PA-10 First Impressions

[yellowfin]

The PA-10 is a great kit project for builders or buyers if you want to find out what can go wrong with these guns, and then spend a lot of time trouble-shooting and fixing them.

When you see a complete AR10 sold for $699, ask how much engineering, testing, and evaluation went into the product.

How extensive is the QC program for critical dimensions like chambers, gas ports, bore uniformity, vent holes, chrome carrier bore dims, gas ring metallurgy, spring metallurgy, etc. when you can just say, "Send it back and we'll replace it."

The AR10 world isn't like the AR15 where you can ride the coattails of established dims and the result of de-bugging after 60 years of constant military RDT&E.

From an engineering standpoint, it's a totally different rifle due to the 7.62 NATO cartridge characteristics in the bore and gas system, BCG weights, spring rates, Bolt Carrier travel distance, cartridge shape, projectile weight stack in the magazine, recoil effects on the mechanical interaction of the parts, particularly the magazine and cartridge stack.

Look at how long it took Knight's to get the SR25s to a level of reliability that is acceptable. Look at how many small tweaks have been made to the vent relief hole locations, angles, chamber dimensions, gas port locations, gas port diameters, gas rings, magazines, bolt catch metallurgy and inspections, mag catches, buffers, recoil springs, gas blocks, gas tubes, carrier guide rails...basically every aspect of the gun needed more research, development, testing, evaluation, and incorporation into production after extensive testing across fleet samples. That kind of work costs insane amounts of money because you need competent engineering and testing staff who require higher-than-average salaries, with tens of thousands of rounds and fleet sizes for rifle samples.

No way any of that is happening for $699 per rifle. Buyer gets to be the tester at that point. As long as people understand that and are ok with that, it's an acceptable builder's/tester's kit rifle. Should be fine for those who may plink or hunt with it a few times a year max. Not something I would expect to crank out a high round count successfully.

All that being said, is one really all that far out in the wasteland putting a high quality barrel and JP's BCG in their upper and a decent trigger in the lower?

While I agree that the AR10 hasn't had 60 years worth of massive crowdsource R&D it is catching up and a lot of the lessons learned are being applied. While it can be said that there was a 60 year head start in 5.56 the reality of it is that far and away the majority of it has been in the last 13 years. Before that it was largely one company making a 20" gun in 3-4 iterations for 30-40 years and then just a couple of companies making 14.5" and 16" guns for about a decade, all running the same ammo then a slightly updated version of more of the same ammo. Does a company need to shell out billions of dollars and a dozen years in R&D themselves to learn what's already been found out? Maybe then but not now. This isn't our first trip to the moon anymore. Sure it's not filling in pages in a coloring book but but it's also not like sneaking a stolen rifle through Checkpoint Charlie in a suitcase or fishing a downed MiG out of the Mediterranean and scraping the barnacles off.

Let's say a SR25 runs the life of two barrels, 16K rounds--so let's say that's about 3K rounds per $1K of cash spent on the gun. Fair? Or what is the number? 4K per $1K? 5K? Then maybe say you pay $1000 for X number of rounds per single failure. What's that number? Then we should perhaps compare intelligently on just how far those dollars and time spent actually goes vs. another offering and that company's efforts (or lack thereof) towards the same. I'm told the saying in car racing is that speed costs money, how fast do you want to go. Sure, their OEM upper isn't extraordinary and absolutely isn't up to snuff vs. LMT or LaRue or KAC, but as mentioned nor is it intended to have 8K+ through it in a year or two. But what IS the number? 2K is, as you point out, well within the half decade or more round count of the hunting only types. But might it do 4K or 5K? My vision for this OEM .308 upper is hunting mostly but with 168gr Amax or similar for fun and skill building--not 5.56 volumes, but something more than bolt gun. A 6.5CM build is definitely on the to-do list.

I have no particular invested loyalty with any brand (other than it must fit my budget constraints whatever they may be at the time--reality is reality) but if it works I use it and if it doesn't I figure out what does and use that instead. Maybe PSA has and maybe they haven't put 200K rounds between say 30-50 barrels over 2-3 years to test out everything--but if it fails me and all I have to do is wrench out the barrel and put one in that's $300-400 that does have all the stuff figured out (my money's on Criterion, JP, LaRue, et al. very much having figured it out) and I'm still $2K+ ahead, have I really lost anything? Yeah, maybe if I had bullets whizzing by my head at the time--so I don't live that life as my 9-5, but must I? I'm just a guy punching paper and banging steel, putting venison and pork in the freezer, and for when called upon, the rifle behind the next blade of grass to put holes in General Gage, Kaiser Wilhelm, Tojo, Grant/Sherman, or Mohammed's stooges should they decide to show up someday.

