POTD: TracerX – Belt-Fed Fightlite Industries MCR

by Eric B

Published: February 2nd, 2022

The perfect magazine doesn’t exist, does it? Or do we have the best solution just in front of us, as presented by FightLite Industries and their MCR Dual-Feed Upper? At $6,399.99 it’s one of the most expensive uppers I’ve ever encountered, but that didn’t stop a friend from buying one. It’s pretty cool to have a belt instead of a magazine, I can tell you!

These pictures are taken by TracerX. The ear protection is from Otto Engineering, the flash hider is from Primary Weapons with a Gemtech adapter.

Fightlite Industries MCR:

You can find the description from FightLite Industries here:

Our groundbreaking MCR® (Mission Configurable Rifle) belt-fed upper receiver assembly is designed to interchange with standard AR/M4 type uppers and readily fits any MIL-Spec lower receiver without permanent modification to the host lower, and is rearward compatible to AR15/M16 models produced as early as 1963.
Once installed, the patented MCR® upper receiver system can be user-configured in seconds without tools to adapt to virtually any mission profile. Specifically designed for responsible armed citizens, law enforcement and professional security personnel who wish to upgrade their rifle or carbine to MCR®performance and capability; standard features include gas-piston operation for extreme reliability in adverse conditions; a 16.25″ quick-change (3 seconds) barrel system and a MIL-STD 1913 co-planar hand-guard with rail-interface system for the mounting of optics and modern accessories. Spanning the capability range from the optic ready carbine through a lightweight support rifle; theMCR® accepts standard box type AR15/M16 magazines or M27 linked ammunition at operator discretion, permitting unprecedented firepower and weapon flexibility.

What do you think about the Fightlite Industries MCR? Did you ever try one?

All photos by TracerX.

#FightLiteIndustries #TracerX #OttoEngineering

Eric B

Ex-Arctic Ranger. Competitive practical shooter and hunter with a European focus. Always ready to increase my collection of modern semi-automatics, optics, thermals and suppressors. TCCC Certified. Occasionaly seen in a 6x6 Bug Out Vehicle, always with a big smile.

More by Eric B

Comments

Join the conversation

11 of 38 comments

Sid Collins on Feb 03, 2022

Neither for or against it.
In my view as a soldier, it just has no purpose. Maneuvering with a belt-fed weapon is difficult. Keeping the gun fed is the responsibility of everyone in the squad or team because ammo is heavy and doesn't just magically appear. That is why the standard light infantry tactic is to assign the belt-fed weapons to the support team with base of fire as the primary purpose. That allows the soldiers with magazine-fed weapons to maneuver with less cumbersome systems.
Even the improvements to the M249 have not really addressed the issue. Yes, it is lighter. But the weight of the ammo remains the same and is the more pressing issue. This could make for a lighter SAW. But it doesn't eliminate the technical issues of flinging a belt-fed weapon around.
I honestly think the dedicated lower with the larger magazine makes more sense for soldiers who are maneuvering.
However, if anyone can afford one of these and happens to be on the range... I would love to test it for you.

Like Reply
- See 8 previous
- PDWSmith on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @Sid Collins Versatility is a good unto itself. All else being equal, if Product A can do B, but Product B can't A, A > B. I also see the value in commonality of controls (training) as well as parts with the service rifle.
  Belts are conceptually as well as physically flexible. Nothing prevents division into smaller increments for when rapid maneuver is needed. In fact, adoption of an upper that adds a pound or so to a light AR (as opposed to a clunker 249) could incentivize development of small, light clip-on pouches for that purpose.
  The rest of the fire team would, of course, continue to carry belts in support of the gunner.
  
  Like
- Sid Collins on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @PDWSmith Smaller belts were part of the updated SAW. Both flexible pouches and hard canisters. Neither really addressed the issue of belts. It’s not the size or length of belted ammunition. It is the slinging and bumping and jarring that caused misaligned rounds which led to stoppages.
  Again, I think rigorous testing is required. Based on my experience, maneuvering soldiers are going to opt for magazine-fed weapons.
  
  Like
- PDWSmith on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @Sid Collins I agree that rigorous testing is required, and never meant to imply that this upper is perfect as-is. I also believe the issues are solvable; most of history's most reliable MGs have been belt fed.
  
  Like
- Phillip Cooper on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @PDWSmith "Nothing prevents division into smaller increments when rapid maneuver is needed"
  Uh, incoming fire does a pretty good job of that.
  As for "when rapid maneuver is needed" - that would be, always.
  As for "small, clip-on pouches" - this was tried when the M249 SAW was initially fielded. It didn't go well.
  
  Like
- Phillip Cooper on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @PDWSmith Yes, and they were largely employed in fixed locations, because they were belt-fed.
  The use of the M60 in Vietnam by patrolling US foot soldiers is somewhat an outlier to the above statement- and yet, they still had all of the issues we have mentioned with belts.
  I will admit, not having much familiarity with the weapons of the VC. I know they used AKs, but how often did they use belt-fed weapons in man-mobile service?
  
  Like
- PDWSmith on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @Phillip Cooper That's why I wrote "for when rapid maneuver is needed" (emphasis added), as in issuing 30 or 40rd belt packs - not making them under fire in the field.
  As for "when rapid maneuver is needed" - that would be, always
  Always, to an extent that outweighs the need for capacity and sustained fire? So not only am I wrong, but modern militaries that have almost unanimously replaced mag- with belt-fed LMGs (plus the Russians, who frequently supplement with their lighter GPMGs) are as well?
  
  Like
- PDWSmith on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @Phillip Cooper The use of GPMGs in the LMG as well as MMG role is a core aspect of the concept. US soldiers made it work with the M1919 as well. If they, the MG34 or 42, or PKM are unreliable, it's the first I'm hearing about it.
  
  Like
- Phillip Cooper on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @PDWSmith Not saying you are wrong. Not saying I am right. Discussing, you understand?
  I am likely wrong. I find it an interesting exercise to discuss things. That's how we learn.
  
  Like
- PDWSmith on Feb 03, 2022
  
  @Phillip Cooper I agree. I learn a lot from different points of view, and next to nothing from an echo chamber. If my previous question came across as harsh, that was not my intent.
  
  Like
Autofull-- kevin horning on Feb 03, 2022

it,s belt fed, i love belt feed weapons. cool upper.

Like Reply

News

Articles/Features

Guns & Gear

Shows

POTD: TracerX – Belt-Fed Fightlite Industries MCR

You may also be interested in