A while back I was asking advice on an ACR. I had a lot of comments that led to me passing on the purchase. A few people mentioned the Masada was much better. My question is why? Very little information is out there on Magpuls original design.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Magpul Masada vs ACR?
- Thread starter Sgt. 0811
- Start date
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
does it matter? you can only get the one version (ACR) so either learn to love it or buy something else.
does it matter? you can only get the one version (ACR) so either learn to love it or buy something else.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
an oldy but goodie
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BB0Pu-rvFjs"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BB0Pu-rvFjs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
an oldy but goodie
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BB0Pu-rvFjs"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BB0Pu-rvFjs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tomahawk84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats so 2006 </div></div>
-Nice pointless contribution to the thread, anything to boost your post count I guess.
As for the OP question, you might find some useful information in this link.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=11184
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tomahawk84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats so 2006 </div></div>
-Nice pointless contribution to the thread, anything to boost your post count I guess.
As for the OP question, you might find some useful information in this link.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=11184
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
Am I missing something here. Didn't Bushmaster buy over the Masada design and is selling it as the ACR?...as the link to M4carbine.net suggests.
I handled a Bushmaster ACR and it felt fairly well balanced and relatively light.
Am I missing something here. Didn't Bushmaster buy over the Masada design and is selling it as the ACR?...as the link to M4carbine.net suggests.
I handled a Bushmaster ACR and it felt fairly well balanced and relatively light.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
The acr and the Masada are the same thing, I know that but I think that the Masada was originally of a higher quality I just want to know what was changed from the original Masada rifle to the acr. Thanks for the post 1stlDvet. Kind of what I am looking for
The acr and the Masada are the same thing, I know that but I think that the Masada was originally of a higher quality I just want to know what was changed from the original Masada rifle to the acr. Thanks for the post 1stlDvet. Kind of what I am looking for
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sgt. 0811</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just want to know what was changed from the original Masada rifle to the acr.</div></div>
the name, duh. ACR sounds so much more urban tacticool
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sgt. 0811</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just want to know what was changed from the original Masada rifle to the acr.</div></div>
the name, duh. ACR sounds so much more urban tacticool
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
Personally I think you'd be a lot better off going with an AR15(and I don't even like them) or a SCAR16 for the price the ACR goes for. I've handled an ACR that my friend got, it felt very cheap, I couldn't stand the grip ergonomics, it felt too long at 16", and when comparing it to the SCAR16 at the range, it really didn't hold up.
However other people might like it, I just happened not to. Best advice I can give you is to actually go shoot one before deciding, and if you can, take a SCAR16 and an AR15 along with you so you can compare.
Personally I think you'd be a lot better off going with an AR15(and I don't even like them) or a SCAR16 for the price the ACR goes for. I've handled an ACR that my friend got, it felt very cheap, I couldn't stand the grip ergonomics, it felt too long at 16", and when comparing it to the SCAR16 at the range, it really didn't hold up.
However other people might like it, I just happened not to. Best advice I can give you is to actually go shoot one before deciding, and if you can, take a SCAR16 and an AR15 along with you so you can compare.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
Without taking too broad a brush here (I'm aware of the minute details between the platforms and moderately familiar with how the whole story went down) the short answer is IIRC:
Magpul design. Gave a bunch of people boners. Magpul made a business decision and made a deal with Bushmaster's parent company, for perhaps, many valid business reasons (no judgement, I understand business). Bushmaster did what they do with their modern interpretations of 5.56 rifles and took some of the desired features out of it in search of their idea of the perfect product.... to sell. Magpul wisely stays silent about it and the storm blows over. Under the Remington name the original design (or close to it) version becomes available to certain groups.
I think that's at least close. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Some of the differences were barrel twist 1:7 to 1:9 etc.
People use the word milspec a lot without, I feel, understanding the nature of the underlying issue. Milspec is the minimum acceptable feature set etc. in order to fulfill a specific role. If you consider the military's reputation for not always picking the best and sometimes close to the worst of things, in my opinion, one should look milspec as "I don't EVER want to go below that feature set etc. in a hard use gun".
Notice I say hard use. If you're putting 500 rounds down the tube a year, buy whatever is cheapest that won't blow up. The only issue with that mindset is the price gap between something considered below milspec and milspec rifles is negligible anymore. So for the same or very close amount of money... it would seem to make sense, to me, to purchase the military minimum specification set rifle.
