Why does everyone do their own thing with AR-10?

[Bobson]

I don't care how sexy and "improved" the DD5V2 is, if there is only one place I can get a bolt carrier group or a forend...

I'm just spitballing here, but I'd guess that's a huge part of why everyone tries to do their own thing with the AR10.

For instance, if DD thinks they've found something great/better enough, they'll get enough people who are willing to buy a proprietary product line and will have created a cash cow for themselves.

As a businessman, why would I want to sell the exact same product everyone else sells? Just to let another guy undercut me, and it's all "Mil Spec" so I can't legitimately claim my product is superior. But not with the AR10.

Everyone is different so everyone can have an angle. This guy can say his is the best. This other guy can say his is the cheapest. This other guy can say his is the best intersection of low cost and good quality (best value), etc. And through that, everyone has their niche and dedicated customers.

It's not to advantage of big business to create a standardized rifle that everyone sells parts for. At least not to this untrained eye. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but since there's no push toward standardizing it, I bet I'm spot on. If it was advantageous for the companies, they'd have done it by now.

 

[ttarp]

I would, if, as I said originally, I could find anyone who made a decent example. But a rifle that dirty needs a chrome lined bore and chamber, IMO, and I would want the paddle-style mag release and the ambi-switch. Since I am not willing to pay $4K on an OG HK91, no such animal exists. All you have is the PTR91, and CETME builds assembled by Century's poorly trained monkeys.

Well, I might have misread you, but PTR is definitely not assembled by Century, and currently come factory with a paddle mag release. Ambi trigger groups are expensive but available and drop in.

 

[cdb1]

I've met the POF crew a few times at the SHOT Show and they are certainly very proud of their rifles and not particularly open to constructive criticism or particularly friendly so I can see where they might not be easy to deal with in the event of a rifle issue. Luckily for me, or by design, I haven't had any issues with the P415 or P308, both of which I've had for eight years or so with thousands of trouble-free rounds through the P415. My only dealings with POF CS has been to order accessories and they've been very helpful and knowledgeable. If I were in the market for another AR308 style rifle I'd look hard at POF, LaRue, Daniel Defense and DPMS for sure, and probably SIG, and then think long and hard about a SCAR 17S. It's not an easy decision these days but so far I have zero regrets re the P308.

Because there are better alternatives to fiddly gas guns for the 308 cartridge and if the OP is dissatisfied with the options available using gas piston technology in an AR type platform, it seems reasonable that he should consider those options.

I've met the POF crew a few times at the SHOT Show and they are certainly very proud of their rifles and not particularly open to constructive criticism or particularly friendly so I can see where they might not be easy to deal with in the event of a rifle issue. Luckily for me, or by design, I haven't had any issues with the P415 or P308, both of which I've had for eight years or so with thousands of trouble-free rounds through the P415. My only dealings with POF CS has been to order accessories and they've been very helpful and knowledgeable. If I were in the market for another AR308 style rifle I'd look hard at POF, LaRue, Daniel Defense and DPMS for sure, and probably SIG, and then think long and hard about a SCAR 17S. It's not an easy decision these days but so far I have zero regrets re the P308.

 

[cougar1717]

Wouldn't it be easier for everybody if we kept it simple and had a single well-defined standard?

Proprietary designs are the singular reason that a gun manufacturer remains in business. The AR-15 pattern especially, Glock, and the 10-22 are very modular and have the most aftermarket support by far. These three are the exception, not the rule. In all honesty, the LR308 DPMS pattern is not that much different in terms of modularity from the AR-15 pattern, the difference being the amount of available options from aftermarket suppliers. Even with the AR-15, a person has to choose parts specific to the gas system length, barrel diameter, commercial vs. mil-spec buffer tubes, rifle cut feed ramps vs. M4 cut feed ramps, etc.

Any manufacturer who wants to stay in business must provide something that the competition cannot. Different generations and versions of the same product line provide advertising buzz to drive sales and allow the manufacturer time to recoup design costs before the aftermarket catches up and eats away at profit margins.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Because there are better alternatives to fiddly gas guns for the 308 cartridge and if the OP is dissatisfied with the options available using gas piston technology in an AR type platform, it seems reasonable that he should consider those options.