[CPM]

I don't think anyone here, myself included, is trying to say this is a duty-grade weapon... Without a question it is not that well refined.

But for a fun range gun that I plink with instead of shooting my $$$ precision 308 AR, it is fun to tinker with. PSA is shooting for a certain customer (which M4C is not necessarily) and I think they have hit that target.

I will say I have seen a lot of people struggle at the range with cheap large frame AR's, especially DPMS, and so far mine have worked much better than that.

Data collection will continue...

M4C and all of the advice you receive on here is free, so keep that in mind when you are evaluating the customers and the advice they dish out.

[LRRPF52]

All that being said, is one really all that far out in the wasteland putting a high quality barrel and JP's BCG in their upper and a decent trigger in the lower?

While I agree that the AR10 hasn't had 60 years worth of massive crowdsource R&D it is catching up and a lot of the lessons learned are being applied. While it can be said that there was a 60 year head start in 5.56 the reality of it is that far and away the majority of it has been in the last 13 years. Before that it was largely one company making a 20" gun in 3-4 iterations for 30-40 years and then just a couple of companies making 14.5" and 16" guns for about a decade, all running the same ammo then a slightly updated version of more of the same ammo. Does a company need to shell out billions of dollars and a dozen years in R&D themselves to learn what's already been found out? Maybe then but not now. This isn't our first trip to the moon anymore. Sure it's not filling in pages in a coloring book but but it's also not like sneaking a stolen rifle through Checkpoint Charlie in a suitcase or fishing a downed MiG out of the Mediterranean and scraping the barnacles off.

Let's say a SR25 runs the life of two barrels, 16K rounds--so let's say that's about 3K rounds per $1K of cash spent on the gun. Fair? Or what is the number? 4K per $1K? 5K? Then maybe say you pay $1000 for X number of rounds per single failure. What's that number? Then we should perhaps compare intelligently on just how far those dollars and time spent actually goes vs. another offering and that company's efforts (or lack thereof) towards the same. I'm told the saying in car racing is that speed costs money, how fast do you want to go. Sure, their OEM upper isn't extraordinary and absolutely isn't up to snuff vs. LMT or LaRue or KAC, but as mentioned nor is it intended to have 8K+ through it in a year or two. But what IS the number? 2K is, as you point out, well within the half decade or more round count of the hunting only types. But might it do 4K or 5K? My vision for this OEM .308 upper is hunting mostly but with 168gr Amax or similar for fun and skill building--not 5.56 volumes, but something more than bolt gun. A 6.5CM build is definitely on the to-do list.

Any serious company tests more than one gun at a time. A typical testing protocol involves at least a 10 gun pyramid test regimen, where 10 prototypes are shot in high volume by shooters, not mechanical rests. As soon as a problem is encountered with 1 rifle, they address that problem and determine if it's incidental to just that gun, or if the others have the issue as well. If it is fleet-wide, a correction is made to all the guns before waisting another round. Then repeat the process until as many bugs are worked out initially.

On the military side, once this is done, the rifles will eventually go to Alaska for arctic testing.

My take on it is that PSA said, "We'll just do some initial fitting and test-firing, and let the customers do the long-term testing." Not saying they should or shouldn't do this, but price point indicates that decision. Customers started experiencing fit problems from the get-go with the first batch of PA-10s, which was addressed with the second by PSA. That's still in the mechanical fitting stage of development, not even function.

Then consider that a huge portion of your customer base will be shooting the rifles in a similar manner, while many scenarios won't be experienced maybe for years, where potential problems will show up. Most people can't afford to feed hundreds of .308 Winchester shot in volume per range session, so 3-5rd groups and maybe a little plinking are the norm. They know their customer base.

For that target market, their approach just makes business sense, rather than doing like Daniel Defense or Savage/Federal did and invest insane amounts of money in ammo and engineering, testing, and evaluation. DD spent well over a year shooting the DDV5. Savage said they cringe when they think about the ammo budget they spent on the MSR-10.

