crimsonfalcon07

It looks to me like the article was more about "most everyone sucks too much to really wring the advantage out of their longer barrels, and will likely never have the opportunity to shoot at extreme ranges anyways, so why waste the money" than it was about shorter barrels actually being better. Which is fine, and from a practical sense, it's interesting to think about. Now, I'm a complete novice at this stuff, but there's still a few things I'm curious about. First, in that article, and the followup, he spends some time talking about how velocity is abstract, which seemed to depend on the notion that most shooters will base their accuracy on small groups, which may include powder outside of the actual group average, and will disregard fliers. Okay, but what if you set your zero with a good lead sled and you do sling enough rounds down range to set a more accurate data point for that ammunition type, and you refine it as you get more data, because you're still paying attention to your range cards? Won't you, over time, be able to keep your groups more consistently where you expect them, and more consistently the size you expect? Even if you don't sling a whole bunch of lead down-range, if you randomly select cartridges from the lot, the odds of you getting the oddballs out from the average seem lower than the odds of getting a set that WILL accurately reflect the average. More, I noticed from his graphs that were intended to prove that temperature has a huge effect on accuracy, not only that point, but also that the variance across temperatures was noticeably lower for longer barreled guns. Perhaps this is a novice view, but scientifically, don't we want to try to mitigate the potential negative effects to accuracy from as many variables as possible? As I see it, there are MANY variables involved in what we consider accuracy, barrel length being only one of them. He mitigates some of the ammunition-related ones by handloading, for instance. And if he's right about the powder burning differently across different powders, that just speaks to the need to refine that technology further to create more consistency in powder life, not to the need to utterly disregard everything we know about velocity. If a shorter barrel is "better" accuracy-wise because it reduces flex, shouldn't someone who is seriously interested in accuracy be investing in something like the Straightjacket system, which reduces flex even for longer barrels, and also wicks heat away, thus mitigating that factor as well? Oh, and they're much lighter to boot. For those who want a really precise weapon system, regardless of whether or not their wants are materially effective, or if they currently have the skill level to wreak every bit of potential out of it, it strikes me that he's said very little that really proves that shorter barrels are actually better. All he really says is that they're not worse enough to matter--to him--to outweigh the advantages in maneuverability and weight that can be gleaned from a shorter barrel. Well, there's cost too, and for a college student, that's no doubt a significant concern. But how is it enough to say that just because you can easily (if you're a very skilled shooter), correct for the errors introduced at long range by your shorter barrel, that somehow the shorter barrel is functionally similar accuracy-wise to the longer barrel. I'm not sure I see that information in his data. Perhaps one of you short barrel aficionados can help me better understand these points, as I still have yet to order the barrel for my build... :)

Got an Aero Precision M5 set on order, which should arrive early next week. Also the various parts I need to complete the lower build. Got in BAD-ASS safety, Troy Ambi mag release, Seekins mag release button, Geissele SSA-E trigger, Radical Firearms NiB BCG (DPMS 308), and LUTH-AR MBS stock (half of that today). Build is coming together, slowly but surely!

It looks like the way the enhanced upper works, you just screw the handguard via those 8 screws into the attachment point that's machined in. I would guess that the barrel nut will have a similar shape and will function in a similar fashion. I'm picturing that front part unscrewing. It won't exactly be the enhanced concept, because the enhanced means you don't have anything that can torque around--it's just a monolithic attachment point.

Aero Precision says they'll be making barrel nuts for their handguard so it will fit the classic style uppers as well. So I don't need to change anything around.

I just ordered the regular upper, cause that's all they had available. If it turns out not to be compatible with the rails they're releasing, I can update my order. But they don't have the enhanced uppers available for sale at the moment.

Well, AP had a sale going this weekend, 20% off combo sets. So I bought the upper and lower and pivot and takedown pins. Now I just need a few more assorted small parts, buffer tube and buffer, and the barrel, etc. Then I have to save up for the Teludyne job, and get it all assembled.

I think this is the one with the takedown and pivot pins in the right place so it actually works with the parts its supposed to, if my conversations with their reps are any indication. I've already decided to bail and get the Aero Precision receiver set though.

Fantastic. They said the handguards will be ready for sale in a couple weeks, which is right about when my next paycheck comes in... :)

So, got the receiver sent back. No idea when new receivers will be out, so am contemplating the Aero receiver set instead. Will be making up my mind next month, likely. I've also made a few changes to my list of parts. I just ordered a NiB bolt carrier group from Primary Arms. Price seemed right, and they're a good company. Also decided on the LUTH-AR MBS buttstock. Got a Seekins mag release button to go with my Troy Ambi mag release, and have the Geissele SSA-E and BAD-ASS safety in as well. I'm still debating what barrel I'm going to get; I'll be sending the upper in to Teludyne, so I need a pretty specific handguard inner diameter as well. The Centurion won't cut it (and sounds like it won't fit if I get the Aero receiver set anyways); I'm just not sure whether it's worth getting a Krieger or Rainier Ultramatch, since the SJBS process evidently will really reduce multi-round grouping sizes even with a stock barrel. So maybe get a midgrade Rainier?

Okay, more information. The pivot and takedown pin placement was wrong, and thus the upper rode too low, making the hammer impact the BCG. They are going to be correcting that issue moving forward, and new lowers will be marked "cal MULTI" instead of 308. I've also been informed that the rifle buffers and buffer tubes are compatible. They will be sending me a label to return my defective lower for a refund. I've now been told, however, that the uppers are compatible with DPMS LOW profile rails, although they're supposed to be DPMS Gen 1 compatible? I think I'm just going to have to check myself once I order the upper.

So the CS types have said multiple times that they've been 100% assured that DPMS Gen 1 uppers should work with their lowers, and vice versa BUT the experiences in this thread indicate that they might have screwed the pooch somehow. At this point I think you buy at your own risk. With regards to AR-15 takedown pins, other users have reported that the AR-15 pins are too loose. The pins are supposedly proprietary, and I haven't heard anything confirmed yet that disputes that. I'm not 100% comfortable with their proposed fix for the trigger, which is to grind down the trigger part a little, although in their defense, they have said that if they damage the trigger, they will compensate the users for it. I think I'm going to want that in writing if I decide to take them up on the offer.

This one is on hold as evidently virtually all of the upgrade parts I purchased are not compatible with the lower, and the lower appears NOT to be compatible with DPMS uppers either. At this point, I would recommend any people considering a PSA PA-10 to hold off. I think this one is going to be a flop.

So more bad news from PSA. At this point, I don't think even having a matched set will be good enough, because they didn't do their homework. Turns out the mag release is proving not to be compatible, and that the SSA-E trigger indeed isn't compatible, as evidently "the hammer is too high," (read that as "we made our lower too LOW) and impacts the BCG, preventing function. I get the feeling that they didn't do any testing at all before releasing this, and only got the length to fit to claim compatibility. As of now, triggers, pins, bolt catch, magazine release, buffer tubes, buffers, and DPMS upper parts will apparently not work, and I don't know if the safety will, although I've confirmed the grip at least does work. In their place I'd be paying for a recall, and retooling the whole thing so it doesn't suck, but we'll see how they handle things. Seriously, how can you advertise that it was designed to be compatible with AR-15 trigger groups without actually having it be compatible with the SSA-E? At this point, my recommendation is to avoid PSA for 308 parts at all costs. -edit- I just got a call from the PSA rep I've been working with. The SSA and DMR triggers have been tested and DO work. The SSA-E is a fraction of an inch too high, so PSA will issue a return label for folks like me, and we can send in the lower and trigger and they'll modify it to work properly. The customer service reps dealing with this are scheduled to go to the manufacturing department next week to seek more information on the variety of questions they've received, so hopefully they'll get more information, but they do look to be working to resolve customer issues. He tells me that they were assured that the uppers would work with Gen 1 DPMS lowers, so those of you having issues should definitely get in touch with them so they can figure out what the issue is with your lowers, and see about getting you and others with the same problem taken care of.

Interesting. Do you have calipers to get exact measurements? If you can use regular AR-15 takedown pins and bolt-catch, that opens up a fair amount of flexibility if you have a full PSA set, which it looks like may be necessary.

Sounds like they might not have it all sorted out anyways. I just, to my chagrin, heard a report from a PSA employee that there's some undisclosed issue with the SSA-E trigger in the PSA lower. Also that guy mentioned that the mag catch may not be compatible? It definitely seems like half of them have no idea what's going on over there.

Thanks for the suggestions, fellas. I'll be sure to look into those places.

That does look perfect, Edgecrusher! Many thanks for your sage input.

I guess I should say, reviewing my first comment, that we're actually in San Antonio at the moment. Wife is on active duty for the time being there, but we go back to Colorado in a week.

DRD, I mentioned this in my thread, but you might consider ManVenture Outpost for your trigger purchase if you get the SSA-E or 3 Gun. SSA-E is 189.10, and the Super 3-Gun is 205.54 before shipping, which will run about 6 bucks, unless you pay for faster shipping. They don't have the DMR yet. Primary Arms had a really good trigger sale recently, and may do one again for Black Friday/Cyber Monday as well, if you're not in a huge hurry.

Interesting to hear. I know that the PSA PA-10 buffer tube is proprietary. Have you been able to establish where it's hanging up? I don't think there are that many of us with the PSA parts yet. How does it move within the upper when it's not attached? I assume you're using a Gen 1 DPMS lower?

Just checking in. Found this place because I've begun a 308 AR build. I teach and tutor professionally and train new teachers for a private company, and also make custom knives and swords. Wife is in the Air Force, and due to get sent somewhere else next year, most likely, so for the time being, we're in Colorado, but may end up elsewhere (hoping for San Antonio).

Have been doing a lot more reading over the last day. I think I'm going to take Edgecrusher's advice and just get the PSA upper, and buy the barrel and other parts myself. I'm really torn between Krieger and Rainier for the barrel. I don't think I'll be likely to buy both BCG and barrel at the same time, due to the piecemeal nature of the project, so that would put me at getting a Krieger, because if I buy the BCG separately, and the handguard, muzzle device, and gas block and gas tube, and barrel last, I can just send it all in to Krieger and have them assemble it all for me for my peace of mind. Of course, there's always the possibility of getting it Straightjacketed, if I somehow end up with more money than I know what to do with... So far, for handguard, I'm thinking Centurion CMR, or the Geissele rail that's due out. Gas block, maybe the PRI, or the SLR? Not sure what will fit under the CMR. Muzzle device: Better off getting a flash hider (probably one that's compatible with a suppressor, thinking into the future), or the muzzle brake for recoil reduction?

Have any of you tried the Teludyne Tech Straightjacket system? I have been wondering what benefits it might have on the .308 AR platform. I mention it because the tech is relevant to the thread title.

I haven't seen this go up yet. Perhaps 98Z5V could snag this badboy: http://nemoarms.com/portfolio/tione-serial-no-1titanium-308-battle-rifle/gallery/guns/ I think it's on sale for only 91K now.

Well, thing is, we hire teachers as teachers first, which makes sense. Except for the list of regulations. Get us an ex-mil school board chief, and then maybe we're in business. As you say, we need a few active shooter first response folks, and hiring for that, or getting volunteers for that, would be a very different story than what you hire for in a teacher. Now, I'll grant you, by and large I tend to be unimpressed with many teachers these days in context of teaching skill. We need to hire based on how good people are at teaching the content, not on how well they've mastered that content themselves. But that's a rant for another day, coming from a professional teacher. However, what I'd envisioned was an opt-in program, which would largely address your concerns. The people who would put themselves through the training so they would be better prepared to do what it takes to protect their kids wouldn't have many of the hangups you describe. I'm also less prepared to paint all teachers, liberals, etc, with the same brush. People are individuals, as sheep-like as the current political divide may be forcing them to appear these days, and there's a lot of stupidity on either side of any issue or political separation. Many of the most ignorant, self-righteous, and obnoxious people that I know are conservatives, and many of them are unable to appreciate truth in an alternate perspective if it's shoved up their asses with a 10 foot pole. There are gun-owning liberals out there, just like there are gun-owning teachers out there. I bet Texas is full of the latter. A mentally flexible person should be able to appreciate that the other side, no matter how much we may disagree, isn't comprised exclusively of idiots, and thus does have some elements of truth to their position. The conclusions that they draw may be wrong, or based on flawed evidence, but they're likely smart people who believe what they do for better reasons than stupidity. If you can't accept that, of COURSE you're never going to be able to change anything. Ever heard the adage "know thine enemy?" It never ceases to surprise how little of that gets attempted by folks these days, liberal OR conservative. Regardless, if teachers, or parental volunteers, who have been carefully screened and willingly undergo the aforementioned training, want to help supplement security in our schools, I suspect that would only be a good thing. And it would circumvent a lot of the objections: "but the police have the training...so do our volunteers;" "but we don't have room in the budget for guns...not relevant, because they're VOLUNTEERS;" "but what if a kid gets shot...that's what we're trying to prevent, and why our volunteers have training in how to deescalate a situation." For that matter, how about making our school counselors a lot more accessible, and giving them better training in mental health. The big commonality between pretty much all mass shootings is mental health. I tend to think that schools could do a lot to circumvent shootings by paying more attention to the mental health of their students. Perhaps, as long as we're having this discussion, we should put some serious thought into what such training might consist of, and put together some proposals for our legislative folks. We also should consider discussing with our local gun rights groups the possibility of working on school board elections and getting some veterans to run.