course youtube videos show all kinds of fancy moves with the ACR. But for the the controls are just too funky. FN didn’t re-invent the wheel. The SCAR cycled nicely and the sights are to die for.

      • The bolt release is in the trigger guard…that’s a disaster waiting to happen in basic.

      • Tinkerer

        I remember these odd rifles that had the safety INSIDE the trigger guard. How odd is that? What where they called? Garand? M14?

    • Monty

      I agree that the Remington ACR is too expensive versus the M4 and all the more so, because it is a polymer gun. The M4 gets a bad rap from some people, but the fact is: it works. It works very well, in fact. Combat feedback attests to its overall dependability. almost 40 years of constant, incremental improvements have collectively had a profound effect on its overall effectiveness, reliability and durability. Today, the M4 remains a benchmark for all new assault rifle designs. If you’re going to replace the M4, you need to offer something that is a genuine leap forward. The ACR is not a that weapon. Neither is the SCAR. The nearest next best thing to an M4 is arguably the HK416. Having a piston system isn’t mandatory, it merely increases system reliability, and is ideal for SF guns with 10″ barrels and suppressors. Maybe a new assault rifle design utilising LSAT case-telescoped ammunition in an intermediate calibre could be the quantum leap we’ve all been waiting for. Maybe. But it’s got a long, long way to go before it can match the M4. When it is proven to be a better option, I’ll be the first to buy one. Until then, Gene Stoner is the man.

  • charles222

    The new carbine competition will not result in a new service rifle, IMO. Here is why:

    1: There is a lack of logistical reason to buy a new design. One of the big reasons the 1911 left service was logistical aspects: We were running out of spare parts, the pistols themselves were on their last legs, and they didn’t have NATO commonality for ammunition, in sharp contrast to literally every other small arm in service at the time. This is not the case with the M4.

    2: The case that the M4 is an inferior general-service small arm has not really been proven. Yes, Delta and SOCOM in general rocks 416s, but that is because their primary weapons are typically 10-inch barrelled and suppressed. A piston design has strengths there that don’t really apply with 14-inch and above barrelled weapons.

    3. Barring serious advances in ammunition lethality, at the end of the day we’ll be carrying short-barreled carbines in 5.56mm. The SCAR 16 was nixed specifically because it didn’t provide a serious improvement over the M4; none of the other rifles have a significant advantage either.

  • Domestic Squirrel

    Or there’s always the Rob Arms XCR. =:-P

  • George

    The problem with the ACR is the marketing decisions made by Bushmaster. The Magpul Masada was one of the most anticipated firearms of this decade and they ruined it. It was supposed to be inexpensive, and have many interchangable AR-15 parts. Instead, they introduced a heavy, propritary weapon at double the price they said they would. The ACR had one of the worst new product receptions ever, rivaling Pepsi Blue or New Coke. I’ve handled a ACR, and the location of the controls is outstanding. Ergonomically, it’s far superior to the AR-15. However, it’s heavier and feels bigger than necessary. I like streamlined and light weapons. I also don’t like being taken advantage of on prices, I feel the ACR is worth $1300, not $2400 or whatever they cost now. In short, Bushmaster blew their chance at having this decades best selling gun.

    • Joseph

      According to Future Weapons only the Fire Control Group, the Barrel, and front sight thingy remained the same. I talked with bushmaster and was told that an AR-15 barrel could be retrofitted to the ACR with the proper stuff… in other words, even thought it’s not “the same barrel” it is actually kinda the same barrel.

      • 18D

        Your right Joseph. People who keep saying this is a glorified AR15 are wrong.

        The barrel on the ACR is a modified AR barrel. The only thing you need to do is change the barrel extension and fit the gas system. That’s it.

        I’m not sure what you mean by the fire control group, but the trigger group is different. It uses a few AR components, but the rest is mostly proprietary. It’s a solid drop in unit.

  • It would not suprise me if the Stoner Rifle and Kalashnikov continue to hold the civilian and military market for the next 30-60 years. I just dont see a more reliable platform that can match the light weight of either platform or the lethality.

    Hell, I would go as far to say that the AK and SR are still going to be the most lethal and reliable weapons up until 2100 or beyond.

    Until advanced armors are built, nothing will force a new generation of weapons into our culture.

    • W

      I actually agree with you 100% ghost. Those platforms have a abundance of spare parts and can be inexpensively manufactured on a large scale. While there are superior designs available, these two platforms are tried and true, and evolutionary designs of existing platforms offer no vast improvement to the effectiveness of these weapons.

      A AR15 with a nickel BCG, cold hammer forged barrel, and modular rail system is more than adequately reliable and effective in combat conditions.


    BushMaster will lower the price, because they have to Basic model: $1,200.00-$1400.00. Enhanced Version: $1,500.00-1800.00 . The MagPul version will probably be a .308/7.62 version.Priced at $2,200.00 base model. When they/bushmaster do lower the price, will we buy the fantastic plastic rifle? Or pick-up the super sexy, exotic Beretta ARX-160? Black or tan version.
    The question is: Will they release an AK lower with the ability to use AK magazines or AR type magazines proprietary. Just like the Robinson Arms XCR. Probably never or in 2013? Depending on the numbers that come in,once they lower the price. Wait another year for the Bushmaster AK? Probably not. So Magpul to release the ACR AK version with proprietary mags.Probably yes.More revenue… The business model is to make revenue.Think Brand power.MagPul price on the AK version and the 6.5/6.8 $1,500.00 to $1,800.00. Depending on the add-ons. Think good,better,and best. But when they first start selling,prices: $1,800.00, $2,000.00 to $2,400.00.Best wishes to all of you and have safe festivities. God Bless America. Cheers.

