XCR What happened?

My XCR in 223 wouldnt shoot worth a #### (6moa), sent in the barrel, my new bbl should be in within a week or two. Im going to run a whole bunch of ammo through it and post the groups up (10 shot). Hopefully it can do better then 2moa.

Personally i dont think it can do too much better than that, what with all that mass moving backwards, and its supposed to be super reliable, which means the tolerances probably arent as tight. But we'll see.

I wouldnt take a second look at an XCR if i could run an AR non-restricted. Period.
 
308smk said:
My XCR in 223 wouldnt shoot worth a s**t (6moa), sent in the barrel, my new bbl should be in within a week or two. Im going to run a whole bunch of ammo through it and post the groups up (10 shot). Hopefully it can do better then 2moa.

Personally i dont think it can do too much better than that, what with all that mass moving backwards, and its supposed to be super reliable, which means the tolerances probably arent as tight. But we'll see.

I wouldnt take a second look at an XCR if i could run an AR non-restricted. Period.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with an honest 2MOA out of a rifle like the XCR IMO. Nothing at all. That goes for any rack grade semi auto.

To have a gas gun that will do this sort of accuracy is going to outshoot most shooters who do not dwell on benchrests.
 
Paul Morrison said:
Uh-huh... And why does the XCR get singled out for this ridiculous demand?
Click to expand...


The fact that you think this is a ridiculous demand just confirms that you are a part of Robinson's target demographic IMO.

I would not consider this to be an even SLIGHTLY out of line request for determining the accuracy of ANY weapon, and if I was trying to sell people on the platform in general, I would want to see it done with a dozen different copies of the gun.

That is excessive for "plinking with a range toy hobby shooters", I guess.

But the XCR is supposed to be a next-generation military grade weapons system.

I would treat it like I would an AR, because it's SUPPOSED to play on the same field as ARs.

Any AR I was testing would get at LEAST 100 measured rounds with a given ammo down the pipe to establish the accuracy of the rifle. For general function testing on top of accuracy, I would say the initial testing should be around 500-1000 rounds.

When I pass the 1000 round mark with a gun, then, assuming the performance has been absolutely consistent and trouble free, I will say the gun is fine.

There is no useful information provided by your targets because there is enough deviation in average factory ammo that three rounds pretty close together could mean anything.

Do at least 5 shot groups (and frankly I think 10 is better) and do twenty of them. Then we should be able to get some idea of how the weapon performs, accuracy-wise at least.
 
It doesnt, go on other forums its common now that people ask for 5 shot groups.
Click to expand...

Umm... that is a 5 shot group. I'm merely confessing that the two 'fliers' are my fault. Which they were.

I'll take it to the range again soon, and I'll post a 100 round group, which I'm sure the haters will claim I did with a pencil or something.


The fact that you think this is a ridiculous demand just confirms that you are a part of Robinson's target demographic IMO.
Click to expand...

No, what I think is ridiculous is that the haters come out of the woodwork in EVERY XCR thread.

I would not consider this to be an even SLIGHTLY out of line request for determining the accuracy of ANY weapon, and if I was trying to sell people on the platform in general, I would want to see it done with a dozen different copies of the gun.
Click to expand...

Except that I didn't post it for proving accuracy generally. Someone merely asked if I liked it, I said yes, and posted the pic. Why does every XCR thread turn into a #### measuring competition? That is answered simply: some people have a hard on for bashing the XCR. In my opinion, those people should find another posting hobby.
 
Paul Morrison said:
In my opinion, those people should find another posting hobby.
Click to expand...

Some are trying to ensure that those new to the hobby don't get misled into purchasing something that may cause grief based on one side of the story. ;)

I don't in any way hate the XCR. I am probably at the forefront of those that would like to see it work out for the Canadian rec shooter. I do, however, hate many of the unrealistic claims that often go with it.
 
Paul a ten round group is a very accurate picture of how well the rifle will perform in Fclass and TR circles it is the norm to have 10 rnd groups fired for accuracy testing it really does remove a lot of variables.If you are calling the flyers and they keep hitting the same area it might not be a flyer it also be that it how you are setting up behind the rifle .Breathing ,trigger control and and a host of other issues may contribute to the flyers .
 
Paul Morrison said:
No, what I think is ridiculous is that the haters come out of the woodwork in EVERY XCR thread.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think is ridiculous, you probably should have said something along those lines. But the mild testing I described is no more than what I would expect from ANY gun. Asking for something which indicates the capabilities of the gun is not prejudicial treatment of the XCR.

It's fine if you like the XCR. I would hope you have the sense to recognize that not every critique of it is from someone who a priori hates the thing.
 
So when will we have the great CGN shoot off...between

The XCR and the Mini 14 :)

Post the 10 round groups when you get a chance.
 
If that's what you think is ridiculous, you probably should have said something along those lines. But the mild testing I described is no more than what I would expect from ANY gun. Asking for something which indicates the capabilities of the gun is not prejudicial treatment of the XCR.
Click to expand...

I've read an awful lot of threads on this site, and in this forum, and I've yet to see you demand 20 ten round groups in any other thread. Not the Tavor threads, not the SL-8 threads, not the AR-15 threads, not the Swiss arms threads. I've never seen ANYONE make such a demand, so yes, it is patently unreasonable.
 
Paul Morrison said:
I've read an awful lot of threads on this site, and in this forum, and I've yet to see you demand 20 ten round groups in any other thread. Not the Tavor threads, not the SL-8 threads, not the AR-15 threads, not the Swiss arms threads. I've never seen ANYONE make such a demand, so yes, it is patently unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Paul I will gladly do a 10 rnd string out of both my Colt AR's a 20" and the Colt M4 Soccom at 100 m and I suggest that we bag the rifles it will reduce several shooter induced variable's.
 
Paul Morrison said:
I've read an awful lot of threads on this site, and in this forum, and I've yet to see you demand 20 ten round groups in any other thread. Not the Tavor threads, not the SL-8 threads, not the AR-15 threads, not the Swiss arms threads. I've never seen ANYONE make such a demand, so yes, it is patently unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you don't spend much time around serious shooters.

The reason I have never asked for a similar test from an AR is that I know enough about AR performance that in 95% of cases the results would not be a surprise.

In the case of the SIG/SAN stuff, their track record is well established and again I am sufficiently familiar with the performance of the rifles that I don't really need to see it tested.

I have never asked about the SL8 because I don't care for them and they are not suited to the type of shooting I do, although they do tend to be accurate guns.

The test I am describing is a basic and fundamental way to establish the accuracy of the gun. It is not remotely unreasonable and ANY serious shooter would tell you the same thing, because it is the ONLY way to establish the performance of the rifle! Repeatability is everything with shooting.
 
Paul I will gladly do a 10 rnd string out of both my Colt AR's a 20" and the Colt M4 Soccom at 100 m and I suggest that we bag the rifles it will reduce several shooter induced variable's.
Click to expand...

See, now you've reduced the argument to ten shots v. 5. I think that's a logical, defensible position. We can argue all day about who's gun is better.

My objection is that misanthopist thinks I'm being unreasonable for calling his request ridiculous. That request demanded TWENTY targets of 10 rounds each. I'm sorry, but that's stupid, unreasonable, and I'm not going to waste 200 rounds (and 20 targets) on a #### measuring competition with him.
 
Paul Morrison said:
See, now you've reduced the argument to ten shots v. 5. I think that's a logical, defensible position. We can argue all day about who's gun is better.

My objection is that misanthopist thinks I'm being unreasonable for calling his request ridiculous. That request demanded TWENTY targets of 10 rounds each. I'm sorry, but that's stupid, unreasonable, and I'm not going to waste 200 rounds (and 20 targets) on a #### measuring competition with him.
Click to expand...

See, we just don't see eye to eye. If I had a rifle/shooter system that had a 40% flier rate, I would not see a (or several) large round grouping session as a waste of ammo at all. One way or another, the 200(or more) rounds will explain a bunch.

These are all things that I (and others I know) went through with our XCRs in attempt to get them to shoot as best as they could. In the end, I simply got fedup with fixing an alpha grade design. I really wanted the design to work though. Dissappointing.
 
Paul Morrison said:
See, now you've reduced the argument to ten shots v. 5. I think that's a logical, defensible position. We can argue all day about who's gun is better.

My objection is that misanthopist thinks I'm being unreasonable for calling his request ridiculous. That request demanded TWENTY targets of 10 rounds each. I'm sorry, but that's stupid, unreasonable, and I'm not going to waste 200 rounds (and 20 targets) on a #### measuring competition with him.
Click to expand...

I agree it really is an unrealistic request unless he was putting up the ammunition for the test . At the end of the day it I will have had some fun.
 
Don't fret Paul, I just bought an XCR...should arrive tommorrow :)

It's kinda funny how I'm watching the comparison of a 52 year old proven design against a 4 year old one.... how many refinments has the AR platform gone through in it's life... more than 1 or 2 I'm gonna guess...

look at the end of the day if you want a non-restricted "black rifle" in our little commie country you have only a few choices...and the xcr is one of them and as far as my "don't mean sh*t" opinion goes it's not a bad one, especially f you want something to "personalize" and hang a bunch of school girl bullsh*t off of...

Over priced...yup
A little heavy...yup
Questionable quality control...you betcha


At the end of the day, who fu*kin cares.....If you don't like it don't buy it!!!

(rANT oFF)
 
carbonrod said:
See, we just don't see eye to eye. If I had a rifle/shooter system that had a 40% flier rate, I would not see a (or several) large round grouping session as a waste of ammo at all. One way or another, the 200(or more) rounds will explain a bunch.
Click to expand...
The other issue is shooting for accuracy you really need to reduce any outside influence when conducting accuracy test this should be properly done using a ransom rest securly mounted on a bench. Seeing this may not be possible using bags to support the rifle will work although not perfect it does work better than a bipod.
 
HatersGonnaHate.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom