You can! Did it with mine and they are drop free.
Crusader arms backland
- Thread starter Deathrawt
- Start date
Yes! A more " straight line" /less drop would be more desirable
xxDaveMcxx
Member
- Location
- Central Ontario
Required filing of the recoil buffers threads to fit but other than that it slides on and is held by the same bolt that holds the factory stock on
Meh…regarding price - I have a job and I can’t take it with me…I could tell my grandchildren I saved $2000 on principle or I can enjoy another season of 3Gun.
Plus, I think it looks awesome and so far has run reliably.
The only other 223 semis are those Turkish made abominations
I’ll take the backland any day over those even though it “does” have some Turk parts in it
The backland looks way better and has optional stocks for it now so you can customize it to your liking, with the A2 style stock it looks more like what we used to call a sporting rifle
It has some break in teething pains but whatever, it starts to run reliably after around 50 rounds
I don’t regret getting mine
As to no one buying these?
Bullseye has sold quite a few of them so far so people must like them
I’ll take the backland any day over those even though it “does” have some Turk parts in it
The backland looks way better and has optional stocks for it now so you can customize it to your liking, with the A2 style stock it looks more like what we used to call a sporting rifle
It has some break in teething pains but whatever, it starts to run reliably after around 50 rounds
I don’t regret getting mine
As to no one buying these?
Bullseye has sold quite a few of them so far so people must like them
GunsNotPuns
CGN frequent flyer
So I handled a Backland Hunter for the first time yesterday and I was simultaneously impressed -- relatively speaking, given the hammering it's taken in this thread -- and disappointed.
After disassembling it -- a process that might have been a little more obvious if CA had bothered to put so much as a piece of paper with the rifle to pretend it was a manual -- I didn't see any obvious poor work in machining and assembly. I was prepared for the worst, but it seemed okay. It's light and handy, and after my chum put on a CA rear butt stock with an actual pistol grip, it looked much better. If you're quite drunk and squint hard, it almost has H&K G3 lines. I said quite drunk.
That said, a fire control pack that is largely polymer except for the parts that couldn't be -- meh. Also, I distrust poly lowers due to some previous negative experience with one. The magazines appeared serviceable, though they seemed lowest cost possible. They say you get six magazines with it but he received 12 -- six bodies with one on either end. I don't know if that was a mistake or CA considers two to be one in that configuration, either way, more than enough.
It's heading to the range tomorrow for some blasting so it will be interesting to see how it shoots.
That said, it's not a $2000 rifle. I don't even think it's a $1000 rifle. I know that setting up injection moulding production lines can be stupid expensive and you have to price in how many you expect to sell into that price tag, but it seemed a bit much. But as Innavedaw said earlier, if you have the money and want it...
After disassembling it -- a process that might have been a little more obvious if CA had bothered to put so much as a piece of paper with the rifle to pretend it was a manual -- I didn't see any obvious poor work in machining and assembly. I was prepared for the worst, but it seemed okay. It's light and handy, and after my chum put on a CA rear butt stock with an actual pistol grip, it looked much better. If you're quite drunk and squint hard, it almost has H&K G3 lines. I said quite drunk.
That said, a fire control pack that is largely polymer except for the parts that couldn't be -- meh. Also, I distrust poly lowers due to some previous negative experience with one. The magazines appeared serviceable, though they seemed lowest cost possible. They say you get six magazines with it but he received 12 -- six bodies with one on either end. I don't know if that was a mistake or CA considers two to be one in that configuration, either way, more than enough.
It's heading to the range tomorrow for some blasting so it will be interesting to see how it shoots.
That said, it's not a $2000 rifle. I don't even think it's a $1000 rifle. I know that setting up injection moulding production lines can be stupid expensive and you have to price in how many you expect to sell into that price tag, but it seemed a bit much. But as Innavedaw said earlier, if you have the money and want it...
GunsNotPuns
CGN frequent flyer
I'd rather have a subpar rifle than used meat 
Just recently had a chance to shoot the backland hunter and alcore 223. I have to say, the alcor 223 ran nice and smooth. No hickups, no issues whatsoever, very accurate as well. The Backland had a few jams, but overall not bad. However, the alcor 223 certainly out performed the backland, and it cost less.
Interesting.
Try as I might I just cant warm to the Alcor. It's a fugly looking contraption with weird proportions.
By contrast I kinda like the look of the Backland. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Reliability is important however. Probably hard to tell but could the Backland just be breaking in?
Sad to think these offerings are all that are left considering most here have way better in their safes but bureaucratic rules and politics are in the way.
The issue I had with the Alcor that I tried is that when I tested it for accuracy/precision (results are in another thread here somewhere) although it's level of precision was ok (kinda standard AR-ish 2 moa with match ammo) the point of impact wandered/shifted as the barrel heated up, most likely due to the way it's attached to the receiver. At least in theory the Backland shouldn't suffer from this but Crusader's qa/qc always leaves something to be desired...
Just like any firearm, you have to find the ammo it likes. We were shooting a heavy grain 223 and it performed amazing. I don't remeber the exact grain as it wasn't my rifle, but the owner had already tested a few types of ammo and found the heavier grain 223 to be the best. I can attest, the accuracy was great.
Also, something most don't talk about, the backland hunter has a pencil barrel to keep the weight down, so accuracy will suffer. I only learnt about this when I was shooting it. Dosen't seem like something they advertise well.
Last edited:
The backland does have a tacticool look to it. I really like the look as well. However, the one I shot has a few hundred rounds through it, so not sure I can attribute anything to break in period.
The alcor isn't as cool looking but it does have some after market stock options if you don't like the look. I found the after market options to be ugly, but as you said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
100% agree on the sadden state of our choices due to political BS!
I am torn on this one. I have a number of semi auto .223 / 5.56 rifles on the ban list and I would love to find something to break out the ammo that has just been sitting around, especially the 5.56 ammo which I can't really use elsewhere.
While I know many of us have mixed opinions of Crusader Arms as a company and their previous products, I do applaud them in having the gonads in this political climate to put out new products, regardless of their motivation in doing so. The government would love to have further development of new sporter models die off, so it is nice to see some new models introduced into the environment, whether it is locally developed/manufactured or done from abroad (ie. Turkey).
That said...and I know perhaps some may say this is just capitulating to the Liberal fear tactics, but...
I think we are long past the sense that manufacturers can do their due diligence, and be in full compliance with the parameters of, say, a C21 based characteristics of a firearm, meeting all regulations for both function and compatibility/lack of, and still get burned with the whole "variant" thing. The Crypto and R9s are only the most recent reminders of these, both of which I believe had their designs and development in light of C21 design and function characteristics. Both were then considered variants.
But you can even go further back than last year, to when they banned the GSG-16, saying it is a variant of an MP5. There is no internal parts/functioning that would justify this and as always, the overarching attribute that affects how these firearms are being treated is LOOKS. APPEARANCE. AETHSTETICS.
I also worry about the discussions about interchanging parts to make other parts work - seems to be the government can read into that kind of thing into their "variant" definition - ie. who cares if this magazine for this rifle is proprietary and cannot be altered beyond five rounds when, with a magwell change, the previously maligned stanag or pmag natively more-than-five-round magazines can be used. The government can easily redefine variant as any way to circumvent existing restrictions.
So they can make the Backland Hunter, or Turkey can come up with the other models (forget their name - Alcor, Chimera or something), but if it even closely resembles an AR or anything that looks like an AR, it is almost certain that it will hit a ban list, if past history is any indication.
I really don't get why manufacturers don't just get the FRT first to see how their designs will play out, before mass selling them to a partially unsuspecting public (I know a number of people who recently got PALs that are excited to buy their first gun - they have no idea what has / has not been banned, and aren't on CGN to follow both the legislative developments and the federal social policy climate). I suppose from a business perspective, if they were truly unscrupulous, it would make more sense to sell off as many as possible and if people are stuck with it via ban, oh well, rather than protect their potential customers in ensuring that in fact their design will be accepted by the RCMP...but even then, that is no guarantee that it won't get banned later via OIC.
