ipsick

Probably an added advantage of the FA/Criterion 18.5" barrel vs. the Rainier 18" is the rifle length gas system vs. the Rainier mid length gas system.

If you're going this route, save your money and just get the ALG ACT trigger. The S3G/SD3G is barely an upgrade in technology over a mil-spec. If you want a 2-stage, maybe the SSA-E/SD-E but part of me still says save your money and get a RRA NM. My default suggestions are pretty much a JP for single stage and an SR Gold for two stage if you want real trigger upgrades. I've tried most of the Geissele offerings excepting the Hi-Speed triggers and didn't think they were the price of admission. The Wilson Combat triggers look promising but seem to just match or just be a little better than what the JP or SR Gold offer.

I run a carbine buffer tube on my AR-15 lower with a rifle length gas 18" barrel. On my LR-308, I run a rifle buffer tube with a mid length gas 18" barrel. It's ok to mix and match these items.

Sorry, got a little weary waiting and sold it to someone else. I did appreciate the offer.

Supposedly the flat trigger makes a world of difference. After wasting my money on an S3G and being disappointed, I wasn't motivated to buy an SD3G to find out.

Not sure what I did is what would be called trigger work. Again, I modified the safety not the trigger. Btw, you could practice on a safety that comes with a standard LPK before you work on the BAD ASS if you are unsure of doing any mods. It's easier than you are making it seem. For me the Geissele products could work exactly as expected and not even come near to being as good as the ATC Gold triggers. Also, there is no grinding. I just used some fine grit sandpaper wrapped around a 1/4-1/2 inch thick board and started wearing down on the flat portion of the safety. With a little trial and error, I got the exact trigger pull characteristics I wanted.

Now you guys turned me off from getting a 10/22. :-[

It's actually not that hard to fit the safety and for me the problem didn't just exist with the BAD ASS. If it did, I would have just dumped and sold the BAD ASS. You would have to remove quite a bit of material from the safety to impair safe function. I only had to remove material from the flat of the safety which clears the trigger tang. I was getting drag and creep from this area of interface. For some safety fitting might a huge hassle, but I am a firm supporter of the ATC Gold trigger technology to the point where a little fitting was worth it.

For those looking for a comparison, here's a thread to whet your appetites. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=656033

I actually modified the BAD ASS instead of the trigger tang. For me it wasn't about getting the safety installed (if that is what Justin is talking about. Or is it turning the safety on to "safe"?), it was the creep that was introduced between the interface between the tang and the safety. According to Roger, this was an older BAD ASS so he sent me an updated safety drum. With the updated drum, I encountered the second problem I discussed where I couldn't get the safety to rotate to "safe". For me I preferred to modify a $60 part as opposed to a $300 part so I modified the BAD ASS (original drum not the new drum). Removing material slowly from the flat of the drum I was able to get rid of the creep while still maintaining full safety function and proper function with the SR Gold. Ironically, I have an older AR Gold (.223 version) that actually requires a thicker safety drum to have full safety feature function (older AR Gold seems to have a different trigger tang than newer ones I've seen on the net). Most safeties including the older BAD ASS drum I had would not return the trigger to the primary sear after a simulated 'drop' to the secondary intercepting sear. Installing the newer BAD ASS drum worked perfectly with my AR Gold and seemed to actually fit better than the safety I received from ATC. Now I haven't been able to compare the SR Gold against a Hi-Speed, but I have tried an SSA-E which is supposedly similar to being a non-adjustable Hi-Speed. In my opinion, I felt like I would get better and more consistent results with the SR Gold than the way the Geissele is set up. YMMV.

I just used one of these http://www.midwayusa.com/product/198053/schuster-forward-assist-plug-delrin-ar-15. Plugs up the hole and is held in by a roll pin just like a FA.

More thread jack. I like my SI Defense lower a lot. I wish I had gotten a matched set.

I thought after trying out my AR the answer would have been clear. None of them. Get an ATC SR Gold instead. Even lighter than the AR Gold you tried out on my AR. ;)

Forward assist not working is obvious (no FA serrations on bolt), but my dust cover works perfectly fine. I am using a DPMS LR308 upper.

DI semi-auto has it benefits (pow,pow,pow) and drawback$ ;)

I had a .308 Savage bolt to round out my collection of common firearms calibers and it was wildly inaccurate for me (sold it). I wanted to keep a .308 around and my JP-15 was wicked accurate, so I figure why not build a bigger and younger brother. Couldn't be any happier to have made the switch.

FYI, the lower half of the Armalite block needs some slight modification to work with a DPMS LR308 upper.

<thumbsup> Well done!

I use them but the barrels on my .223 and .308 AR are both JP's. They might work with other barrels but they would have to be the same dimension under the handguards as the JP barrels. Either .650 or .750 diameter after the chamber and before the gas block.

I don't think you can be critical of the reliability of the JP LMOS system when the failure discussed in this thread could be due (as you have hypothesized) to using a component not proscribed in their system. I realize their system might be a little more complex than a typical mil-spec system so the added complexity might open the door more for failure(s), but it is not a certainty. I've seen plenty of mil-spec full mass setups fail at the range. That being said, considering my own recent JP bolt issues (http://308ar.com/forum/building-a-308ar/bolt-lug-wear/) I can see some minor production issues due to the high demand. Greater production volume might be leading to unforeseen qc issues. JP finally resolved (replaced) my bolt after other customers were experiencing similar issues and determined a few bolts got out without the properly specified hardness.

I'd be interested to hear what JP would have to say about this.

The JP extractor broke? Bummer and sorry to hear that NoFail. Keep us updated.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think that I might just stay with the comp. After trying NoFail's setup with the Vortex, the felt recoil differences was actually negligible but the muzzle jump was significant. Noise was probably about the same though with more apparent noise to fellow shooters. Reduced flash signature was relatively low on my list of priorities.

Does this mean your barrel threads did not match your comp thread? Glad you got the help you needed.

blwn99x, great response. Seems like with sound as one of my concerns, it isn't a matter of reducing sound (well because I won't be getting a suppressor anytime soon). The bigger matter is where the sound (gases) is directed. Robocop1051 described this in another thread and blwn99x has described it again in this thread. With my JP Comp, the gases are directed upward and to the sides which makes it seem louder to myself and nearby shooters. I wonder with the Vortex's helical design if anymore sound (gases) is dissipated than compared to other hiders. Probably just subjective qualitative differences more than actual differences. Another consideration given in another forum is the Noveske KX3 which directs the gases forward. Might look into this option. However, per blwn99x's description, recoil increase will be dramatic so I am unsure if I will decide to spend the money to replace the JP Comp. Robocop1051, I think I was wrong on the usefulness of the video you linked. Even though it used .223/5.56 examples there were some significant comparisons. I wish they had a Smith Vortex in the comparison. Also maybe a higher quality video would be better also. Youtube has better quality but breaks the comparisons into five segments. Thanks again all. I think I got most of what I needed and I am hoping Mr. NoFail can help me get the subjective empirical data I need soon.