The Templar Thread, 5.56 by Crusader Arms / Spectre LTD
- Thread starter Ustauk
- Start date
Beautiful rifles. But I'm Kind of used to the clean look of the AR, that all the screws on the upper have me nervous, should this be a concern other than it just ruining the esthetics ? Even the the charging handle on the fore end looks like its being held together with a Philips screw .
The screws in the Upper Receiver are used to affix steel components such as the Barrel Trunnion, to the extruded aluminum Upper Receiver shell. Any number of modern military-derived sporting rifles such as the B+T APC familiy or the CZ Bren 2 MS use the exact same system. Screws are also used to affix Polymer such as the Ejection Port Buffer to the aluminim Upper Receiver and in any other cases where non-weldable materials must be fastened together (eg. Steel to Aluminum). Provided that the screws are of a suitably fine thread-pitch, are high-quality with adequate torque specs and are Loc-Tited, the system is as sturdy as you will find and the screws will not loosen of their own accord..
B+T APC 223 (Note screws to Left for securing the steel Trunnion and screws to the Right for affixing the steel Bolt-Carrier Rail to the aluminum Upper Receiver):
CZ Bren 2 (Note screws to Left to secure both the steel Handguard Rail and Trunnion to the aluminum Upper Receiver shell):
Last edited:
Good, solid review by well-known Guntuber "Sootch". That's a definite feather in Crusader/Spectre's cap! I have noticed that Crusader appears to have upped the standard of external finish on the Templar, with the finish in the photos of my incoming rifle (serial #117) appearing smoother and with less machining marks than the earlier example I handled at my LGS. That is a very "good thing" (if correct), as it was the spotty external finish of that early sample that had me making direct fit and finish comparisons to the WS-MCR. Now, we are hopefully seeing rolling improvement as the Templar assembly lines in ON and MI get up to speed.
A few things that I note from the review video:
1. Notwithstanding my comments above, surface machining marks are still visible on the Lower Receiver at 7:10 onwards,
2. As predicted by myself and others, the placement of the Charging Handle does interfere with the normal placement of conventional magnified optics or LPVOs. Activation of the CH is obstructed by the optic, and
3. The F5 "ACR" Buttstock remains disappointing. The folded position requires a positive detent to retain the stock and prevent it from flopping around.
The above appear to be the main "issues" with the Crusader/Spectre Templar at this time. I am looking forward to the arrival of my new rifle later this week and will have more to report in due course.
A few things that I note from the review video:
1. Notwithstanding my comments above, surface machining marks are still visible on the Lower Receiver at 7:10 onwards,
2. As predicted by myself and others, the placement of the Charging Handle does interfere with the normal placement of conventional magnified optics or LPVOs. Activation of the CH is obstructed by the optic, and
3. The F5 "ACR" Buttstock remains disappointing. The folded position requires a positive detent to retain the stock and prevent it from flopping around.
The above appear to be the main "issues" with the Crusader/Spectre Templar at this time. I am looking forward to the arrival of my new rifle later this week and will have more to report in due course.
Last edited:
I look forward to your thoughts…
The stock wont even stay folded over in place it just floats loosely so it will constantly flop around and catch/hit random objects.
The bolt release operation with stock swinging loosely may be compromised
The bolt release obviously could have been made ambidextrous but they chose not to bother. (Timestamp 14:50)
The machining work on the bolt release appears to be very rough, unfinished machining marks very visible. (Timestamp 14:58)
Severe machining marks at the rear of the receiver, did they completely skip the bead blasting/polishing stage during production? ( Timestamp 12:46)
Lower receiver has machining marks visible all over. (Timestamp 12:54)
If you want to charge $2000+ for a rifle than make the quality fit the price bracket.
Zero functionality issues reported in the video is absolutely awesome, now if they just get the major visual issues sorted Crusader might have a winner on their hands.
The bolt release operation with stock swinging loosely may be compromised
The bolt release obviously could have been made ambidextrous but they chose not to bother. (Timestamp 14:50)
The machining work on the bolt release appears to be very rough, unfinished machining marks very visible. (Timestamp 14:58)
Severe machining marks at the rear of the receiver, did they completely skip the bead blasting/polishing stage during production? ( Timestamp 12:46)
Lower receiver has machining marks visible all over. (Timestamp 12:54)
If you want to charge $2000+ for a rifle than make the quality fit the price bracket.
Zero functionality issues reported in the video is absolutely awesome, now if they just get the major visual issues sorted Crusader might have a winner on their hands.
I personally dont care much for finish as long as it is reliable and accurate. The video didnt say what range those groups were, but I assume 100 yds?
The F5 stock seems disappointing, but I suppose (until, or if Crusader decides to improve it) some velcro tape on the end of the butt and on the corresponding part of the left receiver can serve as an expedient detente to prevent the stock from flopping around
The F5 stock seems disappointing, but I suppose (until, or if Crusader decides to improve it) some velcro tape on the end of the butt and on the corresponding part of the left receiver can serve as an expedient detente to prevent the stock from flopping around
The production "quality" demonstrated speaks volumes about the mindset at Crusader and their partners, the message conveyed is they don't care about doing things right and will gladly skip steps in order to save money and get a rifle out the door.
I've circled a few of the major issues noticeable in the Sootch video and there are many more rough machining marks visible all through the rifle.
Their machining quality is garbage.
They skipped bead blasting on some parts.
They use junkier than airsoft parts for the stock that don't even stay folded over.
The gun is way over weight.
The venting of the handguard is hideous with no uniform shape, there is at least 4 different cut out shapes which indicates repeated after thoughts to try and remove more material instead of doing a complete design.
Brass ejection pattern and strength seem to be all over the place as well.
As others have stated you cant even use the charging handle depending on your optic.
What has been presented by Crusader is complete garbage that even a high school shop class could have done better on.
The production "quality" demonstrated speaks volumes about the mindset at Crusader and their partners, the message conveyed is they don't care about doing things right and will gladly skip steps in order to save money and get a rifle out the door.
I've circled a few of the major issues noticeable in the Sootch video and there are many more rough machining marks visible all through the rifle.
Their machining quality is garbage.
They skipped bead blasting on some parts.
They use junkier than airsoft parts for the stock that don't even stay folded over.
The gun is way over weight.
The venting of the handguard is hideous with no uniform shape, there is at least 4 different cut out shapes which indicates repeated after thoughts to try and remove more material instead of doing a complete design.
Brass ejection pattern and strength seem to be all over the place as well.
As others have stated you cant even use the charging handle depending on your optic.
What has been presented by Crusader is complete garbage that even a high school shop class could have done better on.
True, they have a ways to go regarding the final finish and fit of the parts. This is yet another reason why I call the Templar a Gen 2 WS-MCR - the QC on the fit and finish are near-identical between the WS-MCR and the Templar, which are/were both manufactured by the same company (Spectre) with "Steve" as the main recurring character between the two designs. If only Spectre (and their Michigan subsidiary) would slow down production just a little bit to ensure consistent bead-blasting of all machined surfaces prior to anodizing or nitriting, they'd have a hands-down winner on their hands. Instead, as noted, there are still a host of machining--related blemishes visible on the Lower Receiver. The photos that I saw of the rifle enroute to me looked good, but the thing about photos is that they can hide a lot! That said, so can an application of Dura-Coat or some similar epoxy-based finish if aesthetics demand it....
I'm not sure that there is a worthy successor to the sadly absent Magpul "ACR" Buttstock. The F5 copy is a poor facsimile at best, and really does need to be replaced by something else. If Spectre/Steve is reading, please make a Picatinny Busttstock adapter so that we can take advantage of the full range of aftermarket Buttstocks being sold and in development. This is the future of Buttstock attachment, so might as well get on that train from the get go.
The good news while we are busy wringing our hands over machining marks and floppy Buttstocks, is that the rifle seems to be a rock-solid performer in terms of both reliability and accuracy. The self-regulating gas system (a-la the HK G36) definitely works, as evidenced by the ease with which the rifle went from unsuppressed to suppressed without skipping a beat in the video. The one group that we did see fired (50 yds?) looked decent with 3 rounds stacked, but that is a sample of 1 subject to further accuracy testing when my rifle arrives. The Templar appears to be a rugged performer with some subtle enhancements that the other AR180B-derivatives lack, such as the self-regulating Gas System, the monolithic Upper Receiver and Top Rail, the (should've been ambi) Bolt Catch, and so forth.
The heavier-than-average Bolt Carrier may be an effort to have inertia assist with positive bolt closure/locking, or it may just be a concession to less machining time = less metal removal. Hard to say without digging into Steve's head. It certainly contributes to the porky weight though. Were it up to me, I'd have skipped the cut-out and Steel Cam-Track Panel on the Left side of the Upper Receiver in favour of weight savings, reduced machine time and simplified assembly. IMHO, the whole "Steel wearing on aluminum" issue is over-hyped and should not be an issue on a properly timed and toleranced rotating-Bolt rifle. But hey, I'm no firearms designer, so what do I know?
Last edited:
Well, it arrived this evening after a pickup at the local Postal Outlet. Initial impressions are consistent with what has been noted to date, excepting the fact that my lower appears to be final surface finished better than some of the other examples that have been photographed in "the wild" thus far. As predicted, the Charging Handle is in the exact wrong location for anyone using an ADM Recon cantilever optics mount. This renders the "HK Slap" a moot manoeuvre as it is impossible to perform with an LPVO mounted. There are no sharp edges on my rifle, which suggests proper/adequate tumbling and/or bead-blasting prior to the final surface treatment. The treatment itself looks quite good. Not nearly as nice as the R18 Mk2 or the CZ Bren, but pretty good nonetheless and certainly serviceable. Although there are no sharp edges, there are still a few sharp corners to watch out for when stripping and assembling the rifle. While there are the occasional small blemishes and uneven surfaces on the Lower Receiver, it is actually far nicer in terms of fit and finish than I was anticipating. The worst surface prep is ironically found directly underneath the "Crusader Arms" logo on the Left side of the Magazine Well, although to be totally honest it looks much better in person than in the photo. The upper is good to go finish-wise, and upon inspection it is evident that it was pared down from a Billet of T6061 aluminum, getting progressively thinner in the Handguard area in order to save some weight. It is a porky rifle once you slap an optic on top, easily tipping the scales at over 10 lbs. My enhancements (in addition to the excellent TriggerTech adjustable Match trigger) thus far are as follows:
- 3-slot MLOC Rail and Magpul Railed Vertical Foregrip
- Magpul MBUS Pro Back-Up Iron Sights
- Troy Ambidextrous Magazine Release
- Yankee Hill Manufacturing EZ Take-Down Pin Set
- Magpul MOE K2 Pistol Grip (shipped with the MOE K)
- Magpul MLOC QD Sling Mount
- Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x Optic in an American Defense "Recon" Cantilever Scope Mount
So far, all things considered I am satisfied with what I have received for my money, subject to reliability and accuracy testing. Should those performance aspects prove satisfactory during testing in the near future, I will be confident in recommending the Templar to other CGNers. As it currently stands, the jury is still out on a final recommendation.
Let me know if there are any specific photos people would like to see of the internals, etc, and I will do my best to comply. Things were a bit rushed this evening with other domestic goings on!
- 3-slot MLOC Rail and Magpul Railed Vertical Foregrip
- Magpul MBUS Pro Back-Up Iron Sights
- Troy Ambidextrous Magazine Release
- Yankee Hill Manufacturing EZ Take-Down Pin Set
- Magpul MOE K2 Pistol Grip (shipped with the MOE K)
- Magpul MLOC QD Sling Mount
- Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x Optic in an American Defense "Recon" Cantilever Scope Mount
So far, all things considered I am satisfied with what I have received for my money, subject to reliability and accuracy testing. Should those performance aspects prove satisfactory during testing in the near future, I will be confident in recommending the Templar to other CGNers. As it currently stands, the jury is still out on a final recommendation.
Let me know if there are any specific photos people would like to see of the internals, etc, and I will do my best to comply. Things were a bit rushed this evening with other domestic goings on!
I will let you know. As a $200 upgrade, I would say that the F5 "ACR Clone" Buttstock is worth having from both an ergonomic and aesthetic perspective. The rifle shoulders nicely with a repeatable cheek-weld in perfect alignment with the LPVO. Although the softer polymer of the F5 Buttstock allows for some flex when deploying the Stock and applying lateral pressure, this is not discernable when the firearm is shouldered. It feels rock-solid.
As for the flopping around when folded, yes it does. This is definitely annoying as it could result in the rifle getting hung up during a close-quarters deployment such as within a vehicle. It seems that a stronger spring in the Hinge system would help to keep the Buttstock in the folded position, but what is really required is a redesign of the Polymer Lugs that interface with the aluminim Buttstock Mount. At the end of the day it doesn't much matter to me as I fully intend to fold the Stock only for cased storage and transport, however YMMV.
Last edited:
The comparison as a poor man's scar is apt, as GarandThumb noted the SCAR has the same interference with certain optics in the charging handle when contrasting the better placement of the CH on the XCR he was reviewing recently. The Siberian's CH is lower in the receiver, so it may be better in this aspect.
I hope someone does a direct comparison of the Templar and Siberian at some point; the contrast would be interesting.
I hope someone does a direct comparison of the Templar and Siberian at some point; the contrast would be interesting.
Your rifle is not perfect Bartok5 but it is miles ahead of the rifle featured in Sootch's video.
I see the location of the serial numbers is different between the American and Canadian models as well.
How does the channel the bolt travels in look as far as machining quality and how does the bolt machining/finish look?
The bolt shown in Sootch's rifle at 13:17-14:30 and onward has very visible tooling marks, how does yours look in comparison?
Seems like these rifles need a dedicated doctor just like the legend M14 Doctor!
I see the location of the serial numbers is different between the American and Canadian models as well.
How does the channel the bolt travels in look as far as machining quality and how does the bolt machining/finish look?
The bolt shown in Sootch's rifle at 13:17-14:30 and onward has very visible tooling marks, how does yours look in comparison?
Seems like these rifles need a dedicated doctor just like the legend M14 Doctor!
The Bolt channel is cleanly machined, with the beefy, square Cam Pin channel precisely machined out of steel. The Bolt is as smoothly machined as any AR15 Bolt I have ever encountered. Of note is the fact that the Bolt and Carrier appear to be Parkerized, as opposed to Nitrited, which is a bit disappointing as park is far less durable. That said, parkerizing has been used on military firearms for well over a century to good effect, so I may be picking fly crap out of pepper with that particular observation.
Unlike the Cam Pin on some rotating Bolt firearms, the Templar uses a very sturdy and thick, square Cam to force the Bolt into and out of battery. All things considered, the Bolt, Carrier and related components are well fabricated and finished metal work.
Unlike the Cam Pin on some rotating Bolt firearms, the Templar uses a very sturdy and thick, square Cam to force the Bolt into and out of battery. All things considered, the Bolt, Carrier and related components are well fabricated and finished metal work.
