AR Sponsor
|
Quoted:
Anyone known if their going to offer BRN-10 upper and lower receivers separately? Only way to own one in California. Have to assemble your self with stupid compliance parts, since Brownells will not offer a California model. |
|
Quoted:
I see that it is now spring. Are they shipping yet? Are they shipping yet? Are they shipping yet? Are they shipping yet? Are they shipping yet?  The longer we wait, the more likely that they will have the correct style front sights on them, so I don't mind waiting
|
|
Quoted:
There is no way for them to forge the lower so that it is a little more generous in terms of being able to fit pmags, etc? They just need to make the magwell slightly larger! PMAGS would look goofy on a retro anyway. The current magwell shape is good to go. it would not look right with the newer slant cut. 
|
|
Shit...I just realized that these guns aren't going to accept P-Mags. Now..normally, I would run a gun like this with retro type mags, just like everyone else here....but to NOT take P Mags reallly sucks. THAT is a serious oversight. It's like selling a diesel truck to someone in a country where they don't sell diesel fuel.
That being said....is it confirmable that these guns won't run with P Mags? In reference to Blain's comment...it would NOT be too difficult to run a CNC tool path INSIDE the mag well that could shape the proper acceptance shelf for P Mag type mags without harming the exterior appearance which IS a critical part of a retro gun. |
|
Quoted:
...it would NOT be too difficult to run a CNC tool path INSIDE the mag well that could shape the proper acceptance shelf for P Mag type mags ..... Get the belt sander out and sand your plastic POS PMag so it fits a FUGGIN AR10!
This is truly one of the most ridiculous complaints about a RETRO RECREATION RIFLE EVER! It's like saying "this Shelby Cobra kit car is stoopit because I can't put the mudder tires off my brand new F150 on it" Let's not descend into GD territory guys. This is RETRO! NOT GHETTRO! |
|
Quoted: Not trying to be mean, but after all the threads about this rifle not being "correct enough" this P-Mag nonsense deserves a few  
|
|
Quoted:
Shit...I just realized that these guns aren't going to accept P-Mags. Now..normally, I would run a gun like this with retro type mags, just like everyone else here....but to NOT take P Mags reallly sucks. THAT is a serious oversight. It's like selling a diesel truck to someone in a country where they don't sell diesel fuel. That being said....is it confirmable that these guns won't run with P Mags? In reference to Blain's comment...it would NOT be too difficult to run a CNC tool path INSIDE the mag well that could shape the proper acceptance shelf for P Mag type mags without harming the exterior appearance which IS a critical part of a retro gun. |
|
Quoted: Brace yourself, it's not going to accept aftermarket charging handles either. HOWEVER....if it harms the exterior profile then they should NOT change it at all. That being said, people would be more accepting of an AR-10 clone that had it's visual appeal altered slightly in order that it could function with a variety of magazines as to being accepting of the wrong front sight base. There is no REASON for the front sight base to be wrong....there is every reason, economically speaking, to make a gun that can accept as many AR platform mags as would be possible. The point of making a product, even a small production product is to sell as many as possible of what you make... |
|
Quoted:
Don't care about that and no one would or should. From a marketing perspective, I can guarantee that Brownell's will hear about these guns not accepting P Mags. IF ( and I mean IF ) it is possible to make the guns accept them without harming the exterior profile...they should effect the change immediately.... HOWEVER....if it harms the exterior profile then they should NOT change it at all. That being said, people would be more accepting of an AR-10 clone that had it's visual appeal altered slightly in order that it could function with a variety of magazines as to being accepting of the wrong front sight base. There is no REASON for the front sight base to be wrong....there is every reason, economically speaking, to make a gun that can accept as many AR platform mags as would be possible. The point of making a product, even a small production product is to sell as many as possible of what you make... |
|
Quoted: There's plenty of AR10 clones, go get one of those. Pmags are not the be all end all of mags. Aftermarket magazine companies make magazines to fit guns, Gun manufacturers don't make guns to fit magazines. Otherwise Magpul would have never had to make an emag for 556 weapons. |
|
Quoted:
I have one....or two..... Quoted:
Quoted: There's plenty of AR10 clones, go get one of those. Pmags are not the be all end all of mags. Aftermarket magazine companies make magazines to fit guns, Gun manufacturers don't make guns to fit magazines. Otherwise Magpul would have never had to make an emag for 556 weapons. |
|
Quoted: Here's an idea. Get the belt sander out and sand your plastic POS PMag so it fits a FUGGIN AR10!
