DPMS Tactical Precision Rifle with Magpul Stock


DPMS announced earlier this year that the company’s Tactical Precision Rifle (TPR) is now shipping with the MOE rifle stock.

The TPR has a 20″ barrel with a 1:9″ twist, modular handguard and MOE grip.  It is chambered in 5.56 NATO.  The rifle is “optics ready” meaning no sights are included.  However the receiver it topped with a Picatinny rail for the easy addition of glass.

DPMS TPR stock

MSRP on the rifle is $1,349, though I imagine if you found one at the time of this writing, it might cost a bit more.

Richard Johnson

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.


  • Nadnerbus

    Why put that much money into a rifle and be stuck with one in nine twist? Also, I don’t think I’m very fond of the magpul fixed stock. I actually like the old school A2 just fine. The rest is actually pretty intriguing. There aren’t enough 20 inch uppers out there in a free float, modern configuration, seems like most that I see have the standard front sight base and gas block with regular delta ring type hand guards.

    • Esh325

      What’s bad about 1:9? You can shoot nearly all commonly available 5.56 ammo with it. I guess the stock is personnel preference, some might say there are better things than the A2 stock now.

      • Cymond

        I also like 1/9. According to the military, 1/7 barrels have a shorter life span. 1/7 stabilizes 77gr bullets, while 1/9 stabilizes up to 69gr bullets. I personally don’t think the tradeoff is worth it. Some people think that the heavier bullets have better terminal ballistics, and shooting 77gr bullets out of a 1/9 barrel reduces accuracy to about 6″ at 100 yards. So 1/9 is fine for the huge majority of shooters.

        Also, I like the MOE stock. Aside from looking nice, it buttpad swings open an you can store stuff in the stock if you want (or not if you don’t). It seems to only cost about $15 more than an A2 stock, judging from online prices.

  • Tim U

    I want it. The magpul stock is better than the A2 stock because it has a side QD mount spot. I like the 1:9 and the upper.

    I could go for this with an a2 stock though.

  • SiloZen

    Nothing I ain’t seen before from aftermarket. Where’s the innovation!?

    • Cozmo

      I agree. I like ARs as much as the next guy but I’m disappointed every time I see a “new” rifle like this that is the same stuff they’ve always been making with some other new magpul bits thrown on it. Definitely not impressed.

  • LJK

    Gotta love that marketing spin. “The rifle is ‘optics ready’ meaning no sights are included.” They’re not cheap by not putting any kind of sights on the rifle, they’re just improving it by making it “optics ready”.

    • DiverEngrSL17K

      LOL — :):):). Good call, LJK!

  • DiverEngrSL17K

    I tend to agree with Esh325 and Cymond on this issue. The 1:9 barrel twist is perfectly matched to the current generation of standard 5.56mm x 45 NATO ammunition, the 62-grain SS109 ( M855 ) round, yet still provides reasonable accuracy at shorter ranges if the older, lighter 55-grain M193 round has to be used. The heavier 68-grain rounds can also be fired with the expectation of decent, if not outstanding, accuracy and adequate stabilization. This makes the 1:9 twist the most versatile rifling one could expect to have in a single gun of this caliber.

    As far as putting so much money into a rifle and being stuck with 1:9 twist is concerned, the same question can be applied to civilian shooters who insist on having 1:7 twist to the exclusion of all else — why spend so much money on a rifle with 1:7 twist that is limited to expensive and specialized heavy bullets?

    In the end, it really all depends on one’s preferences and perceived requirements, and what one is most comfortable with. Being ex-military, if I had to have a rifle in 5.56mm x 45, I would personally prefer the flexibility and standardization available with the 1:9 twist, while others may find something different better suited to their needs.

  • DiverEngrSL17K

    If this rifle were to be used in close cover, one thing I would change is the flash hider — the open-ended design is all too reminiscent of the original M-16 flash hider, which proved to be a real nuisance in the bush because it allowed twigs and leaves to catch in the slots. At the very least, it would hinder smooth and silent movement, and at its worst it would give your position away to an alert enemy. This was the reason for the eventual introduction of the well-known closed-ended “birdcage” A2-type flash hider on later guns.

    • Augustus

      That’s an AAC BLACKOUT flash hider. It’s definitely an upgrade over an A2 hider. It might be more likely to snag a twig in heavy brush, but it’s better in every other way, especially for a rifle that isn’t intended for combat.

      • DiverEngrSL17K

        That’s a very good point, Augustus. I certainly don’t disagree with your comments about it’s superior function as a flash hider per se, but being ex-military I tend to look at any item of equipment from an overall tactical viewpoint rather than how well that item functions for a singular or limited number of purposes. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.