Since this is a quasi bushmaster thread, I can specifically speak to seeing things such as a larger diameter gas tube designed to eat shit ammo. This isn't a particularly bad thing by itself but it can increase wear on the weapon. Couple the increased gas pressure with an improperly or non staked gas key, which is common on modern bushmasters, and you COULD have a recipe for a problem that would less likely be present in a proper situated weapon.
This is a narrow example, to be sure, but just a little clarification on the drama related to 5.56 AR pattern platforms and the Masada/ACR issue.
Open to being wrong is someone can document it. Learning is a hobby of mine.
Without taking too broad a brush here (I'm aware of the minute details between the platforms and moderately familiar with how the whole story went down) the short answer is IIRC:
Magpul design. Gave a bunch of people boners. Magpul made a business decision and made a deal with Bushmaster's parent company, for perhaps, many valid business reasons (no judgement, I understand business). Bushmaster did what they do with their modern interpretations of 5.56 rifles and took some of the desired features out of it in search of their idea of the perfect product.... to sell. Magpul wisely stays silent about it and the storm blows over. Under the Remington name the original design (or close to it) version becomes available to certain groups.
I think that's at least close. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Some of the differences were barrel twist 1:7 to 1:9 etc.
People use the word milspec a lot without, I feel, understanding the nature of the underlying issue. Milspec is the minimum acceptable feature set etc. in order to fulfill a specific role. If you consider the military's reputation for not always picking the best and sometimes close to the worst of things, in my opinion, one should look milspec as "I don't EVER want to go below that feature set etc. in a hard use gun".
Notice I say hard use. If you're putting 500 rounds down the tube a year, buy whatever is cheapest that won't blow up. The only issue with that mindset is the price gap between something considered below milspec and milspec rifles is negligible anymore. So for the same or very close amount of money... it would seem to make sense, to me, to purchase the military minimum specification set rifle.
Since this is a quasi bushmaster thread, I can specifically speak to seeing things such as a larger diameter gas tube designed to eat shit ammo. This isn't a particularly bad thing by itself but it can increase wear on the weapon. Couple the increased gas pressure with an improperly or non staked gas key, which is common on modern bushmasters, and you COULD have a recipe for a problem that would less likely be present in a proper situated weapon.
This is a narrow example, to be sure, but just a little clarification on the drama related to 5.56 AR pattern platforms and the Masada/ACR issue.
Open to being wrong is someone can document it. Learning is a hobby of mine.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
This is like saying a Corvette concept car was better than the production one which ended up coming out. A concept car is not a production car, and a Masada was not a production rifle but a rifle concept.
The ACR is the Masada with the design finalized for production.
The Remington version is actually LESS like the Masada, not more. For example, it has a metal lower and takes a normal AR grip while the Masada was plastic.
This is like saying a Corvette concept car was better than the production one which ended up coming out. A concept car is not a production car, and a Masada was not a production rifle but a rifle concept.
The ACR is the Masada with the design finalized for production.
The Remington version is actually LESS like the Masada, not more. For example, it has a metal lower and takes a normal AR grip while the Masada was plastic.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
As far as the Masada is concerned, there has been some information regarding the Magpul design going into production as a 7.62 specific model called the massoud but who knows when we will see that.
So far there have been a few incremental improvements on the ACR such as a drop in pricing and addition of the adjustable stock to the standard model. I have seen some floating around for 2100.00.
Keep an eye out for a good deal on an ACR, there are people making custom barrels for multi caliber use.
As far as the Masada is concerned, there has been some information regarding the Magpul design going into production as a 7.62 specific model called the massoud but who knows when we will see that.
So far there have been a few incremental improvements on the ACR such as a drop in pricing and addition of the adjustable stock to the standard model. I have seen some floating around for 2100.00.
Keep an eye out for a good deal on an ACR, there are people making custom barrels for multi caliber use.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is like saying a Corvette concept car was better than the production one which ended up coming out. A concept car is not a production car, and a Masada was not a production rifle but a rifle concept.
The ACR is the Masada with the design finalized for production.