This is truly one of the most ridiculous complaints about a RETRO RECREATION RIFLE EVER! It's like saying "this Shelby Cobra kit car is stoopit because I can't put the mudder tires off my brand new F150 on it" Let's not descend into GD territory guys. This is RETRO! NOT GHETTRO! Every aspect of my replies has been from a perspective of marketing, engineering and ease of use. Go back and read every statement I have made versus what you and everyone else has said and then you tell me who is behaving like a GD toddler. I guarantee you that it is not me. Have a mod read it and let's see what they would think as an impartial party. The aspect of the change I suggested does not effect the profile of the rifle in any manner in the way I suggested the change be made. In fact, I was one of the first people to suggest that they roll the rifling twist back to a more moderate rate instead of 1:10 which does NOT fit the mode of this firearm. If you are so stuck on retro, why don't you suggest they do the hand guards right? |
|
Quoted:
The only person who hasn't stumbled into GD territory is me. Every aspect of my replies has been from a perspective of marketing, engineering and ease of use. Go back and read every statement I have made versus what you and everyone else has said and then you tell me who is behaving like a GD toddler. I guarantee you that it is not me. Have a mod read it and let's see what they would think as an impartial party. The aspect of the change I suggested does not effect the profile of the rifle in any manner in the way I suggested the change be made. In fact, I was one of the first people to suggest that they roll the rifling twist back to a more moderate rate instead of 1:10 which does NOT fit the mode of this firearm. If you are so stuck on retro, why don't you suggest they do the hand guards right? This is the RETRO FORUM. It seems pretty silly to many of us to be concerned if one's Pmags are going to work in an AR10 clone. I understood your points. If this were something other than a VERY NICHE PRODUCT I could see Pmag fit being an issue. I imagine that precious few people who would actually buy this weapon would want to or try to cram a Pmag in it. The whole concept of a Pmag in a retro AR10 clone is bizarre IMHO. Now you may have a metric butt ton of pmags and want to be able to use them in an AR10 clone but I really doubt that any or many other retro heads want to do that and I seriously doubt that being able to accept pmags is going to make a non retrohead buy this rather expensive niche rifle. Yeah we are having a little fun at your expense but the whole concept of it not taking pmags being a deal breaker for someone is pretty preposterous to many of us with RBRD! Reprogramming the machinery to to re-profile the magwell would probably be kind of a big deal and cost quite a bit of money and only appeal to a precious few customers. I don't see any chance of return on investment for Brownells. Twist rates? Yeah there's a discussion to have. I agree a more modern twist would be better. Handguards. Same thing. The FSB is an atrocity and God bless Brownells for working on that. I've got nothing against pmags. I want to get a few for my modern pistol rig. I've got nothing against you. I just thought the idea of poking a pmag in this rifle is friggen HILARIOUS! I LOVE to laugh and the mental picture of a pmag stuck in an AR10 mag well makes me giggle. |
|
I don't see what the problem is with keeping the outside appearance the same while being able to ensure that it can fit pmags? Increased utility (when it doesn't effect the appearance) should be viewed as a good thing.
Not all of us want this gun to be a dust collector in a safe to oogle at and fondle. Some of us like a KISS .308 fixed carry handle ARs, and this is the only one available. Why would anyone who wants a serious user and not a safe queen NOT want the ability for this to take the most prevalent type of AR10 mags out there? Esp when there are 25 rounders available. Like with your AR15, you can always stick the equally non retro brownells aluminum 20 rounder back in when you want to. On a side note, I do find it odd that they went with a more "modern" 1-10 twist rate for this rifle but then keep the original twist rate of their retro AR15s..
I personally prefer 1-7 twist even on a retro AR15. Anything that increases the performance / versatility of the gun while not interfering with the retro appearance is a good thing. From what I've heard though, 1-10 does not shoot 147 grain ball as well as a slower twist, so it is not beneficial. |
|
Quoted: I LOVE to laugh and the mental picture of a pmag stuck in an AR10 mag well makes me giggle. ( sorry if I seem a bit serious.....but I am GLAD for this thread and this discussion....anything that takes my mind off of the last week I had, it's worth doing....believvvvve me....no one would EVER want to go through what I went through on Thursday night ) |
|
You might take note that a production delay for a front sight base that looks more like the historical part is being celebrated here in Retroland rather than bemoaned that it will make the gun less marketable to the masses who are not looking for something with a carry handle anyway.
The profile of the magazine well is of the same nature. Changing it to be compatible with a PMAG compromises the entire point of the project. A point you're missing VERY HARD, actively avoiding catching that point no matter how hard it's pointed out or how gently it's hinted at in both seriousness and humor. The reason I mentioned the charging handle in my small jibe was it's exactly the same thing as accommodating a modern magazine. The M16's charging handle is better than the trigger style under the carry handle. It's far more available. It works better. But it's WRONG. We want it as right as possible and are clamoring for waffle mags, not PMAGS. It's you who's not getting it, not us. |
|
Quoted:
You might take note that a production delay for a front sight base that looks more like the historical part is being celebrated here in Retroland rather than bemoaned that it will make the gun less marketable to the masses who are not looking for something with a carry handle anyway. The profile of the magazine well is of the same nature. Changing it to be compatible with a PMAG compromises the entire point of the project. A point you're missing VERY HARD, actively avoiding catching that point no matter how hard it's pointed out or how gently it's hinted at in both seriousness and humor. The reason I mentioned the charging handle in my small jibe was it's exactly the same thing as accommodating a modern magazine. The M16's charging handle is better than the trigger style under the carry handle. It's far more available. It works better. But it's WRONG. We want it as right as possible and are clamoring for waffle mags, not PMAGS. It's you who's not getting it, not us. Most of my reasoning is based on the fact that, there are SOME very good .308 AR mags out there...and a LOT of mediocre ones. The Brownell's 20 rounders that look like a big 20 round AR-15 magazine? They suck ( which made me very sad as I really like that pattern of magazine) and they aren't the only ones that are lackluster. Blain's talking points are similar to mine....we ALSO want as close to the original as possible.....but if there is a way to have the gun accept the most common, easily available magazine with a very decent reliability record...WITHOUT changing the external visual dynamic or the internal functional dynamic.....why not do it? You will NEVER see it...you will NEVER notice it. It's very similar to Brownell's thinking about making stainless 1/14 barrels. Though the original Winchester barrels were NOT stainless, Brownell's likely has access to stainless 410 blanks very economically. Most of us can paint our rifles to the proper colors offered by Norrel's and such, so, if you have a barrel made of exceptional materials that you can profile exactly to the original parameters AND you can blast and subsequently coat the barrel to make it look almost exactly like an original Winchester barrel....why not? Now, if Brownell's has access to carbon steel barrels with 1/14 twist at the same or better economical value, then THAT would OBVIOUSLY be the way to go as it is period correct. NOW, even though the original Winchester barrels were not chrome lined....I, personally, would chrome line them. In a properly made barrel it would enhance the wear characteristics of the barrel and lend to the longevity of the barrel over time....and no one sees it from the outside. |
|
Quoted:... The Brownell's 20 rounders that look like a big 20 round AR-15 magazine? They suck ( which made me very sad as I really like that pattern of magazine) and they aren't the only ones that are lackluster... they seem ok in my Armalite
|
|
Quoted:
Oh, I want Waffles, too. Who DOESN'T want waffles? Remember, my whole theory is VERY contingent upon NOT changing the external look of the gun. If the change that I suggested changes the LOOK of the weapon or the function thereof with ANY ( decent ) magazine, then I would NEVER suggest it. Most of my reasoning is based on the fact that, there are SOME very good .308 AR mags out there...and a LOT of mediocre ones. The Brownell's 20 rounders that look like a big 20 round AR-15 magazine? They suck ( which made me very sad as I really like that pattern of magazine) and they aren't the only ones that are lackluster. Blain's talking points are similar to mine....we ALSO want as close to the original as possible.....but if there is a way to have the gun accept the most common, easily available magazine with a very decent reliability record...WITHOUT changing the external visual dynamic or the internal functional dynamic.....why not do it? You will NEVER see it...you will NEVER notice it. It's very similar to Brownell's thinking about making stainless 1/14 barrels. Though the original Winchester barrels were NOT stainless, Brownell's likely has access to stainless 410 blanks very economically. Most of us can paint our rifles to the proper colors offered by Norrel's and such, so, if you have a barrel made of exceptional materials that you can profile exactly to the original parameters AND you can blast and subsequently coat the barrel to make it look almost exactly like an original Winchester barrel....why not? Now, if Brownell's has access to carbon steel barrels with 1/14 twist at the same or better economical value, then THAT would OBVIOUSLY be the way to go as it is period correct. NOW, even though the original Winchester barrels were not chrome lined....I, personally, would chrome line them. In a properly made barrel it would enhance the wear characteristics of the barrel and lend to the longevity of the barrel over time....and no one sees it from the outside. The new FSM has pushed production WAY behind already. Now for Brownells I think the VAST majority of folks associate the skinny FSB with an AR10. The regular AR15 tower stuck out like a sore thumb even to me who is not up on everything there is to know about AR10s. So to sell more rifles I think they could easily make the case that spending more money now will result in better sales and more money later. The number of extra rifles they could sell by making the lower pmag compatible is pretty small comparatively and the expense of re broaching the mag wells is pretty high. Now if they do another run of lowers then sure why not. Make them externally perfect and internally pmag kosher. Even then it = more expense for Brownells. |
