Any Other Reason To Own MRA Renegade Other than Porting Over AR Parts?

Hubris said:
It's simply a semi auto version. It wasn't marketed as select fire and wasn't the product of a ban. In the US you can still buy M16s.



:confused:


Is it safe to assume you're not a fan of semi auto rifles and agree with the ban?



I'm not going to get use to it. The AR needs to be unbanned.

I'm sure the Renegade is fine although the name is off-putting.

Renegade: "a person who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles."
Click to expand...

Semi autos are fun! But on the one hand if I needed "terminal ballistics" then the 7.62 NATO cartridge would be a better choice, out of eg an AR-10, while on the other hand if it's just for plinking or scoring holes in paper then a 10/22 does the job quite nicely (especially when paying for the hundreds of rounds of ammo a semi can eat on a good day at the range). The AR-15 occupied an awkward niche between the two, especially considering its former restricted status. Still, I had one, and I'm in charge of a lower receiver until further notice.

My understanding is that NATO's first try at assault rifles involved the 7.62 cartridge, they found full auto recoil excessive, and went back to the drawing board for the 5.56 round, which is otherwise a coyote-plinking caliber. By that reasoning the military has good reason to buy lots of 5.56, but if you're picking up something without full auto then the 7.62 wants more consideration. So if I was picking up another MRA product I'd look more to the Maverick.

The Renegade will drive you to tears if you really wanted your AR-15 back and you're directly comparing it as a substitute. Far better to go for a niche the AR-15 wouldn't be filling even if you could still use it, so either long-range rifle (longer barrel and bigger scope than I'd ever put on my AR) or maybe as an NR short-barrel plinker. Could be good on coyotes!
 
Tikka223 said:
Good to know those linear comps are effective. I had a PWS on a Tavor once upon a time and wow, it was like getting punched in the face when you pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

I can't compare the two, but I can say the Krinkov type is very effective. The TNA version is all business, not the prettiest, I'm assuming a Flaming Pig will have a more consistent finish, but if you don't care about the "look" the TNA version is a steal.
 
old303 said:
Semi autos are fun! But on the one hand if I needed "terminal ballistics" then the 7.62 NATO cartridge would be a better choice, out of eg an AR-10, while on the other hand if it's just for plinking or scoring holes in paper then a 10/22 does the job quite nicely (especially when paying for the hundreds of rounds of ammo a semi can eat on a good day at the range). The AR-15 occupied an awkward niche between the two, especially considering its former restricted status. Still, I had one, and I'm in charge of a lower receiver until further notice.

My understanding is that NATO's first try at assault rifles involved the 7.62 cartridge, they found full auto recoil excessive, and went back to the drawing board for the 5.56 round, which is otherwise a coyote-plinking caliber. By that reasoning the military has good reason to buy lots of 5.56, but if you're picking up something without full auto then the 7.62 wants more consideration. So if I was picking up another MRA product I'd look more to the Maverick.

The Renegade will drive you to tears if you really wanted your AR-15 back and you're directly comparing it as a substitute. Far better to go for a niche the AR-15 wouldn't be filling even if you could still use it, so either long-range rifle (longer barrel and bigger scope than I'd ever put on my AR) or maybe as an NR short-barrel plinker. Could be good on coyotes!
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about building a Maverick reciever set into an SBR (most likely 12" barrel) for fun but everything I have read suggests it is poor idea. Im coming from a position of having "spare" BCL build parts so it would save me money over building a 5.56 Renegade SBR. I like your thinking about a building something more unique but will an 7.62 SBR be more of a useless toy than something I could actually use for hunting?
 
Porting over the parts from one of my AR15s was one reason. However, after shooting this mongrel, I've come to really like it. It's basically a range gun for now for me but being unrestricted, it allows me to take it off-range as well. In addition, it allows me to use up my large stock of .223 ammo and reloading components. After Covid19 is over, I'd like to try it in the ORA CQB matches that I've used my AR15s in before the ban (next year?). It'll be challenging for sure but hopefully there will allowances in the COF for manually operated firearms by then when competing with non-AR15 semi-autos. The scope is a 4X ACOG TA31RCO.

Here's my Renegade build from a upper/lower receiver set:

Jbyt4ITl.jpg
 
There are two options coming that will allow re-use of a similar number of parts to the Renegade, but in a semi-automatic method. These options will have to have the 18.6" barrel length to be non-restricted.