The Remington version is actually LESS like the Masada, not more. For example, it has a metal lower and takes a normal AR grip while the Masada was plastic. </div></div>
I'm going to disagree with that assessment pretty vigorously. Many concepts were far better products than the final version. Engineers are good at what they do and the second the bean counters, legal department, and marketing department gets ahold of a product, it often times ends up a lesser product than the concept. This is very common in the automotive world. Furthermore, from my understanding and information, magpul had the design done. They weren't looking for input but lacked the desire and/or ability to mass produce a weapon at that current moment. I also understand the need to raise capital for other projects might have been reason as well. The deal with bushmaster looks as if it was a full on sale giving bushmaster the rights to change whatever they saw fit.
Having not seen a Remington version of the ACR, I'll take your word for it. I did not know they were metal lowers. That's interesting. I believe, at a time, they were offering things like a 1:7 barrel which led me to believe they were more in line with the concept.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is like saying a Corvette concept car was better than the production one which ended up coming out. A concept car is not a production car, and a Masada was not a production rifle but a rifle concept.
The ACR is the Masada with the design finalized for production.
The Remington version is actually LESS like the Masada, not more. For example, it has a metal lower and takes a normal AR grip while the Masada was plastic. </div></div>
I'm going to disagree with that assessment pretty vigorously. Many concepts were far better products than the final version. Engineers are good at what they do and the second the bean counters, legal department, and marketing department gets ahold of a product, it often times ends up a lesser product than the concept. This is very common in the automotive world. Furthermore, from my understanding and information, magpul had the design done. They weren't looking for input but lacked the desire and/or ability to mass produce a weapon at that current moment. I also understand the need to raise capital for other projects might have been reason as well. The deal with bushmaster looks as if it was a full on sale giving bushmaster the rights to change whatever they saw fit.
Having not seen a Remington version of the ACR, I'll take your word for it. I did not know they were metal lowers. That's interesting. I believe, at a time, they were offering things like a 1:7 barrel which led me to believe they were more in line with the concept.
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
The concept cars and concept rifles are never done until they are produced. Many parts are rapid prototypes. It is not until you try to produce them and order tooling that you see which areas are not manufacturable. This is when you decide which is a MIM part and which is a cast part and which is a machined part. This changes the design. Plastic parts have molds with parting lines and cavities and pull mechanisms. The plastic tool company may say that if you change one small area the tool cost goes from $250,000 to $80,000. You can call this bean counters getting involved, but others will call it "design for manufacturability."
The concept cars and concept rifles are never done until they are produced. Many parts are rapid prototypes. It is not until you try to produce them and order tooling that you see which areas are not manufacturable. This is when you decide which is a MIM part and which is a cast part and which is a machined part. This changes the design. Plastic parts have molds with parting lines and cavities and pull mechanisms. The plastic tool company may say that if you change one small area the tool cost goes from $250,000 to $80,000. You can call this bean counters getting involved, but others will call it "design for manufacturability."
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
The Masada was a good rifle. To say that it was way better than an ACR is not accurate. Some features of the Masada needed updating. For example ACR charging handle is far better than what was shown at SHOT '08 on the Masada/ACR. This update was done by Magpul then tweaked by BM. BM added some upgrades with Magpul's help, and also added some downgrades. Some proposed upgrades from either Magpul or BM never made it to production. Bottom line is that the ACR you see is not the ideal version, but neither was the Masada the ideal.
The Massoud is better than both of course, haha, but not being in production renders that moot.
Justin
The Masada was a good rifle. To say that it was way better than an ACR is not accurate. Some features of the Masada needed updating. For example ACR charging handle is far better than what was shown at SHOT '08 on the Masada/ACR. This update was done by Magpul then tweaked by BM. BM added some upgrades with Magpul's help, and also added some downgrades. Some proposed upgrades from either Magpul or BM never made it to production. Bottom line is that the ACR you see is not the ideal version, but neither was the Masada the ideal.
The Massoud is better than both of course, haha, but not being in production renders that moot.
Justin
Re: Magpul Masada vs ACR?
just picked up a Enhanced version in black. Haven't got to put any rounds through it yet because you my government mandated vacation but i will soon enough.
Shot both rifles before i decided to buy. i think what killed me about the scar was the reciprocating charging handle. other than that they are both excellent rifles, just depends on what you want to buy.
just picked up a Enhanced version in black. Haven't got to put any rounds through it yet because you my government mandated vacation but i will soon enough.
Shot both rifles before i decided to buy. i think what killed me about the scar was the reciprocating charging handle. other than that they are both excellent rifles, just depends on what you want to buy.
