Crusader Arms Crypto
- Thread starter MilsurpLover
- Start date
Still wasn't the other one I saw about the Crypto... you could visually see the end of the gas tube had a ding and almost looked cracked.
Yeah, Crusader isn't great at customer support.
They responded to an email I sent same day the other week
My Crypto runs like a champ.
Close to the 500 round mark with not a single problem.
Feeds -ejects and no mag issues or dust cover issues.
Set up right now with a red dot and magnifier and took a yote on my farm 3 evenings ago at 350 yards.
First shot was a foot or so over its back then compensated and got him on the second.
I feel it’s a damn nice rifle to carry and shoot.
Cheers
Jeff
Close to the 500 round mark with not a single problem.
Feeds -ejects and no mag issues or dust cover issues.
Set up right now with a red dot and magnifier and took a yote on my farm 3 evenings ago at 350 yards.
First shot was a foot or so over its back then compensated and got him on the second.
I feel it’s a damn nice rifle to carry and shoot.
Cheers
Jeff
I got only the receiver set. I went in store to look at it and made sure everything checked out, measured the barrel extension bore with a caliper to make sure that is in spec. The one I got fortunately did not have purple anodizing and the complaints I have are that the dust cover holes are drilled slightly out of spec and it's missing the cut for dust cover detente. I was able to get it to work with a Strike Industries adjustable dust cover as suggested by another user
I have had no failures in about 60 shots fired. However all my components are relatively good quality and not from Crusader. (JP BCG, Superlative gas block and tube, BCM buffer assembly, TriggerTech FCG)
At first I was worried about the fact that the receiver is made of 6061 and not 7075 which is standard these days. However, whilsr 6061 is not as strong as 7075, it is no less stiff. In fact, even pure aluminum has the same stiffness as the alloys. In terms of accuracy, this receiver should be no less accurate than a milspec 7075 receiver due to having the same stiffness, although probably slightly less accurate than a thick wall receiver which is in turn probably slightly less than a monolithic receiver.
I bedded a new 20" Criterion Hybrid barrel to the upper receiver with Loctite 680, let it cure over the week and tested the system for precision. I shot at 100 meters, 200 meters and 300 meters with Sellier & Bellot 69gr.
I first shot with frontier 55gr to foul the barrel and zero my scope. The stars aligned and somehow got a submoa 3 shot group with it. I then zero'd and shot a second group with S&B 69gr which was well submoa, then adjusted it further 0.2 mils to the left. Keep in mind my point of aim is always on the top part of the thinner red circle to keep it more precise. Satisfied, I moved onto 200 meters.
Again at 200 meters it was well submoa, although I must've not adjusted enough, having only adjust 0.4 mils high. Incidentally, the Criterion barrel is really fast for some reason, the 55gr averaged a whopping 3400 fps while the 69gr averaged 3060 fps. None of the brass showed signs of over pressure so I kept on shooting.
At 300 metres the group opened up more, but was still submoa. I think it's relatively safe to say that the Crypto receiver will not hamper your accuracy any more than a standard milspec receiver.
I have had no failures in about 60 shots fired. However all my components are relatively good quality and not from Crusader. (JP BCG, Superlative gas block and tube, BCM buffer assembly, TriggerTech FCG)
At first I was worried about the fact that the receiver is made of 6061 and not 7075 which is standard these days. However, whilsr 6061 is not as strong as 7075, it is no less stiff. In fact, even pure aluminum has the same stiffness as the alloys. In terms of accuracy, this receiver should be no less accurate than a milspec 7075 receiver due to having the same stiffness, although probably slightly less accurate than a thick wall receiver which is in turn probably slightly less than a monolithic receiver.
I bedded a new 20" Criterion Hybrid barrel to the upper receiver with Loctite 680, let it cure over the week and tested the system for precision. I shot at 100 meters, 200 meters and 300 meters with Sellier & Bellot 69gr.
I first shot with frontier 55gr to foul the barrel and zero my scope. The stars aligned and somehow got a submoa 3 shot group with it. I then zero'd and shot a second group with S&B 69gr which was well submoa, then adjusted it further 0.2 mils to the left. Keep in mind my point of aim is always on the top part of the thinner red circle to keep it more precise. Satisfied, I moved onto 200 meters.
Again at 200 meters it was well submoa, although I must've not adjusted enough, having only adjust 0.4 mils high. Incidentally, the Criterion barrel is really fast for some reason, the 55gr averaged a whopping 3400 fps while the 69gr averaged 3060 fps. None of the brass showed signs of over pressure so I kept on shooting.
At 300 metres the group opened up more, but was still submoa. I think it's relatively safe to say that the Crypto receiver will not hamper your accuracy any more than a standard milspec receiver.
Last edited:
Gingerbeef117
New member
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Since it seems your going for accuracy, did you lap the receiver before putting the barrel on?
