[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PSA - The JAKL 2.0 (Page 2 of 3)
|
Quoted: Wow! Thanks assholes. Can I trade in the Jakl i just bought two weeks ago? I'll gladly buy up a couple cheap JAKL Gen 1's if anyone is offering. Not like yours will suddenly stop working the moment Gen 2 is released. My Gen 1 8.5" 300 BO isn't going anywhere. |
|
Quoted: Something that strikes me as odd is that for years the push has been standardization/compatibility with small frame ARs, now on a pretty short time frame we get the ICAR and JAKL moving away from this. It's because AR lower compatibility sounds good in the advertising, but compromises the design. Everyone is starting to realize that now. |
also, another concept poll starting tomorrow.
|
|
Quoted: also, another concept poll starting tomorrow.
Cool. I’ll vote for the bullpup again. |
|
Quoted: +87 Quoted: Quoted: Stop pinning and welding proprietary suppressor mounts on the <16" barrels! +87 This. I get it. They dont want to sell “pistols”, but not everybody wants that muzzle device, or P&W. Sometimes, things change and your mount needs to change too. |
|
Ugly AF. When's the JAKL 2.0 going to start shipping? |
|
Quoted: Calm down, PSA launching new stuff all the time and SHOT is literally tomorrow. This shouldn't come as a surprise they are updating the platform. I'll gladly buy up a couple cheap JAKL Gen 1's if anyone is offering. Not like yours will suddenly stop working the moment Gen 2 is released. My Gen 1 8.5" 300 BO isn't going anywhere. Yep. Will be perusing the EE for a used 5.56 and 300blk gen 1 upper. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, this needs to stop. Or give us more options. Many of us already have plenty of suppressors not compatible with the mounts they're using. Quoted: Quoted: Stop pinning and welding proprietary suppressor mounts on the <16" barrels! Yeah, this needs to stop. Or give us more options. Many of us already have plenty of suppressors not compatible with the mounts they're using. That and the fact that 87% of people with old 51T cans had them jailbroken. Yet 51T still lives on. 
|
|
Quoted: That looks really good. Assuming PSA bought Thril because the grip is definitely a full-size version of their stubby grip. Well done PSA. They already worked together in the past. Thril made the PSA AK and scorpion mags. The blogs for those just said "partnering". |
|
Quoted: That's another thing about the jakyl and even their 556 AKs, no chf chrome lined options. They aren't exactly cheap rifles and I would of had one by now if they had a thinner profile chrome lined barrel. PSA is definitely doing a ton of interesting things that I like though. They need to fix the issues of their 5.56 AK bolts being as soft as a Palmetto tree first. |
|
Quoted: Probably will put a hurting on Robinson Arms. I love the XCR, but their ordering process is slow and cumbersome. PSA is much easier, and if things are available such as barrels and parts then it will take a chunk from that market. Seem to recall people on here being retarded about the xcr not using an ar lower. It's an ak/fal design. They really should make an ak mag lower for the x39 though, that would sell like hotcakes. |
|
Nice looking rifle, had this come out 2 years ago I’d have jumped on it. However, I’m probably one of the few people who don’t have any complaints about the original JAKL. I get the upgrade, if you can call it that. Seems more like a whole new gun instead of an upgrade. Just like the BRN-180 gen 3. While I definitely would appreciate some of these upgrades on my JAKL, I’m not ready to buy into this version. One of the things I like most about my JAKL is the standard AR15 lower. |
|
What's the big deal? What changed? Is it supposed to be a scar clone? |
|
Quoted: also, another concept poll starting tomorrow.
