[ARCHIVED THREAD] - THE JAKL THREAD (Page 1 of 28)
Posted: 2/9/2020 6:32:16 PM EDT
|
PSA,
You killed it at SHOT this year. You have so many exciting projects on the horizon it is not only impossible to ignore you, but it actually makes folks nervous that you will screw it up- that's because we are all extremely hopeful that you will succeed in pulling it off. Bandwidth is limited in any size organization, and resources will need to be divided between alllll these different projects. I want to urge you that when the time comes to allocate scarce resources... and tough decisions need to be made... cut one of the projects designed to compete with an already-available better-weapon from an OEM-source on price, and THROW IN EXTRA BEHIND THE JAKL. This is something truly unique and exciting from you guys. It has a lot of potential. If you don't screw it up or "Gen"-it-out, it will be a must have like a CZ Scorpion. That being said I wanted to separate the JAKL from the $300 generic Glock thread (aren't real Glocks about $400 all over the country?) and get some discussion going separately. Very bad ideas are starting to seep into that thread, as with twist rate, and smart decisions need to be made. So here are my unsolicited good ideas: TWIST RATE - should be 1:8 in .300 BLK, and should be 1:7 in 5.56. GAS SETTINGS - should be un-suppressed, suppressed super, suppressed sub, and OFF. Don't miss out on the opportunity to take advantage of your main-thing-here. HAND GUARD - Just run it as a monolithic extrusion, complete with the receiver. Don't make a separate plastic hand guard. Separate receiver and hand guard would only make sense if you were going for something modular- and it has been said different receivers for different calibers. LOWER RECEIVER - I see two designs using pistons, not in need of a buffer, and both using AR-15 lug distance for compatibility. Both are using gap-plate spacer doohickeys to blend it in to the rear. These are the BRN-180 and the JAKL. BRN-180M receiver has the built in 1913 rail. Can you use that? Call them up- they'll even put your name on the side. THE DOOHICKEY - just have it as an add-on in a drop down for folks who buy the upper and want to mount it to an existing SBR'd lower. THE STOCK - I dig the triangle folder and I know why you did it. It looks like it was the right length for something with a shorter receiver or closer hinge though. I'd call SBT and see if they can take an inch or two off. Here are my bad ideas that should be ignored: MODULARITY - Imagine if it had a MRP-ish barrel change? If you could locate the port in the same spot and size it correctly for each caliber, you could use the same everything-else. ENHANCED CONTROLS - What else can you guys do to further differentiate the JAKL... maybe drop a Norgon-ish ambi catch, Maritime-ish BHO, and ambi selector in with them? With your buying power, you could do this cheap. |
|
Quoted:
GAS SETTINGS - should be un-suppressed, suppressed super, suppressed sub, and OFF. Don't miss out on the opportunity to take advantage of your main-thing-here. If your purpose for this is for actual defensive use, then build it around the most practical set up, running supersonic ammo in the 110-120gr range. If you want to run subs unsuppressed, you still can, just change the gas setting. Also giving it an individual suppressed setting would be really nice and increase reliability by allowing for more dewell time and prevent premature unlocking. |
|
I dont have anything really to add. Though, I will say that the JAKL looks like the SCAR, and you know... SCARs are typically around $3K... You bring out those carbine/DMR versions as well as the pistols... You might make some people very happy... Specially if you guys decide to make a .308/6.5 Creedmoor version that you can slap onto your PA-10 lowers. |
|
Quoted:
The shot show interview already said the barrel was pretty much permanently attached. You'll destroy stuff trying to unscrew it to swap out. Since it's one piece, non-user-f-withable, then don't make a plastic handguard to hang off the front. OR Redesign it to take modular barrels. Go ahead and make a modular HG in that case. |
|
Quoted:
Though, I will say that the JAKL looks like the SCAR, and you know... SCARs are typically around $3K... You bring out those carbine/DMR versions as well as the pistols... You might make some people very happy... It is very similar to something else that never got made though... |
|
Quoted:
I’m just hoping they have some stock and adapter options for those putting this on an SBR, if I can put an acr stock or maybe even a Zhukov I’m all in for one of these uppers Probably a Magpul 1913 option is not very far off at all... perhaps even a "brace." |
|
Quoted:
The shot show interview already said... CHARGING HANDLE - Must be ambidextrous/ swappable and non-reciprocating. Fixed is fine, it doesn't need to fold. Should have the capability to lock inward and be used as a forward assist, like an Israeli FAL charging handle. |
|
Quoted:
1913 is the new standard for mounting stocks. |
|
Quoted:
1913 is one of many different ways to mount stocks on guns. And I wish it'd die off already. Every few weeks there are more and more weapons using a 1913 style stock mount. MCX... various AK types... BRN-180... Ruger Charger... some MP5 backplates... now JAKL. |
|
Quoted:
Until it starts getting less and less popular. So far, I haven't seen one single gun where the 1913 stock/brace interface doesn't look like an afterthought. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only going to get more and more popular... So far, I haven't seen one single gun where the 1913 stock/brace interface doesn't look like an afterthought. |
|
I’m not really sure I agree. It sounds like you’re trying to fit all the crap that we wanted out of an acr. What we got missed the ball cause it wasn’t focused on the important stuff.
Make it functional, make it not a million pounds, have it be similar to what they’ve got at shot show, have it not cost two-three times of a normal upper. All that other crap, they can push in v2, v3. The ar has been improved for 50 years. I live the new ones but we had a Vietnam era one..... wasn’t impressed. Personally my opinion is get what they have into production and get it selling. |
|
Quoted: That's what I said. Since it's one piece, non-user-f-withable, then don't make a plastic handguard to hang off the front. OR Redesign it to take modular barrels. Go ahead and make a modular HG in that case. Either make the barrels non-swappable and then make upper receiver full length. Drop the plastic hand guard nonsense. Just one more part to fail. One more part that you might not be able to get in the future. Just extend that upper receiver the full length. Won't take much more machining time to do that from a block of aluminum. That plastic handguard talk is a waste with no modularity in barrels and user swappable designed into the gun. Quoted:
Thats overstating it a bit. 1913 is one of many different ways to mount stocks on guns. And I wish it'd die off already. On every single gun that uses it, it looks like a rube goldberg machine kludge just hanging on for dear life. A side folding gun like the MCX or B&T or Stribog look great with 1913 adapters for stocks/braces. |
|
Quoted: TWIST RATE - should be 1:8 in .300 BLK, and should be 1:7 in 5.56. LOWER RECEIVER - I see two designs using pistons, not in need of a buffer, and both using AR-15 lug distance for compatibility. Both are using gap-plate spacer doohickeys to blend it in to the rear. These are the BRN-180 and the JAKL. BRN-180M receiver has the built in 1913 rail. Can you use that? Call them up- they'll even put your name on the side. Not a chance that they’ll buy a receiver from Brownells or anyone else. PSA has an extensive manufacturing operation and cranks our tons and tons of AR lowers. If they wanted a lower like the BRN-180, they would just make it. Buying = higher consumer price, this flies in the face of what PSA does. |
|
Quoted:
Disagree with you on this one. What other format do you prefer for buffer-tubeless designs? I think adding an AR buffer tube adapter to a side folding gun looks way more like a rube goldberg machine kludge just hanging on for dear life. A side folding gun like the MCX or B&T or Stribog look great with 1913 adapters for stocks/braces. With 1913 setups, you often have the back of the gun, then some sort of adapter to mount the 1913 rail, then a teeny tiny little hinge mounted on that, then the stock/brace finally bolted to the hinge. And each of the various parts involved was designed by a different guy. They don't look like they were made for each other. It was one guy who made the hinge and a different guy who made the brace and a different guy who made the receiver and a different guy who made the 1913 adapter. When you look at them as a whole assembly, you can tell. Dunno why you're even talking about a buffer tube adapter, though. The jakl is supposed to use standard AR lowers. It already accepts a buffer tube. We're here adding a 1913 adapter in place of the buffer tube. |
|
Quoted:
1) It sounds like you’re trying to fit all the crap that we wanted out of an acr. 2) make it not a million pounds 3) have it be similar to what they’ve got at shot show, 4) have it not cost two-three times of a normal upper. 5) All that other crap, they can push in v2, v3. Personally my opinion is get what they have into production and get it selling. 2) Nobody has said anything about weight. I won't be super heavy, it won't be super light. 3) That would be an instant failure because of the charging handle. 4) They are saying Scorpion prices for the complete rifle. Uppers should be like $500. 5) Guaranteed failure if they release a flop and then Gen-it-out. It doesn't matter if PSA misses their projected release date... but if it sucks, the whole project is done. Many people now own Kalash-USA Vityaz because of their finish thickness and MAC-Bracket issues. That is not their only example either. |
|
Quoted: Why would you want a 1:8 twist 300 over a 1:7 twist? Quoted: Why would you want a 1:8 twist 300 over a 1:7 twist? The correct answers for 300 BLK are: 1:9 - leaning towards supers 1:8 - best compromise 1:7 - leaning towards subs 1:6 - subs ONLY, and long ones at that 1:5 - completely useless... unless you count monolithic projectiles, which nobody uses 1:7 would be acceptable, but 1:8 represents the best compromise. I've been shooting .300 since the Whisper days, and nobody shoots as much heavy subs as they think they will. 1:8 will do everything fine. The guy who suggested 1:5 has no clue about anything. Quoted:
Not a chance that they’ll buy a receiver from Brownells or anyone else. PSA has an extensive manufacturing operation and cranks our tons and tons of AR lowers. If they wanted a lower like the BRN-180, they would just make it. Buying = higher consumer price, this flies in the face of what PSA does. All of their best products are subcontracted- FN Barrels, New Frontier PCC kits, the stocks in their lower build kits... IF they try to make their own 1913 lower, it would make sense to at least match the diameter of the BRN-180 receivers... and maybe they could sell a few more units to BRN-180 guys. |
|
Quoted: Quoting myself from the other thread: The correct answers for 300 BLK are: 1:9 - leaning towards supers 1:8 - best compromise 1:7 - leaning towards subs 1:6 - subs ONLY, and long ones at that 1:5 - completely useless... unless you count monolithic projectiles, which nobody uses 1:7 would be acceptable, but 1:8 represents the best compromise. I've been shooting .300 since the Whisper days, and nobody shoots as much heavy subs as they think they will. 1:8 will do everything fine. The guy who suggested 1:5 has no clue about anything. This is literally exactly what PSA does- use their huge buying power to get deals and then offer it at low prices. All of their best products are subcontracted- FN Barrels, New Frontier PCC kits, the stocks in their lower build kits... IF they try to make their own 1913 lower, it would make sense to at least match the diameter of the BRN-180 receivers... and maybe they could sell a few more units to BRN-180 guys. As for PSA’s manufacturing, I have to disagree. While PSA certainly leverages their buying power, they increasingly make all of their own stuff including receivers, barrels, Handguards, and more. They’ve been buying their suppliers in an effort to expand their vertical integration. You are correct that they offer FN barrels but the majority are not FN made. They don’t do any injection molding so yes they buy that or in the case of the PSA-5, partner with Magpul. |
|
Quoted:
I’ll have to do a little more research on the twist rates. I had previously read that 1:7 was the best compromise and read of a small number of issues with PSA’s 1:8 and moreso with Rainier’s 1:8.5. I shoot mostly supers (110-150) in my BA 1:7’s and have no complaints. Quoted:
I’ll have to do a little more research on the twist rates. I had previously read that 1:7 was the best compromise and read of a small number of issues with PSA’s 1:8 and moreso with Rainier’s 1:8.5. I shoot mostly supers (110-150) in my BA 1:7’s and have no complaints. Most in-the-know folks demand high performance with the 110gr Hornady VMAX. That means ideally 1:10, but 1:8 is the end of good performance. 1:8.5 is a good idea too, and Ranier is in-the-know. 1:7 heavily favors subsonics... like the 208gr AMAX... which is still good... but I mostly want to shoot supers at the range and 110 VMAX for defensive purposes. The point of having this discussion, and I know PSA reads these threads, is that a lot of potato chip eaters out there are going to be begging to shoot dumpster grade supers from a 1:10... and then clueless people will pop up at random and encourage them to adopt the totally and completely useless 1:5 twist of the SIG Junker. A smart decision must be made, and even though twist is always important, with .300 BLK it is SUPER IMPORTANT. You are correct that they offer FN barrels but the majority are not FN made. They don’t do any injection molding so yes they buy that or in the case of the PSA-5, partner with Magpul. PSA-5 is going to flop worse than the PTR MP5. They're banking on import bans and embargos to create a market for US MP5s. NOW... if they simply called up "FN Specialties" or whoever it is and negotiated a good price for the new "Effen-90" receiver like they did with NFA and the 9mm stuff, they could have a "PSA-90" that everyone would be forced to take notice of. Nobody has a P-90 because they're simply an oddity and they cost too much. All the work to make an AK that can't compete with a WASR or an MP5 that can't compete with a POF or a Glock that can't compete with a Glock is wasted energy. Now lets stick to the JAKL- which is MOST DEFINITELY a worthy effort that many serious people have taken notice of since it's introduction at SHOT... |
|
Quoted:
To me, the ace/stormwerkz 2-hole pattern tend to look like less of a kludge. With 1913 setups, you often have the back of the gun, then some sort of adapter to mount the 1913 rail, then a teeny tiny little hinge mounted on that, then the stock/brace finally bolted to the hinge. And each of the various parts involved was designed by a different guy. They don't look like they were made for each other. It was one guy who made the hinge and a different guy who made the brace and a different guy who made the receiver and a different guy who made the 1913 adapter. When you look at them as a whole assembly, you can tell. Dunno why you're even talking about a buffer tube adapter, though. The jakl is supposed to use standard AR lowers. It already accepts a buffer tube. We're here adding a 1913 adapter in place of the buffer tube. Quoted:
Quoted:
Disagree with you on this one. What other format do you prefer for buffer-tubeless designs? I think adding an AR buffer tube adapter to a side folding gun looks way more like a rube goldberg machine kludge just hanging on for dear life. A side folding gun like the MCX or B&T or Stribog look great with 1913 adapters for stocks/braces. With 1913 setups, you often have the back of the gun, then some sort of adapter to mount the 1913 rail, then a teeny tiny little hinge mounted on that, then the stock/brace finally bolted to the hinge. And each of the various parts involved was designed by a different guy. They don't look like they were made for each other. It was one guy who made the hinge and a different guy who made the brace and a different guy who made the receiver and a different guy who made the 1913 adapter. When you look at them as a whole assembly, you can tell. Dunno why you're even talking about a buffer tube adapter, though. The jakl is supposed to use standard AR lowers. It already accepts a buffer tube. We're here adding a 1913 adapter in place of the buffer tube. What looks awful is running a AR15 buffer tube side folder on a buffer less rifle. Now that looks like rube goldberg machine kludge just hanging on for dear life to the max. Awful looking. |
|
Quoted: Quoting myself from the other thread: The correct answers for 300 BLK are: 1:9 - leaning towards supers 1:8 - best compromise 1:7 - leaning towards subs 1:6 - subs ONLY, and long ones at that 1:5 - completely useless... unless you count monolithic projectiles, which nobody uses 1:7 would be acceptable, but 1:8 represents the best compromise. I've been shooting .300 since the Whisper days, and nobody shoots as much heavy subs as they think they will. 1:8 will do everything fine. The guy who suggested 1:5 has no clue about anything. This is literally exactly what PSA does- use their huge buying power to get deals and then offer it at low prices. All of their best products are subcontracted- FN Barrels, New Frontier PCC kits, the stocks in their lower build kits... IF they try to make their own 1913 lower, it would make sense to at least match the diameter of the BRN-180 receivers... and maybe they could sell a few more units to BRN-180 guys. I wouldn't want a 1:8. I would want 1:5-1:7 personally. |
|
Quoted: 1) These are common features of any modern rifle. Attribute them to the ACR, Masada, BREN, MSBS, etc as you wish. 2) Nobody has said anything about weight. I won't be super heavy, it won't be super light. 3) That would be an instant failure because of the charging handle. 4) They are saying Scorpion prices for the complete rifle. Uppers should be like $500. 5) Guaranteed failure if they release a flop and then Gen-it-out. It doesn't matter if PSA misses their projected release date... but if it sucks, the whole project is done. Many people now own Kalash-USA Vityaz because of their finish thickness and MAC-Bracket issues. That is not their only example either. 3. What is wrong with the charging handle? It’s non reciprocating? 4.And why on earth would a company sell a ground up new design and sell it for less than most quality uppers? I think about 7-800 for a pistol kit would be quite reasonable. 5. Products are flops if it promises and then under delivers. If it doesn’t promise the world people are okay. |
|
Quoted:
lots of industry heavyweights in the .300 BLK industry would agree with that guy. Quoted:
lots of industry heavyweights in the .300 BLK industry would agree with that guy. I don't. Most of those "heavyweights" are building to the specs of their customers- i.e. some podunk sheriff who wants to shoot 240gr monos all day on the taxpayer dime because he heard that "dey can knock man strait out his shoes!!" Practically nobody... and I really-do-mean literally close to nobody-at-all in the .300 BLK community is shooting any significant quantity of 240gr monolithic bullets. 1:5 is a perfectly useless twist for anyone conducting recreational shooting with 147 ball type supers AND ALSO anyone doing serious work with 110 VMAX. I wouldn't want a 1:8. I would want 1:5-1:7 personally. A shooting reason... NOT a SIG (lol!) reason. PSA is sifting through 10+ pages of bad advice on their AK-103 Klone over on AKfiles. The points of argument seem to be: 1) Can we get neckbeard engraving on the selector positions? 2) Can we get no engraving where the huge gawdy logo is? 3) Can you use the wrong parts and still call it a "clone?" (some people apparently want the wrong parts!) 3) Is $300 dinner and a bar tab or a cost delta that would force the user to forgo a week's worth of "energy drinks?" Let's not have such foolishness enter the conversation on JAKL. It should be done correctly and smart decisions should be made. |
|
Quoted:
1. Yes but how much do most of those systems cost? Acr is like 1500-2,000. Most of the others are around that price. ACR is about $400- most of the cost is in the barrel and bolt. The receiver is just an extrusion they run with some cutouts in it. The plastic stuff just clips on. It's a very cheap and simple design. What is your point here? 3. What is wrong with the charging handle? It’s non reciprocating? It is non ambi- at least in the version at SHOT. One video I watch said it would get fixed before production. It also should have a provision for use as a forward assist. 4.And why on earth would a company sell a ground up new design and sell it for less than most quality uppers? I think about 7-800 for a pistol kit would be quite reasonable. Nah. $500 to market at initial scale of production. The JAKL receiver is also an extrusion they run, and I'd imagine the internals are similar to something similar. 5. Products are flops if it promises and then under delivers. If it doesn’t promise the world people are okay. IF it doesn't perform, or they Gen-it-out on the way to getting it right, it will be a HUGE FLOP. They should reach out to serious users (not YouTube guys), NDA them, give them a prescribed test to run for comparison with a set number of rounds, and then open it up to any testing the user has in mind (nothing stupid- only serious people). They should gather the feedback KNOWING that tweaks will be required before going into production and they should make the changes. No finish-coating-variation failures or retrofit brackets. Just do it right. |
|
Just wanted to chime in and say that I hope PSA keeps the Jakl on the front burner and it doesn't become vaporware. I plan on picking up a 300 blk this year and would like this to be it; assuming it is going to be released in 2020 and not kicked down the road several years like the MP5. I also LOVE the idea of having settings for unsuppressed/suppressed super/suppressed subs/off. The whole reason I'm planning on getting a 300 blk (hopefully in a Jakl) is for shooting suppressed and it only makes sense to be able to switch from supers to subs. On all the rest: carry on! Your SHOT showing gave me a raging freedom boner after years of being somewhat disappointed with different companies offerings. I'll be buying a dagger for each of my three son's 21st birthday presents and while I'm not interested in any AK's or 9mm blowbacks personally, I'm glad to see your company continue to make stuff that is right up other shooters alley. |
|
Quoted:
I thought of another question for @palmettostatearmory Will the jakl function with a binary trigger? Is that something you check in R&D or do you just leave it to the consumer? Thanks! Josiah |
|
Quoted:
I also LOVE the idea of having settings for unsuppressed/suppressed super/suppressed subs/off. .300 BLK on a DI gun is "no gas settings needed" as a feature- but the optimal settings for each type of ammo still exist. We just deal with overgassed condition on Supers to achieve reliable function on Subs. None of the research done to date will be relevant for a piston gun with whatever length gas system PSA designs. Much testing will need to be conducted, but the end result should be something that will force the people to take notice. Imagine having a top performing weapon that is accurate and reliable, while running smoother than anything it competes with... suppressed and unsuppressed. It would be a 100% must-own. If it's purpose is a "truck gun" because the stock folds, and you can toss it behind the seat until it gets stolen, then nobody will care. |
|
Quoted:
This is part of our test-plan as we get closer to launch. I do not have any info right now. Thanks! Josiah Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought of another question for @palmettostatearmory Will the jakl function with a binary trigger? Is that something you check in R&D or do you just leave it to the consumer? Thanks! Josiah |
|
Quoted:
Was this a subtle jab at Serbu? 