I did not lap the receiver. I didn't see the need for it to be honest since the face of the receiver seems to be in spec and flat. When I inspected the edges of upper receiver with a flashlight while the barrel extension was in no light came through. Anyway, personally I am not a huge believer in truing the receiver unless it's significantly out of spec. When you lap the receiver with one of those lapping tools and a drill you are only potentially making it more concentric with the bore of the receiver and not the barrel nut threads, and on top of that logically even if you were able to do that you would also have to true the mating surface of the barrel nut as well. I don't see it contributing noticeably to precision unless the receiver is heavily out of spec.
Bedding on the other hand I definitely believe in. There are experiments done with bedding that showed noticeable improvements to precision and in my personal experimentation it has also done so.
FYI, the concern between 6061 vs 7075 is not stiffness but strength and hardness. While strength isn't as much of a factor here (6061 is more than strong enough for 99% of civilian use cases), it's the hardness and associated wear that concerns me, especially with how sloppy the anodizing QC has been. Running a steel bolt carrier against poorly anodized 6061 is just asking for the BCG to wear through the receiver. Considering we're seeing purple receivers, they clearly don't care about the anodizing process that much even though it is the only thing making the aluminum hard enough to withstand this wear (unanodized 6061 is extremely soft). I'd like 7075 to be used in both upper and lower (lower to prevent the trigger pins from egging out the holes in the receiver) as it will be harder and stronger making everything last much longer (which is why basically all AR receivers nowadays are 7075-T6 type III hard anodized). But Crusader Arms and Steve don't care...
Agreed, in terms of durability the 7075 with properly done anodizing will be much superior. The fact that a 6061 receiver set which is basically non-existent stateside now goes for 1000$ here and we willingly buy it just shows how sad things are here. I don't think people would buy this for 100 dollars down south.
Anodizing colour is from a dying process, is it not? Has any testing been done to confirm hardness?
If receiver bore wear is an issue, lapping the receiver bore would seem to be a really bad idea.
Cost differential between the US and Canada for AR pattern receivers just might be related to production volume. Crypto production is miniscule compared with AR production in the US.
If receiver bore wear is an issue, lapping the receiver bore would seem to be a really bad idea.
Cost differential between the US and Canada for AR pattern receivers just might be related to production volume. Crypto production is miniscule compared with AR production in the US.
There's a way you can do it with dying and there's a way you can do it purely with electrochemistry (electrolytic colouring). Either way, I'm more concerned by the fact that they never intended for it to be purple yet it came out purple and still said that's good enough to be sold. Sloppy and uncaring QC which is inline with many people's experiences with the company I suppose. I've been scouring the forums to see if anybody has done 3rd party Rockwell hardness testing on the receivers to check for hardness but I haven't seen any unfortunately. I'd love to know if what they say is true where it is indeed type III hard anodized to adequate specifications.
Agreed, I'd probably bring the BCG you intend to use in a build or a reaction rod along with you to see how well it fits in a receiver set before buying it (if the store lets you). Just to act as a rough gauge to check if it's in spec enough. Though I think they were talking about lapping where the barrel extension seats into the receiver. Using Loctite 620 or a similar sleeving compound should be sufficient to bed the barrel without lapping.
Also agreed. Though they ARE charging ATRS Modern Sporter prices without using 7075 aluminum, having out of spec parts (dust cover holes drilled out of spec, dust cover detent nub not drilled, rear pin drilled out of spec, potentially out of spec anodizing), and spotty customer service... (Can you tell I just want the ATRS MS receivers back?)
Last edited:
hannibal.black98
CGN frequent flyer
People are shooting 60-200 rounds and calling it good to go…
I’ve taken my X95 out and fired 700 rounds in one day…it usually fires 200+ rounds/trip.
Magazines are already failing…
Without a proper working magazine, your gun is a ####ty club
Last few months of 2024 and Canada still struggles to manufacture guns to 1960s quality :/
I’ve taken my X95 out and fired 700 rounds in one day…it usually fires 200+ rounds/trip.
Magazines are already failing…
Without a proper working magazine, your gun is a ####ty club
Last few months of 2024 and Canada still struggles to manufacture guns to 1960s quality :/
When complete rifles are sold, assembly has a QC component. If parts don't go together, it gets caught. Gauging and inspection should weed out problems with receiver sets, but it appears that things can fall through the cracks.
If the Gov't doesn't move against the Crypto concept, I expect other manufacturers might take the plunge. Competition can be a good thing. Given the proclivity of the current Gov't to prohibit, I suspect manufacturers need to recover their costs early in the production cycle.
If the Gov't doesn't move against the Crypto concept, I expect other manufacturers might take the plunge. Competition can be a good thing. Given the proclivity of the current Gov't to prohibit, I suspect manufacturers need to recover their costs early in the production cycle.
It did exist at one point. It was called the ATRS MS but now it can only sit in the safe.
I didn't say it was good to go in terms of durability or reliability, which I've yet to find out. I only said that in terms of precision I don't think it would be any different from a standard 7075 milspec receiver set.
Last edited:
