DPMS Panther REPR 7.62mm NATO rifle

rflr_repr-tm-tfb

New for DPMS for 2011 is the Panther REPR1 (or Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle) chambered in .308 Win. 7.62mm NATO.

This AR-10 style carbine is capable of sub-MOA accuracy from its 18″ barrel. The quad-rail handguard has had all excess metal cut away, almost skeletonized, to decrease weight. The rifle weighs a full two pounds less than the DPMS SASS.

Specifications
Caliber 7.62mm NATO
Capacity 19 round magazines
Finish Hard coat anodized, Teflon coated Coyote Brown
Grip Hogue Rubber Grip
Barrel 18″
Twist 1:10″
Stock Magpul PRS Stock
Weight 9.5 lbs
MSRP (Price) $2519

Like all rifles in the AR-10 / SR-25 class, it does not come cheap.

[ Many thanks to Jeremy for emailing me the link. ]


  1. Not to be confused with LWRC’s R.E.P.R rifle




Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • jdun1911

    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.

  • http://smcfirearms.com Gregory Markle

    We just got one in for a customer earlier this week so I got to fondle and photograph it. It was a 12″ SBR version with a Vltor stock and very nice but VERY pricey!

  • Allen

    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…

  • D

    hmmm nice. its nice to see free floating technology becoming so popular, even with assault rifles. undoubtedly, this rifle is highly accurate and effective. not exactly a fan of the DI system though.

  • http://njfirearms.blogspot.com Mark Steele

    it’s purty!

  • charles222

    19 round mag? that seems rather odd. :p

  • Jack Luz

    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.

  • Brian10

    Direct Impingement gas systems are inherently more accurate than piston systems. This is designed as a precision rifle after all.

  • Other Steve

    @ Jack Luz

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

  • Other Steve

    Also, really lame to steal LWRC’s REPR name. Looks like someone should have trademarked it.

  • michael

    Go with their SASS

  • http://kashtankasite.info hyperGModell

    :)

  • Nathan

    @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

  • jaekelopterus

    A backronym that sounds like “raper” and make no actual sense. Great job. Just because you are manufacturing AR-15 knockoffs, doesn’t mean you have to think of an edgy, clever acronym name for it.

  • D

    “@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.

  • secondo

    does anyone know the range of this rifle?

  • Lance

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

  • TW

    Is this the same Panther REPR listed on DPMS’s website? They list it there as being chambered in 7.62NATO. The photo’s, however, are exactly the same as those presented in this article, as well as the list price.

  • Casey

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

  • jdun1911

    You’re right Allen. I blame it on late night work hours for not noticing it.

    Other Steve,

    The vast majority of members on AR15.com does not like piston AR15. Only a very small percentage of Arfcom members bought piston AR. Early adopter of piston that actually used (15k rounds or more) their piston AR have posted in depth about the failures of their carbine.

  • Vitor

    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.

  • TCBA_Joe

    Other Steve,
    Also want to point out REPR is a USMC term for a weapon style. “Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle”. The LWRC REPR, SR-25, M-110, etc… are all types of weapon that fit in this category.

    From a USMC briefing slide-
    • Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle (REPR)
    – Semi-automatic sniper rifle
    – 7.62mm
    – 1 – 2 MOA accuracy out to 800 – 1000 meters
    – COTS

    So REPR is a category of weapon. It would be the same as saying SPR, Recce rifle, PDW, SASS, SASR, etc…

    However, LWRC took the term and ran with it.

  • Overload in CO

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

  • Brian10

    This statement has no backing whatsoever.

    “Given new materials, polymers, and technology, gas piston rifles are also just as accurate and light as direct impingement. “

  • Stefan F

    DPMS eeeewwww! No thanks!

  • Josh

    A backronym that sounds like “raper” and make no actual sense. Great job. Just because you are manufacturing AR-15 knockoffs, doesn’t mean you have to think of an edgy, clever acronym name for it.

    As pointed out by others, it seems to make sense to the Marine Corps. I don’t know how you get a long a sound from an e, unless it’s followed by an i. Looks more like “reaper” to me.

  • D

    “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…

  • Stella

    @jdunn1911

    ARF.com took a minuscule sample that reinforced their current beliefs and closed the case, their considerable investments justified. Ironic, however, considering if the same was done regarding the dramatic problems that servicemen encountered during Vietnam the M-16 would have been scrapped outright. I think the issue has long since become emotional rather than remaining rational.

  • Jere

    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.

