User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 5:47:41 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 7:30:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zerlak: That or it was very dirty, could have had a bad round or simply it was still a prototype and didn't have everything worked out that the production version will have. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zerlak: Originally Posted By SIASL: Originally Posted By Zerlak: Originally Posted By JAG2955: The mag dump at 2:36? Looks like the bolt doesn't lock all the way back, but it stays open when he pulls the mag out? When he pulls the mag, you can actually see live rounds still stacked in it. Indeed. See the screen shot above. ETA: I wonder if they’re shooting reduced recoil 308? Just doesn’t seem to be a lot of recoil for a Battle Rifle caliber. ETAx2: Could explain the short stroke, maybe? That or it was very dirty, could have had a bad round or simply it was still a prototype and didn't have everything worked out that the production version will have. The TFB video was filmed what, January 2020? A year gives a lot of time to improve over a prototype. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 7:34:31 PM EDT
[#3]
If you look at the T&P video, you can get a brief glimpse of a loaded mag in JSJ's hand while the guy is shooting. Looks like all brass ammo to me. So maybe 762?
|
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 9:08:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Recoil looks fairly stout in this video, the rifle’s rocking that guy around pretty good. A lot more than the dude with the bitchin’ mustache in the F/A Raptor video, anyway.
For the life of me, I can never remember his name, but I’ll never forget that ridiculous mustache. 
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 11:24:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coregon:  Quick inquiry, I've got one of Sig's new additive manufacturing Inconel SLX762-QD suppressors waiting in ATF jail. Can that Suppressor handle the 6.8 Hybrid cartridge? I understand of course if you decline to answer at this time. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2021 11:55:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tranzformer: The TFB video was filmed what, January 2020? A year gives a lot of time to improve over a prototype. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tranzformer: Originally Posted By Zerlak: Originally Posted By SIASL: Originally Posted By Zerlak: Originally Posted By JAG2955: The mag dump at 2:36? Looks like the bolt doesn't lock all the way back, but it stays open when he pulls the mag out? When he pulls the mag, you can actually see live rounds still stacked in it. Indeed. See the screen shot above. ETA: I wonder if they’re shooting reduced recoil 308? Just doesn’t seem to be a lot of recoil for a Battle Rifle caliber. ETAx2: Could explain the short stroke, maybe? That or it was very dirty, could have had a bad round or simply it was still a prototype and didn't have everything worked out that the production version will have. The TFB video was filmed what, January 2020? A year gives a lot of time to improve over a prototype. Agreed completely and in the video they do mention it was a test mule/prototype setup. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/9/2021 1:18:37 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoodfu:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSE1VftyHYosome more Fixed it for you.  |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2021 2:18:55 PM EDT
[#8]
So will the upper receiver be 6061 aluminum like the MCX line or 7075?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2021 3:36:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: So will the upper receiver be 6061 aluminum like the MCX line or 7075? Nothing publicly stated by Sig yet. Either way it won’t matter. FN has shown 6061/6063 aluminum is fine for an upper receiver. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2021 11:38:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tranzformer: Nothing publicly stated by Sig yet. Either way it won’t matter. FN has shown 6061/6063 aluminum is fine for an upper receiver. Right, but still hoping they will use 7075 which is the industry standard. |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 8:58:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Right, but still hoping they will use 7075 which is the industry standard. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Originally Posted By tranzformer: Nothing publicly stated by Sig yet. Either way it won’t matter. FN has shown 6061/6063 aluminum is fine for an upper receiver. Right, but still hoping they will use 7075 which is the industry standard. 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. |
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 9:34:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GraniteStateMike: 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. Excellent post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 11:06:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GraniteStateMike: 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. Actual manufacturing is super cool to me. I did a little bit of work with solidworks, some 3d printing and almost got a product into production. Having actual professional insight to manufacturing is like me being a kid in a candy shop. Thanks for the info! |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 11:41:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cops66]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GraniteStateMike: 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. Sorry if I come across offensive, but how do you know that I don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard? I do know how to read and do my research. I was a cop 32 years and recently retired and still in the military reserves, so I have a good understanding when it comes to using weapons under harsh conditions. I also had an MCX for awhile and I did notice that the upper would damage easier (scratching & gouging) than my other AR15’s and was probably due to the softer aluminum. I really don’t think that it would cost $1500.00 more to use 7075 VS 6061 and the MCX upper isn’t that much longer than a mil-spec upper. They use 7075 in all their other lines. |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 1:22:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Sorry if I come across offensive, but how do you know that I don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard? I do know how to read and do my research. I was a cop 32 years and recently retired and still in the military reserves, so I have a good understanding when it comes to using weapons under harsh conditions. I also had an MCX for awhile and I did notice that the upper would damage easier (scratching & gouging) than my other AR15’s and was probably due to the softer aluminum. I really don’t think that it would cost $1500.00 more to use 7075 VS 6061 and the MCX upper isn’t that much longer than a mil-spec upper. They use 7075 in all their other lines. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Originally Posted By GraniteStateMike: 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. Sorry if I come across offensive, but how do you know that I don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard? I do know how to read and do my research. I was a cop 32 years and recently retired and still in the military reserves, so I have a good understanding when it comes to using weapons under harsh conditions. I also had an MCX for awhile and I did notice that the upper would damage easier (scratching & gouging) than my other AR15’s and was probably due to the softer aluminum. I really don’t think that it would cost $1500.00 more to use 7075 VS 6061 and the MCX upper isn’t that much longer than a mil-spec upper. They use 7075 in all their other lines. It’s not that is longer it’s that it’s designed for an extrusion rather than a block of billet or forging. Scratching and gouging are cosmetic. Wear surfaces are what counts. Cam path, charging handle lugs, fees ramp. They’re all steel in the MCX. Vs an AR 7075 upper you can expect the charging handle lugs to wear out between 15-20k rounds. Cam path is between 25-30 and that’s end of life for the upper receiver. The MCX has a theoretical infinite upper receiver life because tho use steel inserts will outlast the aluminum but if they ever do get damaged, they’re replaceable. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2021 5:12:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GraniteStateMike: It’s not that is longer it’s that it’s designed for an extrusion rather than a block of billet or forging. Scratching and gouging are cosmetic. Wear surfaces are what counts. Cam path, charging handle lugs, fees ramp. They’re all steel in the MCX. Vs an AR 7075 upper you can expect the charging handle lugs to wear out between 15-20k rounds. Cam path is between 25-30 and that’s end of life for the upper receiver. The MCX has a theoretical infinite upper receiver life because tho use steel inserts will outlast the aluminum but if they ever do get damaged, they’re replaceable. Hopefully Sig will offer spare receivers for the Raptor like they do for the MCX. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 12/13/2021 2:11:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Sorry if I come across offensive, but how do you know that I don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard? I do know how to read and do my research. I was a cop 32 years and recently retired and still in the military reserves, so I have a good understanding when it comes to using weapons under harsh conditions. I also had an MCX for awhile and I did notice that the upper would damage easier (scratching & gouging) than my other AR15’s and was probably due to the softer aluminum. I really don’t think that it would cost $1500.00 more to use 7075 VS 6061 and the MCX upper isn’t that much longer than a mil-spec upper. They use 7075 in all their other lines. This feels very “ As A Veteran “ ish to me. What does being LEO of Mil have to do with your understanding of metals? I’ll wait for the blah blah blah all action I’ve seen response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2021 