LT PredatOBR 7.62 - Comments on Design Changes
Since the initial announcement and first orders placed for this weapon system, as many of you know there have been some minor and some rather significant changes to the design of the overall rifle. These are just my thoughts on it, but I was hoping this would be an adequately differentiated thread from the existing blanked PdtOBR thread in this by focusing exclusively on design changes, and directions LT could go with this system.
I expected to really dislike a lot of the design changes, and I really only dislike a few of them. The suitcase rifle changes aren't what I originally wanted (just wanted an OBR barrel system in a Predatar, in .308), but IFF (seriously, if and only if) they make the thinner PredataAR barrels available for the same system (don't care if they're tack drivers).
I'm willing to accept that bit of added weight for the possibility of this rifle being able to be both a long range precision battle rifle, AND have the option of running an aimpoint and thin 16" barrel.
The field grade barrel ship-out is a decision I'm happy with, as is the decision to pre-ship rifles to potential ban states. Ended up being a cost-sink for APPI, but I'm willing to accept shortcomings like the barrel deal if a company has shown a willingness to put customer satisfaction over short term red ink, and that's really the only reason I decided to get in the order queue in the first place.
The LT Furniture. THe A-PEG grip is OK, for a different hand type it's probably amazing (anybody who has used the BCM gunfighter grips and thought the trigger was too close?), but that's another written off piece of stock furniture to me - time to dig through the MIAD spares pile I've accumulated. The grip panels for the handguard are executed well, but the handguard deisgn underneath basically necessitates their use. That could/should have been executed better IMO. The RAT stock is another good idea, good exection, into a crowded market space with better designs. For a flat-backed stock, the LMT/B5 SOPMOD design is arguably better through simplicity; for trigger actuated the Rogers stock isn't a much worse implementation; the EMOD/IMOD would be an improvement, and what I'd prefer to use is an ACS-L/ACS/STR unit from MagPul.
On that note, the receiver extension lacks the ability to snug up a longer stock (EMOD, ACS). So the longer stocks I prefer end up storing in the position I run if the rifle's deployed anyway - might as well run the VLTOR A1 fixed unit in that case. If I dislike the stock, the RE, and the endplate, I have very little reason to not go out and just convert the stock to a UBR/Slash-10 system, and sell the LT set back off, along with the APEG grip.
The trigger. When I ordered, the advertised trigger included was the Geissele SSA. I haven't had previous experience with the ATC Gold units, but this one isn't that impressive. Trigger pull is a crisp, light single stage, with a reset as vague to me as the early S&W M&P units. The selector takes 3x the effort to move past the 45' point in either direction - I'm assuming this is related to the safety/secondary sear engagement with the trigger module, or just a poorly surfaced selector itself. I'll take it apart and look, the only reason I'm willing to consider the latter is the starboard side of the selector looks like it's fresh off the band saw (and thus was an undersized billet before being machined on that face).
From what I can tell, this is a much more expensive trigger than even the GSSA-E (which is the trigger I'd put in this unit, and if I keep this rifle it's the trigger that will live in it). I see the marketing value in having a unique custom trigger, but with the utter lack of communication to customers, I chalk this up as a significant failure -- I'd have been much happier with a G2S trigger on this thing than the much more expensive ATC unit - something which has probably contributed to bringing the MSRP for the complete rifle up over $3.3k where it is advertised at now.
I'm still really torn about this rifle - I may wind up selling it just because medical school is effing expensive and I can't afford to keep it, but I can't help but wonder if this is a weapon system that is within $500 of everything I need out of a .308 weapon system.
My question going forward is this: should LT consider making this a common rifle platform, and offer different barrels and furniture kits as the option set (instead of an OBR line, PredatAR line, and this)? Should they consider the two-barrel option as potentially the model to go forward with (field grade, lighter barrels in 16", and heavy match grade barrels available in 18" for example), since the strength of the overall system (to include optics on LT mounts) is the flexibility to do a barrel/optics swap on the same platform and have effectively a new rifle?