Now, one can argue (and understandably so) that who cares, buy what you like. In principle I agree. But unless one has deep pockets, or has zero risk aversion (I have neither, getting married in 4 months and paying for wedding and honeymoon, not to mention putting another child through university on my own dime), it seems more of a true gamble than anything else. Perhaps if this rifle was half the price, the risk would be easier to swallow. I am in the double digits for guns that are safe queens at the moment, so the appetite for risk is not as strong as it once was. I would love to buy a new Canadian-developed product, but in seeing how the previous ones have played out, would rather see the RCMP assessment process advancing much further before taking the plunge.
My biggest fear on this gun is that it may cause the light to shine more on the Benelli M4 (and the implications would be pretty obvious by why I would be concerned as an owner of one...
While I know many of us have mixed opinions of Crusader Arms as a company and their previous products, I do applaud them in having the gonads in this political climate to put out new products, regardless of their motivation in doing so. The government would love to have further development of new sporter models die off, so it is nice to see some new models introduced into the environment, whether it is locally developed/manufactured or done from abroad (ie. Turkey).
That said...and I know perhaps some may say this is just capitulating to the Liberal fear tactics, but...
I think we are long past the sense that manufacturers can do their due diligence, and be in full compliance with the parameters of, say, a C21 based characteristics of a firearm, meeting all regulations for both function and compatibility/lack of, and still get burned with the whole "variant" thing. The Crypto and R9s are only the most recent reminders of these, both of which I believe had their designs and development in light of C21 design and function characteristics. Both were then considered variants.
But you can even go further back than last year, to when they banned the GSG-16, saying it is a variant of an MP5. There is no internal parts/functioning that would justify this and as always, the overarching attribute that affects how these firearms are being treated is LOOKS. APPEARANCE. AETHSTETICS.
I also worry about the discussions about interchanging parts to make other parts work - seems to be the government can read into that kind of thing into their "variant" definition - ie. who cares if this magazine for this rifle is proprietary and cannot be altered beyond five rounds when, with a magwell change, the previously maligned stanag or pmag natively more-than-five-round magazines can be used. The government can easily redefine variant as any way to circumvent existing restrictions.
So they can make the Backland Hunter, or Turkey can come up with the other models (forget their name - Alcor, Chimera or something), but if it even closely resembles an AR or anything that looks like an AR, it is almost certain that it will hit a ban list, if past history is any indication.
I really don't get why manufacturers don't just get the FRT first to see how their designs will play out, before mass selling them to a partially unsuspecting public (I know a number of people who recently got PALs that are excited to buy their first gun - they have no idea what has / has not been banned, and aren't on CGN to follow both the legislative developments and the federal social policy climate). I suppose from a business perspective, if they were truly unscrupulous, it would make more sense to sell off as many as possible and if people are stuck with it via ban, oh well, rather than protect their potential customers in ensuring that in fact their design will be accepted by the RCMP...but even then, that is no guarantee that it won't get banned later via OIC.
Now, one can argue (and understandably so) that who cares, buy what you like. In principle I agree. But unless one has deep pockets, or has zero risk aversion (I have neither, getting married in 4 months and paying for wedding and honeymoon, not to mention putting another child through university on my own dime), it seems more of a true gamble than anything else. Perhaps if this rifle was half the price, the risk would be easier to swallow. I am in the double digits for guns that are safe queens at the moment, so the appetite for risk is not as strong as it once was. I would love to buy a new Canadian-developed product, but in seeing how the previous ones have played out, would rather see the RCMP assessment process advancing much further before taking the plunge.
My biggest fear on this gun is that it may cause the light to shine more on the Benelli M4 (and the implications would be pretty obvious by why I would be concerned as an owner of one...