3:34:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dolor]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Sorry if I come across offensive, but how do you know that I don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard? I do know how to read and do my research. I was a cop 32 years and recently retired and still in the military reserves, so I have a good understanding when it comes to using weapons under harsh conditions. I also had an MCX for awhile and I did notice that the upper would damage easier (scratching & gouging) than my other AR15’s and was probably due to the softer aluminum. I really don’t think that it would cost $1500.00 more to use 7075 VS 6061 and the MCX upper isn’t that much longer than a mil-spec upper. They use 7075 in all their other lines. Extruded vs Forged. MCX uppers are extruded and the AR uppers are forged. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/13/2021 5:39:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoogieMan2: This feels very “ As A Veteran “ ish to me. What does being LEO of Mil have to do with your understanding of metals? I’ll wait for the blah blah blah all action I’ve seen response. It has nothing to do with understanding metals. Has to do with actually using them in harsh environments and seeing the wear and tear. |
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 12/14/2021 9:21:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GraniteStateMike: 7075 doesn’t extrude well like 6061 which is why FN and SIG use it for their uppers. The MCX has a longer receiver life than a typical AR, all the wear points are s7 tool steel and on an AR they’re 7075 aluminum. Using 7075 for an MCX upper of a scar upper would add $1500 to the price simply because of the waste, shipping expense(heavy blocks vs hollow extrusions) longer machine time, more cutting wear. For absolutely NO benefit. Literally none. I have worked in machine shops, managed one. I’m not an engineer but I definitely understand that side of the house. You don’t know why what you’re asking is a terrible idea. You don’t understand what makes 7075 the industry standard. You just want it because you’ve been conditioned to want it. ?? You can buy a Zev forged 7075 T6 upper receiver for $120. I don't see how that $1500 dollar number tracks with that? I also don't think lessening external wear such as loss of coatings, scratching, and gouging can be classified as Zero benefit. Keeping a weapon's exterior burr free seems like a good goal. Even small superficial cuts can get infected if some poor guy in deployed in a swamp for weeks or months. I've been cut on burred aluminum before, it wasn't a big deal, and it wasn't on a weapon, but this discussion did remind me of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2021 9:57:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lordhuck: ?? You can buy a Zev forged 7075 T6 upper receiver for $120. I don't see how that $1500 dollar number tracks with that? I also don't think lessening external wear such as loss of coatings, scratching, and gouging can be classified as Zero benefit. Keeping a weapon's exterior burr free seems like a good goal. Even small superficial cuts can get infected if some poor guy in deployed in a swamp for weeks or months. I've been cut on burred aluminum before, it wasn't a big deal, and it wasn't on a weapon, but this discussion did remind me of it. It's extruded, not forged or milled. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 12/14/2021 10:23:51 PM EDT
[#22]
The Zev listing I was looking at says it was forged. Is it actually not?
https://aimsurplus.com/zev-technologies-forged-ar-15-upper-receiver/ But what about this primary weapons systems upper receiver then? It's $200 and says that it's Machined from Forged 7075 Aluminum https://vtsupply-com.3dcartstores.com/Bootleg-Stripped-7075-Forged-AR15-Upper-Receiver-Primary-Weapons-No-Forward-Assist_p_1274.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2021 10:31:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lordhuck: The Zev listing I was looking at says it was forged. Is it actually not? https://aimsurplus.com/zev-technologies-forged-ar-15-upper-receiver/ But what about this primary weapons systems upper receiver then? It's $200 and says that it's Machined from Forged 7075 Aluminum https://vtsupply-com.3dcartstores.com/Bootleg-Stripped-7075-Forged-AR15-Upper-Receiver-Primary-Weapons-No-Forward-Assist_p_1274.html The MCX is extruded. Not the AR style receivers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2021 8:12:32 AM EDT
[#24]
I know I’m late to the party but I 100% want a Spear in .308!
Only recently have I become interested in the MCX and yesterday began thinking, “hmmm, a 16” .308 and 11.5” 5.56 would be my ideal pair!”. Come to find out, a larger cal MCX is already in development for the .mil. While I’m a big “bang for the buck” guy, I think the MCX Spear is a unique offering and I’d definitely pony up about $3500 for one. As for the Raptor, the video above makes it look absolutely ridiculous given the amount of recoil, but maybe it’s partly the shooter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2022 3:49:19 PM EDT
[#25]
This is the year, right?
