My SLR is a piece of S#!T

[jiffx2781]

I dont want to be the one to point it out but I find it funny that you were the guy saying on the Sporter thread that it's no big deal to have to do modifications on a build or have to cut off rotation tabs off a $400 handguard. Would that not take it down to bare aluminium?

"The point I was making is that this handguard fitment "issue" is trivial.

This whole thing is a non-issue.

I'm looking forward to building my MS rifles, file needed or not."


Yes the anodizing of all things should be right and I would expect them to make it right, and who knows, if you actually spoke to them they might do just that. But making a huge deal about tight holes after saying almost the opposite on the Sporter thread is interesting to me....especially when you seem to be opposed to speaking to the manufacturer and are choosing to instead bash them on a public forum.
But hey, what do I know....

Apples and oranges.

The anti rotation tab "issue" on the MS has been beaten to death. Most every billet receiver set produced will not be sized appropriately to fit the anti rotation tabs on handguards that were designed to fit a mil-spec AR receiver. A little fitment of the handguard's anti rotation tabs is normal and to be expected. We're talking about a slight modification to a part that was never designed to fit on the product we're trying to install it on. We're not talking about having to modify the receiver itself to fit standard parts. Also filing handguard tabs does not expose bare aluminum at any wear location.

I am perfectly capable of opening up any area of my SLR receiver so that it will properly fit the parts it's supposed to fit however in this case the customer having to modify the receiver is not something that should be expected as normal.

I've got to get back to working away for now. I'll hunt up Maccabee's contact info when I get caught up and forward to them the issues I've found with my receiver set.

 

[AB_blaster]

Got mine on Monday. At first I thought it was "ok" until I looked a little closer at things.

I'll probably be the first owner of one to admit that my $1K purchase is a complete piece of S#!T.

1. Anodizing is the s#!ttyist job I have ever seen
MDI doesn't do the anodizing, it's done by a third party. Issues are still not cool.
2. The T9 for the trigger housing was a piss off. Had to drive back to my shop to get one after already being disappointed with the finish job. I bet a lot of guys with only basic tool kits will be running out special trip to buy a T9
So you don't have basic hand tools and that's MDI's fault??
3. I tried 3 different safety selectors and they were all so tight you can't even feel where the detent is.
Try using a proper milspec parts kit. TNA sells NOTHING milspec FYI.
4. MFT pistol mags were the only mags I had that would drop free and didn't need jammed into the magwell.
The magwell is tight, some emery cloth or a lot of insertions will smooth it right out.
5. Dust cover pin sticks out and needs ground down shorter.
Not sure what you're talking about here
6. The takedown bolt's retaining bolt does not retain the takedown bolt.
Oh no! Do any of your other rifles have a retaining bolt for the take down bolt? I didn't think so. Get over it.
7. Screwed up 3 bolt release pins. Finally got one in by putting the pin in a drill and running it on some emery cloth to make it a LOT smaller.
Have you assembled an AR type lower before? The bolt catch roll pin is the most difficult piece to install. They're tight but they go in with a little patience and some pre planning. Lube and/or reducing the finish on the pin work well.
8. Had 2 different receiver endplates and neither would fit on properly because the hole in the rear of the receiver was just too tight for the endplate to fit into. Ended up hitting it with a hammer to get it to fit flush.
Again try a proper milspec end plate. The receiver is tight but the plate does fit. Less hammer, more smarts.
9. Got pissed off at every aspect of this abomination being out of spec and said F$@& IT!! I'm not putting my good parts on this piece of S#!T!!
Not an MDI issue, that's a personal response to a situation.
10. Ordered another ATRS. At least I know it won't be a ##### up.
Has no bearing on the MDI product.

For $1000 the SLR is a total joke.

I've got my flame suit on ready for when the fanboys that won't admit they got shafted as well show up....

IN the red

I thought that was the main cause of all the delays getting them out to customers in the first place? Didn't someone say they didn't want to rush so that they could deliver a top quality product the first time around?

I don't really understand how they could release stuff like this. Don't they take one of the production pieces and build it with off the shelf parts to make sure they have the tolerances right BEFORE releasing the batch to customers?
I'm hoping that everyone who has problems with theirs at minimum calls MacDef and tells them about the problems but it would be even better if everyone contacted them and asked for a replacement. Just like BCL, the customer should not be the beta tester and the customer should not have simply work around the deficiencies. For $1000 you can buy a complete non restricted rifle (as Driller happily rubbed in ).

Maybe MacDef is a child company of BCL

Are you of the belief that companies never make errors?? Every company makes errors it's human nature. The complaints are mostly personal opinion combined with a lack of skill/knowledge in assembly, and it's one complaint. The real question is whether or not the rifle runs. MDI built about a dozen rifles before they were available to the public(I shot 3 different builds).

