Xcr vs ACR

[ntm]

Lol and not that 100 yards is a crazy feat either just more of a comparison than anything else

I'd buy another xcr if they were capable of shooting 1 moa all day. They are not. Most ar's barely make that.
I'm talking five round groups one after another. Not the usual internet "I shot a 1 moa three round group once or twice" crap.
The aimpoint and magnifier make it even more rediculous.

 

[knock-knock]

I'd buy an ACR if it was $2k NR lol

 

[Stormchaser]

Classic, the thread above this one:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...R-L-from-Wolverine-the-barrel-is-not-straight

 

[Skin]

I'd buy another xcr if they were capable of shooting 1 moa all day. They are not. Most ar's barely make that.
I'm talking five round groups one after another. Not the usual internet "I shot a 1 moa three round group once or twice" crap.
The aimpoint and magnifier make it even more rediculous.

I am totally getting where your coming down I'm not saying that everytime you fold out the bipod or set the gun in the rest or whatever you do to shoot most military style carbine or black rifle are not for the most part and obviously there is an exception to the rule are not designed to shoot 1moa, a lot of which has to do with having and upper and lower receiver. Everyone's got their opinions and preferred optics but for what I use it for the aimpoint works just fine would I put it on my ATRS 338 nope but would I put a nightforce on any XCR, ACR or any AR platform.....nope. If I wanted to shoot 1 or sub-moa the XCR wouldn't be close to my first choice. All I'm saying is from my limited use on my XCR I've seen that it's capable, have I shot 5,000 rounds down its pipe and taken a tally of its grouping...hell no!! I enjoy it for what it is sometimes I blast away ammo sometimes I enjoy sitting at the bench. I have also seen ammo take a grouping on some of my other carbines from 1" to 4-5". There are so many factors and to say that no matter what it's not possible is alittle naive. For someone with such strong opinions what you shoot and why so we have something more than sarcastic responses to work with. ACR/ XCR what do you like ntm and why. What optics would you use?

 

[cr5]

Does my black rifle hit a chest sized target 200-300 yards away? Yes? Sign on the dotted line.

Worrying about 1MOA groups from a sandbag? LOL, who gives a damn? If your rifle shoots 1 MOA and mine 4 MOA, when we stand up and shoot on the move or from 'less than ideal' positions and conditions, the gap becomes totally irrelevant.

The gap is never irrelevant. If your rifle is only capable of shooting 4 MOA and mine can shoot 2 MOA and we both practice and are fairly equal in skill level nothing you can do will make your rifle shoot better than 4 MOA and if we're standing, moving and shooting from less than ideal positions my hit probability is always going to be higher because my rifle is more accurate to begin with. Nothing you do and no matter how much you practice your rifle will never do better than what it is capable of shooting from the bench off bags.

I think the XCR is a good rifle but the barrel retention system is a poor design that limits the rifles ability to make tight consistent and repeatable groups. The ACR is a better design. It offers everything the XCR does and more. Yes it costs more but for me and some others it's worth it.

You're right though, these rifles were designed to be battle rifles and hit chest size targets out to 300yds. They're both more than capable of doing that so it simply comes down to budget and preference.

And yes Skin, I would put a Nightforce on my ACR if I had more disposable income. A 1-4 or 2.5-10 would be awesome on my ACR. Instead my tax return is going towards buying my AR180B back from my buddy.

 

[ntm]

I am totally getting where your coming down I'm not saying that everytime you fold out the bipod or set the gun in the rest or whatever you do to shoot most military style carbine or black rifle are not for the most part and obviously there is an exception to the rule are not designed to shoot 1moa, a lot of which has to do with having and upper and lower receiver. Everyone's got their opinions and preferred optics but for what I use it for the aimpoint works just fine would I put it on my ATRS 338 nope but would I put a nightforce on any XCR, ACR or any AR platform.....nope. If I wanted to shoot 1 or sub-moa the XCR wouldn't be close to my first choice. All I'm saying is from my limited use on my XCR I've seen that it's capable, have I shot 5,000 rounds down its pipe and taken a tally of its grouping...hell no!! I enjoy it for what it is sometimes I blast away ammo sometimes I enjoy sitting at the bench. I have also seen ammo take a grouping on some of my other carbines from 1" to 4-5". There are so many factors and to say that no matter what it's not possible is alittle naive. For someone with such strong opinions what you shoot and why so we have something more than sarcastic responses to work with. ACR/ XCR what do you like ntm and why. What optics would you use?

I've owned both and much prefer the acr.
It's a better design and execution in all regards.
It's more accurate, ergonomic, better build quality, and has been more reliable. The acr also is showing much less wear at the same round count as the xcr.
Both rifles had extensive load testing done with a 6-24 sightron. The xcr wore a 1.25-4 leupold on a daily basis, the acr has a trijicon ta33 or a vortex 2.5-10x32 ffp. Qd mounts.

As has been mentioned, the xcr has a propensity to string vertically due to its Mickey Mouse barrel attachment method.
Best I ever saw out of the xcr on a consistent basis was 2 moa. The acr is sub moa.
Not a fair fight though, as the acr has a bartlien barrel. But the mechanical inconsistencies introduced by the xcr's barrel attachment method don't really give it a chance.
I do know guys that have got the xcr to shoot, but it required more time and money investment than simply rebarreling an acr, and the acr is higher quality in the first place.

As for why you might need an accurate black rifle as opposed to the typical sks's minute of man accuracy, the point of a nonrestricted .223 black rifle to me is hunting varmints. Typically smaller targets, and/or longer ranges.
I know you say "get a bolt gun, or an sl8", but I like the lighter weight and faster handling of these rifles. And I can use it for three gun and still be competitive.

 

[Paul Morrison]

What ammo is that with? Off sandbags?

I don't remember the ammo, but I don't buy expensive stuff. Probably Winchester or
PMC.

I think I used a swivelling bipod. I don't use sandbags.

 

[00aught]

I've owned both and much prefer the acr.
It's a better design and execution in all regards.
It's more accurate, ergonomic, better build quality, and has been more reliable. The acr also is showing much less wear at the same round count as the xcr.
Both rifles had extensive load testing done with a 6-24 sightron. The xcr wore a 1.25-4 leupold on a daily basis, the acr has a trijicon ta33 or a vortex 2.5-10x32 ffp. Qd mounts.

As has been mentioned, the xcr has a propensity to string vertically due to its Mickey Mouse barrel attachment method.
Best I ever saw out of the xcr on a consistent basis was 2 moa. The acr is sub moa.
Not a fair fight though, as the acr has a bartlien barrel. But the mechanical inconsistencies introduced by the xcr's barrel attachment method don't really give it a chance.
I do know guys that have got the xcr to shoot, but it required more time and money investment than simply rebarreling an acr, and the acr is higher quality in the first place.



As for why you might need an accurate black rifle as opposed to the typical sks's minute of man accuracy, the point of a nonrestricted .223 black rifle to me is hunting varmints. Typically smaller targets, and/or longer ranges.
I know you say "get a bolt gun, or an sl8", but I like the lighter weight and faster handling of these rifles. And I can use it for three gun and still be competitive.

May I ask what makes the acr more ergonomic?

 

[ntm]

May I ask what makes the acr more ergonomic?

The stock and cheek riser are shaped better. The folding mechanism is more positive feeling and easier to latch and unlatch.
The charging handle being further forward and swappable to the right for lefties.
Better balance, and the ability to run your support hand further forward in a thumb over bore type of grip ( with the polymer hand guard).
And the biggest one of all, loosely fitting into the ergonomic category, the ability to run high end ar triggers like the super three gun or high speed dmr geissele.

 

[superlative]

The gap is never irrelevant. If your rifle is only capable of shooting 4 MOA and mine can shoot 2 MOA and we both practice and are fairly equal in skill level nothing you can do will make your rifle shoot better than 4 MOA and if we're standing, moving and shooting from less than ideal positions my hit probability is always going to be higher because my rifle is more accurate to begin with. Nothing you do and no matter how much you practice your rifle will never do better than what it is capable of shooting from the bench off bags.

I think the XCR is a good rifle but the barrel retention system is a poor design that limits the rifles ability to make tight consistent and repeatable groups. The ACR is a better design. It offers everything the XCR does and more. Yes it costs more but for me and some others it's worth it.

You're right though, these rifles were designed to be battle rifles and hit chest size targets out to 300yds. They're both more than capable of doing that so it simply comes down to budget and preference.

And yes Skin, I would put a Nightforce on my ACR if I had more disposable income. A 1-4 or 2.5-10 would be awesome on my ACR. Instead my tax return is going towards buying my AR180B back from my buddy.

cr5 - you're right about the accuracy. I'm getting 4 MOA out of my XCR with just a non magnified red dot during the break-in period. A better shooter will get 3 MOA at least.

But for me, the XCR is better than the ACR because it's lighter and less front heavy. That's more important to me than 2 MOA better accuracy, because you can only get that extra 2 MOA off a bench or bipod, and if you're going to do that, you might as well get a bolt action 223 which I already have. The fact that the XCR is easier to handle in any situation other than bench or bipod means that I can compensate for the 2 MOA bench accuracy deficiency because it's easier to handle in the first place.

The heavier front heavy rifles I've handled are just much harder to hold on target off hand than a lighter balanced rifle. Without a doubt, I will be less accurate with the ACR off hand compared with the XCR. The difference may be small - I don't know because I haven't tried, but it will definitely be greater with the ACR NR barrel. And if I'm not going NR, then what's the point of the ACR? I might as well get an AR which is twice as accurate as an ACR. The weight/balance is so important to me, because I never considered the XCR because of the weight, and now that they are no longer front heavy - the XCR becomes acceptable to me.

The local gun shop was willing to do an NR ACR barrel conversion for +$500. I thought about this, but for $2850 I would rather get a Tavor. These are supposed to be combat rifles, the Tavor is, the ACR is not. So if the ACR is not a combat rifle, then $2850 is a hell of a lot of money to spend on a hobby gun, as you put it. $2350 for a lightweight, keymod NR XCR-L is pushing the limits of reasonable price for a hobby gun, but the ACR exceeds it.

 

[knock-knock]

The gap is never irrelevant. If your rifle is only capable of shooting 4 MOA and mine can shoot 2 MOA and we both practice and are fairly equal in skill level nothing you can do will make your rifle shoot better than 4 MOA and if we're standing, moving and shooting from less than ideal positions my hit probability is always going to be higher because my rifle is more accurate to begin with. Nothing you do and no matter how much you practice your rifle will never do better than what it is capable of shooting from the bench off bags.

I don't think I can agree. I think the sandbag accuracy is the ultimate accuracy that the rifle is capable of, but once you're moving or shooting off-hand from less than ideal positions, the accuracy of the rifle itself really stops to matter.. it becomes the shooter. 4 MOA seems like a lofty goal to me shooting off-hand, it'd be fun doing tests to see if a less accurate rifle stays 'less accurate' when shooting off-hand... something tells me the gap would disappear between a 1 MOA AR15 and a 4MOA XCR when the shooter stands up and puts away the bag. Just my cents.

I understand what you're saying though and you're right, nothing you do as a shooter will make the rifle more accurate off-hand than whatever it shoots from a bag. I just think the difference between bench shooting and typical battle-rifle shooting (possibly under stress) is dramatic.

 

[ntm]

cr5 - you're right about the accuracy. I'm getting 4 MOA out of my XCR with just a non magnified red dot during the break-in period. A better shooter will get 3 MOA at least.

But for me, the XCR is better than the ACR because it's lighter and less front heavy. That's more important to me than 2 MOA better accuracy, because you can only get that extra 2 MOA off a bench or bipod, and if you're going to do that, you might as well get a bolt action 223 which I already have. The fact that the XCR is easier to handle in any situation other than bench or bipod means that I can compensate for the 2 MOA bench accuracy deficiency because it's easier to handle in the first place.

The heavier front heavy rifles I've handled are just much harder to hold on target off hand than a lighter balanced rifle. Without a doubt, I will be less accurate with the ACR off hand compared with the XCR. The difference may be small - I don't know because I haven't tried, but it will definitely be greater with the ACR NR barrel. And if I'm not going NR, then what's the point of the ACR? I might as well get an AR which is twice as accurate as an ACR.

My acr is actually shooting neck and neck with my last stainless barrelled noveske, both sub moa. So the ar is hardly twice as accurate.

I don't think you're understanding what cr5 was getting at.
If you are inducing say a three moa error in a standing or unsupported position, that potentially adds on top of your 3 moa rifle. 6 moa.
With a 1 moa rifle you're out a max of 4 moa. 2 moa is the difference between hitting a coyote at 400 yards or missing.
The acr is hardly front heavy, it's still lighter than the old railed xcr's by a good margin. Choice of your optics is going to have a bigger impact.

 

[knock-knock]

I don't think you're understanding what cr5 was getting at.
If you are inducing say a three moa error in a standing or unsupported position, that potentially adds on top of your 3 moa rifle. 6 moa.
With a 1 moa rifle you're out a max of 4 moa. 2 moa is the difference between hitting a coyote at 400 yards or missing.

I'm not sure it works that way though. IMO when you're shooting from a bench you're testing the accuracy of the rifle. When you take that 1 MOA rifle and shoot it off hand, you're testing yourself. If YOU are capable of shooting 4 MOA off-hand with a 1 MOA rifle, you're also capable of shooting 4 MOA off-hand with a 4 MOA rifle, give or take a bit. I'd have to test the theory though, who wants to bring an XCR and ACR to Silverdale?

 

[Paul Morrison]

I would hope the ACR's ergonomics would be decent, after all they infringed on the XCR's patents to get them.

 

[superlative]

My acr is actually shooting neck and neck with my last stainless barrelled noveske, both sub moa. So the ar is hardly twice as accurate.

I don't think you're understanding what cr5 was getting at.
If you are inducing say a three moa error in a standing or unsupported position, that potentially adds on top of your 3 moa rifle. 6 moa.
With a 1 moa rifle you're out a max of 4 moa. 2 moa is the difference between hitting a coyote at 400 yards or missing.
The acr is hardly front heavy, it's still lighter than the old railed xcr's by a good margin. Choice of your optics is going to have a bigger impact.

no, you're not understanding what I'm getting at. I'm saying that if you introduce +3 moa off hand with an XCR, I'd argue you'd introduce +4 or more MOA with an ACR because it's harder to handle off hand. The actual amount of course is just a guess, but I'm saying that it will be more because the ACR is less balanced. If front heavy rifles don't bother you, maybe it doesn't make a difference to you. I want this rifle to be light and balanced enough for a young teenager to hold.

For me, a tactical rifle has to be the ultimate in usability. In fact, the SU-16 would have been the perfect tactical rifle had it not been the fact that the receiver is plastic, and is therefore unsafe as far as I'm concerned. But the weight and handiness of the Su-16 make it the perfect "tactical rifle" to me, because ANYONE can pick it up and use it. Sure, if you are a trained soldier or train often with your (heavier) gun - then it doesn't matter what gun you have. The fact that the XCR has readily available spare parts, different caliber conversions, keymod rail, cheaper, and is more lighter/balanced makes it a clear winner to me because it is simply more useful.

The ACR has only one thing that's better - accuracy. For some people it's worth it, for some it isn't. If I wanted accuracy I'd use my bolt action 223. If I want to do "tactical drills", I'd use my lighter handier XCR. I'd rather have two rifles for the price of an ACR, but I understand if some people prefer to just buy 1 ACR - especially to replace the Swiss Arms.

see this review of the ACR (point #7 talks about the weight):

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

1-The advantages to the charging handle isn't really about jams, which I have never had by the way. If the rifle isn't loaded and you have your target in your sites, it just saves a little time. I feel that it is a great advantage especially if you are in the prone position.

2- It is in fact very similar to the SCAR but also has great differences. The SCAR has a much larger bolt carrying group. Which feels horrible when pulling the charging handle. In my opinion the SCAR looks a great deal like the first gen. of this rifle.

3- I feel that it handles much better than the standard AR, however the SCAR has less of a kick. I considered buying a SCAR just for that reason. But after taking it to the range the 22. like kick was really the only thing that impressed me. It does kick less than the standard AR but that may have a great deal to do with the piston combined with the weight of the rifle.

4- The stock on the SCAR seemed to be made of some really cheap plastic. It even rattled when I was carrying the rifle. The ACR on the other hand has a well made stock. All the polymer on the rifle is Magpul quality. It is very durable.

5- The trigger housing group is very similar to the AR. I believe that it is the exact design. Its fairly smooth, not outstanding. The only thing that I do not like about it, when you follow through on the trigger (holding it to the rear after each shot) It will make a click when it resets. Not a problem, I just thought it was a little weird.

6- I also really like the non-reciprocating charging handle. This would really help if you were lying in a tight spot and there was a possibility of the charging handle getting caught on something.

7- Thanks again! The largest difference that the ACR provides opposed to the standard AR platform is increased reliability. I have deployed with the m4 and any dust storm what so ever would fail up the rifle. The gas piston system is hard to beat; the bolt stays pretty clean even after 1000's of rounds. The weight of the rifle is kind of a bummer though; it would make clearing houses a real work out. Or considering standing and getting a tight group. I have taken the barrel off quite a few times and the zero has stayed exactly the same. I have shot from 25-500 yards and haven't had an issue with it yet. Being able to remove the barrel makes it so much easier to clean, no more shoving stuff in the ejector to try and clean everything up.

If you ever get the chance to shoot one, go for it. It’s really a great rifle! Again thanks for the comment!

 

[ntm]

I'm not sure it works that way though. IMO when you're shooting from a bench you're testing the accuracy of the rifle. When you take that 1 MOA rifle and shoot it off hand, you're testing yourself. If YOU are capable of shooting 4 MOA off-hand with a 1 MOA rifle, you're also capable of shooting 4 MOA off-hand with a 4 MOA rifle, give or take a bit. I'd have to test the theory though, who wants to bring an XCR and ACR to Silverdale?

Uh, re read what you wrote and do the math.
4 moa of potential error in you, and 4 moa of potential error in the rifle adds up to 8 moa.
4 moa of potential error in you, and 1 moa of potential error in the rifle adds up to 5 moa.

no, you're not understanding what I'm getting at. I'm saying that if you introduce +3 moa off hand with an XCR, I'd argue you'd introduce +4 or more MOA with an ACR because it's harder to handle off hand. The actual amount of course is just a guess, but I'm saying that it will be more because the ACR is less balanced. If front heavy rifles don't bother you, maybe it doesn't make a difference to you. I want this rifle to be light and balanced enough for a young teenager to hold.

For me, a tactical rifle has to be the ultimate in usability. In fact, the SU-16 would have been the perfect tactical rifle had it not been the fact that the receiver is plastic, and is therefore unsafe as far as I'm concerned. But the weight and handiness of the Su-16 make it the perfect "tactical rifle" to me, because ANYONE can pick it up and use it. Sure, if you are a trained soldier or train often with your (heavier) gun - then it doesn't matter what gun you have. The fact that the XCR has readily available spare parts, different caliber conversions, keymod rail, cheaper, and is more lighter/balanced makes it a clear winner to me because it is simply more useful.

The ACR has only one thing that's better - accuracy. For some people it's worth it, for some it isn't. If I wanted accuracy I'd use my bolt action 223. If I want to do "tactical drills", I'd use my lighter handier XCR. I'd rather have two rifles for the price of an ACR, but I understand if some people prefer to just buy 1 ACR - especially to replace the Swiss Arms.

see this review of the ACR (point #7 talks about the weight):

The acr is heavier compared to an ar, compared to an xcr it is lighter. Compared to a keymod xcr, it's slightly, slightly, heavier.
Anybody that thinks clearing rooms with one would be a workout would have to have toothpick arms. My 110 pound wife can run it for carbine drills easily.

