RRA LAR-PDS suppressor update?? (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By RRAMODERATOR:
I don't have anything new to add. Sorry. Steve/RRA We'll be at 8 years in March since you said it was in progress in this very forum. I think we have our answer, we're just not getting it straight out of RRA. Thanks. |
|
I love hypothetical timelines as much as the next guy, so...'IF' this new design works as planned, meaning you guys actually "are there" and it goes into production, can you give a ballpark estimate of when it will be available to the end user? Again, only assuming the bugs are worked out and this is indeed the final fix. So this is more of a production/scheduling type question. Any idea? |
|
Originally Posted By 60-Driver:
I love hypothetical timelines as much as the next guy, so...'IF' this new design works as planned, meaning you guys actually "are there" and it goes into production, can you give a ballpark estimate of when it will be available to the end user? Again, only assuming the bugs are worked out and this is indeed the final fix. So this is more of a production/scheduling type question. Any idea? Riight after testing is completed and the first production batch is run. I can't provide an exact date, but if we assume that all of the hypotheticals (that really aren't that hypothetical) I would guess late winter or early spring. |
|
Hi there.
Well it's almost 2020 Time to kick this horse once again and see if it flinches... Any news? I've never posted on this issue because someone else always does it before I do. I just saw someone asked for an update a couple weeks ago... But I too have been waiting also since the very beginning... Let us know something... |
|
Originally Posted By rangersniper308:
Hi there. Well it's almost 2020 Time to kick this horse once again and see if it flinches... Any news? I've never posted on this issue because someone else always does it before I do. I just saw someone asked for an update a couple weeks ago... But I too have been waiting also since the very beginning... Let us know something... We think that we're there. But we're testing, and testing more, and then some more. The lastthing we want is fo rthe guys who have been waiting all along to get something that they think is "it" and then let them down. steve/RRA |
|
Originally Posted By 60-Driver:
Steve, is the new design looking like it'll be a direct drop in replacement or something different requiring a new upper? Sorry. Steve |
|
Steve - Any updates? How are the prototypes working out? When will the upgrade be available to the public? A previous post of yours speculated later winter or early spring... We're here... Is this going to be a modification that the user can install or will it need to be done by RRA? Is it going to be a free upgrade? If not, what are we talking cost-wise? Appreciate anything new info you can provide. Thanks. |
|
Testing was onmgoing until last week, when many of the special projects were temporarily benched to get more product out the door. It will be an upgrade that will be installed on new PDSs (the price will be adjusted accordingly if necessary) and will be available as an upgrade for existing PDSs. I sdon't kkno w of any reason that it shouldn't be user installable. I don't know what the price wiil be as the prrototypes don't represent production. Steve/RRA |
|
As far as I know, the testing went well and now the project is being cleaned up in order to make it more of a finished product than a butt-ugly working prototype. I don't have an ETA yet. Th ecurrent surge has all sort sof things taking place off-schedule/out of planned order. Steve/RRA |
| RRA: Any update on this subject? I'd imagine with the current demand for firearms, RRA probably had to tuck this project away in the back corner of the shop. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear if anything new has come out of this. The discussion spans several years. I'd ask again for a temporary solution of providing a short list of standard 223/556 loads and popular cans that would be acceptable for use on the platform. I don't see how a "use only with these suppressors warning" would put RRA in a different liability position than the current "don't use a suppressor" warning. |
|
Originally Posted By CDT: RRA: Any update on this subject? I'd imagine with the current demand for firearms, RRA probably had to tuck this project away in the back corner of the shop. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear if anything new has come out of this. The discussion spans several years. I'd ask again for a temporary solution of providing a short list of standard 223/556 loads and popular cans that would be acceptable for use on the platform. I don't see how a "use only with these suppressors warning" would put RRA in a different liability position than the current "don't use a suppressor" warning. Nothing really to report...a lot of projects are hanging in mid-air right now while we try not to fall too far behind on the products we already are making. The biggest issue that we are facing is that the PDS was never intended to be suppressed, an redesigning it ot be suppressed shouldn't be that difficult...but it has been harder than anyone ever imagined. We've had firearms and suppressor designers, non-firearms people for a digfferent approach/new eyes, etc...all work on it, and all with mixed results. I would love t tell you whivch loads do and don't work...but it isn't just the ammo, it''s also the ammo and its relation to the different cans in play. Ihave a PDS and two suppressors across the offic efromme right now, Using the same upopper and sam eammo, we get sifniificantly different results with the two different cans. I/we don't have a good, safe, economically viable solution yet. Iareally am sorry that we don't. Happy holidays everyone. Steve/RRA |
|
Work continues, but slowed a bt by everything else that is going on. Problematically, it would have been easier to coem up with a new pistol/SBR than it has proven to be to modify the PDS to ffully and safely unction with a can. Now, with as much time, effort, and money that has gone into it, we will come up with a way to do so. The lawyers say "No way" on a list of cans and ammo, as even with it, the wrong mixture of can and ammo would be a major issue. Steve |
|
We took the 300AACs out of the catalog and off the site because we know that people will try to use cans on them, and until they can do so safely, we aren't providing the option. To be honest, there isn't much, if any, progress to even mention. Engineering is lmore involved in QA/QC than design work right now...checking higher percentages of an increasd quantity of parts. I'll ask them (again) if they have anything to report. Steve/RRA |
|
Originally Posted By kfzig: Ooooh.... that's a really good insight. Is that a theory or do you know that the BRN-180 will work with the PDS lower? BRN-180 - fits milspec lowers... Just validated that a regular/spec upper mates perfectly to the PDS lower. Aaaand the new .300blk upper will be here by Monday and i have the .223wylde upper on backorder... Thanks for the tip! |
|
Still no updates? I was planning on shooting 75 gr. bullets through a SOCOM300-SPS with the gas block set to Large. Not saying it's safe, but does "anyone" have any data that shows this WILL blow up my gun? Or any data that it won't cycle properly? Thanks (BTW - Doing while in a safe location with the gun in a vise.) |