And what would MDI replace? A receiver that is tight but still functions? The $1000 rifle is far from the same league as an MDI or any other AR-esque rifle.

Ya, I may still contact MacDef about my POS but I may just fix the tolerance issues myself. It's not hard for me to open something up a few thou but then I'm back to raw aluminum again. The thing looks like crap so it might just as well get a coat of paint after I'm done getting everything fitting the way it's supposed to

I have a 180-C arriving tomorrow according to tracking. That was supposed to be my beater gun. Not the SLR

Driller, congrats on your 108-C working out. I suspect mine will too.

You say you can fix the "tolerance" issues yourself, and yet you complained that you damaged 3 roll pins. Did you ever think to inspect the holes and possibly relieve them or the pin before you got to number 4??

EXACTLY

Also CSC posted in another thread a bit ago that they have had no issues installing any parts that they have tried. Since 9/10 people who have posted about their receiver have said they are having issues I call BS

I tried a mil-spec safety from a Stag lpk and one from a TNA lpk as well as an Elftmann push button safety and none would work without a lot of force. Tried it with and without the T9 in case tightening the screw was causing binding and it didn't make any difference.

I built 2 of them a couple weeks back without issue. Your thread is the only one I know of with any amount of whining. Again, TNA offers nothing milspec and the push button safety is a step in the wrong direction.

They posted this a little earlier today




Has anyone assembled one and not found things to be out of tolerance? Just wondering if they're all like this or if it's just a few.

Yes, built 2 without issue. Bolt catch pin was tight but no worse than any other AR I've built. The mag well is tight and will need some wear/work to smooth out.

I had extreme difficulty installing the roll pin for the bolt catch. MACDEF suggested I DRILL the holes widers.

I slowly sanded down the pin instead.

We will see how the selector goes in.

The machining work is rough on some edges of the sides. Anodizing is pretty junk. My friend's has the infamous terrible hang marks inside the magwell.

Not a quality product. Very amateur work imo.

Hopefully the final product is worth the price once I've worked through its kinks.

Anodizing is not done by MDI. What rough machining on the sides?

everyone makes mistakes.

Anodizing is tricky, especially getting the thickness right consistently. Will probably take more trial and error to get the tolerances adjusted at the machining stage.

They will become PROS eventually and sort out their manufacturing issues. I admire how they are trying to do a good anodize. Its totally out of their control, and even if they do everything right, if the anodize is crap in any way they will pay for it. Sucks. They seem to have a lot of space and capital, perhaps bring Hard coat anodize in house.

That being said, it takes a few seconds to check a pin hole size with a gage pin after anodize.

If its too tight they should be running a reamer to fix the issue at factory.

Sucks to have to check all these things, but saves embarrassment and potential issues replacing broken receivers.

I wish them luck.

If they pin gauge the holes after anodizing and they are out of spec then they would have to ream and then re anodize.

The holes are not out of spec they are tight, big difference.

I dont want to be the one to point it out but I find it funny that you were the guy saying on the Sporter thread that it's no big deal to have to do modifications on a build or have to cut off rotation tabs off a $400 handguard. Would that not take it down to bare aluminium?

Aug 19...
"The point I was making is that this handguard fitment "issue" is trivial.

This whole thing is a non-issue.

I'm looking forward to building my MS rifles, file needed or not."


Yes the anodizing of all things should be right and I would expect them to make it right, and who knows, if you actually spoke to them they might do just that. But making a huge deal about tight holes after saying almost the opposite on the Sporter thread is interesting to me....especially when you seem to be opposed to speaking to the manufacturer and are choosing to instead bash them on a public forum.
But hey, what do I know....

Yes I had some issues too but also tried to give unbiased and hopefully helpful information to others considering the SLR or those waiting on them.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1760791-SLR-tips-tricks-and-observations

Well said.

I built two SLRs yesterday and had no issues, other than they hyperfire trigger not being compatible which i dont really see as a big issue. One thing Ive noticed with ar parts is they are not exactly the same. The Mac def receivers are on the tight end of spec, if you get parts that are on the larger size of spec (in the tollerance window) you could have issues. I had two different styles of spring pins in two different kits on was a standard split spring pin the other style was the spirol type. The spirol style pin was quite tight going in the standard split style ones went in nicely. I had no issues with safeties, and tried several different styles all worked as they should. The annodizing on the ones I received matched the annodizing on my samson handguard, more of a flat style. The big thing I was happy to see was the barrel extension fit was nice and tight (unlike nea/bcl). This is not a mil spec ar15. Most mechanical devices are not plug and play and sometimes fitting of parts is required.

Agreed.

I have posted many favourable comments about products I own if they are worthy of favourable comments.

However the thing about posting in an open forum is that I am free to voice my dissatisfaction with a product I receive that is less than satisfactory. I will tell it how it is if I see fit.

