First Photos of the SARG XS2012 Rifle

Earlier this year I wrote about the SARG XS2012 rifle. SARG has just published specifications and photos of the rifle.

The founder of the company told us they were aiming for the retail price to range between $1300 and $1600 depending on the configuration. Caliber conversion kits will cost about $350.

Caliber 5.56mm / .300 BLK / 7.62x39mm
Capacity 30 Rounds (STANAG Magazine)
Action Delayed Gas Piston System
Finish Black Polymer
Barrel 10.5″ / 14.5″ / 16″
Stock Fixed or Adjustable
Overall Length 34″ (16″ barrel model)
Weight 7.6 lbs (16″ barrel model)

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.


  • Tom

    $13-1600? Isn’t that what Magpul and Robarms and whoever was importing the Tavor this week all said about their new plastic fantastic multi-caliber carbines?

    • Lance

      There is much debate if new Galils and Tavors will be imported under the current President I doubt it.

  • Jingles

    Can someone tell me why EVERYONE wants to put an M4 profile barrel on their gun? Virtually no civilians are going to be mounting an M203 to an $800 Bushmaster.

    • Sian

      because it’s TactiCool(tm)!

    • Beefalo

      Because I got mine cheap.

    • W

      they’re inexpensive thats why. millions have been produced throughout the decades and it is simply less expensive to purchase these barrels.

      fortunately, more and more companies are introducing ARs that veer away from the “M4 barrel with a 203 notch” paradigm.

  • darrel

    Way too expensive for some injection molded plastic and a barrel.

  • TangledThorns

    I’d rather wait for the ARX-160.

  • Trev

    It’s neat that someone is making something new.

    However, I see a major shortcut right off the bat. That tells me there may be others as well.

    The barrel has an m203 cut-out. Obviously you won’t be mounting an m203 on this thing. So instead of using a purpose built barrel like many quality rifle manufacturers, they chose the easy way out.

    Some people criticized the ACR for this exact thing.

    They also do not list any of the materials used under technical specifications. Could be made low grade steels for all we know. For that price it’s a no go without knowing the materials used.

    • Sian

      My guess: they got a great deal on a bunch of AR barrels with the cutout.

    • JMD

      If it uses standard AR barrels, or something that’s a modification on that design, that’s a good thing, since it’ll keep costs down. I don’t see anything wrong with using AR barrels in a new rifle design.

      • Trev

        The ACR did not use AR barrels, but still had the cut out. That is what i’m thinking here.

  • That ugly plastic stock and lack of capacity to accept standard accessories out to appeal to the HK-fanboy crowd.

    • JMD

      That’s a Lancer L5 AWM. It’s a standard AR15 magazine.

    • Marc

      HK haters are even worse than HK fanboys. We get it, you don’t like HK. Now stop bitching.

    • Cymond

      Whenever something new comes out, people complain that it doesn’t take AR-15 accessories. Whenever something comes out that uses AR-15 components, people complain and ask “why does everything need to have an AR-15 stock?”

      When a new 5.56 carbine comes out, people complain that it doesn’t do anything better than an AR-15. When another AR-15 comes out, people complain that it isn’t something new.

  • Reverend Clint

    did they let a G3 mate with a SCAR?

  • Lance

    I agree ugly weak plastic butt stock but nice bolt piston config maybe a new body for this action is needed other than that interesting.

    • Esh325

      How do you know it’s weak?

      • Lance

        It appears to be hollow to save weight.

    • Esh325

      That doesn’t mean it’s weak though.

      • Lance

        Not when it has no metal reinforcements in it and its all hollow plastic.

      • WJS

        Hollow plastic sections doesn’t mean it will be weak. High school physics teach us that a hollow tube is stiffer than a solid tube, and is able to withstand a greater amount of load before fracturing or breaking. It depends on how the forces are distributed. Even solid structures need to have a certain cross-section to make it stronger or stiffer and able to resist greater bending stresses, e.g. H-beam and I-beam cross-sections.

      • RocketScientist

        WJS, I’m sorry but the former Mechanics of Solids instructor in me can’t let this statement go without a correction:

        “High school physics teach us that a hollow tube is stiffer than a solid tube, and is able to withstand a greater amount of load before fracturing or breaking.”

        You are on the right track (and I agree with your overall point that just because this stock is hollow plastic means it is weak/poorly designed), but you missed an important concept here. Your statement above would be entirely correct, with the following addition:

        “High school physics teach us that a hollow tube is stiffer than a solid tube OF THE SAME WEIGHT, and is able to withstand a greater amount of load before fracturing or breaking.”