|
Quoted: The number of extra rifles they could sell by making the lower pmag compatible is pretty small comparatively and the expense of re broaching the mag wells is pretty high. Dimensionally, the top third of the magazine ( approximately ) is dimensionally the same, functionally, as most other SR-25 type mags.....it's just that angled section that is wider.... You could internally profile the feature INSIDE the mag well and it would NEVER be extrenally visible and wouldn't really affect magazine support as pretty much all modern AR-10s run "fine" ( being subjective, there ) with the more modern slanted, external, AR-15 type profile. Check out this pic: 
So, just inside the magazine well, this thin little volume would be CNC relieved to accommodate this feature. Again, I would likely not run PMAGs for the same aesthetic reason that everyone else here wouldn't....but having the option to run something if you ever needed to borrow a mag or just for the security of making the gun more functional would be really nice. You can see how exactly minimal this change would be and it would, for all intents and purposes be invisible. AR-10 mag wells are pretty thick...so there would be VERY minimal loss of structural integrity. |
|
Quoted:
Pmag should make a polymer waffle mag, without the ridge, compatible will all rifles. A great range mag for the retro guns, a decent mag for the modern ones. In it's own right, this IS a retro idea.....remember the ORIGINAL idea for the plastic, pre-loaded M16 magazines? I think one of the guys here has one or two of them!!!!!! |
P-Mags in a retro AR?...
If your gripe with it is they won't fit in your retro, you should probably not own a retro in the first place. . . I'm somewhat interested, but not until they get the correct FSB and 3-hole vent bolt carrier. 
It's a good base rifle, but needs some things fixed as far as being a correct retro. It really should have had a chromed barrel though, not nitride. |
|
Quoted:
If it's just a few millimeters difference, then sand down your PMags or Dremel your own magwell. Some of us like KISS SHTF / hard use guns. You have no business telling me what I can and can't buy or why I should want something. Having a retro just to fondle and mentally masturbate over it is much less of a reason of ownership than those who want it as a serious tool. Some real effeminate metrosexual comments here about pansies getting their panties all in a bunch over the look of a magazine in a rifle.... Here's a hint....if you don't like then, don't use those magazines! Your equally non retro brownells mag can still be used (if it functions which from what I hear is iffy), why does it bother you what a real man uses with their rifle? |
|
Quoted: If it's just a few mm difference they should just make sure the lowers are machined so that the pmags fit and work! It doesn't do anything to alter the physical appearance. I wouldn't suggest anything that would, but if it can be done without altering the look, it should! Some of us like KISS SHTF / hard use guns. You have no business telling me what I can and can't buy or why I should want something. Having a retro just to fondle and mentally masturbate over it is much less of a reason of ownership than those who want it as a serious tool. Some real effeminate metrosexual comments here about pansies getting their panties all in a bunch over the look of a magazine in a rifle.... Here's a hint....if you don't like then, don't use those magazines! Your equally non retro brownells mag can still be used (if it functions which from what I hear is iffy), why does it bother you what a real man uses with their rifle? This debate is a lot like the complaints about magazines specifically made for Beretta 92F's not fitting in Beretta 92S's. Although very similar they're not the same gun. Buy magazines that fit, drive on. It's a $1,600 rifle and we're complaining about having to buy some $20 magazines ($10 each in a 10-pack)? ETA: I want it, just to have it; is a perfectly valid reason for any American to own anything they want. I don't have to have a need or even a use for it. I don't even have to ever shoot it. If I want one just to hang on a coat hook in my foyer, then that's perfectly fine. Just as valid as wanting one to flay alive dumping thousands of rounds through it, even it's just to do mag-dump after mag-dump. We get entirely too, "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T" from time to time. |
|