Those "fiddly gas guns" run more reliably and shoot more accurately than my G3, and do so without destroying brass. They also have a less offensive recoil impulse, better ergonomics and more aftermarket support.

IMO, the G3/CETME/PTR are at the bottom of the heap for autoloading .308s. The CETME had appeal when it allowed you to get into a .308 auto for under $500, but those days are gone. With basic .308 ARs running in the neighborhood of $700-$800, I don't know why anyone would even look at fluted chamber roller locked junk.

 

[RPRNY]

Those "fiddly gas guns" run more reliably and shoot more accurately than my G3, and do so without destroying brass. They also have a less offensive recoil impulse, better ergonomics and more aftermarket support.

IMO, the G3/CETME/PTR are at the bottom of the heap for autoloading .308s. The CETME had appeal when it allowed you to get into a .308 auto for under $500, but those days are gone. With basic .308 ARs running in the neighborhood of $700-$800, I don't know why anyone would even look at fluted chamber roller locked junk.

Everyone has an opinion. And like network news, they don't have to be based on fact. They can be peppered with provocative, but meaningless, words like "junk" , or even "fiddly". But just as Senator Moynihan so famously noted, "While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts". And a roller delayed blowback system is factually more reliable than a gas impingement or piston system. True, it does beat up on brass and that's a fact. As to your recoil sensitivity, that too is a matter of opinion. That 308 recoil in a roller delayed blowback system is too much for you is an individual assessment, not a statement of fact.

So, thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

[MachIVshooter]

And a roller delayed blowback system is factually more reliable than a gas impingement or piston system

Source? This has not been my experience with mine, or with the CETMEs and PTRs I've used.

As to your recoil sensitivity, that too is a matter of opinion. That 308 recoil in a roller delayed blowback system is too much for you is an individual assessment, not a statement of fact.

Nice try at a cheap shot, but I never said it was beyond my limits. I said it was more objectionable than the AR or FAL. My big game rifles are 7 lb Remington 700s chambered in 8mm Rem Mag .375 RUM respectively. I use a 673 in .350 mag for pigs. I shoot >2,000 FPS 405 gr loads in my 1895SS and enjoy it. I can handle recoil. But why would I want to tolerate a stronger recoil impulse in a heavy autoloader that also happens to be less accurate and less ergonomic than literally all of the competition? A 9.5 lb .308 auto should not have a more obnoxious recoil impulse than an 8 lb .308 AR, but the G3 pattern does, and it's because of the design.

I say again, the pattern had place when you could grab a $429 gunshow CETME and a $150 case of dirty South African surplus to run through it. But that was 15 years ago. Today, buying this pattern over a .308 AR is just silly unless you just love the look of them and don't mind spending more money for less performance. If they were such great rifles, they would be dominating the .308 autoloader market. As it were, I'd wager more than 100 .308 ARs are sold or built for evey G3 pattern. There's a reason, and it's the same reason mine sits collecting dust while I burn through cases of ammo in the AR and FAL.

 

[MistWolf]

The biggest reason each of the 308 AR offerings are different is to avoid patent right infringements. Same reason the Remington Model 700 is different from the Winchester Model 70

 

[dh1633pm]

You mean gas impingement. I see your point about the other rifles. I had an L1A1, a HK, a M1A, and a AR10. I found the AR the most accurate and easiest to handle. I went the DPMS route. Traded them all for a Savage LRP, an AAC Blackout Model 7, a Milspec 700, and a few other things. The unsafe act is to blame.

 

[RPRNY]

Source? This has not been my experience with mine, or with the CETMEs and PTRs I've used.



Nice try at a cheap shot, but I never said it was beyond my limits. I said it was more objectionable than the AR or FAL. My big game rifles are 7 lb Remington 700s chambered in 8mm Rem Mag .375 RUM respectively. I use a 673 in .350 mag for pigs. I shoot >2,000 FPS 405 gr loads in my 1895SS and enjoy it. I can handle recoil. But why would I want to tolerate a stronger recoil impulse in a heavy autoloader that also happens to be less accurate and less ergonomic than literally all of the competition? A 9.5 lb .308 auto should not have a more obnoxious recoil impulse than an 8 lb .308 AR, but the G3 pattern does, and it's because of the design.

I say again, the pattern had place when you could grab a $429 gunshow CETME and a $150 case of dirty South African surplus to run through it. But that was 15 years ago. Today, buying this pattern over a .308 AR is just silly unless you just love the look of them and don't mind spending more money for less performance. If they were such great rifles, they would be dominating the .308 autoloader market. As it were, I'd wager more than 100 .308 ARs are sold or built for evey G3 pattern. There's a reason, and it's the same reason mine sits collecting dust while I burn through cases of ammo in the AR and FAL.

Thanks for sharing. Your opinions of your G3 pattern rifle, that is. Your appetite for heavy recoil bolt guns doesn't really have a place here, but I support freedom of expression, so no worries. The fact is that gas systems foul. Fact. The roller delayed blowback system is more reliable. You don't have to like it more than a gas gun and it doesn't have to be your choice. But it would be helpful if you separated opinion from fact. That some old CETME or G3, it isn't clear which you own or are referring to, is no longer a top choice for you may or may not be interesting to the OP and others. That you seem unaware, or choose to ignore, the current US production of extremely effective G3 pattern rifles diminishes the value of opinions that are based on outdated information.

 

[MistWolf]

Fact. The roller delayed blowback system is more reliable

Source?

 

[CoalTrain49]

You mean gas impingement. I see your point about the other rifles. I had an L1A1, a HK, a M1A, and a AR10. I found the AR the most accurate and easiest to handle. I went the DPMS route. Traded them all for a Savage LRP, an AAC Blackout Model 7, a Milspec 700, and a few other things. The unsafe act is to blame.

And there will be more unsafe acts as each state finds a way to ban AR's. We're fighting a bill in our legislature right now to keep AR's legal to purchase. The future doesn't look bright for the continued sales of either AR-15's and AR-10's. Seven or eight states have already banned them and that won't be reversed in federal court. So maybe the question shouldn't be which one to buy but maybe which company has the best chance of staying in business to supply the parts that will have to be replaced 5 years from now. If you are in the parts business you won't want to be building parts for 2% of the rifles out there. Where does that leave the AR-10 or anything else in .308. I don't see many people running thru 100 rounds of .308 at the range. I do see that with .223/5.56. Although I think the 223/5.56 is a varmint cartridge I load for it and shoot it almost every week.

I'm not advocating buying a rifle for that cartridge, but if parts become a problem maybe an AR-15 with a Grendel upper would be the way to go. At least you have solved a big part of the proprietary technology problem. The AR-10 may well be the next M-14.

I'm a huge fan of the 1911 for that very reason. Parts will be around for those for another 100 years. If you gave me an H&K I'd sell it tomorrow and buy another 1911.

 

[tomrkba]

Just get a Primary Weapon Systems rifle with the barrel length of your choice and stop worrying about it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The fact is that gas systems foul. Fact.

It is a self-limiting problem.

Fact: There is no shortage of formal and informal testing of the AR and other gas operated guns that show they can go tens of thousands of rounds without cleaning the gas systems, simply applying some lube periodically.

Another fact: the fluted chambers in the roller locked guns foul badly. A friend of mine had a registered full auto G3, and after a couple thousand rounds, the flutes were so packed with carbon that it scarcely left a mark on the brass. At that point, the gun would begin having extraction problems, as the flutes were no longer able to limit the pressure disparity.

And yet another: The roller system has proved problematic with headspacing, and cracked rollers are also fairly common. Roller locked guns are among the most difficult to rebarrel due to the unique headspacing requirements and tolerances in trunnions, too. FALs, on the other hand, are relatively easy to replace barrels on. And I don't think I need to mention the monkey skill level required to do an AR barrel.

Again, if the idea was so great, why did everyone else go with gas operation? Heck, even HK switched, save for subguns..........

The roller delayed blowback system is more reliable.

Still waiting on that citation.........

That you seem unaware, or choose to ignore, the current US production of extremely effective G3 pattern rifles diminishes the value of opinions that are based on outdated information.

I'm well aware of the JLD guns and have experience with them, experience that empirically reinforces my position.

 

[Prijador]

I've certainly seen and heard of G3-pattern rifles that were "fiddley", and Genuine H&K parts can be extremely expensive.
I'd pick a good AR-10 manufacturer and just go with it - as others have advised - or if you really don't want that, then have a FAL built on an IMBEL receiver, which is actually pretty easy to do. Heck, for piece of mind you can always purchase a set of replacement parts, springs, etc. when you purchase the rifle.

 

[.45cultist]

Wow, thanks for the replies, guys. Any input on the quality of the newer DPMS and Armalite AR-10s, in particular the Armalite 18 inch Tactical and the DPMS Mk12?
http://www.dpmsinc.com/308-MK-12_ep_96-1.html
https://armalite.com/shop/ar-tactical-18/

Go German. Go G3/91. Das ist uber alles. Die anderen sind schlect.

I would, if, as I said originally, I could find anyone who made a decent example. But a rifle that dirty needs a chrome lined bore and chamber, IMO, and I would want the paddle-style mag release and the ambi-switch. Since I am not willing to pay $4K on an OG HK91, no such animal exists. All you have is the PTR91, and CETME builds assembled by Century's poorly trained monkeys.

First of all the M1A is no more proprietary than any other firearm

Yes, it is. So proprietary is the M1A that a lot of M14-smiths won't work on them. The cast receiver makes that rifle as proprietary and difficult to work with as anything on the market. If you have an M1A, Springfield is about your only option for a lot of servicing.

I went from 2 MOA with iron sights and cheap M80 ball to 8 MOA of vertical stringing. If that is your definition of "no effect on tactical accuracy," then you obviously define accuracy differently than me. And if I have to send the rifle to three different people to have it fixed, I don't really consider that easy.

And according to the DSA website they only upper that is made from a casting is the Type 3, and that things is over built to begin with. The Type 1 and 2 receiver are still made with 4140 steel that they CNC.

That's good to know.

The front sight of your M1A had to be removed in order to get the gas block off to be unitized. You should expect having to rezero a rifle after the front sight has been removed and reinstalled.

Personally, I think you should stick with a Glock and a standard AR carbine. I don't think you'll be happy with anything else

But why would the rear site be messed with?

And I am not completely satisfied with the AR carbine either. I like "real" rifles. I live in big country. That's why I want a 7.62x51 that actually functions without parts falling off it.

No rifle is worn out with just 1200 rounds.

I have been unable to get more than 1200 rounds through my M1A without multiple parts rattling loose or falling off the rifle. Your results may vary, I consider that worn out. I've owned the rifle for 8 years but have fired a mere 12 rounds through it in the last 6 years. Even if and when I get it fixed, I could never trust it for anything even remotely serious or important. Essentially, flabbergasted and frustrated, I have thrown in the towel for that rifle at 1200 rounds. It's done. Stick a fork in it.

I've heard of the odd SA cast receiver stretching just enough to cause function problems, it's rare but does exist. I think the PTRS(?) clones have improved. With time and money you might find a forged M14 semi receiver and part it up, but check out the AR options and get an estimate to compare.

 

[.45cultist]

It is a self-limiting problem.

Fact: There is no shortage of formal and informal testing of the AR and other gas operated guns that show they can go tens of thousands of rounds without cleaning the gas systems, simply applying some lube periodically.

Another fact: the fluted chambers in the roller locked guns foul badly. A friend of mine had a registered full auto G3, and after a couple thousand rounds, the flutes were so packed with carbon that it scarcely left a mark on the brass. At that point, the gun would begin having extraction problems, as the flutes were no longer able to limit the pressure disparity.

And yet another: The roller system has proved problematic with headspacing, and cracked rollers are also fairly common. Roller locked guns are among the most difficult to rebarrel due to the unique headspacing requirements and tolerances in trunnions, too. FALs, on the other hand, are relatively easy to replace barrels on. And I don't think I need to mention the monkey skill level required to do an AR barrel.

Again, if the idea was so great, why did everyone else go with gas operation? Heck, even HK switched, save for subguns..........



Still waiting on that citation.........

Remember H&K actually makes decent CHEAP weapons, castings, stampings, etc.

I'm well aware of the JLD guns and have experience with them, experience that empirically reinforces my position.

The AR platforms are easy to build, and doing so helps one understand the rifle better. If one takes the time to get parts, it can be cost effective compared to buying a complete rifle.

 

[ttarp]

Sheesh, some extremist views being shared here, the G3 design isn't nearly as bad as Mach is making it out to be, and not as perfect as RPRNY would have us believe. The G36 gas piston design(or AR180, though that rifle was a flop) was more reliable than the G3, and is what Hk is basing all of their current rifles off of. What I like about the G3 is how little maintenance they require, I don't think breaking the gun down to clean once every 2K rounds its too unreasonable, and little or no lube is required to keep them running.

But there is no denying the fact its heavier than the competition, cheap sheet metal construction, and isn't as tacticool. Its stuck somewhere between an M1A and an AR, more modular than the M1A, but not as much as the AR.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I am obviously aware that the PTR isn't made by Century, which is why I separated them in my post. I am also aware they are still marketed as range guns instead of hard use defensive or service rifles, and will always be regarded as game guns to me for as long as they lack chrome lined bores and chambers.

I love the 17S as well and fondle one at every opportunity. I've handled enough of them at this point to know that the triggers are usually mediocre at best, the handguard shares the same ergonomic problem as the much cruder Kalashnikov in that it is waaay to short, and I would prefer an 18 inch tube to a 16 inch tube. FN touts the rifle's modularity, then refuses to take advantage of it, so we are stuck with one version of the rifle. That makes the 17S arguably less practical and more expensive to get into than say, an M14. With the 17S, I'd have to pay $3000 for the rifle and another $1500+ putting a decent trigger, extended handguard, and 18 inch barrel for it. I work for a living. A $4500 rifle option isn't much of an option. I was looking to spend about half that on the rifle so I could put decent glass on it.

At any rate, thanks for the input, guys, I will take another look at the Armalites and DPMS rifles.

Just get a Primary Weapon Systems rifle with the barrel length of your choice and stop worrying about it.

I have a friend with a PWS216 and it is a nice rifle, but a) PWS doesn't offer an 18 inch barrel, or if they do, they don't advertise it, and b) good luck finding spare parts for about anything on that upper.

It's been said that amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics. I've been burned by enough high-end "tactical" stuff that I am more interested in being able to keep a rifle running when something breaks than I am about the supposed advantages offered by a unique long-stroke gas piston assembly that only a handful of people on earth have the tools and parts to maintain.

 

[Casefull]

I've owned an HK 91 for 35 years. A great rifle in its day but has passed it's prime. Unless you just want to spray bullets a good A.R. 10 variant is head and shoulders above the HK for a real rifleman.

The tedious argument against gas guns is baseless. Unless you're a monkey who can't clean anything why would you ever want the complexity of extra parts on any machine. People who shoot a few hundred rounds a year continue to make the argument about gas impingement being dirty. The gas piston ARs have always been a solution in search of a problem. View some of the torture test videos of $600 AR torture test videos. Trust me folks, in real life you'll be dead or safe before you burn through more than a couple of mags.

As to the ops frustration with lack of standard in AR 10 rifles. Actually the DPMS pattern has pretty much become the standard. I have built several AR10s from different manufacturers that build to that standard and have not had many problems.

 

[RPRNY]

More opinions delivered authoritatively as if fact. The gas impingement system is dirty. It requires regular cleaning and chromed bores and chambers to run effectively. That may well be fine for some and may not be for others. It does not change the fact that spewing superheated gases and powder residue into the bolt carrier creates reliability issues that designs like a roller delayed blowback system and fluted chamber are objectively less susceptible to. That they may not be issues that concern you does not change the fact that there are issues. No matter how many times or how loudly you say that you have no problem with the issues posed by gas impingement, the fact that the system presents issues remains a fact.

I drive a 1978 Land Rover. It leaks (in and out) and suffers from electrical issues from time to time, even with it's limited electrical system. That's fine. I know the issues and don't think they are a problem for me. I would rather drive my Land Rover than a 1978 Jeep that may have fewer problems. My preference and willingness to overlook the objective issues does not change the fact that they are issues. Neither do your opinions on gas impingement systems.

 

[Speedo66]

AIM is selling a version by Anderson, complete, for under $1K, along with a sale on other .308 parts:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=980dd9967062dc0c30cc116d0&id=0ba9f0cc7c&e=1befdbddfa

 

[MistWolf]

More opinions delivered authoritatively as if fact. The gas impingement system is dirty. It requires regular cleaning and chromed bores and chambers to run effectively. That may well be fine for some and may not be for others. It does not change the fact that spewing superheated gases and powder residue into the bolt carrier creates reliability issues that designs like a roller delayed blowback system and fluted chamber are objectively less susceptible to. That they may not be issues that concern you does not change the fact that there are issues. No matter how many times or how loudly you say that you have no problem with the issues posed by gas impingement, the fact that the system presents issues remains a fact.

I drive a 1978 Land Rover. It leaks (in and out) and suffers from electrical issues from time to time, even with it's limited electrical system. That's fine. I know the issues and don't think they are a problem for me. I would rather drive my Land Rover than a 1978 Jeep that may have fewer problems. My preference and willingness to overlook the objective issues does not change the fact that they are issues. Neither do your opinions on gas impingement systems.

The AR is not a direct impingement system, no matter what the internet says. A Ljungman is. The AR gas system is different. Eugene Stoner states in his patent application the gas system is not a direct impingement system. The US Patent Office agrees.

Superheated gasses do not enter the carrier. The gas cools quite a bit at the gas block and as it travels through the gas tube before getting to the carrier. That's how the gas block and the gas tube get hot, from the gas throwing off it's heat which cools it. Yes, there is powder residue, but there is also powder residue that fills the flutes of the HK roller delayed system and those flutes are critical to reliable extraction.

ARs do not require chrome bores and chamberss to run reliably although chrome lining helps in adverse conditions. One place that chrome lining is needed is in the expansion chamber (a feature NOT found in direct impingement system) of the carrier. The HK roller delayed system benefits from chrome lining the chamber for the same reasons

 

[salt&battery]

AIM is selling a version by Anderson, complete, for under $1K, along with a sale on other .308 parts:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=980dd9967062dc0c30cc116d0&id=0ba9f0cc7c&e=1befdbddfa

nice rifle but do not understand the skeleton collapsible stock on a "hunting" rifle or on any 308 AR. makes the rifle to light in the rear plus with mine I like having the storage in the butt

 

[cdb1]

I've met the POF crew a few times at the SHOT Show and they are certainly very proud of their rifles and not particularly open to constructive criticism or particularly friendly so I can see where they might not be easy to deal with in the event of a rifle issue. Luckily for me, or by design, I haven't had any issues with the P415 or P308, both of which I've had for eight years or so with thousands of trouble-free rounds through the P415. My only dealings with POF CS has been to order accessories and they've been very helpful and knowledgeable.

If I were in the market for another AR308 style rifle I'd look hard at POF, LaRue, Daniel Defense and DPMS for sure, and probably SIG, and then think long and hard about a SCAR 17S. It's not an easy decision these days but so far I have zero regrets re the P308.

POF is definitely high quality. The odds of needing their CS are very low.