        Basically, for a rod/tube in bending, the stress is zero at the centerline, and increases exponentially as you move radially towards the surface or the rod. So if you remove most of the middle of a solid rod, you will have a tube with much less weight/mass, but ALMOST all the stiffness. It will however, be less stiff (albeit not much) than a solid rod of same diameter. The benefit is if you make it only a tiny bit larger outside diameter, you can regain all that stiffness for only a tiny percent of the mass you eliminated by hollowing out your tube. So yes, hollow tubes are much more stiff than a solid rod of the same mass, but slightly LESS stiff than a solid rod of same diameter.

        For homework, you can plot this for yourself and see the differences. For members under transverse stress (eg cantilevered beam) the bending stiffness is a function of its area moment of inertia, ‘I’. For solid circular cross sections, this is given by the formula: I = (pi/4)*R^4, and for hollow circular cross-sections (tubes) I = (pi/4) * (Ro^4-Ri^4) where R, Ro and Ri are radius, outer radius, and inner radius respectively.

      • Lance

        Sorry but many new rifles with all plastic stocks have many complaints of breakage. SO be better to have some light weight metal reinforcements to it.

  • Esh325

    Are they going to market it to a military or police? To me, an “assault rifle” has a lot of its appeal when it’s adopted by a military. And being adopted by a military usually means it’s supported better with parts and third party vendors, and some times is made by more than one company. It also gives the rifle more value if you intend to sell yours some day. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but I thought it was interesting to see them use a fixed stock opposed to a collapsible stock like most modern assault rifles. The price point is very attractive. I hope they see some success.

    • Lance

      There are many nation still use fixed stock weapons AUG and tavor and the G-36 is folding not collapsible. The US military still uses very large numbers of M-16A2s and M-16A4s which have fixed stocks. The companies problem is that most nations will not buy it. The US is staying with M-4/M-16 and so either they export it to poor nations or its a Police only weapon.

      • Esh325

        A bullpup can’t have anything but a fixed stock. Yes, the G36 doesn’t have one. It wouldn’t really be worth it to add collapsible stocks to the M16 anyways since they have so many M4’s. I believe most combat troops use the M4 while the M16 is getting regulated more and more to non combat roles.

      • Lance

        Not really most Army elite units use M-4s but many regular infantry units still have M-16s the USMC will not go all M-4 and keep the M-16A4. The Navy is staying with M-16A2.

      • matt

        A bullpup doesnt have to have a stock. See the Gwinn Firearms Arm Pistol or the Remington XP-100

      • Esh325

        What makes you think this weapon will be marketed towards poor nations? It’s probably cheaper for a poor country to a buy a well established weapon like the M16 or AK than this.

      • Lance

        Its cheap and is not as modular than a M-4 M-16 or ACR is so is marketed for poorer customers.

  • Todd

    The specifications actually state fixed or adjustable, so appearently this is the fixed version. Personally, i’de opt for the fixed stock so long as its comfortable.

  • Mark

    In other news Bushmaster announces plans to purchase the rights to the SARG rifle….

  • Doug

    I’m trying to figure out what it does better than any other $1600 rifle does. Just because it functions like other rifles in the same price range doesn’t mean you should actually charge that.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad someone came up with an idea and ACTUALLY brought it to market. However, IS there a market?

    • oscar1

      As long as they bring the caliber kits to market, there will be a MARKET.

  • No interchangeable grip = big no-no for me.

  • Carlos U

    The Tavors are not going to be imported, they are fabricated here by IMI. That way the Israelis can A) buy their own weapon but pay it with US-donated money, which has to be spent in the US, and B) Enter the US civilian market without worrying about import restrictions. Win-Win.

    • Mike

      Another example of the legendary Jewish wit. A simple yet smart deal.

  • M2vr1k

    M4 profile (either a minor cost saving measure and settling for whats cheap instead of best or a pandering to the uninformed/impractical…. Either way, I disapprove) fixed, non adjustable/customizable grip which doesn’t appear to have a floor plate for storage. Their web site mentions an adjustable stock, havent seen it but with no rear charging handle I’d really like to see folding, LOP and comb height adjustment. Dislike the fixed stock, the low sloping cheekweld may make it easier to use some types of iron sights, but what happens when I slap a large diameter scope on there? I’d like to see some pics of the other side of the gun, to get a better idea of how ambidextrous it potentially is. The whole thing looks a bit slippery for my tastes…. if its just an injection, why not go for some texture?

