View Full Version : Adcor B.E.A.R. ELITE First Impressions Review/Issues
Freerunner
09-09-11, 14:03
I recently purchased this Adcor B.E.A.R. Elite rifle (there are two versions, the basic model and the ELITE model; the elite model comes with a FN cold hammer forged barrel and MagPul MOE furniture) and upon first inspection noticed a few issues. Before I get into the issues, I would like to say that the rifle feels very good in hand and is light weight for a gas piston AR system. The rail and upper are perfectly aligned and the external finish is better than any I have seen on comparable rifles.
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems011.jpg
Now into the issues. To start, the rifles magazine well (internally) has a lip, about half way up, around the whole perimeter (it sticks out about a 1/32nd of an inch). It appears that the machining process failed to remove the excess metal, and this lip is causing a grove to be created on one side of the P-Mag as the magazine is inserted and removed repeatedly.
From this picture, you will notice the groove from the bottom:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems013.jpg
This is the groove from the top view:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems014.jpg
This lip does not impede the weapon from functioning; however, it does cause a slight rubbing issue with the magazine. I find this completely unacceptable. The place I was purchasing the ADCOR ELITE rifle from was selling the ELITE upper for $899.00 and the entire rifle for $1499.00. So this means that the lower itself was $600.00. I do not find a lower with misaligned machining to be worth the price they are asking. I could have easily purchased the upper and bought a decent lower for around $300.00 and saved myself some money.
Secondly, as I have spent some time manipulating this weapon, I have noticed that the front charging handle cover has become worn and a small amount of metal has become exposed on the handle itself. This has caused a vast amount metal to be removed from the front rail where the front charging handle comes into contact with it at closing (the metal being removed looks like chunks have been taken out, and there are flakes of metal all over the rail itself).
I asked ADCOR if pulling the front charging handle back and letting it go was a proper way of manipulating the weapon, they assured me it was, and that metal should not be coming off. ADCOR initially explained to me that this sounds like a failure of some sort. I have only pulled the front charging handle back and let it go no more than two dozen times for it to get to this point. I do not understand how this is a failure, it appears to be the result of the natural design of the weapon that causes this to happen.
Each time that the forward charging handle is pulled back and let go, new metal dimples appear and more metal is taken off each time. I could see after doing this around a hundred times, that there would no longer be a shelf there for the charging handle to hold onto.
Here are some pics:
The first picture shows where the handle material has come off:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems002.jpg
These next pictures shows the wear area on the rail itself:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems004.jpg
The next couple of pictures shows the wear areas, with the pieces of metal shavings all over the front of the rail:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems010.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems009.jpg
I contacted ADCOR and had a long conversation with them regarding these issues. I talked with Jerry (the guy who answers the phone when you first call), and he decided to do a three way call with Brown Jr. (the rifle creators son). Brown Jr. came to the conclusion that I needed to send my rifle in to have the lower replaced because he said that the internal mag well should be smooth, and that metal shaving should not becoming off of the rail where I described. I went ahead and sent the rifle back over the long Labor Day weekend.
When Tuesday came along, Jerry and Rick (VP of sales who use to work for COLT and FNH) contacted me and told me that nothing was wrong with the rifle and they were unwilling to do anything about the issues. They told me that the mag well problem is present on all of their current production rifle lowers, but will not replace it until the first production runs are sold (because they do not want to loose money on the ones that have already been created, I am assuming). Then after that, they will re-collaborate the machines to take the internal lip away (they stated that the mag well is in military spec; which is a rifle manufactures verbal way of getting out of a screw up). They told me that they will give me a refund now, and in 6 months they will give me a call and tell me when and where to by one that does not have the internal lip issue (so if you currently own the first production and have the internal lip, you decide if it is a problem or not for you).
Rick also told me that the excessive wearing on the rail and forward charging handle is part of the design and that there was no way of changing that. I told him that after many times of pulling the REAR charging handle back and letting it go that no metal was showing, and that I did not understand how the creators of this rifle could not come up with a better front charging handle design.
Side note: I talked with Brown Jr. and explained to him that my Daniel Defense (DD) vertical grip does not fit onto the current rail configuration. It appears that the bottom picatinny rail system does not have a wide enough channel to allow this grip to be slid onto the rail. The grip does in-fact slide right onto the upper rail because the channel there happens to be the right width. He told me that they may increase the bottom rail width in future productions.
I understand that the ADCOR rail is in tolerance and that they do not have to accommodate other manufactures products. I am simply stating this to let everyone know if they intend to put this VG on their ADCOR rifle.
Here is a picture of the DD vertical grip not fitting; however, you can see that the Grip-Pod fits fine:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa52/FR33RUNN3R/AdcorProblems016.jpg
I guess I have the privilege of being their first refund; which they still are trying to figure out how to give me. ADCOR told me that because they have never issued someone a refund, they are unsure of how to do it (it seems to me they never thought someone would have a problem with their "Perfect" rifle). So far, they have contacted the company I bought the weapon from, and are going to give them a credit and make them give me the refund (so they do not loose any money in the process). The company I bought the rifle from says this is an unconventional business practice, and if the rifle was sent back to the manufacturer, that the refund should come from them. ADCOR's website states that if you are not completely satisfied with their product for any reason within 30 days that they will issue you a refund. This doesn't seem to be the case.
My intention for writing this is to explain the issues I see currently with the design of the rifle and the customer service experience I had with ADCOR (which hasn’t been that great). Overall, I think the guns looks to be reliable when shooting is involved (although I never did shoot it before I sent it back), but the charging handle needs to be designed in a way that does not take off chunks of metal and the internal mag well needs to be smooth; I hope that these problems can be fixed. The fit and finish of the rifle is superb (other than the issues mentioned), and I think that the rifle could be a great success in the future, but in my opinion, ADCOR has a couple of things to work on before they get it right. I took the chance of being the Ginny pig with the first run, and may purchase one in the future if they improve upon the set backs.
This is simply one mans opinion and experience. If you have purchased the rifle and do not find these issues to be troublesome, than that is fine.
Sell it.
Buy something else cheaper and better, like a Colt, BCM, DD, etc.
Forget the piston.
Good luck.
Is that rust on the darker piece the spring is attached to in the fourth picture, and did it come that way?
Not creating a warm and fuzzy feeling for ADCOR. You should send them a link to this. It may free up the checkbook.
Belmont31R
09-09-11, 17:21
Shouldn't have bought that contraption in the first place.
If you get a refund what are you going to buy with it?
Well that abortion of a charging handle that looks like a shitty clone from an HK roller-lock rifle appears to be steel. Steel is a harder METAL than the aluminum that the rail is made of. I'm guessing that wear is going to always exist with that design. Normal charging handles exhibit wear in the locking notch as well.
I agree, that sounds like a bogus rifle. Get a direct gas gun from Colt or BCM. Save yourself some money and headaches.
Damn ! I was intrigued about the design when I first read about it. As usual what sounded cool in concept and prototype has not translated well to the production models. That is one shoddily made weapon.
Pretty much what NongShim said.
It's "metal", not "medal".
The flakings/shavings from the charging handle area are normal from what I've seen. I don't recall if the notch is square on regular receivers but the Vltor MUR's have a chamfer in that area. Have you tried wiping off the shavings to see how much material is gone? I would get a refund ASAP and purchase another brand.
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/johnson_n/IMG_1979-1.jpg
Mr. Goodtimes
09-09-11, 18:45
A rep from the company brought one of these by the place I buy my guns and was letting people shoot it. It lived up to it's name, it was indeed a BEAR. That thing must have seriously weighed 12 pounds unloaded.
On a side note, the Sig rep that comes by that same shop didn't even know what HP or MPI was, nor what a buffer was. And people wonder why sig is in trouble.
WOW..my S&W has better fit and finish than that...
I was looking forward to their 7.62 offering. After this not so much. Maybe in a couple of years they will have worked out the bugs and improved their QC (if the company survives)
A rep from the company brought one of these by the place I buy my guns and was letting people shoot it. It lived up to it's name, it was indeed a BEAR. That thing must have seriously weighed 12 pounds unloaded.
On a side note, the Sig rep that comes by that same shop didn't even know what HP or MPI was, nor what a buffer was. And people wonder why sig is in trouble.
morbidbattlecry
09-09-11, 21:02
You know every rifle may have some problems on there first run, shit happends. But that they are willing to send out rifles with known problems and have crappy customer service to boot. Thats kinda a deal breaker for me. And i was looking forward to this as a decent SBR piston gun. I guess i'll give it a year and see how they are doing.
steelonsteel
09-09-11, 21:08
wow.... they are trying to make the retailer give the refund? wow.
The manufacurer made the product and should be the one to make good on it - not the shop who had the misfortunre of passing on thier product.
Bad show from a manufacturer. Count me out of thier products in the future.
I had exactly ONE problem with a manufacturer [who I'll keep nameless, since it doesn't matter now and they did make good on it], and I sent the product back to them, they not only mad good on it, but also went above and beyond give me MORE than I paid for and make sure Iw as happy. Required, no, but nice fo them to do. These guys want someone else to fix thier mess?
Count me out.
Looking at these rifles it appears that nothing can be attached to the side rail that the forward charging handle is on, and that the charging handle would hit/be blocked by it.
OP, Did you try mounting anything on the side?
Freerunner
09-10-11, 17:25
Looking at these rifles it appears that nothing can be attached to the side rail that the forward charging handle is on, and that the charging handle would hit/be blocked by it.
OP, Did you try mounting anything on the side?
You would be correct. From what I can tell, you can not attach anything onto the side of the rail that you intend to utilize as the charging handle side (at least nothing I tried to put on there). I tried simply attaching MagPul Ladder covers, and even those would impede the forward charging handle from functioning.
Freerunner
09-10-11, 17:29
Is that rust on the darker piece the spring is attached to in the fourth picture, and did it come that way?
The forward charging handle looked like that out of the box. I am not sure if is rust or something else. I tried taking it off with some CLP, but it didn't seem to work.
Littlelebowski
09-10-11, 17:38
Wow...
Thank you for the honest review. Can't say I'm surprised.
Forget the piston.
Badly made rifle is badly made rifle. Piston or direct impingement has nothing to it - both can be made good or wrong.
I almost went for one of these a few months ago... until I realized I would lose 25% of the useable rail space and checked the lower's machining.
Went with a "plain Jane" LMT with FA BCG and H buffer from the get go.
No regrets...
Fuzzy-Reticle
09-11-11, 18:00
Was considerng an Adcor upper until I came across this thread.
I am going to take a pass.
Looks like another DI upper from BCM is in my future.
Thanks for the heads up.
Badly made rifle is badly made rifle. Piston or direct impingement has nothing to it - both can be made good or wrong.
You are absolutely right, and there are many fine piston operated rifles, however a piston on an AR is unnecessary and a solution in search of a problem (at least in my opinion).
morbidbattlecry
09-11-11, 18:28
I almost went for one of these a few months ago... until I realized I would lose 25% of the useable rail space and checked the lower's machining.
Went with a "plain Jane" LMT with FA BCG and H buffer from the get go.
No regrets...
You can remove the charging handle if you don't want to use it. It doesn't affect its function. Thats what i was going to do if i got one.
tvfreakarms
09-19-11, 02:51
WOW when i first saw this i was impressed. The concept was really cool and i like that fact that the side charging handle can be switched since i'm a lefty. But wow talk about some major issues. Putting a rail cover caused the side charging handle not to work properly among other things that was mentioned.
Bad QC and customer service. That's a deal break for me. Spending that kind of money and you get service like that.
Before releasing this they should of done some major testing and functionality before releasing it to consumers. Its like they wanted to release it quick to make a few bucks.
