That rail looks like an extreme version of YHM ultra light rail. Is the rail free floating. It’s hard to tell if the delta ring have been replaced or not.

The Magpul PRS stock is not light. It rank as one of the heaviest stock in the market. I would have gone with ACE stocks if light weight was part of the design.

Looks like the barrel is floated, I see nothing around the quad rail at the gas block. For $2,500 the whole rifle should “float” all by itself…

it’s purty!

This rifle may not be reliable because it does not use a gas regulating piston system. It uses the same gas system like the AR-15.

@ Jack Luz

… WOW. I think you have some books to read and less ar15.com

Go with their SASS

@Jack: DI operation is just as reliable as piston operation, is lighter than piston operation, and is inherently more accurate than a piston gun because it has less moving parts.

The issues seen with the M-16/M-4 platforms have been ironed out years ago, with the exception of soldiers firing large amounts of ammo through them and exceeding the maximum sustained ROF of the gun, which is hardly the fault of the design.

Maybe you should think a little bit more before dumping on a modern gun because of the problems its predecessors (from 50 years ago!) had

“@Jack: DI operation is just as reliable as piston operation, is lighter than piston operation, and is inherently more accurate than a piston gun because it has less moving parts.”

Comparatively, taking a out-of-the-factory Colt M4 and a gas piston rifle (SCAR, H&K 416, G36, etc) and comparing in terms of reliability in harsh conditions such as heavy dust, lack of lubrication, prolonged firing, and/or extreme cold, the gas piston prevails. Given new materials, polymers, and technology, gas piston rifles are also just as accurate and light as direct impingement. Without a doubt, a DI AR15 is a accurate, dependable weapon, though i believe better technology exists and has existed for nearly a century. I would be curious to see how reliable this weapon is under battlefield conditions much like the M110, which is finnicky in extreme conditions due to its high tolerances being a precision weapon (which means it shouldn’t necessarily be scrapped, though special training and attention should be paid when the soldier employs the weapons system on the battlefield).

“The issues seen with the M-16/M-4 platforms have been ironed out years ago, with the exception of soldiers firing large amounts of ammo through them and exceeding the maximum sustained ROF of the gun, which is hardly the fault of the design.”

The faults were ironed out with the introduction of a forward assist, improved training (proper ways of cleaning and maintaining), upgraded magazines, and superior ammunition (such as the outstanding mk 262 round).

“Maybe you should think a little bit more before dumping on a modern gun because of the problems its predecessors (from 50 years ago!) had”

I see a trend of DI fans dumping on a design which has been around since 1887 (mondragon rifle and john browning being the beginning). Interesting that what has been conceived over 100 years ago is still more advantageous than anything new right now. Given combat conditions (not guarding gates or slung over soldiers’ shoulders in the TOC), gas piston systems are superior.

Awesome nice DMR rifle I love the magpul stock with it.

REPR? I smell a lawsuit. It’s a nice looking rifle, but no points for the gas system, and negative points for the name.

DI operation is not just as realiable as an well designed piston like the one of the SCAR, piston can be made way very robust and dissipate heat better for obvious reasons.

But DI can still be very reliable, specially when the gas port is futher on the barrel and the gas pressure can be quite smooth. For a gun whose focus is precision, few well aimed shots instead of quantity, I’d enjoy DI without any concern.

Beautiful AR, and I like the very visible gas tube.

Given that LWRCI changed the name from SABR to REPR, you’d think they would have trademarked/copyrighted or whatever that name and abbr.

DPMS eeeewwww! No thanks!

“This statement has no backing whatsoever.”

really? then perhaps you have missed the performance reports on the SCAR and H&K 416, which show that this weapon is highly accurate due to its free-floating barrel.

lets compare weights also:

-SCAR16 Standard (13.8″ barrel)- 7.2 lbs (unloaded)
-SCAR 16 Long Barrel 7.7 lbs (unloaded)

-M4 Carbine (14.5″ barrel)- 5.9 lbs (unloaded)
-M16A2 (20″ barrel)- 7.8 lbs (unloaded)

so comparing the two weapons systems, the M4 is an “impressive” 1.3 lbs lighter than the SCAR 16 Standard while the M16A2 is .1 lbs heaver than the SCAR 16 long barrel. Sounds pretty comparable to me. Lets shift away from the SCAR to another modern gas piston operated rifle.

The G36 is 8 lbs (18 inch barrel), the G36C is 6.2 lbs (10 inch barrel), which is also comparable to a M4/M16. No significant difference in weight.

the interesting part about Ar15.com is the significant population of those who have formed a loyalty with the traditional design of the direct impingement operation. Unsurprisingly, they look at other operating systems rather skeptically due to their pre-determined conclusions. Regarding the flaws of the gas piston Ar15s; being just released a couple years ago, there have been miniscule flaws compared to the DI when it was introduced decades ago. “Flaws” such as carrier tilt (which happen very rarely) are easily remedied by different, improved designs in the buffer assembly. Easy fix. Perhaps they are reluctant to realize that the AR15 concept is indeed obsolete and better technology exists…

REPR is a military acronym for a class of rifle.