I'm not going through all the threads and posting everyone who has had an issue. Some have been happy with the product and I'm happy for them if they did get a sample without any of the issues I found with mine. But if you follow the threads it's not hard to see a large number of people with these sets in hand have at least reported tolerance issues.

The bolt catch issue you refer to has been addressed on my set however that is not the issue almost everyone with one of these is reporting. The problem is the pin whole size.

I see no reason to turn this into a personal issue between you and I. It is what it is.

I'll contact MacDef and let them know of the issues I have found with the receiver set I received from them.

Sorry, but it's hole not whole. You are entitled to your opinion but it has more merit if there's some truth to it.

These fitment issues sound like they could possibly be linked back to the bad anodizing. With the SLR recievers already on the tight end of the tolerance window, leaving the recievers in the etching bath too long or too thick of anodizing could put the holes out of spec.

As I've always suggested in these types of threads, contact the manufacturer or retailer for a solution.

Complaining about not having the proper wrench on hand is rather rediculous, in my opinion. Makes me think you were just looking for problems.

I would agree that anodizing is the culprit for tight holes.

So I just came back from the Wolverine WK180 feedback thread and I got tired of reading all the reports from happy customers. The worst comment I read by the time I gave up was that the fit and finish were good and it functioned fine and would make a great beater rifle. And that if people have realistic expectations they will be happy with the rifle. That was a comment from a guy who also pointed out he also owned an SLR and ATRS products.

Do you mind pointing out some of the problems you mentioned people are having with their $1000 complete rifle from Wolverine?

Not sure why you're getting all defensive about the SLR, you are not the manufacturer are you? No one blames the retailer for the errors in manufacturing.
People have posted legitimate and honest feedback about the receiver sets they've received and I'm sitting back laughing because this is exactly what I expected was going to happen after all the delays and poor communication.

And just to be clear, I was not hoping for them to fail but I'm not going to cut them slack because they are new or Canadian.
When building firearms I see no room for error, this is not an industry for close enough is good enough or some millennial mentality we all get a trophy for trying. With firearms it's do it right or don't do it at all in my mind. There is too much at stake when errors are made, people's faces are inches away from some incredible forces and if it's not built right people could be seriously hurt. I understand that an out of spec pin hole is not a huge deal but it shows a lack of attention to detail and a lack of knowledge as to how important it is to maintain the tolerances for every single unit.

You mean this issue that you commented on?
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...nylon-bushing-failure?p=15164361#post15164361

As for the pin hole, do you know it's out of spec? What is the milspec diameter of the botl catch roll pin hole? I bet you don't know which means you and others cannot say it is out of spec. The holes are tight but they're more than doable without damaging the receiver.

This. But I would still expect a quality anodizing job. For 1K they can keep the ones that don't come out right. But the tolerance issues are really a non issue .... at least that was your opinion on August 19 regarding the Sporter
Look back to post 37 for reference.

Anodizing is done by third party.

Apples and oranges.

The anti rotation tab "issue" on the MS has been beaten to death. Most every billet receiver set produced will not be sized appropriately to fit the anti rotation tabs on handguards that were designed to fit a mil-spec AR receiver. A little fitment of the handguard's anti rotation tabs is normal and to be expected. We're talking about a slight modification to a part that was never designed to fit on the product we're trying to install it on. We're not talking about having to modify the receiver itself to fit standard parts. Also filing handguard tabs does not expose bare aluminum at any wear location.

I am perfectly capable of opening up any area of my SLR receiver so that it will properly fit the parts it's supposed to fit however in this case the customer having to modify the receiver is not something that should be expected as normal.

I've got to get back to working away for now. I'll hunt up Maccabee's contact info when I get caught up and forward to them the issues I've found with my receiver set.

You didn't modify your receiver, you modified the pin which is a much smarter way of doing things.

I bet Alberta Tactical Rifle is just licking their lips about this!

My thoughts on this matter, $1000 for just a striped upper and lower is already a little rediculus. At a thousand dollars I'd expect any upper and lower set to piece together like a flippin Remington wingmaster!

Hopefully this issue doesn't become anymore prevalent than it already is. Otherwise I'd say all the flaming I received earlier about the price being high cus its a high quality product won't hold water anymore. And itl all fall back to a truth it's really a healthy NR tax.

So $1000 for a receiver set from MDI is ridiculous but $975 from ATRS is ok? You realize that MDI sells to dealers before selling to you. So MDI makes some money and the dealer makes some money. ATRS sells direct only which means they make 100% of the profit off each set. Seeing as the MS is based on a pre existing design there is little in the way of R&D to be done which means overhead is very low on the MS compared to the entirely new design of the SLR. ATRS already has their machines and operators as well. So tell me again who is "ripping off" or over charging???