[yellowfin]

Update from today:

Got the Odin Works adjustable gas block on it and suppressor mount, running it with my SpecWar762. MAN what a difference that makes! I really enjoy it a lot more now and can settle down and do some business with it. Just to confirm optic zero I ran some more 145gr ball w748 commercial brass. This was very nice, had several rounds almost touching. At first it really dinged the brass up so I dialed the gas block back a couple notches and it decreased a good bit, still might cinch it down a couple more later--I wonder just how many clicks above closed this will need to be. I gotta say midlength on a .308 is just stupid. Yeah I know it's for shooting surplus 7.62x51 which was loaded weak for FAL's, but seriously, I'll say it again, OVERGASSED SUCKS!!

I have seen other people say that shooting a .308 AR is more demanding of shooting fundamentals vs. a 5.56 gun, and I can believe it. I know the rifle is capable of better accuracy than I was able to give it today, but even so one of a couple of 165gr SST loads were giving me 1.3 MOA 5 round groups (4064 backed off a couple grains to 42.8 in LC brass w/ CCI 200 primer). I've got another dozen or so loads to try (XBR and CFE) that I carelessly forgot to put in my range bag today, and I know that there is more capability in this barrel.

[mic2377]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a mid-length for an 18" barrel. Either it is gassed correctly or not. From a reliability standpoint I don't think that these barrels are too badly overgassed. I am sure it is so they can run with stuff like Tula steel case. The adjustable gas block is without question very helpful though with the suppressor.

As for surplus ammo - most of it is actually NOT weak, as it is designed to make NATO-spec velocities. And there would be no reason to run weak loads in an FAL, they are quite robust and can tolerate a steady diet of full-throttle loads.

Your load for the 165 SST's sounds similar to what many would consider a standard accuracy load for a semi 308 - a 165-168 gr bullet, LC brass, and a moderate load of 4064. Reasonable easy on the gun and brass, and accurate as well. If you have some Varget or H4895 those are also worth a try.

Next time I am out, I will be stretching it out to 550 yds. My plan is to shoot both the 18" CHF rifle-length and the 18" SS mid-length.

[ra2bach]

got wind of the sale going on now and grabbed the 18" midlength railed upper and a lower. I've never been interested in .308 gas gun before but couldn't pass this up at this price. so I need to ask a stupid question (I know, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people)...

is the RE on these guns the same size as AR15?

and if so, would an A2 stock and buffer help with the overgassed condition?..

[bfoosh006]

Deleted

[sig1473]

RE ? ... sorry not familiar with that one.

RE=Receiver Extension (i.e. Buffer Tube)

[ra2bach]

RE ? ... sorry not familiar with that one.

The .308 rifle buffer is shorter then a AR15 one.
The AR-10 buffer is 5 3/16″ (5.188″) long and weigh's 5.4 ounces.
The AR-15 buffer is 5 7/8″ (5.875″) long and weighs 5.2 ounces.

And I tried your idea... and frankly, I wasn't impressed with the results.

Ultimately, an adjustable gas block is the best solution for the .308 "AR10" large volume of gas.

A adjustable gas block will work with any stock, spring, and buffer weight.... I strongly suggest people try the gas block prior to buying buffers that may or may not give the results they are looking for.

I general, I tried a "LR-308 CARBINE HEAVY BUFFER" 5.2oz with the OEM configuration ( carbine stock ).

Then switched to a PSA PA10 rifle length buffer system and a PRS GenIII stock ( which added just under 2 lbs to the rifle, which also should have helped the recoil impulse )... didn't really help IMHO.

Then changed over to the KAK 9.3oz AR308 buffer and a Tubbs Flatwire .308 spring... still wasn't effecting the recoil the same way it would with a 5.56 AR15..

So I then added the SLR Adjustable gas block.... should have tried that in the first place ( and saved a bunch of money )...night and day difference.


The cyclic action speed is much more in tune with what I would expect from a .308 AR now.

I say all this so people will not waste time and money on parts that may not meet their expectations... ( they didn't meet mine, but this is my first .308 AR ... so live and learn )

sorry, RE = receiver extension (buffer tube)

anyway, I already have the AR15 A2 stock, buffer, and spring or I wouldn't even be considering wasting time or money on this. I've read the criticisms of the PA-10 and accept that this isn't going to be a combat rifle, I just want to punch holes in paper and tasty animals with it.

I'll go ahead and replace the carbine RE and stock because I'm one of those goofballs that actually like a fixed stock, and if it still shows signs of being overgassed, I'm sure I can develop a load it likes that may even be acceptably accurate.

and I'm not in adjustable gas block denial, I got the 18" midlength because a can is in the cards so after letting my credit card cool down a bit, I'll mount the AGB. once I get it all set up, I'll come back and compare notes...

thanks for your help...

[bfoosh006]

Deleted