Has anyone gotten one of these yet (either a receiver and built it, or one of their guns)?
We were adding the pieces and parts costs up at work the other day and were coming up with about a $900 “AR-10”.
USMA84DAB
No experience, but I thought about building an AR308/10 but with the new DPMS Gen2 I’m holding off to see the direction of the AR308. I suspect if must manufacturers go the way of the Gen2 the Gen1 prices will come down a bit.
I’ve read some reports of their dimensions being incompatible with others’ parts (such as their upper being too low so the hammer actually hits the carrier instead of the firing pin, lower take down/pivot pins out of place, incompatibility with Geissele triggers, ect.). I’d wait for them to iron out the bugs…
Tagged for updates.
I bought one of their complete PA-10 lowers and complete uppers (the 16" with stainless steel barrel and MI 15" SS freefloat rail). I put it together a few days ago but have been waiting for my scope and mount to get it out to shoot. So far the fit and finish look good, the BCG and castle nut are properly staked, and they are supposedly on par with their ‘Premium’ line of rifles, which have proven to be very reliable and good quality. For under $1,000 for a complete 308 AR with MI rail, they seem like a great option for a lower budget 308AR. If they prove to be reliable and accurate, they should sell a lot of them.
There are reported issues of incompatibility between the barreled/complete Palmetto 308 upper and NON-Palmetto (but DPMS-patterned) 308 lowers. IMHO, this is not unexpected since there’s really no TDP/“mil-spec” standard for the .308 caliber AR platform. However, buyers should be aware that if you’re using Palmetto parts to assemble a 308, you should use both their upper and lower receivers.
I talked to a guy recently that said the same thing. He bought one and he can’t change the trigger because no other trigger will fit. They apparently have a crappy trigger and it can’t be changed out. That alone is enough for me to stay away.
This is the biggest drawback to the AR308. If manufacturers would agree on standards (and stick with them) it would go a long way for consumers.
Not the case at all. Geissele and PSA are working together to iron out issues mentioned above. PSA tested the lower with several G triggers before releasing but ran into some minute dimensional issues.
As posted above just wait a bit and let the “growing pains” work out. These could work out great for a .308 fun gun!
Just purchased one of the complete lowers myself. Can you elaborate on these trigger fitment issues? All the LR-308/SR25 platform lowers I’ve put together just used standard FCG’s. I’d like to believe that PSA has cranked out enough lowers in their day to get standard triggers to fit. Unless it’s some kind of proprietary trigger to PSA.
It’s not the trigger fit in the lower that’s the issue. The PA-10s use the same FCG as their AR-15 guns, so the triggers fit into the PA-10 lower just fine, and work when the upper and lower aren’t together. The problem is, some of the aftermarket trigger hammers catch on the Bolt Carrier as it’s coming to the rear, causing it to bind. Geissele, for example, is aware of this issue with the SSA-E in the PA-10 and has stated, “Our modification required .015” off of the tail end of the hammer under the sear and we had this customer inform us that they ended up having to take off .025" and this trigger works properly in this receiver set."
So, in a nutshell, if you have a PA-10 lower, and your aftermarket trigger doesn’t allow the BCG to cycle to the rear, there will need to be some slight machining of the hammer of that trigger. If it’s a Geissele trigger, I’ve heard they will do the machining for free with a $10 cost for shipping, and I’ve also heard PSA will do the hammer machining as well. I’m hoping and assuming that PSA will come up with a more long term fix though, as this is unacceptable.
This right here is probably why none of the big players I care about have stepped into this - a company like KAC or LMT (or even LT) would take issues like that and sell nothing until it’s sorted out, PSA just moved the product so that there are offerings out there… and this is why that chasm in cost differential exists.
The moment Noveske, DD, BCM, or a non-MWS LMT offering rolls out, it’s liable to become the standard. It’ll probably be an LR-308 (basically DPMS, except DPMS is pushing their own G-II revision oddly enough), but until there is a standard there’s nothing worth really committing to in my mind (and the PSA offering as it stands now is a bit to low-bid in those regards to be a threat to define the market standard)… exactly as B-Cart said, an issue like that is enough for me to question the entire platform, and since I don’t like the rest of the complete build parts any better than the M&P10, then the S&W absolutely trounces it for value to me.
Agreed on your points; I, too, would not ever commit my $$ to a Palmetto-made 308 offering.
That said, there are some very good 308 receiver offerings right now that fit an unofficial “standard”. Namely:
- Mega MATEN
- Aero Precision
- Rainier Arms
(The latter two are surprisingly affordable)
However, until economies of scale take effect (likely with a “standard”), the .308 AR platform is still “pay to play”.
I’d agree that an offering by KAC, LMT, or Mega would be a better choice in terms of quality, it just depends on the users end game. I ordered a lower yesterday as a foundation to start a 12.5" 308 SBR for my SDN6 to live on. When all is said and done, I’ll have a sub $1400 gun, including engraving and the BATFE’s $200 cut.
While I’m a great fan of KAC and the above mentioned, for the intended purposes the gun is to serve, which is pure fun, and because I’d like to venture into another caliber SBR, it will humbly serve it’s purpose. Yeah at the end of the day it’s basically a CMMG MK3 mixed with some PSA, but in my particular case an SR25 would be full blown overkill.
As I don’t yet have mine in hand I’ll be following the thread to see how opinions develop as more users get them in hand.
I agree Graham, my personal endgame is purely a fun .308 gun at “low” cost, therefore I’m not writing off PSA at all at this point ( or the Smith for that matter ).
A BCM AR10 would be tits btw…
That’s the area where I’m at - in the exact discussions I’ve had with F2S, I’m trying to get as close as I can to the SR25APC setup, but since I can afford to have a slightly heavier setup with less impressive barrel life/accuracy and won’t put enough rounds through to benefit a ton from the E3 type bolt, so I’m looking in that same area.
I’d love to have a 7.62 (LR-308 type) URX-4 from KAC (or BCM KMR), but it sounds like KAC isn’t going to release those, or when they do it’ll be pretty late on in that product cycle; but at present the MI offering is the closest thing - the RainierArms ultramatch Shilen blank unit for the barrel is probably close enough, and the AeroPrecision sourced receivers/extension/LPK/BCG is still a ~1600 rifle before adding gucci furniture and a GSSA-E; I just don’t want to end up with a technological dead end if one of the big players comes in with a great complete system, or if if would require spending more than it would cost me to get a LM8-MWS
If price trends continue as they are now, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the price of the PSA approach $750 during the winter sale’s. I’ll buy one if they get anywhere close to that. Shaving a hammer or even issues with mixing uppers and lowers is not something I would have a problem with, considering my intended use…
Agreed - I’m hardly adverse to dealing with some hassles to have a compelling product - but until that’s cheaper than the CMMG offering (which is quite good, and also compatible with their G3 magazine lower as far as I can tell) then it’s not the one I’d go with.
Yes… I’ve no complaints with my MKIII and don’t regret buying it in the least. It’s a hell of a rifle…
I purchased the PSA complete lower along with their matching upper & upper parts as a platform along with the CMMG MK3 12.5 barrel, RMK11 hand guard and matching bolt. After some numbers work this proved to be the most cost effective option. I’ve yet to hear anyone give any of the CMMG MK3 rifles a bad review, but I’ve got no hands on experience with them.