This whole magazine compatibility issue has been a large and, unfortunately, preventable stain on the REPR platform. From what I can tell, the major flaw was the decision to build the REPR lowers based on cheaper C-Products magazines, instead of the more expensive Knights SR25 mags. Most of us would consider the Knights product to be the "industry standard" (at least until the PMAGLR20 came out). In addition, C-products magazines do not have a Magpul or Knights reputation in most calibers, and most people going into harm's way would not be comfortable being issued only C-products mags. I understand that LWRCI may have wanted to get ahead of the other 7.62 platforms hitting the market. However, I suspect that the REPR would have been better served by waiting for the PMAGLR20 to hit the market to insure compliance with a product that was likely to set the standard. Instead, a good number of us REPR owners found ourselves in a position where the REPR had ZERO functional mags for a few weeks after C-Products changed their design. Fortunately, LWRCI bent over backwards to fix the issue and I now have 1500 flawless rounds thru my REPR with PMAGLR20s.
So, when a new products such as the REPR hits the market and has reliability problems, it set a first impression that is very hard to overcome (as opposed to an established platform having a limited, bad batch leave the factory). In addition, the mag catch replacement seems to have solved the reliability problems, but the PMAGs do not have tight lock-up in the well and tend to have a little rattle and play.
Having said all of that, I'd take a LWRCI M6A2 DEA model or new production REPR into combat long before I'd allow myself to be caught dead with a factory spec RRA (pun intended).



Reply With Quote
Bookmarks