Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: So I bought an LWRC...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    988
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sc63sallad View Post
    I agree with you for the most part but I will add that out of all my rifles, my scar 17 is probably the most pleasant to shoot with the suppressor attached and it's of course a piston system. But it does get filthy, doesn't seem like there's a way around that. My colt functions well suppressed but if you get some hot ammo going through there it will blast you in the face. Sometimes I feel like I need to sit down for a few minutes after shooting it that way, it can be that foul. I'm hoping that since the piston system on the m6 has a suppressor setting on it just like the scar it will also be more polite. If it is I'll try running it full auto with the suppressor on but I don't think I want to do that with any of my DI uppers.
    Another plus is their bolts and carriers are coated so they'll be easier to clean if you do run FA.

    Quote Originally Posted by veeklog View Post
    I have one LWRC 10.5" M6A2 upper for my SBR; I have owned it since 2008, and it is the old BCG design. Runs fine, not too heavy with the 10.5" upper, although heavier than my DD 10.3". I don't run it with a suppressor, so it doesn't get too dirty. I have shot H&K 416's with 10.4" barrels, and they were very barrel heavy with Eotechs and magnifiers. Also with attached suppressors they get as dirty as DI AR's. I had one that would not eject a cartridge because the chamber was filthy.

    I honestly don't think piston AR's are worth the money; a good DD, BCM, LMT, or Colt will do everything a piston AR can do, plus there is a plethora of parts available, especially with thing heating up politically.
    Never had that problem with the various 416's and my personal MR with a 10.4" Light profile barrel.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    86
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I'm also trying out slip 2000 EWL. The lwrc came with a small bottle of it. Seems to work well in the rifle it came with but I'm going to try using it in a few of my di rifles. I think another member recommended it to me for full auto use. If it works out all these years of using clp may be over..

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    988
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sc63sallad View Post
    I'm also trying out slip 2000 EWL. The lwrc came with a small bottle of it. Seems to work well in the rifle it came with but I'm going to try using it in a few of my di rifles. I think another member recommended it to me for full auto use. If it works out all these years of using clp may be over..
    Know the convo has been beat to death but I'm a Fireclean believer now.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,165
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    I've never known anyone personally who has ever had a problem with an LWRC, but I've drifted away from them, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by JC5188 View Post
    Was that with any PMag?
    I believe the issue was chiefly with GenM3 PMags. From what I understand, LWRC did manage to very quietly fix the issue, although as Moyer says, they never admitted to any slip-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by sc63sallad View Post
    I'm also trying out slip 2000 EWL. The lwrc came with a small bottle of it. Seems to work well in the rifle it came with but I'm going to try using it in a few of my di rifles. I think another member recommended it to me for full auto use. If it works out all these years of using clp may be over..
    I've been using Slip2000 EWL for about 8 years on pretty much every gun I own - I like it, never had a problem with it.
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    86
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)


    Here it is in kind of a general purpose guise...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,287
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn View Post
    I've never known anyone personally who has ever had a problem with an LWRC, but I've drifted away from them, too.



    I believe the issue was chiefly with GenM3 PMags. From what I understand, LWRC did manage to very quietly fix the issue, although as Moyer says, they never admitted to any slip-up.



    I've been using Slip2000 EWL for about 8 years on pretty much every gun I own - I like it, never had a problem with it.
    I had heard about the gen 3 pmag issue. Just wondering if it was others as well. Thanks for the reply.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    0
    The large county agency around me has been running LWRCs for patrol rifles for a couple years now and has been very pleased with them on both the operator (as in the guys carrying them) and armorer level. Their TAC guys also just dumped 416s for LWRCs due to weight and commonality.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    988
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SDSwoll View Post
    The large county agency around me has been running LWRCs for patrol rifles for a couple years now and has been very pleased with them on both the operator (as in the guys carrying them) and armorer level. Their TAC guys also just dumped 416s for LWRCs due to weight and commonality.
    Unless they went with a M6-SL which uses MOE hand guards I'd have to say there's the same commonality between the HK and LWRC to a AR. Sounds more like a budget thing to me.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    86
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheChunkNorris View Post
    Unless they went with a M6-SL which uses MOE hand guards I'd have to say there's the same commonality between the HK and LWRC to a AR. Sounds more like a budget thing to me.
    Wondering what the cost difference is for them between the two systems. It is probably a factor though. It also seems like those decisions have a lot to do with the people making them, if that isn't obvious. Freakin TC in Afghanistan were using 18 inch DPMS rifles for gods sake. On a contract where each of their shooters was making six figures. Hmmm. These guys actually fought with these things (yes I did see personally) and you know what? They did just fine. Yet another case of it being the Indian and not the arrow I think.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    0
    Not sure on the cost difference and this definitely seemed to be a case of TAC wanting a new gun (which they seem to get every 2-3 years). I can't say budget isn't a thing for this agency but they have an insane amount of money available to their specialty units, so with them budget tends to not be the determining factor as opposed to most PDs. I should have been more clear on the commonality, this was referencing operating system parts (carriers etc.) which are proprietary to each manufacturer. Their rifles do not have MOE handguards and special guys run SBRs while patrol has 16" length rifles. I was not directly involved (diff. agency) in the decision and am passing on what was relayed to me by their range guys.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •