As for all xcr being junk maybe mine was just a gremlin I sold it in 2 days after buying it... They also just need time they are still a new company we cant all be perfect right off the get go. I am sure sig has some junk to when they started and some still today they had a lot of time to work out the bugs . Maybe in time when the experience comes they will be par to a sig they just need time is all and tons and tons of money for r&d ...
XCR vs Sig classic green
- Thread starter c1979
- Start date
sig551 is weapon of choice for german Gsg-9 spec ops and their police Swat teams (SEK) use the 551 as well.
French Gign also use the 551LB, there are many, many more. its an expensive system and thats why it was not selected as a service rifle for others. but many authoritative people say it is the finest 5.56 assault rifles in the world.
I have never been a half-asser. Under no circumstances do I believe in cutting corners, compromising, or false advertising. The XCR is what it is. It's pricey once all the red tape is cleared and it makes it to Canada. We certainly don't expect $2400 for it here in the US, but that's not something that can be helped. Wolverine Supplies offers a great price for what they end up having to fork out with all the fees that stack up to get them imported. Be that as it may, we can't ship XCRs fast enough to Canada. They're gone and people are asking for more within a month.
Our capital on the XCR is really very minimum, so that we can offer it at a reasonable price and still make it in the US.
I can't speak for everyone at RA, but I don't work for peanuts because I can't find anything else. I do it because I love the work I do, the rifle I build, and couldn't imagine doing anything else. I've turned down jobs offering high wages and better benefits because they would be nowhere near as rewarding as what I do now.
I go home at night and sleep well, because I know that day I built up some damn fine rifles, and customers will be as proud of their purchase as I am.
I would hands down trust my life to my personal XCR. I would take that XCR into a battlefield if it came to that. I know many LEOs who carry the XCR as their duty rifle, and am close friends with many current and ex military men who agree the XCR is an outstanding platform. If you don't believe me, I will quite happily gather their testimonies for your perusal.
I can't compete with all the regular naysayers. Time and time again these topics come up, and it makes me just sick when I read them. It's the same people, over and over, spreading the FUD. All I can do is chip in with my $.02 and leave it at that.
Our capital on the XCR is really very minimum, so that we can offer it at a reasonable price and still make it in the US.
I can't speak for everyone at RA, but I don't work for peanuts because I can't find anything else. I do it because I love the work I do, the rifle I build, and couldn't imagine doing anything else. I've turned down jobs offering high wages and better benefits because they would be nowhere near as rewarding as what I do now.
I go home at night and sleep well, because I know that day I built up some damn fine rifles, and customers will be as proud of their purchase as I am.
I would hands down trust my life to my personal XCR. I would take that XCR into a battlefield if it came to that. I know many LEOs who carry the XCR as their duty rifle, and am close friends with many current and ex military men who agree the XCR is an outstanding platform. If you don't believe me, I will quite happily gather their testimonies for your perusal.
I can't compete with all the regular naysayers. Time and time again these topics come up, and it makes me just sick when I read them. It's the same people, over and over, spreading the FUD. All I can do is chip in with my $.02 and leave it at that.
I don't have a SAN, but I really like my XCR. It has the new trigger, has not had a failure, and the "breakin" was without a problem. The machining and finish is quite nice on my rifle and it is more robust than some ARs that I have dealt with. It's not perfect for everyone, BUT, for the cost and the advantages in Canada I think it is a good value for the money.
I also don't see the "it hasn't been in combat" argument as a deciding factor. For lots of money something might be better, or worse, but military contracts are not always based on performance and common sense. The British SA80 after Gulf War 1 was a rifle that had seen combat with a major military, and IT WAS JUNK. Only now after years and upgrades has it become a reliable combat worthy rifle.
I also don't see the "it hasn't been in combat" argument as a deciding factor. For lots of money something might be better, or worse, but military contracts are not always based on performance and common sense. The British SA80 after Gulf War 1 was a rifle that had seen combat with a major military, and IT WAS JUNK. Only now after years and upgrades has it become a reliable combat worthy rifle.
For me that is exactly the point...I like weapons systems that were used hard in bad conditions for years. That way they become a known quantity.
Would I be interested in an SA80? No, probably not. But putting that rifle through hell and back by the thousands is how we know what upgrades are required to make it a worthwhile rifle.
The XCR may not be a bad rifle...but it has not seen the kind of T&E that a lot of other systems have. I am not against the XCR. I do think it is worth noting that it is not taken very seriously by anyone very serious, anywhere I have ever been.