Spectre Ballistics International, maker of the manual action Light Practical Carbine competitor to the Renegade (not Spectre LTD, one of the manufacturers of the MCR), is planning on creating a Direct Impingement 180 bolt control group. This will allow use of a standard AR gas tube to feed gas into an AR180 style recoil system. This will allow re-use from an AR-15 or other compatible firearm of any port-length barrel, its matching gas tube, gas block, and any handguard, even low profile ones. They have created an AR180 classed lower that uses AR15 trigger pins and is svelter then most other available 180 lowers. Their upper design is to come, but will hopefully take in the communities requests to have a sealed upper with dust cover, and it will for sure be compatible with their new DI BCG. It is unknown if you will have to source WK return springs and guide rods,he 180 compatible safety, and other 180 specific parts when they have full rifles ready, or if they will be producing said parts in house when the uppers are ready.

The Jard J180 build kit has shipped from the factory to Sylvestre, their Canadian distributor, but the arrival date is yet unknown. The unit has a sealed left side, with right side charging and ejection. On a closed bolt, the BCG blocks the ejection port and most of the charging handle track, with the remainder blocked by an optional dust cover. It uses direct gas impingement against a 180-style recoil management system. All parts within the receiver are provided, included a nicer Jard trigger that can be swapped out, but the entire for-end/barrel/gas assembly, butt stock, and pistol grip can be donated from a suitable prohibited firearm. The barrel must be over 18.6" to keep it non-restricted, but any length of gas port barrel can be used. There have been issues with Jard products in the past, but the importer claims they have thoroughly tested the new firearm for quality, and have put the time and effort to get an FRT entry cleared for it, and put down the funds to bring the firearm, so they must have some confidence in it. Only time, and the community's feedback will see if this investment was correct.
 
I finally had a chance to take it out to the range to try it out this afternoon. A few observations.

1. I need to put something other than a scope on it. I could never seemingly get the eye relief right while putting my Leupold scope on it, and because the picatinny is really short, I ran out of real estate for my ideal eye relief, so I settled for "best that I could do". It was OK at home, but taking it to the range, it wasn't great - I had to constantly move my head around and readjust the cheek weld. I think either than MK2 or another version has the rail across the entire top of the gun. That would have been helpful. I may try setting the eye relief again with more time in figuring it out. Or I could just put a red dot on it and just it for shorter distances.

2. Neither the PMAGs (Gen2 or Gen3) nor the LAR15 mags I had would seat properly and secure in the magwell when the bolt was closed (since there is no bolt hold open, it was closed by default when mag ejected). Even with a violence forceful upwards "bump", the magazine only secured and was locked maybe 10% of the time. This was weird because at home, I loaded empty mags in the gun when I first got it and all latched and secured with the audible "click" sound 100% of the time. When I got home at dinner time, in researching further, it looks like this is a common problem in AR platforms and the solution appears to be reducing the load of the magazine so it is not maxxed out so there is more "wiggle room". So I guess 4 out of 5 in the PMAG 5/30 and 9 out of 10 in the LAR15. Out of curiosity, I had some dummy rounds for .223 at home and I loaded 4 in both mags, and inserted them. Both times the mag was secured or locked in place. For the PMAG 5/30, when I inserted the fifth dummy round in, then the magazine would insert only to fall out again. No audible click. When fifth round removed, it was fine. I don't know if it's because my PMAGs are defective (I doubt it, these Gen2 and Gen3 work fine in my WK), or whether it is the magazines are relatively new.

3. When I bought the gun, I knew that the GEN 1 MK1 did not have a bolt catch/bolt release/bolt lock. On an empty mag, it will hold open, but once I eject the mag, it closes again. This probably contributes to issue #2, from what I read since I got home.

As for the other impressions - the weight is great. The muzzle brake on there made the thing pretty darn loud. Surprisingly, I didn't mind the straight pull "feature" of the gun. I got used to it pretty quickly (for the times when I got the magazine seated) - it was pretty smooth. The ergonomics of the gun are fantastic.

Will take it back this week when I am back at the range for sighting in, now that I know how to get past the magazine issue. Never really got a chance to get it sighted in - just took some shots before I had to get going. Will probably put a red dot on it and shoot at shorter distances.
 
thegazelle said:
I finally had a chance to take it out to the range to try it out this afternoon. A few observations.

1. I need to put something other than a scope on it. I could never seemingly get the eye relief right while putting my Leupold scope on it, and because the picatinny is really short, I ran out of real estate for my ideal eye relief, so I settled for "best that I could do". It was OK at home, but taking it to the range, it wasn't great - I had to constantly move my head around and readjust the cheek weld. I think either than MK2 or another version has the rail across the entire top of the gun. That would have been helpful. I may try setting the eye relief again with more time in figuring it out. Or I could just put a red dot on it and just it for shorter distances.

