Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: XCR versus severe conditions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    114
    Feedback Score
    0

    XCR versus severe conditions

    Yesterday, I ran the XCR through a series of tests to see how it does against severe conditions. The testing was caught on video by an area pro and I should have it back from editing by the end of the week. Prior to testing, the gun was cleaned and oiled. Ammo was M193 out of Pmags. I did switch to my other lower with a fixed CTR as I did not want to get the foam pad on the folder soaked with water and mud. I figured the CTR would be easier to clean afterwards. The scope and light were stripped as there was no need to expose them to the sand and mud.

    The first test was a sand test in which the gun was laid ejection port side down and sand poured over the gun covering everything from the gas block to the rear of the receiver. I wanted to see if the charging handle would let in enough grit to cause a problem. I picked the gun up as smooth as I could trying not to shake off any sand and fired the gun. In doing so, the upper receiver popped up. I slapped it back down, chambered a new round, and fired again. The chamber popped open again.

    As I continued testing, I found that the rear pin was not locking fully into the lower receiver. This had not happened on the lower normally run with the XCR-SF configuration so I did not check for it. I seated the pin gently with a hammer and had no further problems. I checked my various lowers and pins today with calipers and all are within .002 inches. It looks like acceptable tolerances stacked up in a bad combination for me. I doubt you need to worry about this with a factory gun, but if you have BRD like I do and swap uppers and lowers, check to make sure the rear pin locks fully. It did not hurt anything, but is a surprise when it pops open during shooting. It has loosened up enough now that I can seat it by hand, but still doesn’t seat by itself.

    Back to the testing. I laid the gun in the sand from the first test with the ejection port up and again covered it from just in front of the gas block to the end of the receiver. Sand filling the ejection port did not slow it down a bit.

    Next was the submersion test. The gun was taken straight from the sand test and submerged. If there was sand on the gun, so be it. The gun worked fine. The gun was submerged a second time with no problems.

    Following the submersion test was the mud test. I mixed up mud slightly thicker than a milk shake. The gun was laid on the ground with the ejection port up. Mud was poured over the gun from front to back, more than an inch thick. The gun was pulled from the mud and fired. It fired and the empty cleared the ejection port, but did not have enough energy to fully chamber the new round. The gun was cleared and a round chambered and fired with the same results. The gun was then submerged in the water trying to get it clean enough to fire. It would fire, eject, and start to chamber but could not fully seat a round.

    I broke the gun down, cleaned it and oiled it in preparation for the final test. With the exposed gas tube of the SF configuration, some people have expressed a concern over the gas tube being fragile. The tube was hit with a hammer hard enough and repeatedly to dimple the tube. The gun still functioned fine. The tube was struck in a second location creating a second dimple and functioned fine. In inspecting the gun later in the day, I found that I had actually bent a portion of the rear of the gas block. It did not seem to matter.

    As a note, the sand test was repeated after cleaning (not sure if it was before or after the hammer test) with the pin fully locked and performed as expected. The sand did not make a difference.

    All in all, I came away really impressed with the XCR. No matter how dirty I got it, it would always fire and eject the spent shell. I am not sure other designs would have always cleared the empty. I don’t know if I expected the gun to pass the mud test or not. That was a lot to throw at it, especially after being buried in sand and submersed.

    An ejection port cover may have helped if it was closed before getting covered in mud. Can one always be sure that you will dive into the mud before the firing and not during? Would the ejection port cover hang up due to the mud and block the ejection port?

    I should have the video by the end of the week and will be sure to post it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Looking forward to your vid.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I got the 2nd draft today and the video should be fun to watch. It was shot in HD, but I don't know if I'll be able to upload it to you tube in HD or not. Here is the exerpt of the hammer test.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubXbesM8TgY

    BTW, we had fall training/quals the last two days and the gun performed flawlessly. There was no sign that it had been run through the ringer. I did have to replace the barrel as during the testing it swelled between the gas block and the muzzle break. I have been talking with RA to compare notes on how their barrels faired during the over beach test to see if there is a problem, or during the mud test, I got something in the barrel. As I know more, I'll let everyone know. I would not have known the barrel swelled if I had not grouped the gun before and after the tests as there was no outward sign of damage.

    To RA's credit, they had me a barrel out ASAP so I could complete my training.

    Here's the second sand test after I figured out the locking pin problem.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0gfiCS99Lg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I had to upload the finished video in two parts. Here is part one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz7sTU8J6O4

    BTW, I re read my owner's manual and it warns about checking the upper and lower and making sure they are locked. Who knew I should have paid more attention to the manual all these years?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5
    Feedback Score
    0

    XCR Not Set Up Correctly; Non-Standard Configuration

    First of all, let me say, we greatly appreciate independent testers and the feedback they provide. We continually make changes to improve the product.

    That being said, please note that Jeremy's rifle was not stock but had been modified to a configuration that is not recommended by the manufacturer.

    He shortened the receiver, exposing the holes in the gas tube. Those hole quickly filled with both sand and mud causing the malfunctions.

    If he would have used a standard length upper receiver and then turned the gas tube to the adverse setting (i.e., gas holes up toward top of the upper receiver), he most likely would have had no problems.

    You cannot take a manufacturer's product and make changes without thinking about the ramifications. We do not make a special gas tube for the configuration Jeremy was using, yet.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5
    Feedback Score
    0

    Safety!!! Warning!!!

    I have blown up rifles (not the XCR) but putting them in a muddy slurry which went down the barrel bore.

    When you do testing that could obstruct the bore in any way, you potentially have a dangerous situation on your hands. We test in a laboratory behind shielding before we go out and do crazy things with our rifles.

    There's a trend to doing crazy things with firearms and posting videos on the web. We strongly suggest that you leave it to professionals who know and understand the limits of the systems they are testing.

    We disclaim any liability for injury that results from misuse of our products. Read the Operator's Manual carefully. Few do.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I agree with KOLOB on getting things down the bore. When you watch the videos, I made sure to not get sand and mud down the bore as it was not worth the risk. I also had on body armor and double eye protection.

    KOLOB is correct about the gas tube. I did not block the holes in any way. The sand did not pose a problem and I would imagine with the new lightweight piston there would be even more room for sand inside the gas tube, even with the exposed vent holes.

    In retrospect, I should have done the mud test twice, once with the ejection port down and then once with the ejection port up as I did. I would imagine the first test would have been more successful.

    In addition, I found an article from a well know trainer that recommended the combat dip for cleaning mud. I am not sure if the article left out some information or not, but after testing the idea, I do not recommend it. It did a great job of getting rid of most of the mud and if the "dip" would have been followed by a traditional cleaning, all would have been fine.

    I understand RA needs to cover their liability bases.

    That said, I applaud them for making such a robust and modular platform. I put the same rifle through 2 days of training and quals 4 days later and it performed like a champ.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    114
    Feedback Score
    0
    Here's part 2 showing break down/cleaning/maintenance (some tricks that may speed up cleaning), hammer test and a second sand test with a properly locked upper and lower.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mog9L0yqjQk

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •