quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The LMTs and LWRCs pre-date the MCX, I believe they're lighter, and they're less proprietary. They seem to boast all the same features, aside from a folding stock. The LMTs even have a "quick-change" barrel, which is likely comparable to the MCX's. Does a folding stock really make that much of difference? I understand the recoil system is different, but, other than facilitating the folding stock, is it actually any other sort of improvement? I know the folding stock is desirable in specific use-cases, but that's certainly not the main topic of discussion, when people fawn over the MCX. I am not implying anyone here is fawning.

I know AR Piston systems can have carrier tilt issues from the piston whacking just the top of the bolt carrier group and the cam pin is more likely to gouge out a part of the receiver. The weight is about the same as the original MCX and Spear LT (7-7.5#) while the Virus was much chunkier than all of them. The only piston system that looks like it makes the least amount of problems for an AR is PWS's long stroke piston where everything is connected to each other.

Nothing like solving a problem that Kalashnikov did decades before for a fraction of the price! Just go ahead a buy yourself a quality AK and be done with it! There are more AR platforms out there than you can shake a stick at. The market is saturated with them.

I had forgotten about carrier tilt. I brushed up by reading an only slightly combative thread on another site. It is certainly a legitimate "flaw", but it seems quality AR piston weapons still perform to the abusive high-round-count standards of military testing. I never understood the cam pin gouging thing, in any AR; it seems like such a preventable thing. Another thing I never understood is why PWS guns aren't the standard, when it comes to a piston system in an AR. In any piston gun online discussion, it is always mentioned, and never really opposed, that PWS guns don't have any of the issues that the short stroke guns can have. If the PWS guns are so stinkin' good, why don't we all have them? I do agree that, when taking carrier tilt into account, it seems the MCX is worth considering, for people of the piston AR persuasion. I understand the whole point is that the MCX isn't an AR, but that's really what it's trying to be: a weapon with all the benefits of a short stroke piston system, in a package as sleek as an AR, without any of the drawbacks of putting a short stroke piston system into an AR.

quote:

Just go ahead a buy yourself a quality AK and be done with it!

It's not that simple, because of the above-mentioned goals. I have more than a few SIG 55X rifles (arguably the most quality AK you can have), and I still prefer an AR because of weight and profile, in the most fundamental sense, and ergonomics, controls, and accessory integration, in a broader sense. An AK, or a SIG 55x, doesn't have all the benefits of an AR, with a piston system to boot.

But you can’t fold the stock on a PWS piston upper. Not as sexy. Not quite different enough to justify a gigantic contract.

Subjective sexiness aside, piston LMTs and 416s got significant contracts (foreign and/or domestic) without being much different, didn't they? So we're back to the folding stock being the tipping point? Also, where contracts are concerned, we're talking about the MCX and SpearLT, not the high-profile NGSW Spear contract.

Show me two guns: one with a folding stock, and one without, that are otherwise identical, and I'll choose the folding stock, because why not? There are more differences than that in play though, in the MCX comparisons. Not trying to be argumentative; just trying to boil it down.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
There are more differences than that in play though, in the MCX comparisons. Not trying to be argumentative; just trying to boil it down.

Considering the LT still uses the T handle, the only significant changes are the ambi lower which can be added to any DI upper, the folding stock, and the piston system made to work optimally with their suppressors. Not a single thing listed is revolutionary. Everything is evolutionary. Hell you can optimize a DI for suppressors. So nothing I have seen has changed my opinion the LT is just another cash grab on an iterative change.

I think the carrier tilt aspect is worth noting as well. I agree with your assessmemt. I guess it's cool to offer the latest/greatest to the public; folks who dig it can buy it. Seems most would be less annoyed if they held off until there were more significant changes.

To be fair, I would like this rifle much more if a big company, other than SIG USA, was making it. I just don't trust them as a company, despite making some cool interpretations of existing platforms.

quote:

Originally posted by jcsabolt2:
Nothing like solving a problem that Kalashnikov did decades before for a fraction of the price! Just go ahead a buy yourself a quality AK and be done with it! There are more AR platforms out there than you can shake a stick at. The market is saturated with them.

I mean, the two platforms are not even remotely similar mechanically or ergonomically, but ok.

That long stroke piston permanently attached to the bolt carrier on the PWS is kind of jinky to get in and out of the receiver due to the presence of the charging handle on an AR.

quote:

Not a single thing listed is revolutionary. Everything is evolutionary.

It seems like that was the goal - specific changes for a small-ish military contract (albeit likely a very lucrative one) & then try to sell as close to same as possible on civilian market & other military purchasers. I doubt all the changes survived translation from .mil request -> engineers -> marketing.
"Here's what SEALs use" is a pretty good sales pitch.
Sig (USA) has come a long way from pistol-importer to Keltech-ish manufacturer to big Mil/Law enforcement contracts for pistols/rifles/suppressors/optics/ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by snidera:
to Keltech-ish manufacturer

Do tell more thoughts on this please. Made me chuckle but raise my eyebrow a bit. About the only thing I would put in Keltec category would be is the Mosquito but that was not even manufactured by Sig.

quote:

Originally posted by jcsabolt2:
Nothing like solving a problem that Kalashnikov did decades before for a fraction of the price! Just go ahead a buy yourself a quality AK and be done with it!

Yep, because there’s plenty of factory AKs that are fully ambi with adjustable gas blocks all over the place. Oh wait…

quote:

Another thing I never understood is why PWS guns aren't the standard, when it comes to a piston system in an AR. In any piston gun online discussion, it is always mentioned, and never really opposed, that PWS guns don't have any of the issues that the short stroke guns can have. If the PWS guns are so stinkin' good, why don't we all have them?

Same reason we don’t have multiple monolithic uppers available: Patents. PWS figured it out and has a 20 year patent on the design while the AR-18 style short stroke system is now free for anyone to use.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by snidera:
to Keltech-ish manufacturer

Do tell more thoughts on this please. Made me chuckle but raise my eyebrow a bit. About the only thing I would put in Keltec category would be is the Mosquito but that was not even manufactured by Sig.

KelTech might be a little harsh, but Fritz has a nice summary of what SigUSA has become. To much is focused on marketing and not enough on engineering. I remember 10 years ago people saying Cohen saved Sig from going under with his methods. But umm, folks, Sig Germany is done, and Sig Switzerland sold off their guns manufacturing to a new entity. And now we have a company that is more focused on names and finishes and will let the paying customer be the beta testers for their guns.

There have been a few designs rolled out the last decade that I was ready to buy. But between SigUSAs rep of needing several gens to iron out the kinks, and then the lack of aftermarket support, hard pass for me.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
Same reason we don’t have multiple monolithic uppers available: Patents. PWS figured it out and has a 20 year patent on the design while the AR-18 style short stroke system is now free for anyone to use.

The question wasn't: "why aren't there more guns like the PWS, made by other manufacturers?". I say good on them, for having that patent, of that duration. The question was: if it's pretty-well universally agreed-upon that the PWS system solves all the problems of putting a piston system in an AR, why don't all the piston advocates have a PWS? Their prices seem reasonable, and I can't recall having ever read something bad about the company.

Probably because piston ARs are far less popular than they were 10 years ago and the Cult of AR people really like to mix and match components while any of the piston systems will lock you into a few things that can’t be changed. The main downside I keep reading on the PWS guns is the handguard gets extremely hot after 60 rounds, and I’m not sure if you can change handguards to something thicker or not.

I have done some looking at PWS, during this conversation. You cannot change the handguard. Hell, I can't say that I've shot sixty rounds in short order enough times to have any reference point of heat, on other guns. I don't know that that's a point of concern, for me personally. I am gonna shut up, before I contribute any more to this drift.

The same handguard issue is also on the BRN-180 that PWS makes for Brownells. The only handguard is the one you get, and others have mentioned that its handguard gets really warm really fast.

Back on topic, Sig’s website is updated with full info:

https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-spear-lt.html

However, it’s Thursday and I haven’t found any available for sale yet.

I remembered recently Garand Thumb mentioning this is a CHF nitride coated barrel. So no chrome lining? Has this been shown to be on par with chrome lining for barrel life? I know it has been talked about, but I don't recall seeing/hearing anything definitive. Seems like an odd choice to me for a rifle marketed to military, unless Sig is onto some new info.

Garand Thumb said something about Crane hashing out the best barrel etc in his video.

Could be wrong, but I think it’s chrome lined with a nitrided exterior.