Quoted: If it's just a few mm difference they should just make sure the lowers are machined so that the pmags fit and work! It doesn't do anything to alter the physical appearance. I wouldn't suggest anything that would, but if it can be done without altering the look, it should! Some of us like KISS SHTF / hard use guns. You have no business telling me what I can and can't buy or why I should want something. Having a retro just to fondle and mentally masturbate over it is much less of a reason of ownership than those who want it as a serious tool. Some real effeminate metrosexual comments here about pansies getting their panties all in a bunch over the look of a magazine in a rifle.... Here's a hint....if you don't like then, don't use those magazines! Your equally non retro brownells mag can still be used (if it functions which from what I hear is iffy), why does it bother you what a real man uses with their rifle? |
|
Quoted: A few mm difference in fit is the stuff that kills reliability. I'm willing to bet that hogging out the magwell to accommodate a PMAG is going to cause massive feed issues. If it were really that simple it likely would have been done. |
|
Quoted: A few mm difference in fit is the stuff that kills reliability. I'm willing to bet that hogging out the magwell to accommodate a PMAG is going to cause massive feed issues. If it were really that simple it likely would have been done. I have had Armalite and Olympic AR15 lowers that were so tight that even in spec aluminum GI mags would not drop free. On the other hand, I have had magwells that were so generous that even the most warped and bent out of spec mags would fit and drop free. The variance is HUGE between these two extremes (much more than a couple milimeters) and as someone who greatly prefers the more generous mag wells, annoying! It's annoying because it's also one of those things that is unadvertised and is impossible to find out without personally testing a rifle / brand of lower. Luckily, from all my experiences, I generally can determine which brands are more likely to have a loose magwell and which brands to stay away from because their magwells are too tight. Even then though there is still some conjecture because there can be variances among the batches. The magwell fit has no effect whatsoever on function. It does though greatly effect the versatility of the rifle as a gun with a more generous magwell will have much less issues with dropping mags free during adverse circumstances than one with a tighter magwell. It's these little things that only a serious user of their rifle as a tool will notice, much less care about. I have a list of things I look for in my serious rifles, and magwell fit is important enough to make the list. Trust me, having a more generous magwell that can accommodate more mags is easily obtainable and well worth it. Especially in this case, where you have an entire class of the most reliable magazine type to gain. |
|
Quoted: That's straight up BS, and you know it! Anyone who has had any in depth experience with AR15s will know that one of the features that varies wildly is the tightness of the lower receiver. I have had Armalite and Olympic AR15 lowers that were so tight that even in spec aluminum GI mags would not drop free. On the other hand, I have had magwells that were so generous that even the most warped and bent out of spec mags would fit and drop free. The variance is HUGE between these two extremes (much more than a couple milimeters) and as someone who greatly prefers the more generous mag wells, annoying! It's annoying because it's also one of those things that is unadvertised and is impossible to find out without personally testing a rifle / brand of lower. Luckily, from all my experiences, I generally can determine which brands are more likely to have a loose magwell and which brands to stay away from because their magwells are too tight. Even then though there is still some conjecture because there can be variances among the batches. The magwell fit has no effect whatsoever on function. It does though greatly effect the versatility of the rifle as a gun with a more generous magwell will have much less issues with dropping mags free during adverse circumstances than one with a tighter magwell. It's these little things that only a serious user of their rifle as a tool will notice, much less care about. I have a list of things I look for in my serious rifles, and magwell fit is important enough to make the list. Trust me, having a more generous magwell that can accommodate more mags is easily obtainable and well worth it. Especially in this case, where you have an entire class of the most reliable magazine type to gain. This is RETRO! A recreation of a gun which was not widely adopted because of its numerous faults and bad timing into the market. IT'S NOT A SERIOUS WORK GUN!!! It's not a work gun at all. I know you spent money on your PMAGs already and don't want to buy new magazines... Admit it, that's the problem here. You're vested in one pattern of not-quite-AR10 and don't want to spend another $100 for ten more magazines for your $1,600 toy rifle. But until one of you serious workers actually takes tools to the magwell on a BRN-10 we don't KNOW what will happen. Just because it works on an AR-15 does NOT mean it's going to work on a BRN-10. Just because it's fine on an SR-25 doesn't meant it's the same for a BRN-10. You don't know and, frankly, cannot know because you don't have one to mess around with yet. Only Brownell's does. Since it appears to be DPMS based, can you blithly state that hogging out the magwell on one of those will not change how the magazine hangs? Is there enough material on the front of the BRN-10 to allow enough to be removed without changing the appearance? You don't know, you can't know. You THINK there is and you THINK that it will work because it works on an AR-15. |
AR Sponsor