    Honestly though, I’m a little impressed by the price point. Speaking as a gunsmith, machinist and a military contractor in the manufacturing sector, I know how expensive it could be to start up an operation on an original and proprietary design (semi), much less getting it to market, so props to them for getting it out there. Bottom line though, if they aren’t full of crap and actually make the caliber conversions… and if the gun is reliable and accurate, they’ll probably get plenty of business. Assuming the Freedom Group (oxymoron, right? Yay Cerberus! Please….just look up Robert Nardelli before making any FG purchases. Seriously.) doesn’t flatten them like a penny on the railroad.

    • Roy Rapoport

      (I hope we’re not verging into political land here … )

      The Wikipedia article on Robert Nardelli is pretty interesting, but notes he’s no longer CEO of FG as of March, 2012.

  • bbmg

    FPS Russia take note, this is what developing a new product actually looks like.

  • bbmg

    Also, judging by the texture on the furniture, looks like it’s been 3D printed…

    • Nicks87

      No! Not 3D printing thats a tool of the devil, lol. 😉

  • Nicks87

    Cool gun but these new guys need to get their prices down or people will just keep buying ARs and AKs. Either that or give it an obvious advantage over the popular assault rifles.

    At the local gun shop they have SCARs and an ACR that just sit and collect dust while the AR-15s and AKs fly off the shelves.

    • Indeed. This rifle is hideous, costs just as much as a good AR; and it looks like the fore grip, pistol grip, and stock are non-removable. Why would anyone buy this?

  • Pepin the Short

    Ah! I must know what the left side looks like!

  • nick

    Delayed Gas Piston System? I never heard of that, can somebody explain it to me

    • RocketScientist

      A link in the above post goes to a previous TFB post about this gun when it was first revealed. It has a brief description of the action mechanism. Basically it has a large-volume/diameter gas expansion chamber with a short piston (like 4-6″ i believe) that is directly mounted to the bolt carrier group.

    • Todd

      it looks like they used a shorter gas piston, like the tavor.

  • gunslinger

    like everyone else, what does this have that makes the 13-1600 worth it?

    • DevilDog

      If you plan on running multiple calibers (i.e. different uppers), I can see how the cost advantage would add up real quick at $350 per caliber conversion kit.

      • Flounder

        How is this better or cheaper than an MGI Hydra?

      • Anonymoose

        Looking at their website, it looks like it has a quick-change barrel+bolt+mag conversion system like a SCAR and ACR. Hopefully they actually come out with caliber change kits for this gun.

    • DevilDog

      Doesn’t the Hydra use a direct impingement? Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but I don’t see the option to convert it to a piston or if it would be compatible..

    • Esh325

      It’s not easy to say whether it will or won’t do anything better than other rifles at this point because it’s not released.

  • Leonard

    The stock looks like the one on an old StG44…

  • fcp503

    I don’t see fully ambi controls. That is a big minus.

    • Esh325

      They said on the website they have fully ambi controls, maybe the prototype doesn’t have one.

      • DevilDog

        I would imagine that 300 dollar price gap has something to do with ambi options..?

  • Mike Knox

    Anyone started with “magpul ripoff” yet?

    • DevilDog

      What did they “ripoff” from magpul?

      • Mike Knox

        Nothing but whenever a rifle comes out looking like an ACR, magpul fans usually come out bantering that..

  • Denny

    Nothinng to take from perceived originality and strive of its creators, but just wondering…… where is actual contribution of this particular design? Will it do anything better, faster and more frugally than dozens of existing designs. I know, creators made their claims, but is here somebody to prove it? Does it possibly have ambition to become a military issue? Having said that, I understand it must feed someone ego and that’s ok too.

  • Chase

    I love the slick-sided look of this gun. It looks great.

    I spotted many of the things that other commenters have talked about, but I’m assuming this is a prototype and that they will be different on the production gun.

  • Heckler und Kock nuts

    hey dick wanna see my dick ?

  • Fitzter

    I hear the stock will be available in pink! Yessssss please!

  • Jim

    Is it just me or do a lot of new rifles look similar? I’m not saying that’s a bad thing since you can only go so far with things like ergonomics and you want to take what you can from competitors, but it’s just something I’ve noticed.

    • Ian

      Think about late 19th century rifle design. Nearly every bolt gun from that era looks similar. It just happens that when you make an AR-18 clone (like nearly everyone seems to be doing) that it’s going to look an awful lot like an AR-18.

  • Murdock

    reminds me of the CZ-805 a little