  • Alan

    Contrary to what is expressed in the article, the FN SCAR rifles are selling very well. The 17s model in .308 flies off the shelves, with its smaller brother in 5.56 still moving at a brisk pace.

    • W

      haha you know i have noticed the same thing, especially in the case of the 17 variant. The only thing i don’t like about my 17S is its use of proprietary magazines; with little cost or change to the magazine well, they would have been smart to allow the less expensive AR10 magpul Pmags to be compatible.

      I can see why this rifle gets sold. It is a evolutionary battle rifle that is superior to any 308 semi-automatic rifles available to civilians or the military. I do not regret buying one.

    • TheAmdMAN

      Anyone have any specific sales #’s? I’d be interested in seeing the data.

  • Kenric S

    Serious though, if retailers weren’t sucking every penny out of gun owners they’d be flying off the shelves. The place by me is asking 3g’s REALLY? come on I’ll get a SCAR for 1500 less or how about that M24 I’ve been looking into. stupid retailers

  • Annoymous

    I wonder who will win if the ACR was in the SCAR contest. I think the Mk.17 and it’s little brother the Mk.16 won’t win because the ACR has all of these features and it does work with 6.8 and 7.62x39mm. SOCOM also wants a 7.62 NATO version but the ACR’s older brother, the Massoud will be the 7.62 version. What do you guys think?

  • Goatboy

    Magpul has jumped the shark and has become a glorified tee shirt company, they have forgotten what made them great by turning their back on the fans that made them great. Additionally they constantly over promise and under deliver, the loss Travis and Costa and the new designs have been off ( the 870 stock is horrible along with the new fixed AR stock) will all lead to them being a foot note. JMO

  • RoyB

    Frankly, I agree with Greg on the marketing. If it was sold ~12-18% above cost, it’d be one of the better options for long-term productions, given that there’s less metal used than that of AR platforms. Now, regarding what one unnamed idiot has said, the bolt release IS NOT inside the trigger guard, dumbass. It’s located on the side near the front of it, below the mag release, where your finger can reach it quickly, without breaking cheekweld nor line of sight on target. Use it before you diss it. It’s a great system, very intuitive and easy to pick up. Ambidexterous too, which is a great help when it comes to mass distribution and training. Frankly, it is lighter than the AR’s I’ve used, but those were mostly M16’s with longer barrels and heavier rails, so meh. For reliability and quality, Remington has been mucking up lately. Found nearly half a shipment of 870’s that were skewed and shoddily put together. Bushmaster used to be known for making pretty decent items, so I dunno if they’d be halfway decent compared to back when. Also, this weapon is better suited for harsh conditions compared to the current M4A1/M16A4 due to being piston operated, but so is the 416 and the SCAR. Now, the military didn’t take the SCAR due to cost; certain special forces units did get a few orders of them, but it wasn’t large scale. It is a much better system for extended warfare because of its design: slower fire rate, better reliability, easier to take down. Acr has better reliability and ergonomics, lighter weight(Than M16. No huge difference to the M4) and that it’s modular. Doesn’t require extensive training over the M16, just hit the switch instead of slapping the side. However, since it is mostly polymer, it may have the same problems as the G36 series does when it comes to heat; they don’t have a metal frame, therefore the plastic warps with sustained fire, disrupting accuracy. The XM8 also had heat issues. Now, the AR has parts commonality, proven accuracy and intuitive use, but questionable reliability in harsh climates, as well as problems with lethality(due to the 5.56 wounding, but not killing). Okay, me personally? I’d prefer a 6.5 grendel round in the standard-issue assault rifle, with 6.8SPC used in urban warfare, as well as for security and vehicle crews. As for the issue rifle, I’d have them go with the PWS MK110 series, in either 6.5 or 6.8. Same long-stroke piston system as the AK. It’s cheaper than the ACR, has a lot of common parts with the M16, and is the most reliable AR platform when unsuppressed. I’ve used all the weapons I’ve mentioned, and the one everyone would get along with, barring costs and effort, is the Diablo. Now if this is a question of logistics, it’ll be another six years minimum before the brass gets off their ass and decides to do something to help the troops. Then another 20 years before they actually follow through on that decision. Damn politicians.
    Okay, sum all that up in one sentence. The ACR is a good system, a great idea, but has been very poorly executed. Someone made a bad call, and this is what happened. Good initiative, bad judgement. Okay, lets wrap this up. Give the military a more reliable system with better lethality that won’t cost congress so much they have to cancel their monthly vacation. Someone get them a few millions shipments of Ak’s, and while you’re at it get me a beer.


    Firstly, it just came out so it is relatively new compared to the other guns we can name.

    Secondly, and just as importantly, give it time. It’s a different gun and it’s finding its supporters and enthusiasts right now.

    It’s a different and awesome gun. It will find its way.