Fightlite MCR-100 belt fed AR15
- Thread starter Boomer686
- Start date
Trust me when I tell you that any comparison between the C9 and the Fightlite MCR ends with their general, shared characteristics - 5.56mm, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-controlled, belt feed, quick-change Barrel. That's pretty much where it ends. The MCR is literally half the weight of the C9, is capable of far greater inherent/mechanical accuracy, is select-fire, and feeds equally-well from magazines or belts with no alteration to the firearm. Think of it as an HK416 or USMC M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle with true sustained-fire capacity, and you will begin to understand the unique benefits of the Fightlite MCR Upper Receiver over a conventional LMG.
Only if the initial design pre-dates 1945 I believe. Anything after that and it's 5 rounds.
They dont if the firearm using the belts was designed before 1945. Firearms desinged after 1945 are limited to 5.
The firearm can be reproduced tomorrow as long as it is the same as one built before 1945 and not have a limit. But if it's a design from January 1st 1946 you can only have 5. Welcome to the assinign canadian gun laws.
I believe I got the years right. Pretty sure I did
The firearm can be reproduced tomorrow as long as it is the same as one built before 1945 and not have a limit. But if it's a design from January 1st 1946 you can only have 5. Welcome to the assinign canadian gun laws.
I believe I got the years right. Pretty sure I did
The only thing physically preventing you from linking more than 5 rounds is the threat of Trudeau haunting you... Think of the children how many will die of you're not paying attention and accidently link 6.
Your MCR seems kinda "conflicted". On the one hand, the heavy and bulky PRS stock suggests a DMR or GPMG type of role. On the other hand, your choice of optic screams "CQB" engagement ranges.
I agree that the Feed Cover fitment is somewhat sloppy, not lending itself to the use of high-magnification optics. My use of the Elcan OS4 thus far provides a decent compromise combining enhanced target detection and precise aiming, with a wide field of view and decent peripheral awarness. One can still apply the "Bindon" CQB aiming concept for close-range engagements using the illumination in a pinch.
Thee is nothing inherently wrong with your set-up and you can certainly do whatever you like with your firearm, variety being the spice of life, etc. I just happen to have mine set up as a lightweight and compact "assault MG", notwithstanding its semi-only function and absurd 5-round belt limit. IMO the system's light weight (approx 10 lbs with Elcan) and enhanced accuracy in comparison to every other LMG currently on the market lend themselves to such a role.
I agree that the Feed Cover fitment is somewhat sloppy, not lending itself to the use of high-magnification optics. My use of the Elcan OS4 thus far provides a decent compromise combining enhanced target detection and precise aiming, with a wide field of view and decent peripheral awarness. One can still apply the "Bindon" CQB aiming concept for close-range engagements using the illumination in a pinch.
Thee is nothing inherently wrong with your set-up and you can certainly do whatever you like with your firearm, variety being the spice of life, etc. I just happen to have mine set up as a lightweight and compact "assault MG", notwithstanding its semi-only function and absurd 5-round belt limit. IMO the system's light weight (approx 10 lbs with Elcan) and enhanced accuracy in comparison to every other LMG currently on the market lend themselves to such a role.
No.
It wouldn't work with disintegrating links. The cartridge is what holds the two adjacent disintegrating links together. If you take an 11 round belt and remove the cartridge in the middle you will end up with two separate 5 round belts (and a loose cartridge).
As for "old" design cloth belts, most feed mechanisms would not be able to keep "pulling" on the belt if there is a round missing in the belt. There are probably exceptions but the vast majority of the feed mechanism pull the belt in by "gripping" on the rounds, not the belt itself.
At what point does belted ammunition become a "magazine" and a contravention of the law?
For example, many mil surp stores have belts hanging on the wall with more than 5 rounds being linked together. Even if they are empty casings, is that considered a magazine that is over capacity or does it need to be attached to the firearm?
For example, many mil surp stores have belts hanging on the wall with more than 5 rounds being linked together. Even if they are empty casings, is that considered a magazine that is over capacity or does it need to be attached to the firearm?
did you ever get an answer to that question ? I have a bunch of dummy rounds and links that would make great decoration (in my mind anyway)
Others have already said it, but it but the length of ANY linked rounds depends on when the links were designed. Pre 1946 links are ok. Post are not ok. It's absolutely ridiculous and not in the least bit logical. There are some .30-06 links that work with 7.62x51 that could be linked up into 200s, but that's it for modern cartridges. No 5.56 links can be linked beyond 5 round teasers.
As for the actual gun. Everything works great when it's brand new. I carried a brand new C9 for a couple weeks, hardly a stoppage. Now, the well worn one I carried for 3 months when I was new in the Army, that was a POS. Excellent for learning stoppage drills though...
As for the actual gun. Everything works great when it's brand new. I carried a brand new C9 for a couple weeks, hardly a stoppage. Now, the well worn one I carried for 3 months when I was new in the Army, that was a POS. Excellent for learning stoppage drills though...