The DI system of operation is one of the big factors contributing to these rifles inherent accuracy.
A DI rifle can run for many thousands of rounds without disassembly for cleaning.
FYI:
A few drops of CLP (or other solvent) in the BCG vent holes, and on the carrier itself every so often will keep it running for a very, very long time.

A small trade-off if accuracy is important to you.
Don’t worry though, no one will likely ever need to shoot thousands of rounds without having a chance to clean a little.

Rifle with DI could be Rugged & Relaible like the Original AR10 build by Dutch or the French MAS 49/56

Funny that’s in US nobody build an AR10 clone with Rugged feathure that’s dutch have put with the Original AR10 (for Portuguese military in Angola/african War). Many Rifle like SR25 or M110 are not enough Rugged for military operation with sand or mud …

Oh, please. Not this crap again.

Hey guys! Something new to argue about! Should I buy and AR or an AK?

http://www.angelhalowiki.com/r1/pds/AK47M16.JPG

/winks/

““This statement has no backing whatsoever.”

really? then perhaps you have missed the performance reports on the SCAR and H&K 416, which show that this weapon is highly accurate due to its free-floating barrel.”

I have actually. From all reports, these rifles are typically in the 1.5 MOA range with match ammo. For a precision rifle, that isn’t really acceptable to me. If this rifle was meant to shoot at 600 yards, that makes a difference.

This DPMS will probably be capable of 0.75 MOA with match ammo. This is typical of precision rifles with DI systems. I have a stock DPMS LR-308 that can shoot 0.75 MOA all day long with handloaded match ammo.

all the more reason to go with lwrc…..everyone I have is moa regardless of caliber

rapid engagement precision rifle- a precision rifle, capable of sub-MOA accuracy which is capable of semi-automatic fire. That is what im talking about. Admittingly drawing into a bigger picture (versus a smaller one when just talking about REPR only), my contention stands that the advantages of the DI action on this weapon are marginal, to say the least, given modern technologies available. Accuracy when it comes to gas piston rifles is lightyears ahead compared to 15-20 years ago. As firearms technology continues to evolve, it wouldnt shock me to see direct impingement technology superseded.

Jon, I’m with you. I’m not so sure what the beef is with DPMS these days. I received a great military discount for an AP4 in 5.56 from them and this rifle is solid. Surprisingly, not many weapons companies give military discounts to private buyers such as DPMS. That was my first positive experience with them. Since then I have yet to shoot any other mfg’s AR or M4/M16 that I would have rather purchased. I agree with you that because the rifle isn’t 2x the cost, it isn’t a good rifle (according to ar15.com snobs.) Take a look at the M-110 made by Knights Armament….it is a *UH OH* Direct Impingement system!!! NOT PISTON! And the have the US Army contract for a semiauto precision 7.62. For the rest of you saying DPMS stole this name….REPR is an acronym for the program started by the USMC for a contract to supply REPR rifles. When the Army and Air Force were looking to replace the Colt 1911 for the M9….many companies submitted an M9 but only the Beretta 92 won the contract, now dubbed the M9. As far as LWRC is concerned, their rifle (piston operated) was initially marketed as the SABR and the DPMS advertised prototype was dubbed the REPR in regards to the competition to receive the USMC contract *BEFORE* LWRC changed their weapon’s name. When looking at the specs sheet I see 3 main pros for those copiers over at DPMS…..Their rifle is DI gas operated such as all other military spec AR rifles, their DI system is a rifle length gas tube opposed to LWRC SHORT STROKE system, and their rifle costs $1K less. To me it is a no brainer but to you gun snobs who have your head so far up your A** and look entirely at the manufacturer’s name before knowing the whole truth, I know you’ll make the right decision in your mind. I hope you all don’t use this mentality in every aspect of your lives because your children will wind up with some lame education and a poor vehicle to be driven to soccer practice in. HAPPY BASHING!!!!

Its been proven time and time again, that gas-piston rifles are not only much more reliable and durable than DI rifles, but they are far more accurate as well. This was proven in the military dust trials, where the M4 jammed four times more than the least reliable piston driven rifle. You can argue with the facts.

Party on Garth! But seriously….did you really just compare military trials of a rifle that shoots 5.56 to the reliability of a rifle that shoots 7.62? Now we’re getting into apples and oranges. Keep in mind…the original rifle that was developed by Stoner was meant to shoot the larger 7.62/.308 cartridge. Because the military wanted to downsize the projectile, that’s when the engineering was thrown off and malfunctions became common. The whole reason for the piston system is to relieve the tendency for fouling to jam up the 5.56 rifles. This so called, “solution” was never needed for the AR-10, if I may, because it didn’t have the issues that are common with it’s little brother. These .308 AR’s have been praised for their accuracy and modularity. The Army has now adopted the KAC SASS and it, too, is DI. I’ll stick with the system that has been proven to work and not the one that had to prove it was worth using. DI was meant for these .308 AR’s and they should stay that way. Start adding pistons and rods….things will get complicated real quick. How about a hydraulic cycling system?