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/1/2022 4:55:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cops66]
[#26]
I hope so. Hoping they release the actual Raptor (non prototype) at Sig’s virtual Shot Show.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2022 5:02:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: I hope so. Hoping they release the actual Raptor (non prototype) at Sig's virtual Shot Show. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/1/2022 5:05:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cops66]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAG2955: When is that? Did they set a date and I missed it? When the original video came out on the Spear/ Raptor in 2020, cool mustache dude said 12-18 months and also mentioned it maybe being in your Christmas stocking 2021. Well it didn’t happen, so hoping that something is going to be revealed at the 2022 Shot Show. Sig apparently won’t be there, but they should have something virtual for all their new releases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2022 7:11:09 PM EDT
[#29]
I been thinking about getting into the mcx in 556 and I know this will be damn near impossible to find but I'm in on the spear for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:41:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Shot Show week approaches - is it happening?
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 12:48:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: Shot Show week approaches - is it happening? We can only hope. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 8:23:35 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: We can only hope. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cops66: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: Shot Show week approaches - is it happening? We can only hope. @coregon 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 8:53:56 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 9:15:50 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 9:19:21 AM EDT
[#35]
How is it time when pricing and availability isn’t even known yet?
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 9:45:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Any ideas on pricing and availability? It looks to be a limited run product, likely near $10k if I had to guess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:16:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BigBurkeyBoy: Any ideas on pricing and availability? It looks to be a limited run product, likely near $10k if I had to guess. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BigBurkeyBoy: Any ideas on pricing and availability? It looks to be a limited run product, likely near $10k if I had to guess. Originally Posted By tranzformer: How is it time when pricing and availability isn’t even known yet? Originally Posted By BigBurkeyBoy: Any ideas on pricing and availability? It looks to be a limited run product, likely near $10k if I had to guess. First Production Run is a Limited Edition. In-line/catalog production SKU's are right behind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:18:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Omg omg omg
|
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:22:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Price?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:31:22 AM EDT
[#40]
Time to start saving
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:35:45 AM EDT
[#41]
It's so beautiful.
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:49:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Does anyone even make ammo in .277 Fury or 6.8x51mm other than SIG?
|
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:10:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: erwos]
[#43]
If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. :P If the production versions aren't $3500-$4500, I'll be shocked. This is clearly in SR-25 money territory.
277 Fury ammo availability is the elephant in the room. Sig blew it with the 277 Fury Cross, and it's unclear why this is different. |
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:10:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Will there be a LE/MIL SKU for those of us that qualify for that program?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:19:30 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By erwos: If the production versions aren't $3500-$4500, I'll be shocked. No doubt they will be - I'm thinking even higher. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:35:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By erwos: If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. :P If the production versions aren't $3500-$4500, I'll be shocked. This is clearly in SR-25 money territory. 277 Fury ammo availability is the elephant in the room. Sig blew it with the 277 Fury Cross, and it's unclear why this is different. This thing will be <3500 after pigs can fly, but it’d be amazing if it did. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:36:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By erwos: If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. :P If the production versions aren't $3500-$4500, I'll be shocked. This is clearly in SR-25 money territory. 277 Fury ammo availability is the elephant in the room. Sig blew it with the 277 Fury Cross, and it's unclear why this is different. THAT IS literally the dumbest post you can make... How is asking about the price means one can't afford it...you know...most millionaires in this country don't acquire wealth by being idiotic with their finances... |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:43:31 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thehun06: THAT IS literally the dumbest post you can make... How is asking about the price means one can't afford it...you know...most millionaires in this country don't acquire wealth by being idiotic with their finances... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:48:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Enough with the whiny bullshit about who's able to afford something that hasn't even had a price announced.
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 12:14:02 PM EDT
[#50]
I have no doubt that it will be expensive.
And I also have no doubt that Sig Sauer will eventually release versions in 7.62x51 and probably 6.8x51. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