I'll wait a few yrs and see where this company goes first before even thinking of buying one.
variablebinary
09-19-11, 03:48
If I can get a decent deal on the 10.5" model, I might pick one up.
ares armor
09-19-11, 19:18
Just a question...
The catch for the front side charger is what is getting shaved off.
Does this actually affect anything that is not aesthetic? If i remember right from watching their video on the rifle, I dont think that it will make a difference because what is holding that part there is the spring behind it not the catch... I may be wrong though. Does anyone know for sure?
ETA: One of my friends has one of these on order. he just got the upper though so this is the only thing that would matter. I will pass on any info to him. If it makes a difference other than aesthetic i will try to talk him into cancelling, if not who really cares what it looks like. thanks.
Freerunner
09-19-11, 20:03
Just a question...
The catch for the front side charger is what is getting shaved off.
Does this actually affect anything that is not aesthetic? If i remember right from watching their video on the rifle, I dont think that it will make a difference because what is holding that part there is the spring behind it not the catch... I may be wrong though. Does anyone know for sure?
ETA: One of my friends has one of these on order. he just got the upper though so this is the only thing that would matter. I will pass on any info to him. If it makes a difference other than aesthetic i will try to talk him into cancelling, if not who really cares what it looks like. thanks.
For me, this was not a aesthetic issue, this was a functioning issue. Unfortunately, the pictures I took of the metal being taken off the front charging handle catch did not show up as well as I had hoped (the glare from the light on the metal did not allow great detail to be shown, such as the dimples in the metal). In my case, the front charging handle on this particular rifle was taking chunks of metal off of the catches rear ledge. You can see the flakes of metal all over that particular area of the weapon (enlarge the picture and you will see what I am talking about). If you take a close look at the fifth picture down you will notice the dimples (chunks of metal being removed), and if you compare both rounded sides of the charging handle catch, you will notice that the side with the damage no longer is rounded but jagged due to the metal being hammered and basically destroyed. In fact, I had wiped most of the flakes off after the initial first dozen racks of the front charging handle, the metal flakes that are shown (within the pictures provided) are after the second dozen racks of the slide.
The amount of metal that was coming off with each racking of the front charging handle lead me to believe that after a hundred or more racks that the front charging handle catch would not longer function because the rear ledge would no longer be present. Remember, this is an assumption, and further testing would have to be done in order for me or anyone else to tell for sure.
Also, the forth picture down will show what had happened to the charging handles cover. On the bottom side of the charging handle, you can see where the cover became torn and worn from the contact with the catches ledge. It seems pretty silly to put a cover over the charging handle if it is only going to become ripped and torn. The more I racked the slide back, the more damage there was to the charging handle cover. I could see it just falling off in the future.
Side Note: The front charging handle catch (cut out in the front of the rail system) is used to hold the front charging handle in place when not in use. If this catch was not there the front charging handle would move around freely.
I hope this answers your questions.
If I can get a decent deal on the 10.5" model, I might pick one up.
After reading about the issues with the gun and the company's response on the first page?
I like exotic guns, but if a modern longarm doesn't offer the reliability/durability of a Colt/BCM, I'm not interested.
Freerunner
09-27-11, 14:18
Shouldn't have bought that contraption in the first place.
If you get a refund what are you going to buy with it?
I will be using the refund money to buy a Daniel Defense DDM4 V3, and I will put the change towards an Arsenal SGL21-61.
eternal24k
09-27-11, 17:19
thanks for the writeup. How unfortunate, but as suspected it's another pass for me.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of buying this gun. Sorry that you weren't treated well by the manufacturer. If I'm going to spend a lot of money for a brand I don't recognize and a proprietary design....I want EXCELLENT and trusted manufacturer support. They don't sound like they care about quality or the customer, and only the design.
jonbondave
11-23-11, 12:01
I will be using the refund money to buy a Daniel Defense DDM4 V3, and I will put the change towards an Arsenal SGL21-61.
excellence.
The funny things is this weeks edition of Army Times includes a article on the Carbine Comp. The list STAG, LWRC and Knight as having dropped out. Colt is listed has withdrawing the CM901 and I understand a company we have worked with also withdrew. Per the Army Times the remaining contenders? B.E.A.R by Adcor Defense, SCAR by FN, ACR by Remington, Colt's Enhanced M-4 (piston supposedly) and a H&K 416 variant.
Robinson was a least registered as interested with the XCR, not sure were they stand and they were not mentioned in the article. Also not listed was S&W, but as previously discussed they have with drawn. DD was also rumored to have considered a bid, but I took it as they were looking for a teaming arrangement vs as a Prime.
Anyhow my point is when this RFP first went out Adcor was one of the companies I looked up and then dismissed as a possible contender.
variablebinary
11-23-11, 16:27
The funny things is this weeks edition of Army Times includes a article on the Carbine Comp. The list STAG, LWRC and Knight as having dropped out. Colt is listed has withdrawing the CM901 and I understand a company we have worked with also withdrew. Per the Army Times the remaining contenders? B.E.A.R by Adcor Defense, SCAR by FN, ACR by Remington, Colt's Enhanced M-4 (piston supposedly) and a H&K 416 variant.
Robinson was a least registered as interested with the XCR, not sure were they stand and they were not mentioned in the article. Also not listed was S&W, but as previously discussed they have with drawn. DD was also rumored to have considered a bid, but I took it as they were looking for a teaming arrangement vs as a Prime.
Anyhow my point is when this RFP first went out Adcor was one of the companies I looked up and then dismissed as a possible contender.
You know this competition is going to be a zoo when companies are willingly walking away from a shot at the most lucrative carbine contract in the world.
And Robinson walked away right around the H.P. White shoot a couple of months ago.
Really, this should be pretty damn simple. Get everyone, and I do mean everyone, to submit 5 samples, test them all, choose the best performer, buy the design from the manufacturer/designer, and sub the build to companies with the capacity to manufacturer in quantity. Done.
Here is the Army Times article
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-carbine-bidding-colt-smith-wesson-out-112511w/
H&K returns
So who is still in the running? The B.E.A.R. by Adcor Defense, SCAR by FNH and the Adaptive Combat Rifle by Remington are still standing. They are now joined by Colt’s Enhanced M4.
"But what discouraged Colt is an Army requirement that the winner turn over technical data rights. The service will distribute the blueprints to two other companies that will each produce one-third of the weapons purchased. Colt was not willing the reveal its trade secrets. The company instead entered the Enhanced M4."
A perfect big US Army program..three companies producing 1/3 of a weapon.. no one to blame or hold accountable when it doesn't work. Tolerance stack, materials difference, heat treat issues QA/QC on assembly will rear their ugly head and fingers will all be pointing at each-other. The troops will get screwed.
Austrian AUG = winner. Australian = POS same design
Japanese Tacoma = win US made tacoma = loser (Consumer Reports incident ratings)
variablebinary
11-25-11, 22:09
"But what discouraged Colt is an Army requirement that the winner turn over technical data rights. The service will distribute the blueprints to two other companies that will each produce one-third of the weapons purchased. Colt was not willing the reveal its trade secrets. The company instead entered the Enhanced M4."
A perfect big US Army program..three companies producing 1/3 of a weapon.. no one to blame or hold accountable when it doesn't work. Tolerance stack, materials difference, heat treat issues QA/QC on assembly will rear their ugly head and fingers will all be pointing at each-other. The troops will get screwed.
Austrian AUG = winner. Australian = POS same design
Japanese Tacoma = win US made tacoma = loser (Consumer Reports incident ratings)
I don't think it is all Army.
Bet your ass the scum bag politicians over FN and Colt's districts are forcing this "sharing the wealth".
Colt especially, since it is a union shop and controlled partially by the state. No way in hell they are letting all those jobs go to the south.
"But what discouraged Colt is an Army requirement that the winner turn over technical data rights. The service will distribute the blueprints to two other companies that will each produce one-third of the weapons purchased. Colt was not willing the reveal its trade secrets. The company instead entered the Enhanced M4."
A perfect big US Army program..three companies producing 1/3 of a weapon.. no one to blame or hold accountable when it doesn't work. Tolerance stack, materials difference, heat treat issues QA/QC on assembly will rear their ugly head and fingers will all be pointing at each-other. The troops will get screwed.
Austrian AUG = winner. Australian = POS same design
Japanese Tacoma = win US made tacoma = loser (Consumer Reports incident ratings)
1/3 of a weapon or 1/3 of all the weapons?
An Undocumented Worker
11-26-11, 09:03
I don't think it is all Army.
Bet your ass the scum bag politicians over FN and Colt's districts are forcing this "sharing the wealth".
Colt especially, since it is a union shop and controlled partially by the state. No way in hell they are letting all those jobs go to the south.
Another reason that colt may have walked away, If the contract won by the winner is split between 3 companies, I have no doubt that Colt would get one of the thirds, as they have the capacity and capability.
So if you have nothing to gain above the losers by winning, why try to win? Infact the winner loses more than the losers by having to spend all that money entering the competition and developing and testing the platform. So once the winner does all the heavy lifting, you have two leaches in a more profitable position than the winner.
Wow I can thoroughly see why someone would drop out of the competition with that jacked up contract requirement.
jonbondave
11-26-11, 11:08
"But what discouraged Colt is an Army requirement that the winner turn over technical data rights. The service will distribute the blueprints to two other companies that will each produce one-third of the weapons purchased. Colt was not willing the reveal its trade secrets. The company instead entered the Enhanced M4."
A perfect big US Army program..three companies producing 1/3 of a weapon.. no one to blame or hold accountable when it doesn't work. Tolerance stack, materials difference, heat treat issues QA/QC on assembly will rear their ugly head and fingers will all be pointing at each-other. The troops will get screwed.
Austrian AUG = winner. Australian = POS same design
Japanese Tacoma = win US made tacoma = loser (Consumer Reports incident ratings)
This sort of thing might make total sense in a huge miltary endeavor, like the second world war for example.
I had high hopes for ADCOR. I love the idea of weapons marked "Bodymore, Murderland". I am always on the search for AR and FAL receivers made by Armscorp when they were still in Baltimore.
Unfortunately, like most of the old industrial companies that did not move to PA, DE, VA, or WV to escape MDs awful business environment, they have decided to cut corners with crappy customers service and a dubious product.
They should just shit can the BEAR and make regular AR's, to include a MD compliant HBAR (with 16" barrel) that does not count as a "Regulated Firearm."
Time and again, we see an AR piston gun as solution searching for a problem. Guys get a clue, there is NO point to a piston AR. The gun you seek is found in some variant of the AR180 or Kalashnikov. For that matter, I wish someone would make a modernized military grade AR18.
Perhaps the Army's competition is going to be more about design than manufacturing. Adcor has the best design, but poor manufacturing quality (according to this review). So if they win the competition, 2/3 of their design won't be manufactured by them. So maybe we'll get the best design by the best manufacturers.
Magic_Salad0892
11-26-11, 16:21
Time and again, we see an AR piston gun as solution searching for a problem. Guys get a clue, there is NO point to a piston AR. The gun you seek is found in some variant of the AR180 or Kalashnikov. For that matter, I wish someone would make a modernized military grade AR18.
They do. It's called the FNH SCAR-16S.
They do. It's called the FNH SCAR-16S.
Well, sort of.... It is in the family of weapons that uses an op-rod. However, the AR18 was made mostly of sheet metal stampings and was intended to mass produced cheaply. The SCAR will never be the People's Rifle.
The SCAR is optimized for mass production, and one of the cheapest rifles to produce.
There is a reason for the big bulky extruded receiver & big bulky polymer parts..
Charlie Don't Surf
12-01-11, 18:19
The SCAR is optimized for mass production, and one of the cheapest rifles to produce.
There is a reason for the big bulky extruded receiver & big bulky polymer parts..
When might we expect that $2,300 price tag to drop to AR prices then?
jonbondave
12-01-11, 19:29
When might we expect that $2,300 price tag to drop to AR prices then?
yea that price is a bit rediculous.
When might we expect that $2,300 price tag to drop to AR prices then?
Never.
No private citizen will ever see the SCAR fall below $1800.
Heavy Metal
12-01-11, 21:57
Time and again, we see an AR piston gun as solution searching for a problem. Guys get a clue, there is NO point to a piston AR. The gun you seek is found in some variant of the AR180 or Kalashnikov. For that matter, I wish someone would make a modernized military grade AR18.
That would be the ACR. Still working the bugs out of it apparently.
That would be the ACR. Still working the bugs out of it apparently.
Yep, 5 years or more in the making and still vaporware. The SCAR went thru this same process, never got the big SOCOM contract, and currently enjoys only limited sales.
Again, all these systems are solutions looking for a problem. The M4 continues to answer the mail at a reasonable price.
scoutfsu99
12-05-11, 15:57
The M16/M4 FOW has had quite a long time to mature and progress, right? It's only been the past what, decade, that it's become so modular? I don't think it's exactly fair to expect a weapon system to be the best at everything, right away.
Heavy Metal
12-05-11, 16:05
Never.
No private citizen will ever see the SCAR fall below $1800.
Productions costs are one thing. FN has to recoup their development costs too.
Development costs for the M16/M4 series have long since been paid for.
So even thought the AR requires more machine time and is more expensive to manufacture, the SCAR will never be as cheap as an AR.
And the SCAR parts are made in much smaller runs so it takes longer to amortize the tooling costs too.
Adcor Defense
12-05-11, 17:13
The SCAR is optimized for mass production, and one of the cheapest rifles to produce.
There is a reason for the big bulky extruded receiver & big bulky polymer parts..
Optimized for mass production, yes. Cheapest to produce? You are way wrong. Low produciton runs mean high parts costs. Unless you are making hundreds of thousands of rifles the price is going to be high. Not to mention new machine fixturing, gauges, coatings etc.
Adcor Defense
12-05-11, 17:15
Never.
No private citizen will ever see the SCAR fall below $1800.
Price has already dropped for LE sales ($300-$400), could the commercial price be far behind?
Guntank213
02-07-12, 21:09
I have owned my ADCOR for over a year now, fired well over 1000 rounds out of it, and probably charged it 1000s of times. While metel was removed from the charging handel retention ridge (at least thats what I call it) the damage seems to have leveled off or even stopped, it certainly has not impaired the operation of the rifle or the retention of the charging handle. I personally love my ADCOR BEAR, I like it much better then the rifle the Army issued me.
kilovictor
05-20-12, 12:27
well I got all excited when I heard about the BEAR yesterday. Found a 10.5" upper I was all ready to buy, then I read this. Guess I'll hold off.
You are absolutely right, and there are many fine piston operated rifles, however a piston on an AR is unnecessary and a solution in search of a problem (at least in my opinion).
For many people the piston is unnecessary, but it does have some advantages over DI. Namely, variable gas settings for shooting suppressed. If you're a person who shoots a whole lot with a can, a piston could be a good choice for you. Just not an ADCOR piston gun. ;)
Grand58742
05-21-12, 12:26
Make or break time for Adcor
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/05/04/Army-advances-new-carbine-offering/UPI-28821336128991/
Interesting enough as a newcomer to the field it made it past the first stage.
Instaurator
05-21-12, 12:43
Productions costs are one thing. FN has to recoup their development costs too.
Development costs for the M16/M4 series have long since been paid for.
So even thought the AR requires more machine time and is more expensive to manufacture, the SCAR will never be as cheap as an AR.
And the SCAR parts are made in much smaller runs so it takes longer to amortize the tooling costs too.
What about the 50 Million FN got in American taxpayer money for the R&D on the SCAR? Im pretty sure they dont need to recoup their development costs and they just think the little FNH stamped on the side of their product is worth your kidney or your first born or your entire IRA.
Being included in a competition does not equate to "coming out on top".
This stage merely shows who supposedly has enough industrial capacity and is willing to work with the onerous USG intellectual property rights requirements.
Grand58742
05-21-12, 13:13
Being included in a competition does not equate to "coming out on top".
This stage merely shows who supposedly has enough industrial capacity and is willing to work with the onerous USG intellectual property rights requirements.
My mistake on wording. Corrected.
sinlessorrow
06-26-12, 16:10
Being included in a competition does not equate to "coming out on top".
This stage merely shows who supposedly has enough industrial capacity and is willing to work with the onerous USG intellectual property rights requirements.
Everything I have read about the IC has stated Phase I was about ability to mount addons(M9, M320, M26), cost of rifles, and capability to manuf.
Every rifle met those standards. Phase II is the testing.
two things i dont like is proud ouches of the billfold and general /others as Guinea pigs .....we all have been victims this one way or other !
I am loving my BEAR Elite, it does have a knick where the forward charging handle makes contact. My only other issue is that it is a bit heavy, but also expected that with a piston rifle.
From American Rifleman Article (http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/adcor-bear-review/):
In the B.E.A.R., the gas block is attached to the rail rather than the barrel, the usual point of attachment with most piston rifles. Having the gas block separate from the barrel allows the barrel to be free floating, which improves accuracy, as demonstrated on the range.
Okay, but isn't the gas block going to be the hottest part of the rifle? Isn't aluminum an excellent heat-sink? Isn't the primary purpose of a handguard to protect the hand from heat?
The SCAR is optimized for mass production, and one of the cheapest rifles to produce.
There is a reason for the big bulky extruded receiver & big bulky polymer parts..
What would the unit cost be for the SCAR if it was purchased in the same volume as the M4? Do you have a ball park figure? Thanks.
tvfreakarms
01-09-13, 17:52
For those who has the bear how is it holding up so far? It's been a while since i've been on this thread.
Not surprised that yet another whiz-bang piston product/company is putting out turds. Just one more reason, in a long line of reasons, to stick with a proven weapon.
Not surprised that yet another whiz-bang piston product/company is putting out turds. Just one more reason, in a long line of reasons, to stick with a proven weapon.
No doubt. No offense to the OP, I've bought crap before and learned and move on. Dump that thing ASAP. And buy something you can enjoy.
Not surprised that yet another whiz-bang piston product/company is putting out turds. Just one more reason, in a long line of reasons, to stick with a proven weapon.
There are only a few large companies that haven't put out a piston... BCM, DD, Bushmaster, and KAC are probably it. H&K, Colt, S&W, Sig, Ruger, and LMT all have piston ARs.
specopsscout
01-10-13, 04:13
Bushmaster does have the ACR, so it could be said that they have their foot in the piston arena, just not in an AR pattern...
sinlessorrow
01-20-13, 18:40
For those who has the bear how is it holding up so far? It's been a while since i've been on this thread.
I saw a post over on TOS, and one guys gas block blew up in 1 round......Lawman 55gr took it out of commission.
Magic_Salad0892
01-21-13, 04:01
I saw a post over on TOS, and one guys gas block blew up in 1 round......Lawman 55gr took it out of commission.
Link?
sinlessorrow
01-21-13, 07:07
Link?
Here it is
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_424/230557_Piston_Ar__problem_at_the_range_today__PICS_INCLUDED_NOW_.html
Pretty funny if you ask me.
Magic_Salad0892
01-21-13, 09:24
Here it is
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_424/230557_Piston_Ar__problem_at_the_range_today__PICS_INCLUDED_NOW_.html
Pretty funny if you ask me.
Wow. Even Bushmasters don't explode on the first round...
Grand58742
01-21-13, 11:20
As if no other brand in history to include the high end rifles has ever left the factory with a problem and had a kaboom. And this obviously HAS to be the weapon's fault. Couldn't be a ammo issue. Never that. Couldn't be the owner modifying it in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. Never happens in these instances.
Or it could be something slipped through the cracks on the Adcor line just like other weapons before from other manufacturers. No manufacturer is infallible. And this is the first known instance out of a system that's been on the market for two years now. And besides "it happened" there is no other data to say it was an under powered round someone tried to clear out of the barrel the hard way or a weapon failure or if the owner was fooling around and tried to modify the weapon. Let's just say how much the longevity sucks instead of looking at what likely could have caused it.
What is the advice I always see tossed around here? "You should contact the manufacturer first and see what they have to say before coming online and bitching about it."
charmcitycop
01-21-13, 17:25
.....
Grand58742
01-21-13, 18:06
That's not entirely correct.
Care to share the problems that have come up in Baltimore?
I own one and would like to know what potential problem areas to look out for.
sinlessorrow
01-21-13, 18:07
Care to share the problems that have come up in Baltimore?
I own one and would like to know what potential problem areas to look out for.
Hardly anyone has these guns, and most LE only shoot to qualify.
There was a NG guy here talking about his platoon leader(I could be wrong) who had a 10.5" adcor over in afghanistan and it was a turd.
Magic_Salad0892
01-21-13, 19:26
There was a NG guy here talking about his platoon leader(I could be wrong) who had a 10.5" adcor over in afghanistan and it was a turd.
I remember that guy.
I also want to add, that even if it was was a shitty DI gun it still wouldn't have blown the damn gas block off. It'd have just had monster recoil, and suck to shoot.
From my limited knowledge of weapon design at least.
Guntank213
02-27-13, 19:51
So I posted on here a while ago, just wanted to post again. I have had my BEAR for 2 years at this point, I am probably one of the first people to buy one seeing as my serial number is less then 100. I have several thousand rounds through the rifle at this point, and had a grand total of two malfunctions, one was user error, the other was mag related. I have been in the army for 4 years now, and I like the BEAR much better then my issued weapon (still rocking an old M16A2 if you can believe it). Overall I have had no serious malfunctions or problems with this rifle, the only thing I would change is I would have gotten the 14.5 inch version instead of the 16 inch gun, but I think because I bought mine so early, the 14.5 inch version my not have even been available yet. I will also very likely be running the gun through a Tactical Response Fighting Rifle class early this summer, and will try to remember to post here how the gun preformed, though I have every belief that it will be flawless.
sinlessorrow
02-27-13, 20:37
So I posted on here a while ago, just wanted to post again. I have had my BEAR for 2 years at this point, I am probably one of the first people to buy one seeing as my serial number is less then 100. I have several thousand rounds through the rifle at this point, and had a grand total of two malfunctions, one was user error, the other was mag related. I have been in the army for 4 years now, and I like the BEAR much better then my issued weapon (still rocking an old M16A2 if you can believe it). Overall I have had no serious malfunctions or problems with this rifle, the only thing I would change is I would have gotten the 14.5 inch version instead of the 16 inch gun, but I think because I bought mine so early, the 14.5 inch version my not have even been available yet. I will also very likely be running the gun through a Tactical Response Fighting Rifle class early this summer, and will try to remember to post here how the gun preformed, though I have every belief that it will be flawless.
Several thousand rounds in 2+years? Even a DPMS can do that. Put 10,000+ rounds through it in 8 months and let us know how it holds up.
What are you in the Army? Reserve? The Army has over 500,000 M4's seems strange you still have an A2.
Guntank213
02-27-13, 20:47
National Guard Artillery, we aren't important enough to get M4s issued out to us, we get them when we get deployed, then have to give them back once back in the States ^__^
scoutfsu99
02-27-13, 20:58
National Guard Artillery, we aren't important enough to get M4s issued out to us, we get them when we get deployed, then have to give them back once back in the States ^__^
Same with the Reserves. M4's are the exception, not the rule.
What are you in the Army? Reserve? The Army has over 500,000 M4's seems strange you still have an A2.
About 50% of the Army has M-16A2's, i.e. about 1,000,000 servide rifles/carbines. If you're in anything other than a BCT or SOF you have a better than 75% chance of carring a M-16A2/A4. And even then due to some manning issues you can find troops in BCT's armed with M-16's.
tvfreakarms
03-07-13, 05:11
keep us updated.
I have an ADCOR direct impingement. As said in the initial post, this is a very well made rifle. Excellent finish and built to very precise specs. The upper and lower lock together with absolutely no play. The inside of my magwell has no ridge. Don't judge this rifle based on one guy's experience.
:fie:
sinlessorrow
03-10-13, 22:57
I have an ADCOR direct impingement. As said in the initial post, this is a very well made rifle. Excellent finish and built to very precise specs. The upper and lower lock together with absolutely no play. The inside of my magwell has no ridge. Don't judge this rifle based on one guy's experience.
:fie:
How much have you shot it?
Grand58742
03-11-13, 01:13
How much have you shot it?
Probably doesn't matter since according to you anything less than 10,000 rounds isn't a valid assessment.
So...how much hands on or range time do you happen to have with the Adcor?
uncle money bags
03-11-13, 02:34
I have an ADCOR direct impingement. As said in the initial post, this is a very well made rifle. Excellent finish and built to very precise specs. The upper and lower lock together with absolutely no play. The inside of my magwell has no ridge. Don't judge this rifle based on one guy's experience.
:fie:
You state that it is a well made rifle and then give examples of your assessment which mean squat when evaluating what characteristics make a well made rifle. Color me underwhelmed.
Several thousand in 2 years is still quite a bit more than most. You need to chill out a little.
Several thousand rounds in 2+years? Even a DPMS can do that. Put 10,000+ rounds through it in 8 months and let us know how it holds up.
What are you in the Army? Reserve? The Army has over 500,000 M4's seems strange you still have an A2.
Littlelebowski
03-11-13, 07:09
I have an ADCOR direct impingement. As said in the initial post, this is a very well made rifle. Excellent finish and built to very precise specs. The upper and lower lock together with absolutely no play. The inside of my magwell has no ridge. Don't judge this rifle based on one guy's experience.
:fie:
Just so we're clear, you're telling us not to judge the ADCOR BEAR based off of the OP based on your experienced with a radically different rifle made by ADCOR.
So in other words, you have no data to offer relevant to this thread.
sinlessorrow
03-11-13, 07:18
Several thousand in 2 years is still quite a bit more than most. You need to chill out a little.
While it is more than most I would be willing to bet that most guns can handle 100-200 rounds a month. I was not trying to be mean or anything.
Except you don't know if he fired 1K rounds in 3 days or 30 days. He could have run a class or two and then been to busy to do any more shooting. I am not defending the ADCOR nor do I care about it, I am just trying to be objective.
While it is more than most I would be willing to bet that most guns can handle 100-200 rounds a month. I was not trying to be mean or anything.
sinlessorrow
03-12-13, 12:12
Except you don't know if he fired 1K rounds in 3 days or 30 days. He could have run a class or two and then been to busy to do any more shooting. I am not defending the ADCOR nor do I care about it, I am just trying to be objective.
I understand ADCOR did have to redesign the carrier as well as a few other things due to the results of the IC. Their carrier had a tendecy to fall apart.
They had to redesign the carrier by making the carrier one piece and now press fit the rod(unlike last where the key was apart ofthe rod) and now weld it together.
They had to add anti tilt skis.
They had to redesign the charging handle.
And one other thing I forgot. I think it was a different way to mount the gas block.
Like I said. I have no idea or opinion because my DI guns work perfectly fine with minimal cleaning and lots of lube.
I understand ADCOR did have to redesign the carrier as well as a few other things due to the results of the IC. Their carrier had a tendecy to fall apart.
They had to redesign the carrier by making the carrier one piece and now press fit the rod(unlike last where the key was apart ofthe rod) and now weld it together.
They had to add anti tilt skis.
They had to redesign the charging handle.
And one other thing I forgot. I think it was a different way to mount the gas block.
Grand58742
03-12-13, 14:36
I understand ADCOR did have to redesign the carrier as well as a few other things due to the results of the IC. Their carrier had a tendecy to fall apart.
They had to redesign the carrier by making the carrier one piece and now press fit the rod(unlike last where the key was apart ofthe rod) and now weld it together.
They had to add anti tilt skis.
They had to redesign the charging handle.
And one other thing I forgot. I think it was a different way to mount the gas block.
Link?
sinlessorrow
03-12-13, 15:46
Link?
They had pictures posted on their facebook. Give me a few minutes and ill see if i can drag them up from there.
Grand58742
03-12-13, 18:36
They had pictures posted on their facebook. Give me a few minutes and ill see if i can drag them up from there.
Actually, I think this is the article:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articlepage.aspx?id=4953&cid=4
No pictures though. And I'm not trying to be a dick here, but too much "heard this" and "have a friend who said he saw that" that tends to go on in firearms circles and not a whole lot of "put my hands on it myself" or verifiable articles that folks can read for themselves. Especially with the IC Comp that nobody except insiders have heard anything about. Been suspiciously quiet on that front, but different subject, different thread.
Some would make sense like the strengthened forward charging handle recess area. The article isn't clear on that, but since the standard rear charging handle is...well, standard, I wouldn't imagine they would need to redesign that part. Worked pretty well for 50 years now so I would assume they are talking the front charging handle area. In my experience the damage to the forward recess area has only been aesthetic. But even aesthetic, still makes a difference as it is "damage" and steel on aluminum will take a toll. And in this competition damage is bad and will be on folks minds. Anti-tilt pads...makes sense as I don't believe any piston AR is completely exempt from carrier tilt. Just inherent to the design I would assume. And welding a single oprod/carrier group might help alleviate that as well since it takes the stress off the attachment points and spreads it out to the entire assembly.
But really nothing about carrier groups falling apart...one might assume if they redesigned it, there were problems. But also one could assume it was done as a preventative measure as the oprod/carrier group might have showed increased wear (reference the M855A1 below) and this was a stronger and potentially more economical approach to the assembly. No way of telling except via official ICC reports which, again, do not exist yet.
Wish the article was a bit more technically accurate. Assuming the "oprod attached to the bolt" translates as "oprod attached to the bolt carrier group."
I would expect some problems to come out of the IC that manufacturers would have to address. And not just Adcor. Figure all manufacturers had some issues that needed to be worked on especially since the rounds being used were the M855A1. And with the chamber pressure far higher than usual, problems will ensue even though they had rounds already to "fine tune" the weapons. Firing a few thousand rounds relatively close to proof round specs will cause increased wear and possible parts breakage, no matter if it's Colt, FN, Adcor or Santa Claus Gunsmithing Inc manufacturing it.
I can be objective even as a Bear owner and believe the design had a few places it could improve on. And I also believe it has a couple of innovate items that could generally improve the overall AR type system whether DGI or piston. The dust cover on the bolt carrier for example is something that I believe could improve the overall AR system. I won't disagree the Bear had some minor issues coming out of the box, but that's pretty much just like any Gen 1 system on the planet. If innovation, improvements and fixing problems aren't done, why do we have four generations of Glock? The original AR10, even looking over the obvious Army bias, failed the testing it was put through. But redesigned and improved it came back and has stood the test of time even in a somewhat diminished capacity. The M16 FOW has been continually improved and is still attempting to be improved through the PIP. So improvements on a prototype carbine that's going through testing is to be expected. Or even a production system in it's first iteration. It doesn't necessarily point to an overall design flaw or "piece of crap." Just means it got tested and things were found that could be/should be improved just like every other weapons system that has ever been tested, produced and adopted. And the problems people (Freerunner being the exception) have supposedly brought up? Most can't or won't answer the questions about what specific problems have come up. Other than the blown up gas block which we never heard anything more about and we still don't know if it was a manufacturing failure or someone dicking around with their carbine when they shouldn't have been and blaming the overall system. Yeah, that's never happened before...
Overall and unbiased as my Adcor sits right next to the BCM and DD in the safe, the Bear is not a bad carbine. Improvements needed? Sure, but the overall system is relatively sound in my opinion. But any manufacturer worth their salt should be taking to heart problems and solutions especially when we are talking big bucks on potentially the largest carbine contract in US history.
NeoNeanderthal
03-12-13, 19:33
Every single thing about this rifle is discouraging.
Grand58742
03-12-13, 21:18
Every single thing about this rifle is discouraging.
Your trollish post like something from TOS is discouraging.
I like the idea behind the bear. Mating it to an axts ax556 lower gives you all the features of a "modern" combat rifle minus a folding stock, which can be done but isn't worth it in my opinion. A piston design for suppressed sbr use, a fn chf barrel, forward charging handle that's non reciprocating and reversible, and a free float tube is great on paper. But the devil's in the details and if it doesn't win the ICC, I hope Adcor learns a lot and makes continued improvements.
tvfreakarms
04-22-13, 08:51
so how is the adcor doing so far?
Dang. This is why I love this site. I was considering this exact gun. But not any more. I guess I'll just stick to my DD's and POF for now. OP hope it all worked out for you.
BoringGuy45
06-12-13, 21:40
Question about the ADCOR:
Why do they still have the traditional rear charging handle? I would think putting the forward handle would make the original one a bit of a vestigial organ.
Question about the ADCOR:
Why do they still have the traditional rear charging handle? I would think putting the forward handle would make the original one a bit of a vestigial organ.
Why not? Add a Rapter charging handle and you have quick charges from the regular back handle. Keep the front one for when prone or you need to be able to lock the bolt back with one hand. Also the front handle is very useful if you have a large scope or Eotech with magnification behind it.
Why do jets have duplicate systems? If one fails you aren't screwed.
With an ambi lower the ADCOR is awesome.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0023-1_zps53290cf4.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0026-1_zps70043cac.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0006_zpscfc2b5b2.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0003_zpsb33f5afa.jpg
sinlessorrow
08-14-13, 23:32
Why not? Add a Rapter charging handle and you have quick charges from the regular back handle. Keep the front one for when prone or you need to be able to lock the bolt back with one hand. Also the front handle is very useful if you have a large scope or Eotech with magnification behind it.
Why do jets have duplicate systems? If one fails you aren't screwed.
With an ambi lower the ADCOR is awesome.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0023-1_zps53290cf4.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0026-1_zps70043cac.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0006_zpscfc2b5b2.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Epoxy7/DSCN0003_zpsb33f5afa.jpg
How many rounds through it so far?
How many rounds through it so far?
Only 100 so far. I took it to the range, put a M21 sight on it and sighted it in. Just plinking for fun. I'll be mounting a scope and bench resting it to find the ammo it likes next time around. Then I'm putting my Eotech on it after that. The Other one is still unfired. I have a 1-4x scope for that rifle.
the little shooting I did with was fun. shoots very nicely. surprisingly good balance for a 16" AR especially a piston system. When shooting it you don't realize it's a piston system due to the balance.
That lower works well with the ADCOR upper. Looks good, super tight fit and it's a high quality product. HERRA makes nice stuff.
Here it is
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_424/230557_Piston_Ar__problem_at_the_range_today__PICS_INCLUDED_NOW_.html
Pretty funny if you ask me.
he said a large fireball came out of the ejection port. The gas black failing still shouldn't throw fireballs out of the ejection port. Especially on a piston gun. Ammo related? Not sure how else he'd be shooting fireballs out of the ejection port.
Oops just realized this post was from Jan 13 not from 14. Keep forgetting it's 2014. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.