Good point. And in each case they were ACR threads. Interesting indeed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Good point. And in each case they were ACR threads. Interesting indeed.
Member
Thanks for summarizing your post in the first sentence.Originally Posted by iroquois pliskin
Know your role, and shut your mouth.
Member
Indeed Remington did remove some of the features that were the ACR's supposed advantages over the AR.
The stock really is a non issue because of the modular attachment method and it's current availability. If, and it's a big if, this ACR V2 is ever commercially released, I bet they will have multiple models with different stocks like there is now.
The QD barrel in reality was a gimmick. Sure it would make caliber changes, maintenance, and scheduled barrel replacement easier, but would it ever be used in a life or death situation? I don't think so. Not to mention that your zero most likely wouldn't carry over between barrels/calibers.
The complaints over the magnesium lower are a mystery to me. It's been known for a long time that Remington was going to use it and this is the first time I've heard about it being a bad idea. It can't be that bad of metal because it's been used for wheels in sports cars before and I've never heard of a problem. Is it really worse than aluminum or the polymer lower?
Know your role, and shut your mouth.
Senior Member
QD barrels were never intended to be used while being shot at.
It's not a gimmick. It simplifies logistics, training and maintenance, but ups versatility and modular capabilities per weapon. It's the reason why the SCAR can easily play the role of M16/M4/M18, but not the other way around without carting around a full armorers bench, and multiple uppers, which takes far more time and energy.
The Bushmaster ACR QD barrel system was never going to be allowed onto a combat weapon, but the revised REMDEF model is more grunt proof.
Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.
Senior Member
Also, REMDEF showed the V2 with a folding stock, so that feature is not dead.
Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.
Senior Member
Swapping uppers on an AR doesn't take an armorers bench and is less work than the SCAR barrel change. Add in the fact that I at least would want to zero the new barrel and optic before going out to the time and energy table.
In the end the QD barrel will be a plus for assembly, maintenance, the spec sheet, and a few select users, but if the cost and or weight is too much I'd be more interested in one without it.
Member
The second photo is a Gen1 ACR, third photo is a Gen2 ACR with the folding stock, so yes it appears to be plug and play. Here's to hoping we get to see the Gen2 in some form down the track.Also, REMDEF showed the V2 with a folding stock, so that feature is not dead.
Member
I dont really think that anyone believed that the ACR would keep the barrel wrench mounted to the weapon.
I really just believe that since Remington is targeting Mil/LEO with this it makes more sence to have the "standard" ACR in the lightest configuration(like without folding stock) so that the tech specs look better on paper.
You can never make anyting idiot-proof, whenever you get close they just build a better idiot.
Member
I'm with Todd on this one - it's a lot faster and more reliable to just swap an upper with a zeroed optic allready on it. AR platform wins (again..)
Senior Member
Simpler but a lot heavier. You might as well have another gun in the rack. That is simplier yet.
Pat
Last edited by Alaskapopo; 01-21-12 at 17:46.
Serving as a LEO since 1999.
USPSA# A56876 A Class
Firearms Instructor
Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks