Are MRR's and IUR's the next evolution in the AR platform? I have read around that the flat top upper is being pushed out by the monolithic/integrated uppers. What's your opinion about monolithic uppers? Personally I am not a huge fan, the flat top offers me a bit more in regards of customization and to me that is what the AR is all about.
Are MRR's and IUR's the next evolution in the AR?
- Thread starter jonesy67
- Start date
No.
They are old. Its a monolithic upper. If you mean DI iur/mrr for big armies then possible yes. The HK416 is going to be a dominate rifle I would say with more armies as it should be. That being said i still find the old school setup off DI great for Le agencies civi and of course militaries.
They are old. Its a monolithic upper. If you mean DI iur/mrr for big armies then possible yes. The HK416 is going to be a dominate rifle I would say with more armies as it should be. That being said i still find the old school setup off DI great for Le agencies civi and of course militaries.
Been around for years, Armalite had a nice setup but discontinued them a few years ago. Others have also made them. I've always wanted one with a longer forend but most have been fairly short. I like the looks of them but not the price.
I actually prefer a two piece upper so you can change the barrel length and match the forend to it without having to replace the whole thing. It's also cheaper to just replace a receiver or forend if you damage one than to buy an entire new monolithic upper if you damage it.
They're cool but it's nothing new and they reduce the flexibility of the platform.
I actually prefer a two piece upper so you can change the barrel length and match the forend to it without having to replace the whole thing. It's also cheaper to just replace a receiver or forend if you damage one than to buy an entire new monolithic upper if you damage it.
They're cool but it's nothing new and they reduce the flexibility of the platform.
The HK 416 comes with its own set of problems. It is a gun designed to address a singular issue that really isn't much of an issue anymore, and in doing so, has created a whole host of new engineering issues that require fixes just to make it functional. It is in no way a superior gun to traditional expansion bleed-off AR systems. As far as monolithic upper style AR's go, I see both ups and downs. They are often pretty tough and allow for free-floated barrels. They ensure alignment of optic devices, but they also pose the risk of replacement of an upper if the fore-end does get damaged. Just my thoughts though. What the guys in green choose (or switch to after bad choices) will ultimately show which platforms are the best in the long run.
-J
The standard flat top has been around for a few years, has it not proven itself in battle so to speak? What happened to the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". A question to any soldiers out there, does it really matter what you are issued? I have heard that it is just a tool and a soldier doesn't really give a s**t about what it is just as long as it works.
I think it has proven itself but that doesn't mean there is no reason to stop trying to make something better. That being said I don't think that the monolithic upper is the answer for the AR platform even though many new designs (XCR, ACR, and others) have gone that route with quick change barrel systems. To say one is better than the other is hard since they all get the same job done in different ways and they all do one thing better than the others but fall short in another way. What's best is determined by the job at hand and that's why I'm glad to see more and more platforms coming along that are flexible enough to change roles as needed.
The AR is actually one of the fastest options out there for caliber and length conversions, 2 pins, swap uppers, done, no need to re-zero optics since it stays with the upper.
The ACR and XCR do it with just a barrel swap which is nice as cost is lower (initial cost is higher for the rifle though) but now you need to re-zero or change the optic when you swap calibers.
As always, everything is a compromise, only the end user can determine which system is the best for them and what their primary use is.
mebiuspower
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Morontario
Last edited:
SCAR is built like a tank. The reason army didn't want SCAR as it didn't offer anything worth the money asked over M4.
The question is why everyone is jumping on HK416 bandwagon, it is being just AR with a piston and 3 times the price tag. It only makes sense as an upgrade to existing lower. And even that needs a parts kit to function.
mebiuspower
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Morontario
^The SCAR is a modern rifle... with a reciprocating charging handle and gets into the way of your optics.
18k rounds review from a guy who deployed 2 times, not a TV enthusiast.
https://youtu.be/g4nENj7kx4k?t=3m11s
vintage bro, the new old
I have been all over one and it was not hard to see the issues with it. The piston in the 416 causes several unique problems in the AR platform. It acts on the top of the bolt carrier in a gun design that was intended to actuate via gas forces aligned with the axis of the BCG. This causes a camming action on the carrier, driving the lower rear of the carrier downward, causing binding and excessive wear. This has been partially addressed by beefing up the problem area. The problem with this is that throwing extra material on to lengthen the wear life of the part is simply a bandaid for poor engineering. Also, the piston drastically drives up carrier acceleration and velocity, which increases wear on several components, including beating the crap out of the buffer, but more notably, it causes the carrier to begin its rearward motion before the bolt has time to fully unlock, causing the cam pin to gouge into the sidewall of the upper receiver....causing excessive wear. To mitigate against this, they applied yet another bandaid in the form of a cutout to help clearance the cam pin head. Again, this sort of does the job, but not that well and certainly doesn't address the wear to the locking lugs. Finally, the design moves the fouling buildup from inside the upper and on the BCG to the piston chamber, which, as it builds up, causes the same problems as fouling on a traditional AR, except that it is harder to get to to clean. I could go on, but personally, I don't see a point. The fact is, it is poor engineering to shoehorn an operating system into a weapon never designed for it. The design screams high stress and early parts replacement. From a military standpoint, performance in use is only part of the equation. Reliability and longevity is also a major player and that is where the 416 will fall short.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against the notion of piston driven weapons. There are a great number of fantastic designs out there that are super reliable, but to equate reliability with the fact that a piston has been added is hardly justifiable. The piston guns that have been touted over the years as super reliable is because they were designed from the start to be a reliable piston gun.
As for the monolithic uppers being the wave of the future, again, we will see. The original flat top was a modification to the original AR platform (a Canadian one at that) and it stuck as a confirmed improvement. Now there is a push to use monolithic uppers as another, complimentary improvement to address several issues that have been displayed by the traditional AR upper design. If it doesn't end up showing the improvement that military wants to see, the concept will get abandoned during upgrade phases and a new direction will be taken. If it does work well, it will be built upon, come upgrade time.
-J
Respectfully disagree, Eugen stoner did think a piston system could work well, and they did do one, Colt had one in the early 70's.
The wear on the buffer stops at a certain point, most of this is cosmetic. I don't have any problem cleaning my piston on my 416's.
Poor engineering means trying to solve a problem using inadequate solution, and the solution fails to make the end product acquire the characteristics required.
Devising a solution to overcome or mitigate an inherited problem to achieve the characteristic required is not poor engineering. It is actually engineers have done what they are supposed to do. Make things work. For example, if you figure you need more materials to make a part last or to use higher quality material, that is not poor engineering. That is applying solution to solve a problem using engineering skill.
If the things being raised are issues, HK's engineering department had done a fantastic job in applying proper engineering solutions to over and mitigate every one of the issues. You can lay out the amount of market share on the table where HK snatched out of Colt, Colt Canada and FN in all these years. If anything, HK has ( and know where to get) fantastic engineering talents that had overcame all the issues so it can take full advantage of the push rod system.
People may or may not like HK for whatever reason, but to call them poorly engineered is not correct. Poor engineering is what the iron ring reminds us of, building stuff without knowing the issue or failing to address the issue, and the whole bridge went tits up. HK knows the issue and addresses the issue adequately. That is good engineering
Devising a solution to overcome or mitigate an inherited problem to achieve the characteristic required is not poor engineering. It is actually engineers have done what they are supposed to do. Make things work. For example, if you figure you need more materials to make a part last or to use higher quality material, that is not poor engineering. That is applying solution to solve a problem using engineering skill.
If the things being raised are issues, HK's engineering department had done a fantastic job in applying proper engineering solutions to over and mitigate every one of the issues. You can lay out the amount of market share on the table where HK snatched out of Colt, Colt Canada and FN in all these years. If anything, HK has ( and know where to get) fantastic engineering talents that had overcame all the issues so it can take full advantage of the push rod system.
People may or may not like HK for whatever reason, but to call them poorly engineered is not correct. Poor engineering is what the iron ring reminds us of, building stuff without knowing the issue or failing to address the issue, and the whole bridge went tits up. HK knows the issue and addresses the issue adequately. That is good engineering
Last edited:
My point is that they made design modifications to a functional and reliable design that made it less durable and reliable and then attempted to engineer those issues out with partial success, which is poor engineering. That isn't to say that succesive generations of the design won't better adress the issues, but so far, they have not. That being said, the m16 was crap (more to do with the crappy ammo that was used, which caused the fouling based cycling issues that bred the notion that piston guns were more reliable) when it was first utilised and now look at it. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the 416's reputation is based on HK's great marketing of the product. We could assume that Magpul's success is because of their brilliant products, but they aren't even remotely durable.
I digress. As much as I would be willing to debate this some more, we should probably stay on topic, which is regarding monolithic uppers, not the merits of the 416.
-J
I digress. As much as I would be willing to debate this some more, we should probably stay on topic, which is regarding monolithic uppers, not the merits of the 416.
-J
No this does have much to do with the topic of monolithic uppers. Reason being. When most i spoke to at Colt Canada back in 2003
Were not publicly moving forward with any design revolutions in the r&d on any guns. Besides retooling some C8 in 6.8 for some SF units there was nothing special. And i do find it interesting that they choose a monolothic upper that so many other companies abandon back 14 years ago. The bullpup rifle they designed shows how out of touch. Colt Canada is in the times. The US HK programs that thing looks like was like back in 94 or 96. Oh whatever i cant remember lol.
To say hk 416 has not been successful and its all hk marketing is just ridiculous. The gun has out lasted any c7/8 variant. And the hk416 / iur killer failed at coming close. The independent test by various units alone prove this.
Also keep in mind the ability to have a 2 piece upper is great for maintenance. Where the iur/mrr is a pain the ass to get a barrel change especially with a $2000 tool.
mebiuspower
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Morontario
Sales figures of the HK416 to various armies around the world speaks for itself. Nuff said.