When I start seeing professional HSLD types saying "this is a damn good rifle" THEN I will pay attention. When I see people with less that a thousand rounds a year through their gun say "this is a great gun" I just think, "great for you is not great for everyone".
I REALLY wanted to like the XCR and spent a lot of time researching the gun. I just could not turn up any heavy duty users who were interested in or impressed with it. I found a lot of light users who proclaimed very loudly that it was the best gun in the world.
If the XCR develops in to a great rifle I will be the first person to applaud. But for now I will stick to guns that get the go-ahead from guys who have run a number of different gun systems hard, in a war, for a living.
- Location
- Georgetown Ontario
Terra YOU ROCK! and you are the main reason I bought an XCR.
People's ideas about monetary value in the canadian firearms market are so far off base...
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/812/products_id/56840
I agree with greentips.
I believe every weapon has initial or "teething" problems.
One of my shooting buddies bought one of the first XCRs that were available in Canada. It jammed often and failed to extract during his first range session. Turned out there was an issue with the rifle (I don't remember I think there was a rough chamber). Anyway he spoke to Wolverine and got a barrel change and hasn't had a problem since with at least two thousand rounds in it within the first year with factory ammo and regular cleaning (he wasn't abusing it). It was great customer service from Wolverine and Robinson Armament.
Having said that the SIG/SAN is based on a older (1977) and proven design. I'm pretty sure they experienced some problems from first production as they have had many upgrades since. Such as there were quite serious problems with the 552 they were addressed and fixed in the 553. The new 556 had picatinny rails that were not up to specification and would not hold a zero and a weak folding front sight prone to damage. SIG is currently addressing these issues and I have no doubt they will fix them. No weapon system is perfect and probably never will be. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it the best it can be.
The AR-15 was plagued with problems initially. Wrong powder used than advised and a decreased emphasis on training (thought initially to be self-cleaning). However these issues were addressed and with proper maintenance, parts replacement and lots of lube (Slip-2000 is awesome!) the AR-15 can be incredibly reliable. The original AR-10 design is from 1958 and they are still creating reliability upgrades.
While the Robinson Armament is very new it likely won't be war tested soon because many countries are not considering replacing their standard service rifles. That said I read a rumour that one European country ordered a rather large lot of XCRs (it was in a guns and weapons for LE magazine I will try to find that article). If you want something that is proven? That's okay, you cannot fault that, but realize someone must battle test it in order to find out if it's the real deal and some of those people cannot release their names let alone write an article for the general public.
I'm glad that Robinson Armament developed the XCR. There are few truly "new" designs today. It takes courage and a lot of work to develop a new system and make it work every time. Keep up the good work.
I believe every weapon has initial or "teething" problems.
One of my shooting buddies bought one of the first XCRs that were available in Canada. It jammed often and failed to extract during his first range session. Turned out there was an issue with the rifle (I don't remember I think there was a rough chamber). Anyway he spoke to Wolverine and got a barrel change and hasn't had a problem since with at least two thousand rounds in it within the first year with factory ammo and regular cleaning (he wasn't abusing it). It was great customer service from Wolverine and Robinson Armament.
Having said that the SIG/SAN is based on a older (1977) and proven design. I'm pretty sure they experienced some problems from first production as they have had many upgrades since. Such as there were quite serious problems with the 552 they were addressed and fixed in the 553. The new 556 had picatinny rails that were not up to specification and would not hold a zero and a weak folding front sight prone to damage. SIG is currently addressing these issues and I have no doubt they will fix them. No weapon system is perfect and probably never will be. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it the best it can be.
The AR-15 was plagued with problems initially. Wrong powder used than advised and a decreased emphasis on training (thought initially to be self-cleaning). However these issues were addressed and with proper maintenance, parts replacement and lots of lube (Slip-2000 is awesome!) the AR-15 can be incredibly reliable. The original AR-10 design is from 1958 and they are still creating reliability upgrades.
While the Robinson Armament is very new it likely won't be war tested soon because many countries are not considering replacing their standard service rifles. That said I read a rumour that one European country ordered a rather large lot of XCRs (it was in a guns and weapons for LE magazine I will try to find that article). If you want something that is proven? That's okay, you cannot fault that, but realize someone must battle test it in order to find out if it's the real deal and some of those people cannot release their names let alone write an article for the general public.
I'm glad that Robinson Armament developed the XCR. There are few truly "new" designs today. It takes courage and a lot of work to develop a new system and make it work every time. Keep up the good work.
skinnadoor
Regular
- Location
- BC, Canada
Big X2...
On paper the XCR is a amazing idea.. in practice so far, it's failing to hold up. That doesn't mean that it won't become what Robarm is looking for. I highly doubt that they'll just say "f*ck it.. it doesn't do what I want well enough, stop making them". I'm sure that in time they'll address all the concerns and it'll become a reliable rifle.
I also doubt that the people building these rifles like XCRmonger would do anything half-assed. It's trial and error and unfortunately that is often a long road to something on the level of a SIG/SAN rifle. I have no doubt it'll get there, it's just not now. It's a process that can take years, even decades of hard professional use. I really hope that they can stick it out and when all issues are addressed and proven, I'll be first in line to pick up a Robarm rifle.
And for those reasons I'd stick to my Swiss.
Uh, this may be considered a newbie question or get me trounced in some other way, but as a non-military man (and one who wouldn't be able to take either of these rifles into the theatre if I was), Why would I care about the combat-worthiness of one over the week-end shootability of the other? Last I looked, we weren't being overrun by zombies, so the extra grand for a combat weapon seems to tip the cost:benefit ratio the wrong way. If the Rob Arms gun shoots well, wouldn't that be enough for most of the week-end shooters out there?
Or is this another one of those Mac/PC things?
Or is this another one of those Mac/PC things?
Maybe you wouldn't care and that is 100% valid and sensible for you.
Some shooters are totally satisfied with a weekend range or bush toy and that is good enough for them and I applaud those people for being honest about their needs.
Some shooters consider their guns potential defensive weapons and want the "it will always be there for me"-ness of a battle-proven rifle.
Some people just want the pose factor.
Some people just want the best, bar none.
My only concern is people who want to PRETEND their gun is something different than what it is, because they spent a lot of money on it. I think if you start out with the attitude, "I want a fun toy for blasting stuff on the weekend, and looking tacticool would also be awesome" then the XCR is tough to beat, especially since the 180b is so hard to find now.
But if you have the attitude, "my XCR is a combat-ready rifle and anyone who says different is lying" then I think you need to drink less coffee and detach yourself from your purchase emotionally.
I would say the same about lots of ARs, so it is nothing specific against the XCR platform.
Okay, I guess I can see that. I'm only looking at maybe getting something for competition shooting (And I'm probably looking more towards Rock River, though I can't keep my eyes off those Swiss Arms goodies). For home defence, if I miss with my Louisville slugger, I don't run the risk of drilling a neighbour, so I don't see that as being a factor.
I guess I'd be more tempted by the Rob Arms, simply because I can't justify the cost of the Swiss, but I don't see myself depending on my gun for my survival.
While I agree that people get attached to their purchases, it is possible that on an individual basis that it could be combat ready but maybe not heavily combat tested.
For Mike Kelly who won the Canadian Nationals Level III 3-Gun Match competition using his XCR Rifle than compared to your standard weekend shooter with and XCR is different. If you have taken courses and competed with it extensively it would in my opinion be considered reliable.
I think the "combat-ready" factor is two folded. Years of use by a military in a variety of extreme conditions is one. The SIG/SAN has had this and the XCR has not but only because it is too new. To gain such a reputation requires extensive time and testing. The people at Robarms make good products and my M96 proved it to me with after ten years of hard use. After ten to twenty years we could make an accurate judgment for the XCR.
The second part of "combat-ready" I feel is the individual and their training. No matter hold good the rifle is does not make up for a lack of training and practice. When I pick up my buddy's XCR or my other buddy's Swiss Arms I don't shoot as well as they can with them because I haven't practiced, trained and dry fired it a million times like they have. That said I can match and beat them with my M96 for which I have practiced and trained with and dry fired a million times. There is always the human error factor such as not seating the magazine correctly and having a dud round. If you do not practice and learn how to problem solve your rifle and situation it doesn't matter how great your rifle is. It's now become worthless if in a life and death situation unless you've trained on how to deal with malfunctions.
I've seen too many shooters with all types of firearms, AR15s from all types of brands, SIG Swiss Army, XCR, M96s who did not know how to deal with malfunctions and other problems. For them I would not consider any one of them "combat-ready" because when it does fail (lack of cleaning, malfunction, etc...) they cannot solve the problem.
Could someone please explain to me all the specific technical differences between the two rifles besides the fact that one looks different, has an aluminum lower and uses different magazines? I've done plenty of searching and all I ever seem to read is that the sig 556 must be crappy because it's not 100% built by the swiss, and that people don't think it looks as nice.
