Are MRR's and IUR's the next evolution in the AR?

Stoner99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Speaking specifically to the topic of IUR's, barrel changes on an IUR are super easy. For commercial shooters, it is a pain in the butt, but hardly an issue from a military standpoint since they have the proper tools. It takes me all of a minute to do a full IUR barrel change.

The traditional AR, in the form of the C7/C8 has been in use in Canada alone for 35 years or more, albeit with some upgrades that make it superior in design to most AR's out there, and there are more than 100,000 C7/C8 variants in service today globally, including several IUR variants. Some countries using IUR based AR guns have been doing so for more than a decade and have not yet decided to abandon the idea. I think this speaks to valid potential in the monolithic upper idea. Will it become an all encompassing standard for AR's? Not convinced on that count.

-J
 
I know that CC does offer armorer courses, are armourers sent by a CO or would they have to request that "training"? With a mil/leo armourer going to the course would it then be up to CO to make sure that proper tools are ordered for the job? A standard AR tool is a dime a dozen, the IUR/MRR tools like just stated are $2000.00+
 
jonesy67 said:
I know that CC does offer armorer courses, are armourers sent by a CO or would they have to request that "training"? With a mil/leo armourer going to the course would it then be up to CO to make sure that proper tools are ordered for the job? A standard AR tool is a dime a dozen, the IUR/MRR tools like just stated are $2000.00+
Click to expand...

This seems to be how CGN works. One guy plucks a number out of the sky and two posts later it gets quoted for truth. I know for a fact that is not the price.
 
Colt Canada provides technical publications and training aids for the military armourers as per contractual obligations to DND, but the military does their own armourer training courses. Tools are acquired by DND as necessary to provide to their armourers with respect to what is in their fleet. Colt offers armourers courses for LE and they get sent to Colt for training generally, although I don't know if this is always the case. Agencies would order whatever tools they need based on the guns they are using. If they are taking the armourers course, but don't use IUR's, they wouldn't bother ordering the tool I guess. The tool for the IUR's would be purchased through Colt I believe. I cannot personally speak to the pricing, but I would imagine that there are significant discounts for volume pricing as is the case in military orders.

I can honestly say that I much prefer the IUR, free floated barrel design to work on than traditional AR guns. That is my own preference though.

-J
 
I believe someone is, or will be, building a "jobber" tool for IURs... I think they were aiming for a couple hundred bucks or something?

Overall, I think I'd much rather replace an MRR barrel than a conventional AR's. No gas tube alignment ####ery.
 
dfritter1 said:
I believe someone is, or will be, building a "jobber" tool for IURs... I think they were aiming for a couple hundred bucks or something?

Overall, I think I'd much rather replace an MRR barrel than a conventional AR's. No gas tube alignment ####ery.
Click to expand...

I just built a Colt USA socom 14.5 upper not too long ago. Didn't find it too difficult. Colt rocks.
Well thats good to hear. I will eventually pick up a cc upper soon.
 
On a side note, you notice how the new MRR's have the LMT MRP Pat No on them? I wonder if CC is paying a licence fee to LMT.

Boltgun
 
jonesy67 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope.....they are like bell bottoms.
 
I wonder how much merit in terms of accuracy and "retaining zero" a monolithic upper really has when you consider the fact that some guys in top tier units like CSOR and JTF2 run optics on non free-floating forends that are simply snapped on to the delta ring. And I certainly don't see any advantage for a military logistics point of view ( maintenace, versatility, cost ).
 
Omak47 said:
I wonder how much merit in terms of accuracy and "retaining zero" a monolithic upper really has when you consider the fact that some guys in top tier units like CSOR and JTF2 run optics on non free-floating forends that are simply snapped on to the delta ring. And I certainly don't see any advantage for a military logistics point of view ( maintenace, versatility, cost ).
Click to expand...

I think the difference is whether an MOA shift is acceptable for a 1x red-dot targeting an 18" box at 50 yards, compared to a 10x optic outfitted with an NVD targeting a 5" box at 200 yards.

In one of those, being monolithic probably doesn't matter. In the other, it certainly does.
 
TV-PressPass said:
I think the difference is whether an MOA shift is acceptable for a 1x red-dot targeting an 18" box at 50 yards, compared to a 10x optic outfitted with an NVD targeting a 5" box at 200 yards.

In one of those, being monolithic probably doesn't matter. In the other, it certainly does.
Click to expand...

True, it does depend on the intended use. I would love to see an actual video demonstrating MOA shift as distances gradually increases on a setup like that ("CQB").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom