I am curious what makes you think that the ATRS Modern Sporter was designed and tested any differently than any other Canadian-manufactured rifle? Did they publish their exhaustive testing schedule and round-counts? What did they do differently during the design phase besides copy the AR15 (rather than the AR180B) and tweak a few details? Please fill us in, as I for one knew nothing about ATRS's exhaustive testing of the Modern Sporter. That would apparently be a first among Canadian manufacturers. Can you please give specifics? If true ATRS deserves credit where due for doing the right thing. But did they?
Lockhart Tactical Raven Platinum Edition, .223 Wylde
- Thread starter Bartok5
- Start date
I am curious what makes you think that the ATRS Modern Sporter was designed and tested any differently than any other Canadian-manufactured rifle? Did they publish their exhaustive testing schedule and round-counts? What did they do differently during the design phase besides copy the AR15 (rather than the AR180B) and tweak a few details? Please fill us in, as I for one knew nothing about ATRS's exhaustive testing of the Modern Sporter. That would apparently be a first among Canadian manufacturers. Can you please give specifics? If true ATRS deserves credit where due for doing the right thing. But did they?
rommelrommel
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I would suggest it didn't need as much testing because they actually knew what they were doing. They were able to bring over their expertise and ability with the AR15 to their Modern rifles. I don't know what testing they did, but I would say it was sufficient because their guns don't batter themselves apart inside of a few thousand rounds.
These guns full of proprietary parts made by who knows who have a lot more potential failure points.
These guns full of proprietary parts made by who knows who have a lot more potential failure points.
Because the MS uses AR BCG, that's why the reliability is going to be very similar to that of the AR. That was always the main gripe with the Raven. Why did they decide to do it with a lightened carrier group? I am not surprised at all it has reliability issues with it breaking and being pressure sensitive. They should have designed it closer to how the AR was designed to maximize reliability and then offer different types of BCGs if you want to tune it.
When Jim Sullivan, one of the original designers of the AR was asked a question about people using lightened bolt carrier groups in an interview, he laughed and just questioned why anyone would do that.
Last edited:
Haha, I see what you're saying, and I don't know any specifics. I have no connection to ATRS, other than being a casual customer over the years. I'm basing my opinion on the number of reports of problems with the ATRS MS over the years, and the fact that they have designed and built successful rifles for years. I don't think ATRS made a rifle with such a good reputation by accident. But someone else here surely knows more about it than me.
I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to publish specifics of their process, that would be proprietary. The process only comes into question when frequent problems arise (like with most Canadian-designed rifles in recent years).
Frankly, I was surprised to see Lockhart announce the Raven as a project. It seemed very ambitious. Before the Raven, they were limited to being a retailer, no?
I think that total mass of the BCG is the reason that the Raven Bolt-Carrier is skeletonized. Presumably, a proprietary Raven Carrier (eg. the internal operating parts) was a requirement to escape the AR15 "Variant" ban-hammer. Otherwise, why bother, right? Lockhart chose to go about it by lengthening the Carrier and Receivers rather than messing with the diameter. If you weigh the Raven Carrier and and an AR15 Carrier you will find that they are near identical. In lengthening the Raven BCG by approximately 18 mm Lockhart faced a problem. More metal = more mass in the lengthened Raven Carrier. Extra mass would be bad, as the Raven could no longer rely upon standard Gas Port diameters, Gas Port placement along the Barrel, Buffer weight, Operating Spring Power, and so forth. In other words, a non-standard weight Bolt Carrier would cause all sorts of additional design headaches with a direct bearing on system reliability. The obvious solution to reduce the added mass of the proprietary, lengthened Raven Carrier was to drill holes. Hence the skeletonization of the BCG, which is not just there for cool points.....
ATRS produced a terrific (but spendy) NR alternative to the AR15, no doubt about that. Not to take away anything from the ATRS designers, but their Design Team had a much easier go of things that Lockhart did. Their ability (at the time) to use a standard AR15 BCG saved a great deal of design work, leaving them to redesign the Receiver interface so that the Upper and Lower would not be AR15-compatible. That is really all that they had to do. Unfortunately, upon review following the May 2020 OIC, the Special Services Section of the RCMP (aka: the Lab) declared the Modern Sporter to be prohibited in the FRT. Could it be because the "internals" are AR15-compatible? Who knows, but seeing as how the lengthened Receiver set AND Bolt Carrier are all that really separates the Raven and the Modern Sporter, you have to wonder if that isn't why the Mounties declared the Sporter an AR15 variant.
Last edited:
My apologies for the ribbing that I gave you in my response to your ATRS post. My sarcasm meter was pegged - probably because I was having a bad day in hospital with a persistent infection in what is left of my Right leg. In any case, I think that the key advantage that the ATRS guys had was the fact that they only changed how the AR15 Receiver halves connect together. The internals were all AR15, meaning that about 60 years of design evolution was cooked into the Modern Sporter from the outset. Exhaustive testing was not required any more than it would be for an average AR15 pulled off the assembly line. They knew that it would work from the get-go as virtually everything was AR15-compatible. As mentioned earlier, I suspect that this is what got them a "Variant" ruling by the "Lab". Lockhart wouldn't have changed the Raven Bolt Carrier if he didn't have to in order to obtain a non-AR-variant, NR FRT entry.
As for Samuel Lockhart branching out into rifle manufacture, why not? Being a drop-ship retailer while pouring focus and effort into the design of early warning devices, under-barrel shotgun set-ups, etc, evidently wasn't rewarding enough for Mr. Lockhart. He bit off a lot, and it WAS VERY ambitious given the current climate. He must have been able to determine ahead of time exactly what (as a minimum) was required to avoid an "AR15 Variant" prohibition. That is the only way that I can see him (and investors?) accepting the risk of such a venture. At the end of the day he pulled it off despite a few initial hiccups (the Gen 1 Bolt-Carrier and the bad batch of Barrels). By all accounts on the FB Raven group, Reddit and elsewhere, the vast majority of owners seem to be very satisfied with their Lockhart rifles. Time will tell the full tale, I am sure. Unless the Raven gets its legs cut out from underneath it with a prohibition under C21.... Which is unfortunately, highly probable.
Last edited:
I just hope that the proprietary carrier is enough to keep it NR long enough for a few hundred thousand to reach people's hands. I look at the MDI SLR, which had all AR internals but a radically different method of attaching upper to lower, and the horse cops flip-flopped the FRT on that gun out of the blue. So who knows what their interpretation of AR variant will be from one week to another.
If I don't pick up an x95 I may have to try one of these.
If I don't pick up an x95 I may have to try one of these.
I think I broke a rib.
What is this gen 3 info? Did it smooth out that sharp edge on the bottom of the trigger well? That digs in pretty good for high chokes. The side charging handle thing coming loose perpetually is tedious and has marred the inside of the upper where is rubs. Otherwise the LHT Raven is awesome. Probably the best option on the market.
Sam recommended gas port size 7/64 which would be 0.1075ish? For Rifle length I assume.
I tried a 20 with R gas length @ 0.086 and it appears to be too small. I tried an 18.5 with R length @ 0.092 and is running great. Standard buffer weight.
I agree, Sam is pretty cool.
I don't agree ATRS having their MS or MH sorted before they hit the market with it. Sharp edges on the mag well, single plunger ejectors on 308, over insertion ledge too wide and some other things I don't need to get into...etc. I like Dustin, but those rifles needed a bit of tweaking IMO. But I guess they don't need anything now being lost in tragic boating accidents.
2 cents.
The Gen3 refers to a limited run of uppers with integrated forward assist, brass deflector, dust cover and closed up slots in the receiver.
Gen2 lowers with smoothed out trigger wells and different safeties have been quietly shipping out to folks with new serial rifles.
No worries bud, it's the internet. (Sorry to hear about the ongoing health issues, that sucks)
As Bile said above, the ATRS product wasn't perfect. It's just another useful data point for the discussion. You're a fan of the Raven and of Lockhart, that's cool. I'm a skeptic of both, but I'd love to be proven wrong. As you say, there's no substitute for the test of time.
I try to be a realist. I have owned the WS-MCR, R18 Mk 2 and the Crusader Templar. I have no experience with the BCL Siberian, but I think that I have a pretty good feel for its strengths and weaknesses based on multiple reviews. So all things considered, I do have a pretty good first-hand feel for what is currently available on the Canadian market. I wouldn't yet call myself a "fan" of Lockhart and his Raven, but I am positively inclined based on my favorable first impressions unboxing my rifle. The quality of manufacture is excellent notwithstanding the sub-contractor Barrels (like mine), that had issues. I firmly believe that the Lockhart Raven is as close as we are going to get to an AR15 under the current regime. It is an overall proven operating system in a rifle package that has demonstrated above average accuracy and which has terrific potential for future expansion via Calibre Exchange Kits based on the system's proprietary, swappable Magazine Wells. So what's not to like?