 

[scourge18a]

AB Blaster.
Doesn't matter who does the anodizing. They should be inspecting their products after anodizing before shipping them out. Like I mentioned before, for $1k there should be a quality anodized finish and any blems should not make it into circulation.
I personally don't thing the tight fit is an issue at all but if my anodizing was crap I would be speaking with them directly to get me a replacement. We paid for hard coat anodizing we should get it not a spotty crappy finish. It was up to them to send them out the door and they probably should have eaten those and saved themselves the ridicule to ensure future sales. If you want to put out a quality piece for 1k then you might have to throw a few in the bin....isn't that why they were $1k? Just like vortex..a big part of the price is the future warranty work.

 

[jiffx2781]

As far as any talk or comparison to the 180-C goes I don't really see what the 180-C has to do with this.

The 180-C was never designed or marketed as being a high end product capable of being compatible with an endless choice of aftermarket parts that were built to fit and function on another rifle. As the SLR clearly was.

Any "issues" the 180-C may or may not have is completely irrelevant to discussion of the SLR

 

[AB_blaster]

AB Blaster.
Doesn't matter who does the anodizing. They should be inspecting their products after anodizing before shipping them out. Like I mentioned before, for $1k there should be a quality anodized finish and any blems should not make it into circulation.
I personally don't thing the tight fit is an issue at all but if my anodizing was crap I would be speaking with them directly to get me a replacement. We paid for hard coat anodizing we should get it not a spotty crappy finish. It was up to them to send them out the door and they probably should have eaten those and saved themselves the ridicule to ensure future sales. If you want to put out a quality piece for 1k then you might have to throw a few in the bin....isn't that why they were $1k? Just like vortex..a big part of the price is the future warranty work.

I agree the anodizing should be without such issues. My receviers were without issue but were done by someone that CSC uses and not direct from MDI.

Too bad that ignore list didn't let me read what is most likely AB telling me there is nothing wrong with the product and any issues are without a doubt my inability to properly do anything. Just a guess but I'm probably not too far off. Please nobody quote him so I have to read it.


On a side note, MacDef builds a "blaster". The serial numbers of their "blaster" start with the letters "AB". This may just be a coincidence but I'd hazard a guess and say that if ABblaster is not Wyatt himself he's pretty closely connected... He's definitely got a hard on for the SLR for some reason or another

Seeing as you can't handle adult conversations and are in your safe space with the ignore button I guess you'll never see this. I do not work for MDI nor am I connected to anyone who works for MDI. I am curious why they started the serial numbers with AB, my bet is because they are Alberta based or perhaps it has more meaning that only MDI knows.

my "hard on" for SLR's has nothing to do with SLR's. It is entirely rooted in dispelling peoples whining and #####ing about endless nothings with regards to the SLR rifle. It's the closest thing you can get to a non res AR and yet people still expect it to be perfect, cheap and readily available. Talk about an entitlement attitude. The rifle works, it's a decent design although it will never be an AR and it legally can't be either.

As far as any talk or comparison to the 180-C goes I don't really see what the 180-C has to do with this.

The 180-C was never designed or marketed as being a high end product capable of being compatible with an endless choice of aftermarket parts that were built to fit and function on another rifle. As the SLR clearly was.

Any "issues" the 180-C may or may not have is completely irrelevant to discussion of the SLR

You're right, the WK180c is not in the same league as an SLR. Some here think it's a fair comparison to suggest that it is a cheaper yet equal offering to the SLR. At the end of the day if you want a cheap blaster and expect very little out of it then grab a WK180c. If you like something with more options and modularity that retains a lot of the AR ergos and feel then get an SLR, or the MS.

ETA: If your SLR is such a POS then sell it. Stop whining, sell it for a profit and move along.

 

[scourge18a]

AB Blaster
How exactly did you get a bare set before anyone knew of anodizing issues?

Or...why would you go and do that before any known issues?

You had three sets pretty well as soon as they were out to the public and still somehow managed to get a bears set and get them anodize by somebody else

You must have an in somewhere judging by your continuous comments you have skin in the game

 

[jiffx2781]

Unlike someone in this thread suggesting the SLR is #### because a pin was tight.

First off I clearly said MY SLR is ####

Second off the pin being too tight was just one of a list of issues. I'm sure you read my post but I'll recap anyways

1. Anodizing is very poor

2. Safety selector hole is too tight causing difficult function of safety. With or without the T9 installed in the trigger module. This being with 3 different brands of safety selector. TNA Stag and Elftmann

3. Magwell. Not the biggest issue but it is specd tighter than necessary

4. Dust cover pin hole needs to be about 1/16th" deeper. Easy to shorten my pin but nonetheless it's still another thing that doesn't fit right on my receiver. This was a DPMS dust cover kit

5. Takedown bolt retaining bolt does not retain the takedown bolt

6. Receiver endplate does not fit in the hole in the end of receiver. This was with both a random endplate that I don't know the manufacturer of and with a Rainier Arms carbine buffer tube kit.