Wasn't Rock River Arms the first to do the pic rail lower on there pistol version of the Piston AR they have? Quoted:
Quoted: It is very similar to something else that never got made though...
Wasn't Rock River Arms the first to do the pic rail lower on there pistol version of the Piston AR they have? |
|
Quoted:
I thought the jakl was for the ar15 platform Quoted:
Quoted:
the jakl for the ks47 platform is still on track right? Otherwise the jakl is on the lower end of things I want to buy |
|
Quoted:
This looks like the gun that'll finally push me to get into .300blk. |
|
Cut the silly BS- AK mags, 7.62N, etc...
Quoted:
1) I never really had any interest in that round UNTIL I saw the reviews of the JAKL I shoot everything suppressed and NEED the JAKL to have suppressed settings separately for subs and supers. 2) My WANT is to have the hand guard end near the muzzle, purely aesthetics 3) I just want max accuracy with both subs and supers. I'm pumped for JAKL, or I wouldn't have started the thread, but I don't think this should be your first and only .300 BLK. Pick up a normal AR upper this weekend and prepare to be amazed. 2) You don't want the HGs near the muzzle- ever. Too much heat transfer, and some guy somewhere is bound to run into issues with X mount + Y silencer. The way they have it on the SHOT sample is perfect, and the person who did it that way is obviously using his head. The final product should look a lot like the SHOT sample up front- NO to plastic handguards and NO to whatever you're talking about (and having *both* would be a disaster!). 3) Performance with both Subs and Supers will call for 1:8 or 1:7. As I said above, I shoot a lot more Supers than Subs so I would prefer 1:8. Smart folks who have been shooting .300 since the Whisper days, and can produce a barrel to any twist they want, did the research, thought about it hard, and decided on 1:8.5. |
|
Quoted:
Cut the silly BS- AK mags, 7.62N, etc... 1) You shoot "everything" suppressed... but you weren't interested in .300 BLK before JAKL?? It's made for going short and quiet, with maximum parts commonality with a standard carbine, same mags/ same capacity, and NO NEED to mess with gas settings- it just runs. I'm pumped for JAKL, or I wouldn't have started the thread, but I don't think this should be your first and only .300 BLK. Pick up a normal AR upper this weekend and prepare to be amazed. 2) You don't want the HGs near the muzzle- ever. Too much heat transfer, and some guy somewhere is bound to run into issues with X mount + Y silencer. The way they have it on the SHOT sample is perfect, and the person who did it that way is obviously using his head. The final product should look a lot like the SHOT sample up front- NO to plastic handguards and NO to whatever you're talking about (and having *both* would be a disaster!). 3) Performance with both Subs and Supers will call for 1:8 or 1:7. As I said above, I shoot a lot more Supers than Subs so I would prefer 1:8. Smart folks who have been shooting .300 since the Whisper days, and can produce a barrel to any twist they want, did the research, thought about it hard, and decided on 1:8.5. |
|
Quoted:
If you're saying regardless of can and ammo (supers and subs) that the current single 'suppressed' setting will result in my desired ejection (4 o'clock) then we'll be good to go. I just told you the requirements (all met) that made .300 BLK what it is. |
|
Quoted: I'm much more of a lead-on-target guy than an ejection-clocker, but you can go on Youtube and check out Silencershop, NFA Review Channel, Capital Armory, etc and go nuts. I just told you the requirements (all met) that made .300 BLK what it is. |