New pics of Robarm XCR Micro

**rob_s** · 09-22-09, 08:02

Now that hysteria has abounded in both directions...

For those that have the XCRs, is there reason for the missing sections of rail? Is it strictly a weight saving measure? If so what is the number of oz. saved over doing it the "right" way? Or is it just an aesthetic treatment to try and make the gun stand out?

On a side note, saw some pictures on another forum of what appeared to be welded (or at least aggressively staked) bolts on the extractor and what is captioned as being a better one-piece bolt catch. Moves in the right direction for sure.

**Chieftain** · 09-23-09, 05:23

Now that hysteria has abounded in both directions...

Ah.... the ole’ “I have no valid argument to answer with, so I will call everyone else hysterical.”

Fascinating.

Funny how these days facts and REAL history is accused of being hysteria. Wow. I guess we need to rewrite that history too.

For those that have the XCRs, is there reason for the missing sections of rail? Is it strictly a weight saving measure? If so what is the number of oz. saved over doing it the "right" way? Or is it just an aesthetic treatment to try and make the gun stand out?

Yea there appears to be a very important reason. To really piss off folks that think it is important and that it really makes a difference. The surprising part is that the folks that get the most “hysterical” about it, are the folks that would not consider the “other” rifle on a bet. Some folks would call that being defensive.

Such is the nature of religious faith and dogma when a believer thinks they themselves or their object of worship is under attack.

Simply amazing.

On a side note, saw some pictures on another forum of what appeared to be welded (or at least aggressively staked) bolts on the extractor and what is captioned as being a better one-piece bolt catch. Moves in the right direction for sure.

Yup, and it didn’t take 30-40 years to fix it. And no US troops died in finding out what didn’t work either. Unlike the AR15/M16/M4 systems.

I guess some folks just have a different value system than I do.

It really is amazing.

Go figure.

Fred

**rob_s** · 09-23-09, 05:27

Wow, the irony of spending an entire post defending your hysteria while simultaneously not providing a single constructive point. I'm shocked.

I asked a legitimate question. If you can't get past your emotional attachment to your purchases and answer legitimate questions perhaps you should take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard.

**Iraqgunz** · 09-23-09, 06:34

Just out of curiousity. What troops in Iraq were killed due to their Colt weapon failing? Just wondering since I have been over there for almost 3 years total since 2005 and never heard about it.

For the record I don't own a Colt not do I have a Robinson Arms anything.

Originally Posted by Chieftain

Funny, they did. We called it the E1M16. I really did put fellow Marine bodies in body bags and MedEvac'd out other Marines because of that "Loser Novelty" weapon Colt foisted on the US military. I don't recommend a fire fight with the NVA and you holding a single shot, fully automatic plastic rifle that don't work. I believe it was possible one of the earliest of the extreme sports. I do know it was a killer.

And PLEASE! it wasn't just the powder in the cartridges, that just exacerbated a very poorly executed and designed POS that some one had the temerity to call a rifle. Another reason the Air Force should select the rifle for the the Army or Marine infantry.

That was back in 1967.

Col. Culver tells the story much better than I can. He has a lot more facts than I do. I was not in the Col's outfit, but our experiences were similar and we were there about the same time both in the 3rd Marine Division:

Part I
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

Part II
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

But that is only if you can get off the Colt kool Aide long enough to allow some facts to get in. This story isn't opinion, or fantasy, this is history. It really happened, and I was one of the folks there while it was happening.

My XCR works just fine. All my equipment is attached by Larue mounts. I have one of the very early models serial number 5XX about 4 years old now. But you know all that, don't you. After all you know and understand the technology.

As to the Colt guns, I see where that weapon is still getting troops killed and captured in Iraq. Of course you can always spout the OFFICIAL line of crap, The Army desperately trying to justify keeping a weak design and cartridge in the troops hands. Heck even when the tried to FIX the first "sand" test their rifle lost. Not as bad as the second test that folks were now looking for them to cheat, so they had to play it square. But I understand you love the kool aide.

I guess it's those little machined in little blocks that make all the difference. At least to you.

A little advice from ole LtCol Jeff Cooper:

Sheesh, talk about a loss of preportion.

Go figure.

Fred

**Iraqgunz** · 09-23-09, 06:35

So I am also curious as to why the rails are made the way they are instead of the "industry norm" so to speak. Is there a real reason?

**scottryan** · 09-23-09, 08:12

Originally Posted by Chieftain

Yup, and it didn’t take 30-40 years to fix it. And no US troops died in finding out what didn’t work either. Unlike the AR15/M16/M4 systems.

I guess some folks just have a different value system than I do.

It really is amazing.

Go figure.

Fred

You are full of shit.

It didn't take 30-40 years to fix. It actually took 7 years. If you want to debate if there needed to be a fix in the first place. The same internals adopted for the AR-15 series in 1971 are the same internals used today.

**Chieftain** · 09-23-09, 08:15

What troops in Iraq were killed due to their Colt weapon failing

Army 507th maintenance company. Was the story that got the widest coverage. Of course their weapons didn't work because they were dirty. The Brass have been accusing the troops of their rifles/carbines jamming since their first week in combat in 1967. NOTHING new here.

Report from a friend in-Country (Iraq):

2 August 2009

"Big gun-battle here yesterday!

I experienced a failure-to-extract with my M4. I couldn't clear it, so I had to default to my M9 (Beretta 92F). Insurgents tried to shoot me as I was performed immediate-action/transition, but I was moving so fast they were unsuccessful. M9 ran fine.

My experience is not unusual. Lots of extraction issues here with the M4. Ammunition is being blamed, but it strikes me that the real problem is soft-extraction, due to worn extractors. Many are chipped and otherwise badly haggard."

Comment: It is well know that the bolt, and particularly the extractor, is a weak-point with the Stoner System. The extractor and extractor-spring must be perpetually looked after.

MGI's "D-Ring" is an interim fix that is enormously helpful. Highly recommended for all ARs.

There is an interesting discussion on 10-8 about bolt's breaking. Kevin Lamb stated that he sees 6-8 mil-spec bolts (most likely Colt bolts) break out of every 40! He doesn't say, but am guessing that that the weapons used are MK18 and M4's (which as we know, have carbine length gas systems).

I then get a PM from a Battalion Armorer stating that for almost 10 years, he has only come across one broken bolt.

The interesting part is that they are running A2/A4's. This points directly to what we have always known, that the carbine gas system is MUCH more violent and hard on components than the rifle length gas system.

A buddy sent me a pdf from a firm that is trying to sell the round counters to the military. They state that bolts fail on Gubmint issued M4s between 3K to 6K rounds under harsh conditions. 6K to 10K on "milder" schedules. Barrels burn out at about the same time.

I've heard all the stories about Bushmaster and "others" failing, but it looks like all M4 type carbines have this problem. I wonder if the size of the gas ports could be changed to decrease the pressure? I've added a heavy buffer but that does not address the pressure coming down the gas tube and the resulting pressure placed on the parts in the BCG.

I could go on. We simply need a more robust and reliable rifle. 40 years of the Same Old Shit.

I presume you believe the M4's have never failed at the moment of truth. I don't believe that. The sad fact is we often will never know if the troopers rifle jammed or the Haji got the drop on him, will we?

We need to get a more reliable system in our troops hands, as soon as possible.

What ever we choose, it needs a more robust bolt, extractor, and more effective caliber, and be piston driven, to primarily keep the heat away from the critical functioning parts of the weapon.

Not all piston weapons solve all those problems. I don't believe a Piston AR rifle/carbine is the answer. It retains to many of the other weak componants. We need a new design, there are several to choose from right now. Of course a new design would work. The Israeli Tavor looks pretty good, or something of that ilk. I am not crazy about Bullpup designs, but it does seem to be the future.

I do think we need to keep the AR family's concept of ergonomics and of a component rifle.

So I am also curious as to why the rails are made the way they are instead of the "industry norm" so to speak. Is there a real reason?

One more time.

To piss off folks that don't want to like the rifle and can't find any better reason to not like it. They work, Some folks think it is an important issue because, well just because. I guess what you think is important and what I think is important is a lot different. I would suggest you Call, Email or go to the XCR forum and ask. Seems to be very important to you.

Careful you don't slip into "hysteria". Seems to be a lot of that flying around here. Or at least folks accusing other folks of it.

Simply amazing.

Go figure.

Fred

**scottryan** · 09-23-09, 08:22

Originally Posted by Chieftain

Army 507th maintenance company. Was the story that got the widest coverage. Of course their weapons didn't work because they were dirty. The Brass have been accusing the troops of their rifles/carbines jamming since their first week in combat in 1967. NOTHING new here.

Keep posting. You're making yourself look ignorant.

The M16 series was not adopted in 1967.

What ever we choose, it needs a more robust bolt, extractor, and more effective caliber, and be piston driven, to primarily keep the heat away from the critical functioning parts of the weapon.

Almost every modern NATO rifle that is actually fielded and used in real life has a similar bolt and extractor as what is on the AR15.