7. Bolt release pin hole specd abnormally small. I had to make my pin substantially smaller in diameter before it would go in without worry of splitting the receiver. The wall of the pin was reduced to approx half the thickness.


I understand you belittling the issues I've found with MY receiver as bad press is bad for business. But don't come on here and say that I said the entire SLR product is #### just because a pin was too tight.

 

[Shooting Centre]

First off I clearly said MY SLR is ####

Second off the pin being too tight was just one of a list of issues. I'm sure you read my post but I'll recap anyways

1. Anodizing is very poor

2. Safety selector hole is too tight causing difficult function of safety. With or without the T9 installed in the trigger module. This being with 3 different brands of safety selector. TNA Stag and Elftmann

3. Magwell. Not the biggest issue but it is specd tighter than necessary

4. Dust cover pin hole needs to be about 1/16th" deeper. Easy to shorten my pin but nonetheless it's still another thing that doesn't fit right on my receiver. This was a DPMS dust cover kit

5. Takedown bolt retaining bolt does not retain the takedown bolt

6. Receiver endplate does not fit in the hole in the end of receiver. This was with both a random endplate that I don't know the manufacturer of and with a Rainier Arms carbine buffer tube kit.

7. Bolt release pin hole specd abnormally small. I had to make my pin substantially smaller in diameter before it would go in without worry of splitting the receiver. The wall of the pin was reduced to approx half the thickness.


I understand you belittling the issues I've found with MY receiver as bad press is bad for business. But don't come on here and say that I said the entire SLR product is #### just because a pin was too tight.

Did you forget stating our post about our receivers going together without issue was BS? That seems to imply you believed all SLRs suffered the same issues. Also if you re read our posts the closest you will find to belittling your problems refers to the tight pin issue. If you are suffering from more serious issues our advice was talk to MDI.

 

[Shooting Centre]

AB Blaster
How exactly did you get a bare set before anyone knew of anodizing issues?

Or...why would you go and do that before any known issues?

You had three sets pretty well as soon as they were out to the public and still somehow managed to get a bears set and get them anodize by somebody else

You must have an in somewhere judging by your continuous comments you have skin in the game

He purchased 3 units from us on the last (third) shipment. We had the units anodized.

 

[scourge18a]

He purchased 3 units from us on the last (third) shipment. We had the units anodized.

So you got a bare set from Mac Def or stripped the original anodizing and re-anodized?
It's my understanding that the original anodizing has to be chemically or physically removed before it can be anodized again usually affecting tolerances. If it was somehow anodized a second time without removal I would assume it would add extra material and cause more fitment issues, no?

"Because of the need for electrical contact for anodising, any existing coating must be removed before items can be re-anodised
Anodising is removed using an etchant, which can result in a duller finish on stripped and re-anodised items. This can be avoided by re-polishing, linishing or otherwise mechanically finishing the surface after coating has been stripped and before re-anodising.
Anodised coatings develop both inwards and outwards from the original material surface, this means stripping and re-anodising will result in dimensional changes. This may be a matter of tens of microns (growth on inside diameters, reduction on outside diameters) and will need to be taken into account where tolerances are tight. Depending on the geometry of the part it may be possible to mask areas with tight tolerances (such as bores) before stripping and re-anodising other surfaces. "

 

[scourge18a]

The bold is your answer. I was told CSC got some bare sets and sent them out to an anodizer of their choosing.

Fair enough.

I can see how CSC became aware of anodizing issues due to their ties to Mac Def but can't see how or why they were able to get the anodizing done so quick and easy and yet Mac Def themselves couldn't find a proper anodizing company after issues became apparent.
Why wouldn't Mac Def use the same company that CSC used? They apparently weren't that busy. Why would they suggest an inferior and different from what they advertised coating (Cerakote) unless it was just to speed up production at the cost of quality if another company was available?
Still just dont understand why they would let reciever sets out the door with crappy anodizing. Hopefully that issue has been fixed and everyone will get the quality they were expecting as I really hope for more quality Canadian companies. Competition is good in our little firearms market.

 

[dfritter1]

Again some of you simply can't comprehend what I said(statistically some 42% of Canadians do not possess an adequate literacy level for the job they do). I have no interest in MDI at all. I wanted an almost AR rifle that was non restricted and MDI delivered. My passion as you put it is for dispelling the whining and plain BS statements people have made regarding the production times, the fit and finish, and the perceived negatives to the design. Let me recap.

I'm certainly adequately literate enough to do my job, which means that I'm definitely literate enough to address your posts here... but I appreciate your concern. Anyway, the issue here is not a lack of reading comprehension, but rather that your posts here are not "dispelling the whining and plain BS statements people have made regarding the production times, the fit and finish, and the perceived negatives to the design." Dispelling would indicate, in this colloquial usage, the introduction of facts to eliminate doubt incurred by felonious statements. You do not do that. You introduce your opinion as fact. Let's recap, shall we? Oh but first, I must say, it really should read "the perceived negatives of the design." Sorry, that was really bothering me. On to the recap!

Production times were/are what they are. I didn't enjoy the wait anymore than anyone else did/does.

Production times were continuously pushed back, indicating that MDI had been erroneous in their estimates, and there is a degree of tacit culpability in the act of pushing back the release; you cannot delay the release date of a thing without admitting that incorrect in setting the initial, unachievable release date. You've tried to excuse that culpability by arguing the semantics of the terminology as a way to "dispel" the right of consumers to feel dissatisfaction at the delayed release dates. It's nigh impossible to "dispel" a feeling, first of all, and in this particular case you cannot even claim their emotional response was unjustified. MDI's early estimates were erroneous and misleading; hence they had to amend them until they were no longer erroneous. You dispelled nothing, and provided no evidence of anything... except that you have the patience of Job. And that's cool, too.

Fit and finish from the 3 sets I have and several others I've handled have been excellent. The anodizing issues are a problem but not one I've experienced.

Again, this doesn't dispel anything. I'm happy you got three good receivers. That has little bearing on whether or not the OP's receiver is or isn't crap... as he puts it. These are anecdotes. We can take anecdotes and assemble an opinion, but again, there's so much wrapped up in an opinion such as this that it's almost impossible to "dispel" one. Value, quality, personal standards, etc... these are such subjective terms. You see what I'm saying?

The design is excellent, it will never be an AR so stop expecting it to share all the same attributes.

Here's the crux of it all: The design is excellent... according to your metrics of excellent gun design. There's no such thing as an objectively excellent gun, because what makes an excellent gun is up to us as individuals. My idea of an "excellent design" is probably not your idea of one. If you could dispel yourself of the notion that the SLR is the perfect rifle, and simply recognize that it's perfect for you, you might find it a lot easier to simply enjoy threads like these at face value and provide (perhaps) more meaningful (read: less freaking defensive) comments.

It's just a gun. It's nothing more, nothing less. Some are perfect. Some aren't. That you like your SLR should really be all that matters to you.

 

[dfritter1]

I think CSC is just trying to stand behind their product. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[AB_blaster]

I'm certainly adequately literate enough to do my job, which means that I'm definitely literate enough to address your posts here... but I appreciate your concern. Anyway, the issue here is not a lack of reading comprehension, but rather that your posts here are not "dispelling the whining and plain BS statements people have made regarding the production times, the fit and finish, and the perceived negatives to the design." Dispelling would indicate, in this colloquial usage, the introduction of facts to eliminate doubt incurred by felonious statements. You do not do that. You introduce your opinion as fact. Let's recap, shall we? Oh but first, I must say, it really should read "the perceived negatives of the design." Sorry, that was really bothering me. On to the recap!



Production times were continuously pushed back, indicating that MDI had been erroneous in their estimates, and there is a degree of tacit culpability in the act of pushing back the release; you cannot delay the release date of a thing without admitting that incorrect in setting the initial, unachievable release date. You've tried to excuse that culpability by arguing the semantics of the terminology as a way to "dispel" the right of consumers to feel dissatisfaction at the delayed release dates. It's nigh impossible to "dispel" a feeling, first of all, and in this particular case you cannot even claim their emotional response was unjustified. MDI's early estimates were erroneous and misleading; hence they had to amend them until they were no longer erroneous. You dispelled nothing, and provided no evidence of anything... except that you have the patience of Job. And that's cool, too.

ESTIMATED TIME of ARRIVAL. Yes it was frustrating but it is what it is. Don't like it then get your deposit back and move along. Whining about it won't make the wait any shorter and no one CARES!!! You are more than welcome to feel dissatisfied with any level of service. The fact remains that MDI offered an ETA and not a promise or guarantee.

Again, this doesn't dispel anything. I'm happy you got three good receivers. That has little bearing on whether or not the OP's receiver is or isn't crap... as he puts it. These are anecdotes. We can take anecdotes and assemble an opinion, but again, there's so much wrapped up in an opinion such as this that it's almost impossible to "dispel" one. Value, quality, personal standards, etc... these are such subjective terms. You see what I'm saying?

i received 3 good sets. I have handled and seen many more. The anodizing issues that seem to be most common is in the mag well. although not cool it isn't a big deal. For those who actually shoot their rifles they know that in short order the mag well looks well used and abused, often with a lot of finish removed. Firearms are tools, use them, repair them, replace them as needed. The OP's complaint and claim that his set is crap is based on his personal feelings and nothing concrete. He notes a difficult install on the bolt catch roll pin. Big deal. For those who have assembled an AR lower it is not uncommon to have problems with the very same part. MDI never marketed these sets as a level 1 DIY product.
It might be best for many here to have their rifles assembled by a competent gunsmith rather than ham fist it together in the garage, break it, then whine about it. The OP is entitled to his opinion but it is just that, opinion not fact. If his rifle fails to function properly after being properly assembled then he has some merit to his claim.