2. Neither the PMAGs (Gen2 or Gen3) nor the LAR15 mags I had would seat properly and secure in the magwell when the bolt was closed (since there is no bolt hold open, it was closed by default when mag ejected). Even with a violence forceful upwards "bump", the magazine only secured and was locked maybe 10% of the time. This was weird because at home, I loaded empty mags in the gun when I first got it and all latched and secured with the audible "click" sound 100% of the time. When I got home at dinner time, in researching further, it looks like this is a common problem in AR platforms and the solution appears to be reducing the load of the magazine so it is not maxxed out so there is more "wiggle room". So I guess 4 out of 5 in the PMAG 5/30 and 9 out of 10 in the LAR15. Out of curiosity, I had some dummy rounds for .223 at home and I loaded 4 in both mags, and inserted them. Both times the mag was secured or locked in place. For the PMAG 5/30, when I inserted the fifth dummy round in, then the magazine would insert only to fall out again. No audible click. When fifth round removed, it was fine. I don't know if it's because my PMAGs are defective (I doubt it, these Gen2 and Gen3 work fine in my WK), or whether it is the magazines are relatively new.

3. When I bought the gun, I knew that the GEN 1 MK1 did not have a bolt catch/bolt release/bolt lock. On an empty mag, it will hold open, but once I eject the mag, it closes again. This probably contributes to issue #2, from what I read since I got home.

As for the other impressions - the weight is great. The muzzle brake on there made the thing pretty darn loud. Surprisingly, I didn't mind the straight pull "feature" of the gun. I got used to it pretty quickly (for the times when I got the magazine seated) - it was pretty smooth. The ergonomics of the gun are fantastic.

Will take it back this week when I am back at the range for sighting in, now that I know how to get past the magazine issue. Never really got a chance to get it sighted in - just took some shots before I had to get going. Will probably put a red dot on it and shoot at shorter distances.
Click to expand...

Some guns let you lock in a fresh mag under a closed bolt, but both the real AR and the Renegade are too tight and only fit a full mag under an open bolt (locked back with the late lamented AR, manually held open with the other hand with the Renegade). The alternate trick is to fill the mag one round short and then it seats under the closed bolt.
 
old303 said:
Some guns let you lock in a fresh mag under a closed bolt, but both the real AR and the Renegade are too tight and only fit a full mag under an open bolt (locked back with the late lamented AR, manually held open with the other hand with the Renegade). The alternate trick is to fill the mag one round short and then it seats under the closed bolt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. Good to know.
 
thegazelle said:
Nope, I got the last MK1 they MRA had in stock - they said it's been discontinued so I bought the last one they have. Picked it up from them onsite this morning from MRA directly. 16". I can't imagine this in a 12" - I quite like the 16. Got a Magpul 5/30 Gen 2 with it.

Gentleman who gave me the rifle this morning indicated that the only real difference between MK1 and MK2 is the bolt catch and for him the MK1 is fine. I just told him I liked the price.

So your 1-4 from bushnell is 32mm? 40mm? What size rings did you use, or what kind of mount?

Planned application is target shooting at my range only. I am pretty boring that way.
Click to expand...

It's a lower quality optic but more than does the job for me.

I have it mounted on a cantilever mount (cant remember where I sourced it from) - 30mm tube - 24mm objective.

If you are looking to shoot distance beyond a 100 yards, I would look at some other optic offerings.
 
Northern Shooter said:
I like that these are Canadian made, can be made into SBR's and accept AR mags and parts. I don't like that they cost $1500 while there is still a handful of semi autos priced the same that compete with this.

Right now I feel like the MRA Maverick makes more sense in our market as essentially all AR-10 based rifles have been oic banned. Having a modular straight pull that can be used for the range use and large game hunting makes more sense to me. I'm really hoping complete rifles will come in at sub 2k.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Maverick makes more sense. I just assembled a Maverick - haven't fired it yet. With a 20" Faxon Gunner 308 barrel, A2 flash hider, and a Bushnell 4500 3.5-10x40 scope, the weight comes in at 8.5 lbs (with empty magazine).

Not a lightweight but exactly the same as my Savage 116 300 WM. Most bolt action sporters are about 7 lbs bare and will be over 8 lbs once you add a scope and mount.
 
Anyone have a folding stock on their MRA ? Would a 16 inch barrel with a folding stock still be long enough to be 26 inches ?
 
iv got my renegade setup the same way my ar15 is in the usa as I really like the look and feel of it. downside is it's depressing as all hell to come back to canada and be downgraded to a bolt action and 5 round mags :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom