Remington Defense showed their new version of the ACR which they plan to submit as part of the Army’s Individual Carbine solicitation.
They’ve trimmed 1.8 lbs from the ACR. They’ve improved the hand guard and removed the large fork used to change barrels. Instead, a barrel spanner is supplied. Additionally, the stock no longer folds but still collapses. Finally, it will accept any mil-spec AR pistol grip.
Tags: ACR, AUSA, Remington Defense
Looks like the barrel is fluted as well, interesting.
There was no need to remove the Folding-Stock option.
The need to maximize everything on this weapons systems
has not been met. What a huge disappointment.
Looks even more like a scar now.
Is the lower plastic or aluminum?
Indeed the scar vibe is even greater in this version, but unlike the scar the grip is interchangeable without trouble of modifying one to fit properly. But no folding stock? Boooo
I was under the impression that the folding stock was needed to make the carbine jumpable…
Sal – you don’t need a folding stock to make it jumpable. We used to jump full-length M16A1’s, M60’s, etc. – and the Brits used to jump full length SLR’s (i.e., L1A1 FAL).
I’m sure this version can TAKE a folding stock for those who need a jumpable version. But since this is a proposal for a service-wide carbine why weigh it down with features that only a very small number of users will need. If this is the gun the army selects I’m sure the foldable stock will make it into the system as something units can order as needed. That’s the beauty of the ACR platform: options.
Charile nailed it. It’s a modular system so you can add what you want. This iteration is more modular.
So what’s new? The removable AR pistol grip and aluminum alloy lower have been apart of this thing from the beginning. The handguard isn’t any different other than the slight extension out front. I suspect that getting rid of the folding stock mechanism is what cuts a lot of the weight. What we really want to know is if they improved the reliability of the gun, which was poor at best. I’m guessing Remington didn’t even admit there were problems in the first place. It’s been over a year and the Remington ACR looks almost exactly the same. Let’s hope the bad accuracy and poor reliability issues have been worked out. I really love the concept, but it’s been upsetting me for a long time that this thing has sucked so bad and wasn’t being fixed.
Lawrence,lets not forget skis, snowshoes, Dragon Missile Jump Packs, and the ever ridiculous Stinger Missile Jump Pack.
I thought I had it bad jumping a SINGERS and a SAW unit I watched those ADA dudes jump that Stinger. No thank you.
The SCAR and ACR weigh exactly the same; 5.4 lbs without the barrel assemblies(source Military Arms Channel), all of the weight savings is up front. The magnesium lower only saves just over an .oz. Barrels, trunion, barrel locking mechanism are probably a big part of the weight savings. I think that the requirement in the solicitation didn’t specify a folder, so they eliminated a potential point of failure.
You may be right Jodie, the two may weigh the same without their barrels, but the ACR was one heavy ass rifle. The original ACR was over 8lbs while the SCAR tips the scale at around 7lbs. The 1.8 lbs brings the ACR down to M4 weight. The Aluminum alloy receiver (not magnesium, that would be scary) should be heavier than the original polymer unit not lighter. I think most of the weight saving came from the folding stock mechanism and the newly contoured barrel. The only thing that they changed with the barrel nut was the “fork”. That thing probably weighed next to nothing.
In all the weight savings is a good thing, but I’m still not sure if that is going to be enough. Significant changes needed to be made to the working parts of the gun to truly make this an improved ACR. Like I stated before, reliability just a few months ago was spotty at best and accuracy was inconsistent. The gun I’m looking at in the pics appears to be the same gun I was looking at over a year ago. Let’s all hope this thing has some design changes we’re just not seeing.
A folding stock is just one more thing to break during trials. Same thing with the barrel wrench (think K.I.S.S.).
Appears Remington has some thinkers after all…
Actually Remington stated that the first alloy lowers were indeed magnesium alloy(these may be aluminum alloy, but the details are unknown at this point), that the trigger parts drop directly in to(like an standard AR). The polymer lower has a aluminum trigger group housing that drops in to the polymer lower. The Remington reps and a AAC employee confirmed that the magnesium lower shaved just over an ounce compared to the polymer lower.
There may very well be some sort of weight savings removing the folding portion, but it would be fairly insignificant as the folding mechanism is all polymer save the hinge pin. Though it is probably possible they could have increase the void in the forward portion of the stock to save weight (folder has a battery compartment).
The trunnion is quite substantial in the commercial ACR, it stands to reason that they reduced some weight in the trunnion, barrel nut, and piston operating system. Well the remy version has a carbine length gas system compared to the bushmaster that has a mid length system, so there is a bit of weight reduction there.
The bushmaster version also has an m4 profile barrel(as everyone knows), by going with a pencil barrel you could save about .45 lbs on the bushmaster ACR, so I think they had to have some changes other than just barrel profile and stock.
I imagine that SHOT 2012 will reveal much, I just hope we can get a hold of these components down the road for our BM ACRs(If not remington offering ACRs commercially).
It appears you were right Jodie. Remington did use a magnesium alloy receiver in the ACR. No telling whether this one has that lower, but I would think not. Coming from a metal working background, I can say that magnesium is extremely lite. The problem though, is how much to use. The physical properties of the metal make it inherently problematic if used in large qualities. I would think there would be issues, but your guess is as good as mine. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I’m not really familiar with the commercial version, so I can’t really make any comments on the comparing of the commercial version vs the mil. version as you did. I will say this though. They only shaved off 1.8lbs. We are both speculating from where that weight came from. One thing that we do know, is the ACR needed it. I’m still stuck on the reliability issues, I wish they would have mentioned that. I guess we’ll see what happens sometime soon.
I am really excited about the Remington ACR (version 2). It is just taking way too long. Perhaps 2012 November? [2013 for the 7.62×39? Maybe never…] Plus prices: $2,400.00 to $2,600.00 Or another dumb ass Democrat or a Greedy Republican President. The good old USA going down the tubes. Every man for himself.
I have recently pulled the trigger on the Light Weight version of the ACR. Any reliablility problems you may have seen in the past, certainly appeared to be taken care of as far as I could tell. I only ran green tip throught the weapon, and did not put any crap ammo down the pipe.
@MikeD Stinger (16 Sierra)guys never jumped without the Stinger being in its protective carrying case. There were too many components to it, and it is too fragile to “jump” carrying it. By proxy, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
[…] Remington Adaptive Combat Rifle Photo: Andrzej Krugler […]
The XCR is and always will be a better rifle.
Kolob, I happen to own both rifles and couldn’t disagree more. Both guns have suffered growing pains early on. The XCR has essentially worked out all of it’s bugs at this point but it was on the market earlier too so it had a head start. I’m hoping that the refinements that Remington has made do the same for the ACR.
In terms if features there’s just no compairison as far as I’m concerned. The ACR’s stock was superior in every way until Robinson cloned it for their XCR-L (I still think they should get sued for that one). I prefer the ergonomics of the ACR as well. It just feels better in my hand. While the layout is different, the XCR is an exact duplicate of the ar15 Ergos. The ambidextrous features are also lacking on the XCR In a few places (mag release, charging handle)
Personally, I feel that the ACR’s weaknesses have been greatly exaggerated. Everyone acts like the safety selector design is the end of the world. It doesn’t touch my hand at all even when I’m indexing trigher with my finger on the reciever. This must only be a problem for people with hands that are on the larger side.
That being said, I’m sure there are some other refinements that have been made that aren’t in this press release. Remington is one of the finest firearms manufactures in the world IMHO. If they’ve been working on refining this gun for over a year then they’ve done more than just the meager mods we’ve been told about. Just from the pictures I can see a redesigned brass deflector and safety selector. That will alleviate some of the complaints I’ve heard from lefties as well the safety complaints I mentioned above. Let’s not forget that when the M16 first debuted, soldiers hated it. It was prone to jamming (which they still are if you ask the boys using them in the desert) and used cheaply made plastic parts that earned it the nickname “the Matel special” (after the Matel toy co). It took 50 years and over a billion dollars of government funded improvement to evolve it into the world class M4 and m16 a4 we know today. So lets give the new guy a chance work his bugs out.