Here's the crux of it all: The design is excellent... according to your metrics of excellent gun design. There's no such thing as an objectively excellent gun, because what makes an excellent gun is up to us as individuals. My idea of an "excellent design" is probably not your idea of one. If you could dispel yourself of the notion that the SLR is the perfect rifle, and simply recognize that it's perfect for you, you might find it a lot easier to simply enjoy threads like these at face value and provide (perhaps) more meaningful (read: less freaking defensive) comments.

It's just a gun. It's nothing more, nothing less. Some are perfect. Some aren't. That you like your SLR should really be all that matters to you.
Can you show me where I ever said the SLR was the perfect rifle? i can assure you I never said that and I will never say that. Given the choice I would grab an AR over an SLR any day of the week. The excellent design that is the MDI SLR is in relation to it's ease of assembly/disassembly, the clever design that makes it non restricted(non AR variant) and the execution of said design. All parts fit, well all quality milspec parts fit without issue and the gun runs just fine.
That would make it an excellent design. I would argue that the criteria I listed above are more objective than subjective. The same attributes would be universally appreciated in any other firearm design should they apply.

In the red

Things don’t add up . Csc seems way to involved as well as ab blaster . Normal retailers would just refer you back to the manufacturer and try to assist you in that process. At the end of the day who really cares . Mac def will get it all figured out . And I’m under 20 for a serial number for a modern sporter . No knock to Mac def . New companies and products have growing pains . Especially with the amount of demand for a unrestricted Ar . I chose Atrs because of a proven track record . I will also be buying an SLR once demand dies down and production catches up and these small issue get resolved. And if someone stands up and calls their 1k investment a piece of S$&t hats off for the honesty .

Not sure how many times I have to say it. I have no connection to MDI. I agree with the poster above that CSC appears to be standing behind a product they sell and trying to wade through the bullsh*t and answer questions.

Anyone who willingly calls a product a POS due to their own inability, understanding or personal gripes is someone you can't please.

 

[Michael Dempster]

The Iceman from Reliable Gun built one of these receiver sets. I don't recall him complaining about anything being out of spec during his build.

He brought it out to Merrit and was ringing steel from 600m with little effort.

He didn't use any TNA parts though, fuk, those things are out of spec and complete junk, lol! Pretty sure most of their stuff is made in China, ordered off aliexpress and dropshipped to suckers in Canada.

Are people still buying rifles from the Viet Nam Sniper?

 

[cr5]

We didn’t we listed problems others had posted and CR5 apparently could not find. Also FWIW just like the owners who posted we don’t see those as major issues. Unlike someone in this thread suggesting the SLR is #### because a pin was tight.

Lol, a cheap cruddy milspec trigger in a $1000 rifle? Yup, huge issue.
Mags being tight? Pretty sure some guys have posted that their SLR does not drop free with some mags.

It's a $1000 complete rifle, are you sure you want to start comparing your receiver set to it when the price is the same and one works while one works for most people and the rest need some millwrite skills and a willingness to take a drill to their brand new $1000 receiver set? Are you sure you want to suggest people who need to watch a youtube video 10 times just to get the rifle together if everything fits properly take a drill to their receiver then want a replacement when they make the hole too big or crooked and the bolt catch is sticky?
I just want companies to be held accountable to deliver what they promised on batch number one. People paid a lot of money for these (I don't think it's too much if it actually delivers as promised) and they deserve to get it from customer #1 through till the end of days, we already have one Canadian manufacturer who releases just a few too many bum units.
I hope the rest of the guys get one built and finished well. People waited long enough, it sucks to be let down yet again with a new to market product.

 

[Rotorwash]

My SLR needed a trim on the mag catch and the anodizing wasnt the best but not terrible.

Overall I like it

Functions well , looks good and shoots tiny little groups

 

[Dr. Hunter]

Got mine on Monday. At first I thought it was "ok" until I looked a little closer at things.

I'll probably be the first owner of one to admit that my $1K purchase is a complete piece of S#!T.

1. Anodizing is the s#!ttyist job I have ever seen

2. The T9 for the trigger housing was a piss off. Had to drive back to my shop to get one after already being disappointed with the finish job. I bet a lot of guys with only basic tool kits will be running out special trip to buy a T9

3. I tried 3 different safety selectors and they were all so tight you can't even feel where the detent is.

4. MFT pistol mags were the only mags I had that would drop free and didn't need jammed into the magwell.

5. Dust cover pin sticks out and needs ground down shorter.

6. The takedown bolt's retaining bolt does not retain the takedown bolt.

7. Screwed up 3 bolt release pins. Finally got one in by putting the pin in a drill and running it on some emery cloth to make it a LOT smaller.

8. Had 2 different receiver endplates and neither would fit on properly because the hole in the rear of the receiver was just too tight for the endplate to fit into. Ended up hitting it with a hammer to get it to fit flush.

9. Got pissed off at every aspect of this abomination being out of spec and said F$@& IT!! I'm not putting my good parts on this piece of S#!T!!

10. Ordered another ATRS. At least I know it won't be a ##### up.


For $1000 the SLR is a total joke.

I've got my flame suit on ready for when the fanboys that won't admit they got shafted as well show up....

I've built 2 sets so far so I will put in my input. My builds are in another thread.

1. My two sets had hanger marks in the magwell and a couple random dings here and there
2. I thought T9s were pretty standard
3. The safety's are excessively tight. Had to use a mallet to get my v7 in, the radian talon I got in without tools but still tighter than you would expect
4. MFT pistol mags need to be slammed in but pmags are fine
5. I had weird v7 titanium rod that I had to cut part of to make it fit the other has a SI link dust cover that was super easy to install
6. Unscrew the bolt and rescrew it at an angle
7. The bolt catch pin hole is tight. I used the roll pin that came with the phase 5 bolt catch on both sets. Used a bit of oil on the pin and in the holes and then tapped them in. I feel they should have used a set screw like BCL did, a lot easier and I feel it makes it seem higher end.
8. The receiver end plates seemed to be fine on both my sets. Don't remember if they were 100% flush but nothing that made me take note.

9. AB blaster is Wyatt, I don't care what anyone says including AB blaster.

 

[cr5]

You mean this issue that you commented on?
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...nylon-bushing-failure?p=15164361#post15164361

As for the pin hole, do you know it's out of spec? What is the milspec diameter of the botl catch roll pin hole? I bet you don't know which means you and others cannot say it is out of spec. The holes are tight but they're more than doable without damaging the receiver.

Is that the same issue that I told the guy not to worry about? The guy was being paranoid over a perceived deficiency in the design, turns out it's not really worth worrying about after all.

How do I know it's out of spec? Because multiple people have reported them being very tight and CSC already said that MDI already replaced one receiver because the hole was so tight that the owner broke the receiver trying to assemble it. Fak dude, I've assembled NEA AR lowers that went together smoother it sounds like these do. I thought the advertising was for this to be a top quality receiver set. Bad anodizing and overly tight tolerances doesn't sound top quality to me.
Ya ya, they don't do the anodizing, I don't give a chit who did it. They paid someone to do it who happened to do a bad job and they sent them out to customers anyway.

My prediction, MDI will not be building any firearms parts within a year.

You say you have no investment in this project but there is no way that is possible considering how hard you argue to defend the product and the company. You and your pal that says you have nothing to do with the project have only been a member since January and March so how convenient is that? Who were you before you jumped onboard with these guys. Maybe an old banned member or a new MDI/CSC employee doing a little promotional work? Maybe you're just buddies with them, doesn't matter, you've got some sort of affiliation.

Again, sorry for expecting a company to deliver what they promised, I know, I'm a d!ck

 

[Shooting Centre]

Lol, a cheap cruddy milspec trigger in a $1000 rifle? Yup, huge issue.
Mags being tight? Pretty sure some guys have posted that their SLR does not drop free with some mags.

It's a $1000 complete rifle, are you sure you want to start comparing your receiver set to it when the price is the same and one works while one works for most people and the rest need some millwrite skills and a willingness to take a drill to their brand new $1000 receiver set? Are you sure you want to suggest people who need to watch a youtube video 10 times just to get the rifle together if everything fits properly take a drill to their receiver then want a replacement when they make the hole too big or crooked and the bolt catch is sticky?
I just want companies to be held accountable to deliver what they promised on batch number one. People paid a lot of money for these (I don't think it's too much if it actually delivers as promised) and they deserve to get it from customer #1 through till the end of days, we already have one Canadian manufacturer who releases just a few too many bum units.
I hope the rest of the guys get one built and finished well. People waited long enough, it sucks to be let down yet again with a new to market product.

Actually if you read my post again, you might note that I was comparing owner reactions not platforms. Nice try though.

Bolt catches are hard to assemble at the best of times. Some people don't have experience building anything let alone the SLR. So how much experience does the assembler have and what quality of parts. I would be surprised if someone building an ATRS MS without any experience and with parts from the cheapest source possible does not have problems too. How do you think ATRS will handle it? Likely by offering similar advice.
At the end of the day, I don't believe MDI promised an easy assembly for novice builders. Maybe you saw that somewhere?