Suggestions on the Robinson XCR

[Lucas]

     So its about that time.  I am on a mission for a new assault rifle.  As of now it seems to be the XCR.  However,  if any of you have any suggestions,  pros/cons,  or a better idea I am hear to listen.  I know about the MASADA,  but I am worried about it not coming out in time.  I guess my main concern would be reliability and longevity.  Any opinions are greatly appreciated!

[Big Frank]

If you want something with a long track record and proven reliability that narrows the list down. The M-16 and AK-47 have both been around for decades and proven in combat. The M-16, I believe, has the longest time in military service of any rifle, in any country, in the entire history of the world. My opinion of all the Johnny-come-latelys is that they need to be proven in combat like that. That's my opinion.Take it for what it's worth.

[tombogan03884]

If you want something with a long track record and proven reliability that narrows the list down. The M-16 and AK-47 have both been around for decades and proven in combat. The M-16, I believe, has the longest time in military service of any rifle, in any country, in the entire history of the world. My opinion of all the Johnny-come-latelys is that they need to be proven in combat like that. That's my opinion.Take it for what it's worth.

Off the top of my head I'm pretty sure that 3 Fire arms served longer than the M 16, the AK 47, the Lee Enfield, and while it is a musket rather than a rifle (smooth bore ) the Brown Bess holds the record for longest service.
This of course is INDIVIDUAL, long arms so no mention of the 1911 or M 2 .50 cal 

[Big Frank]

Off the top of my head I'm pretty sure that 3 Fire arms served longer than the M 16, the AK 47, the Lee Enfield, and while it is a musket rather than a rifle (smooth bore ) the Brown Bess holds the record for longest service.
This of course is INDIVIDUAL, long arms so no mention of the 1911 or M 2 .50 cal 

I said rifles, not muskets or machineguns, but I should have said ASSAULT rifles, since that's what the OP is about. The only one you mention was the AK-47 which the Soviets used from 1947-1959 when the AKM came out. So that gives the AK-47 12 years of official service. The M-16 has been in service 44 years so far, with many years yet to come. In 1974 the Soviets switched from the AKM to the AK-74 which they've since replaced that with something else. Even if you combine the AK-47 and AKM it only adds up to 27 years.

[Lucas]

I think longevity might have been the wrong word.  What I am getting at is how long the rifle will last concidering this will be the last assault rifle I will ever get to purchase.  Do to the times as they are.  I am pretty rough on stuff so the tougher the better.  Parts and ammo availability would be another concern with a "newer" company or an import.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I said rifles, not muskets or machineguns, but I should have said ASSAULT rifles, since that's what the OP is about. The only one you mention was the AK-47 which the Soviets used from 1947-1959 when the AKM came out. So that gives the AK-47 12 years of official service. The M-16 has been in service 44 years so far, with many years yet to come. In 1974 the Soviets switched from the AKM to the AK-74 which they've since replaced that with something else. Even if you combine the AK-47 and AKM it only adds up to 27 years.

Well if you want to get real fussy, separating AK 47 and AKM, When I was at PI in 77, We were issued M 16 a1's which was the THIRD generation weapon, AR 15, M16, M16A1 in less than 18 years. When I was in the Guard in 89 -92 my arms room contained M16 A2's,and now they are using the M4
I would also point out that several countries are STILL using the AK 47 61 years after introduction.

[Big Frank]

Well if you want to get real fussy, separating AK 47 and AKM, When I was at PI in 77, We were issued M 16 a1's which was the THIRD generation weapon, AR 15, M16, M16A1 in less than 18 years. When I was in the Guard in 89 -92 my arms room contained M16 A2's,and now they are using the M4
I would also point out that several countries are STILL using the AK 47 61 years after introduction.

The only difference between the first AR-15s and M16s is that everything gets an "M" model number when it's officially adopted by the military. The M16 isn't a different model or second generation of the design. It's just the military name instead of the civilian name. I even saw an M16A1 in basic training that was marked as an AR-15, made by H&R no less. The A1 is the FIRST improvement to the design because the army wanted a forward assist. That's not third generation. The A1 and A2 are just upgrades to the original M16, but the Soviets thought the AKM was different enough from the AK-47 to warrant a completely different model name. And yes I realize AK-47s are still in use all over the world. Anyway, the AK-47 series and M16 series have both been used in combat, and have decades of use by millions of people. Both designs have the bugs worked out and are proven to be reliable. Other designs like the XCR and Masada, among others, simply don't have proven combat durability. That was the only point I was trying to make with my first post. They're proven in combat, others aren't, and I will only bet my life on something that's proven to work. Not on something that should work.

[twyacht]

Last I checked Lucas, you were on the fence of a Sig 556 or an XCR back in April.

As a Sig 556 owner, I can't do anything but give it 2 thumbs up, I would frankly LOVE to have an XCR, especially with the 7.62 conversion for cost, and the .308 for SHTF.

I believe USSA-1 ran a s*** load of rounds through an XCR without cleaning for almost a thousand rounds to see what happened.

(can't find the thread, but its here), its a great choice regardless.

PS, still love my Sig,...

[tombogan03884]

The only difference between the first AR-15s and M16s is that everything gets an "M" model number when it's officially adopted by the military. The M16 isn't a different model or second generation of the design. It's just the military name instead of the civilian name. I even saw an M16A1 in basic training that was marked as an AR-15, made by H&R no less.  because the army wThe A1 is the FIRST improvement to the designanted a forward assist. That's not third generation. The A1 and A2 are just upgrades to the original M16, but the Soviets thought the AKM was different enough from the AK-47 to warrant a completely different model name. And yes I realize AK-47s are still in use all over the world. Anyway, the AK-47 series and M16 series have both been used in combat, and have decades of use by millions of people. Both designs have the bugs worked out and are proven to be reliable. Other designs like the XCR and Masada, among others, simply don't have proven combat durability. That was the only point I was trying to make with my first post. They're proven in combat, others aren't, and I will only bet my life on something that's proven to work. Not on something that should work.

Yes it is, different barrel twist from AR and THIS is when the forward assist was added.      M 16 to M 16 A1 is first modification SINCE ADOPTION
On the other point you make yes, the SR9 should be a lesson to ALL of us to stick with designs and models that have been PROVEN to have the bugs worked out.

[tumblebug]

 And a costly one for RUGER. Right J B .