onetwentyish
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Central AB (AKA Northern Texas)
I personally prefer the ACR due to how easily and with out tools the features set can be altered to a specific philosophy of use. You can go from PDW to Carbine to Rifle to DMR layout in any caliber that can function in a mag that fits a Stanag magwell, from 5.56 to .50 Beowulf in 9"-18.5" barrel.
If like me you wish to embrace "Adaptive" part of the ACR acronym (which in my opinion is the single biggest advantage of the ACR), the ACR is the only money pit you will ever need, and can fill the multi-role/multi-caliber rifle gap better than any other firearm I have seen thus far, which is why in my opinion the design really should have replaced the M4 in Nato armories.
Unsuprisingly the single biggest advantage the MV is also the weakest point of the ACR. The MV is less bulky and front heavy than a ACR with a comparable barrel and fore end due to the ACR's heavier piston system. That said, the ACR is manageable with the right barrel and forend choices, so I see this as more of a neutral point than a negative for the ACR, and a positive for the MV, especially since nearly all gas guns run a piston design making it the standard and gas impingement designs the exception.
The MV's single biggest disadvantage in my opinion is that it lacks the ability at this time to stray from the single pin Timney trigger as well as most other mechanical parts are either proprietary (examples: upper/lower reciever, charging handle) or modified specifically for one of the Modern series' several quarks that differentiate it from a AR (examples: barrel index pin, charging handle slot).
To sum up the MV, it is alot of give and take. I feel Rick did a pretty decent job for the most part negotiating which features of the AR design are the best, how to keep them, and how to best set the MV apart from an AR while still making it possible for us to use most aftermarket AR parts caveat being many need some small modification (which can get costly very quickly!).
If you just want a dedicated (PDW/Carbine/Rifle/DMR)rifle, either the ACR or the MV can do that at similar costs for similar set ups (although the MV aint as good for the PDW or Carbine build as Rick does not want to see any variations of his MV wear a R status, and frankly I cant see the point either when you can buy an R status AR for $600, that said he cant stop you but he can choose not to help you). Its important to note that either platform with a barrel shorter than 18.5" is classified to restricted and as such requires you register it with the CFC with in 30 days. Neither platform is subject to permanent restricted status and like wise converting a specific example to restricted has no baring on the models classification, instead it will just get a child FRT # if one does not already exist for that barrel length and caliber. Its essentially the reverse of the ACR were up until lately all came factory restricted 16" barreled rifles that needed to be rebarreled to 18.5" before a child FRT # could be issued to represent the NR status.
If like me you wish to embrace "Adaptive" part of the ACR acronym (which in my opinion is the single biggest advantage of the ACR), the ACR is the only money pit you will ever need, and can fill the multi-role/multi-caliber rifle gap better than any other firearm I have seen thus far, which is why in my opinion the design really should have replaced the M4 in Nato armories.
Unsuprisingly the single biggest advantage the MV is also the weakest point of the ACR. The MV is less bulky and front heavy than a ACR with a comparable barrel and fore end due to the ACR's heavier piston system. That said, the ACR is manageable with the right barrel and forend choices, so I see this as more of a neutral point than a negative for the ACR, and a positive for the MV, especially since nearly all gas guns run a piston design making it the standard and gas impingement designs the exception.
The MV's single biggest disadvantage in my opinion is that it lacks the ability at this time to stray from the single pin Timney trigger as well as most other mechanical parts are either proprietary (examples: upper/lower reciever, charging handle) or modified specifically for one of the Modern series' several quarks that differentiate it from a AR (examples: barrel index pin, charging handle slot).
To sum up the MV, it is alot of give and take. I feel Rick did a pretty decent job for the most part negotiating which features of the AR design are the best, how to keep them, and how to best set the MV apart from an AR while still making it possible for us to use most aftermarket AR parts caveat being many need some small modification (which can get costly very quickly!).
If you just want a dedicated (PDW/Carbine/Rifle/DMR)rifle, either the ACR or the MV can do that at similar costs for similar set ups (although the MV aint as good for the PDW or Carbine build as Rick does not want to see any variations of his MV wear a R status, and frankly I cant see the point either when you can buy an R status AR for $600, that said he cant stop you but he can choose not to help you). Its important to note that either platform with a barrel shorter than 18.5" is classified to restricted and as such requires you register it with the CFC with in 30 days. Neither platform is subject to permanent restricted status and like wise converting a specific example to restricted has no baring on the models classification, instead it will just get a child FRT # if one does not already exist for that barrel length and caliber. Its essentially the reverse of the ACR were up until lately all came factory restricted 16" barreled rifles that needed to be rebarreled to 18.5" before a child FRT # could be issued to represent the NR status.
Last edited:
