The latest issue of Recoil Magazine had a nice write-up on it. It looks like an interesting system....the handguard bolts to the receiver directly and serves as the barrel nut. If I had to guess, I would expect price to be north of $2500.
I'd guess a bit higher to be in the range of a SCAR 17 and probably competing for the same buyers.Seeing how DD prices things, I'm going to say about $2200 to $2400.
Yeah. The first thing I noticed was the heavy recoil.They need to get some adjustable gas on that thing, she is recoiling pretty hard.
I wonder if accuracy will degrade if someone monkeys a muzzle device with too much torque.
Why are they not releasing a 20/22 inch barrel version off the bat?
Demand.
If it isn't there, no reason to do so.
They need to get some adjustable gas on that thing, she is recoiling pretty hard.
I wonder if accuracy will degrade if someone monkeys a muzzle device with too much torque.
Would you want a 24" AR-10 that comes in at 10+ lbs. before optics?
DD will read the market, if they feel there's demand for a SASS-type AR-10, they'll do one. Honestly, with 168gr or 175gr rounds - you're not giving up an earth-shattering amount by limiting your barrel options to 18" to 20", for an entry - even 16" will still get you out past 500 yards with plenty more energy than 5.56, x39, 300BLK.
Most of the people buying AR-10's aren't going to try and stretch them to their limits, so a 16" out to 600 or so yards isn't shabby, but with significant more lethality than 5.56. I'd dare say most of the people buying a 16" AR-10 are thinking more of a shorter range rifle with more ass than 5.56, x39, 300BLK, etc.
Would you want a 24" AR-10 that comes in at 10+ lbs. before optics?
DD will read the market, if they feel there's demand for a SASS-type AR-10, they'll do one. Honestly, with 168gr or 175gr rounds - you're not giving up an earth-shattering amount by limiting your barrel options to 18" to 20", for an entry - even 16" will still get you out past 500 yards with plenty more energy than 5.56, x39, 300BLK.
Most of the people buying AR-10's aren't going to try and stretch them to their limits, so a 16" out to 600 or so yards isn't shabby, but with significant more lethality than 5.56. I'd dare say most of the people buying a 16" AR-10 are thinking more of a shorter range rifle with more ass than 5.56, x39, 300BLK, etc.
Last I checked the point of going .308 was for range. The additional energy is great, but for target shooting (considering the additional cost)I don't see people opting for a .308 ar10 over the less expensive ar15 in various calibers or a bolt action .308. And I doubt there are many hunters lining up for another AR10. (especially at this price)
And I don't see it being difficult for DD to create an AR10 with say a ~22/24inch S2W profile barrel that easily comes in under 10 pounds (as long as they don't stick their "cheese grater" rail on it)
And for the .308 at longer ranges (closer to 100 yards) the barrel length reductions have more of an impact than for .223/5.56 (for example going from the standard 20 inch to 16 inch barrel)
http://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308...ato-barrel-length-versus-velocity-28-to-16-5/
Finally a .308 at 16 inches would be rather unpleasant to shoot unsuppressed compared to a 22/24 inch barrel length.