Well, at the end of the day I need a rifle that runs and perhaps then I will reach "fanboy" status. I am still a ways away from that however. According to Canada Post my new Barrel with mid-length Gas System is enroute as of today, so I am quite looking forwards to its arrival. We have some warmer (above 0C) weather coming next week, so the timing of the Barrel's arrival should be perfect for function and accuracy testing. Perhaps after that, I will be bully behind Lockhart and the Raven. That said, I must complement Samuel Lockhart's customer service to date, which has been absolutely stellar, truly above reproach. Many others could take a page out of his book on seeking and accepting responsibility for other people's screw-ups. I currently have a very hard time reconciling the negativity that I have read and heard about Samuel Lockhart with what I have personally experienced over the past 2 weeks. I couldn't have asked for better service nor a more rapid and effective response to my concerns.
Last edited:
A quick question for other Raven owners - I have slight wobble in my Gen 1 Raven's Handguard, such that it can establish contact with the Rifle-length Gas Block. This is typically detrimental for accuracy, which is one of the Raven's demonstrated strengths. Is it worthwhile for me to "upgrade" to a newer, presumably "Gen 2" Barrel Nut and Handguard? Would that eliminate the wobble? Do you have ANY wobble whatsoever in a "Gen 2" Raven (with rounded Trigger Guard Edges)?
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
A few people at the start had some very large wobble in their handguard. Ends up some were out of spec, but for an almost 18 inch floating handguard there is some expected wobble. Other option is switch over handguards to aftermarket, or use shims. There’s more info in the Facebook group.
I am aware that most aftermarket AR15 free-float Rails will just bolt onto their Barrel Nut to provide a rigid rail on the Raven. However, aftermarket Rails will not strip down for Gas Block and/or Barrel maintenance as readily nor easily as the LTAC Rail with its push-pin retention. Nor will an aftermarket Rail mount the forthcoming optional Lockhart Dust Cover for the Gen 2 Upper Receiver.
I suspect the easiest method of removing the wobble might be to simply ceraKote the outside surface of the Barrel Nut, thus tightening the tolerance with the inside surface of the Rail tself.
I agree. The tolerance between the Rail and the Barrel Nut should be reduced as much as possible so that there is a solid, wobble-free fit. Geissele manages to do it with their Modular HK Handguard, so it is entirely possible to do. Just because the Handguard is secured by a cross-pin doesn't mean that the fit between the inside of the Rail and the outside of the Barrel Nut cannot be tight.
In other news, I managed to fit a LAW Tactical Gen 3 Folding Buttstock Adapter to my Raven. I had to re-cut the Receiver Extension (Buffer Tube) threads on the Lower Receiver in order to be able to secure the Adapter to the Lower. I used 1' 3/16-16 HSS Tap purchased off of Amazon,ca for $63. This was quite a chore, as the existing threads were actually quite shallow and had to be cut deeper in order to accommodate standard-dimension parts. Come to think of it, even getting the Receiver Extension off of the Lower Receiver was a bit of work as well, requiring the use of a padded vice to hold the Extension while I twisted the Lower Receiver with my hands. Genuine elbow grease required! Now that I have re-cut the threads, everything including the factory Receiver Extension threads onto the Lower Receiver much more easily - as it should be. It should go without saying that none of this additional work should be necessary, but right now it is.
Once the threads were re-cut on the Lower Receiver, everything went together perfectly with the exception of the Extension Plug which extends the length of the Bolt Carrier by sliding into the rear of the Carrier. As it turns out, the proprietary Bolt Carrier of the Raven is too large for the Plug that comes with the Folder Adapter for 5.56mm Bolt Carriers. So I had to substitute a 7.62mm AR10 size Plug to fit in the uniquely-dimensioned rear of the Raven Bolt Carrier. Of course, it was too large and had to be reduced in diameter using a bench-top Belt-Sander, but once it was made to fit the Raven it functioned 100%. A bit of work, but definitely worth the effort for such a long firearm when it comes to storage and transport. Folding the Buttstock reduces the length of the package by close to a foot, which is substantial.