  • charles222

    The biggest problem with DI rifles nowadays is the magazine; that’s what caused the majority of failures in the dust test. Notice how SOCOM decided the Mk.16 SCAR-which has a piston-did not provide any significant improvement over the M4? Yeah. ;)

  • snmp

    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 …

  • Stella

    @charles222

    I think the decision was more “use free M4s or pay money for SCARs.” Beating free and “good enough” is awfully hard in our current budgetary climate. Notice that when SOCOM needed a 7.62×51 platform (something their inventory is not already flush with) they opted for the SCAR-H.

  • SoulTown

    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/

  • TW

    Just called DPMS and talked to a representative about this rifle. This article is wrong – there is no Kreiger barrel on the rifle. It also is not chambered in .308, but 7.62NATO.

    Just giving a heads up to correct the misinformation in the article above, so that if you order one, you’re not surprised when you find out the barrel is simply DMPS’s own barrel.

  • Brian10

    ““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.

  • D

    brain, you seem to have misunderstandings about the differences between precision sniper rifles and assault rifles.

    precision sniper rifles must be capable of less than 1 moa accuracy, though with assault rifles, 3 moa is considered acceptable (the colt M4 carbine is typically 2-3 moa with M855 ammunition, which when loaded in the SCAR performed 2 moa). Assault rifles are made for high volumes of fire, precision rifles are not. Precision rifles have higher tolerances that optimize their accuracy, assault rifles sometimes do at the cost of reliability.

    When loaded with 77 grain Mk 262 ammunition, which is match grade, the SCAR is capable of 1 moa accuracy (as is any higher grade AR15), which is more than acceptable given the designs superior reliability and purpose for high volumes of fire.

    Finally, the 5.56mm round was not designed to fire past 500 meters, it was designed for the 300 meters and below engagement range and can be accurate to 500 meters. Past 500 meters, the round destabilizes and is unpredictable at best. The Mk 262 round fares significantly better, though the maximum effective range of a 5.56mm round is typically less than 500 meters. Considering that you are pushing the 5.56 round’s ballistic capability to the limit when shooting at 500 meters (let alone past that), the argument against the SCAR’s accuracy past a range it was never designed to fire at is effectively nullfied.

    In addition to that, SOCOM didnt purhase the 16 variant because of the limitations of the 5.56mm round. that is it. i find SOCOM’s continued procurement of 17 (7.62 NATO) variants rather interesting however.

    Getting back on subject, my contention stands with gas piston rifles. Yes, stella, AR15.com followers effectively formed pre-concluded beliefs in favor of their design, which drew me away from the site to begin with. So here i stand, through rain, sleet, or snow, slowly chipping away at the myths and misunderstandings regarding firearms.

  • michael

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

  • Brian10

    “Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle” – What are YOU talking about?

    I have not seen real world tests where the SCAR shoots 1 MOA accuracy on average. I only see internet commandos claim that it “capable” of 1 MOA accuracy.

  • D

    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 think its a great looking rifle and dpms seem to be accurate the one i have is. Theese are not high volume rifles I dont know anybody who shoots say 150 rnds per trip to the range in 308 as compared to 223. Thats the beauty of 308 one well placed round will do the job. Whats everybody’s beef with dpms anyhow. They took charge where bushmaster left off and produced a good quality rifle just because they dont cost a arm and leg like LWC and Armalite etc, well now they have one over 2000.00 keep going and you will take a 2nd on your house just to own one. Its just like harley they look the best and sound the best but there not really the best they just cost more.

  • John

    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!!!!

  • DaveNTX

    I recently purchased one of these rifles and topped it off with a NF 5.5-20 scope in NF rings. According to DPMS the rail has 30 MOA “built in” so I did no do anything to add offset to it myself. I did not take any measurements to verify this either. With a little load development I have made this rifle hold .5-.75 MOA up to 300 yards opening up to 1-1.25 MOA at 600 yards. I’m loading 168 AMAX’s over RE15. It’s no bench gun but, I was fairly impressed with the results I got. I’m fairly dissapointed Kreiger did not make the barrell and, I figured that may have been where the extra cost came from…guess not. As a side note,DPMS lists a 2 stage trigger on this model, the rifle I bought had a JP trigger installed. Whlie I’m sure there is better, this trigger is serving me just fine. When I get this out to the 1k yard line I’ll post up results.

  • Garth

    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.

  • Jere

    Garth, you are making up facts and writing them.
    You should work for the NY times.

  • Party on Wayne

    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?

  • Silver Bullet

    Gawrsh…my DPMS .308, 24″ fluted will hit anything but a gnat at 500 yds. Further than that, hey, I just pull out the .50BMG. Why do people think anything is a do all cause it aint. I dont care how much you paid.