 

[00aught]

The stock and cheek riser are shaped better. The folding mechanism is more positive feeling and easier to latch and unlatch.
The charging handle being further forward and swappable to the right for lefties.
Better balance, and the ability to run your support hand further forward in a thumb over bore type of grip ( with the polymer hand guard).
And the biggest one of all, loosely fitting into the ergonomic category, the ability to run high end ar triggers like the super three gun or high speed dmr geissele.

A lot of people dislike the acr charging handle being so close to the rail.
And the acr stock may be more ergonomic then the fast stock. But you can slap any ar stock on the xcr. So I wouldn't say that matters! I'd rather a UBR then the acr stock anyways. (I'm sure there is an adaptor for the acr too?)
and i completely disagree about the balance. I've only held a 16inch barrel acr for a minute or 2 and it seemed a lot heavier then an xcr with a 18.5 barrel (and I still haven't held a keymod, I'm sure it's way batter in balance)

 

[superlative]

The acr is heavier compared to an ar, compared to an xcr it is lighter. Compared to a keymod xcr, it's slightly, slightly, heavier.
Anybody that thinks clearing rooms with one would be a workout would have to have toothpick arms. My 110 pound wife can run it for carbine drills easily.

Compared to a keymod XCR, the ACR heavier where it matters - ESPECIALLY if it has a NR barrel.

The guy reviewing the ACR was a soldier. I'm sure there's a difference between doing a carbine drill and going out on a mission clearing houses for the entire afternoon.

Anyway, there's no point arguing. I never argued with anyone who said the ACR is more accurate. It is. There's no argument either about the key mod XCR being lighter and more balanced. It is. The end.

 

[SnoPac]

The acr is heavier compared to an ar, compared to an xcr it is lighter. Compared to a keymod xcr, it's slightly, slightly, heavier.
Anybody that thinks clearing rooms with one would be a workout would have to have toothpick arms. My 110 pound wife can run it for carbine drills easily.

I have no idea which rifle is 'better' to purchase and it seems futile to debate since 1) Stock they are different classifications and 2) They are different price points.

Taken from the firearms blog:

"Bushmaster lists the gun at 8.75 lbs, but the railed version we handled felt significantly heavier. This is not a patrol carbine or a run and gun setup. Instead (true to its name) it feels like a solid platform for a distance capable rifle."

The new XCR with the light barrel is nowhere near 8.57lbs however it is noticeably heavier than my buddies DD AR with a 16in heavy barrel...then again, he can admire his lightweight gun in his kitchen while I'm out in the bush having fun

 

[superlative]

I have no idea which rifle is 'better' to purchase and it seems futile to debate since 1) Stock they are different classifications and 2) They are different price points.

Taken from the firearms blog:

"Bushmaster lists the gun at 8.75 lbs, but the railed version we handled felt significantly heavier. This is not a patrol carbine or a run and gun setup. Instead (true to its name) it feels like a solid platform for a distance capable rifle."

The new XCR with the light barrel is nowhere near 8.57lbs however it is noticeably heavier than my buddies DD AR with a 16in heavy barrel...then again, he can admire his lightweight gun in his kitchen while I'm out in the bush having fun

Keymod XCR (with keymod rails) is about 7.8lbs using a fish scale. My VZ58 with NEA rails weighed 7.6lbs, and it felt heavier in front compared with the XCR because of the NEA rails. With ammo and Pmags, the keymod XCR is the overall weight winner in the non restricted 556 class, excluding the SU-16 which doesn't count as a tactical rifle IMO.

1lb makes a huge difference. The AR15 is about 1lb lighter than the XCR, and it feels like a feather in my arms. Furthermore, for ultimate configurability, you can't beat keymod. I want to attach certain things in certain places - I don't want a long rail with wasted rail space, so I just install tiny keymod rails where I need them. With the ACR railed version, you get a really heavy rifle with wasted rail space.