Will probably be on their forums like last year. |
|
Quoted: That looks really good. Assuming PSA bought Thril because the grip is definitely a full-size version of their stubby grip. Well done PSA. Thril makes the AK-V/AR-V mags. Don't know if they bought them but they now have Prudent America (which makes polymer stuff for a lot of folks like KAC, FN, Colt, etc.) |
|
Quoted: Would be more interested if it was compatible w/ AR lowers, but I understand why they did not go that route. That said, super cool design. hope it is a reasonable price for those interested. Not everything needs to be an an AR lower. I'm glad more companies are waking up and seeing that this limits design. I'm not mad at all if the end user gets a better gun from not being stuck with a standard AR lower. |
|
Quoted: Not everything needs to be an an AR lower. I'm glad more companies are waking up and seeing that this limits design. I'm not mad at all if the end user gets a better gun from not being stuck with a standard AR lower. I think a lot of people are over the "Everything has to be AR compatible" on everything, myself very much included. |
|
Quoted: It's because AR lower compatibility sounds good in the advertising, but compromises the design. Everyone is starting to realize that now. Quoted: Quoted: Something that strikes me as odd is that for years the push has been standardization/compatibility with small frame ARs, now on a pretty short time frame we get the ICAR and JAKL moving away from this. It's because AR lower compatibility sounds good in the advertising, but compromises the design. Everyone is starting to realize that now. Yep...this. Modularity is nice within the platform and its manufacturer...but between different manufacturers?...forgetaboutit |
|
Quoted: I think a lot of people are over the "Everything has to be AR compatible" on everything, myself very much included. Quoted: Quoted: Not everything needs to be an an AR lower. I'm glad more companies are waking up and seeing that this limits design. I'm not mad at all if the end user gets a better gun from not being stuck with a standard AR lower. I think a lot of people are over the "Everything has to be AR compatible" on everything, myself very much included. |
|
Quoted: It's because AR lower compatibility sounds good in the advertising, but compromises the design. Everyone is starting to realize that now. Quoted: Quoted: Something that strikes me as odd is that for years the push has been standardization/compatibility with small frame ARs, now on a pretty short time frame we get the ICAR and JAKL moving away from this. It's because AR lower compatibility sounds good in the advertising, but compromises the design. Everyone is starting to realize that now. I don’t disagree here. There have been a lot of compromises made to fit AR lowers. Just surprised to see multiple companies step away from this standard at the same time. I do think it would be foolish to move away completely from parts comparability for certain things (triggers come to mind). But that doesn’t seem like the direction anyone is taking here. |
|
Quoted: I think a lot of people are over the "Everything has to be AR compatible" on everything, myself very much included. I think the only major selling point about making it compatible with AR lowers is the NFA; people being able to immediately slap a short barrel upper on a lower they already have a stamp on. Get rid of the NFA and/or ATF and it won’t be an issue at all anymore. |
|
Quoted: Glad to hear that the Engineering Dept wont over the "compatability will let us sell X Units more" Spreadsheeters Way to rare in todays world. I will buy this when the Large Frame comes out in .308 or 6.5 308, lighter weight, better stock with a ~12.5" barrel and i would buy one today. |
|
Quoted: Nice looking rifle, had this come out 2 years ago I’d have jumped on it. However, I’m probably one of the few people who don’t have any complaints about the original JAKL. I get the upgrade, if you can call it that. Seems more like a whole new gun instead of an upgrade. Just like the BRN-180 gen 3. While I definitely would appreciate some of these upgrades on my JAKL, I’m not ready to buy into this version. One of the things I like most about my JAKL is the standard AR15 lower. I'm with you. Love my G1 and don't feel any urge to "upgrade". |
| I haven't gotten a chance to watch the video, but I'd be curious was was tangibly gained by losing AR lower compatibility. AR lowers are lightweight. Their .308 JAKL being large frame instead of small frame IMO was dumb and a mis-step, and a better candidate for a lower refresh. Especially because I think the own the small frame IP now... |
|
Quoted: I haven't gotten a chance to watch the video, but I'd be curious was was tangibly gained by losing AR lower compatibility. AR lowers are lightweight. Their .308 JAKL being large frame instead of small frame IMO was dumb and a mis-step, and a better candidate for a lower refresh. Especially because I think the own the small frame IP now... I imagine they sold enough complete guns vs. just uppers to show them the market was fine with that as well. |
|
Quoted: I haven't gotten a chance to watch the video, but I'd be curious was was tangibly gained by losing AR lower compatibility. AR lowers are lightweight. Their .308 JAKL being large frame instead of small frame IMO was dumb and a mis-step, and a better candidate for a lower refresh. Especially because I think the own the small frame IP now... My speculation is that two of the biggest complaints of the original jakl were the stupid front end attachment they chose and that it was a pig on the front end even in a shorter barrel. Some guys were like hey I love PSA and they can stick me wherever and whenever they want but a legitimate complaint was it was a heavy bitch. Now they claim that this rifle overall weighs less than the original and they say the rail has been slimmed down and weighs less. I’ll bet they chonked up the lower and for sure the upper, since it looks beefier, to move the center of gravity more rearward. I guess we will have to wait till it hits some real world use and we get some reports back. I have/had interest in a ver.1 upper since I already have NFA lowers but was waiting to see if they solved the fat problem and attachment complaints before committing. It seems like they don’t care now with this intro and I have less interest if they have no desire to address that issue in the ver.1. |