Originally Posted By Lennyo3034:  This tells me the rail to barrel nut interface is not very solid. My Diamondhead VRS-T, BCM KMR, and SLR rails do not do this as they are completely solid on the barrel nut. This could be due to the fact that they use a proprietary barrel nut instead of a standard one, but I'm willing to bet some rails that use a standard barrel nut are more solid than this. I am currently considering other rails that use the stock barrel nut to replace the Samson as I do not wish to remove the barrel nut. The one advantage to the Samson (and I suspect the reason Ruger choose that rail) is that the barrel nut does not have to be perfectly timed as the thermal bushings allow some flexibility for the rail mount. Obviously this applies to the RPR only as it will have to be timed perfectly on an AR-15 due to the gas tube. If my barrel nut is not perfectly timed (and it may not be as it's not necessary), then I'm SOL and stuck with the samson unless I want to remove or time the barrel nut.

Originally Posted By Lennyo3034:
I got mine in yesterday and spent a good amount of time messing with it to give a detailed first impressions:

Overall I really like this rifle, however this first impression review may sound critical of it because it's easier to explain bad things than good. I should also mention that I'm manufacturing engineer, and while I don't specialize in any particular process used in this rifle, I still have an eye for some things.

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i408/lennyo3034/20150809_160555_HDR_zpsrdy6pibk.jpg

Its clear that Ruger designed this rifle with this price point in mind. Some people might call this "cutting corners", but in this case I think Ruger did an analysis of where they can cut costs with the least impact to performance.

I'll start with the barrel: I cleaned the barrel with butch's bore shine and was able to get an impression on how smooth and consistent it was. Ruger's decision to use the hammer forging process to make these barrels makes absolute sense in my opinion. They already had the forging equipment and only had to buy dies and smaller tooling, which while not cheap is a fraction of the cost of the forging equipment. I would guess Ruger can forge these barrels for 1/5 to 1/10 the cost of outsourcing the blanks from a third party manufacturer. I'll note this is purely speculation on my part, but not a total WAG based on what I know about operating costs. The accuracy of Ruger's CHF barrels is still to be determined, but FN (SPR bolt gun) and Remington (5R line) used CHF barrels in their bolt guns that are very accurate. While cleaning the barrel, it was apparent that Ruger did not lap the bore to the level that you would expect from a high end custom barrel maker. Patches simply did not go down as smoothly as with the Krieger .260 barrel that I was cleaning at the same time. Not that the Ruger was bad, about what is expected from a factory barrel, maybe slightly better. That being said the bore is very consistent which is much more important than being super smooth. The pressure required to push the patch through is consistent, better than some button rifled match barrels I'd had, which may have been a result of inconsistent rifling or bore diameter. From a cost vs expected performance perspective, I think Ruger made the right call. I wish the barrel had a slightly thicker contour, but I'm not sure if that was a design decision made by Ruger, or if that's the thickest their hammer forge was capable of doing since it requires a lot more pressure for a slight increase in thickness.

I think the design of the action is brilliant. I didn't go as far as taking off the barrel, but I do like how it is attached to the rifle. I really like how everything from the barrel to the receiver to the stock is all on the same axis. From a load path standpoint, that is brilliant and probably my favorite thing about the rifle. Once custom shops get their hands on them, I'm hoping to find out whether or not the actions need truing like Remingtons. The machining on the action is not the best. The inside bore of the receiver has some chatter marks, probably from dull tooling. This affects how smooth the bolt slides forward and backwards, but had no effect on real performance. The bolt is not super tight in the receiver like some custom actions which makes sense for this rifle. They can save money via looser tolerances that way, as well as have an action that is less affected by dirt and debris. The bolt locks up nice and solid though, which is what really matters. The end result is an action that doesn't feel super refined, but is very functional.

The bolt is something I'm undecided on. I'm a bit surprised they didn't go with a floating bolt head. It would make the receiver being perfectly true less important. Seems like it would be cheaper that way with the same or better accuracy. But I wasn't on Ruger's design team and I'm sure they had their reasons. Without knowing what they knew, I can't knock them on that. I'm not sure why the bolt needs two cocking ramps on the back of it as that's just more machine time, however I'm sure they had their reasons. There are a few things I dislike about the bolt though. The finish on mine was not very smooth. A relatively rough finish on bare metal like that is just asking for corrosion, stainless or not. I ended spending about an hour polishing the bolt by hand with a microfiber cloth and flitz metal polish. It smoothened the bolt body to be nice and slick to prevent corrosion as well as ride smoother in the receiver. I did not touch the locking lugs. I'm not really a fan of the bolt shroud as it feels cheap and flimsy on the bolt. I plan to order a backup shroud as I don't forsee this one lasting the life of the rifle.

I have nothing but praise for the buttstock and folding mechanism. Perfect and well thought out in my opinion. If they sell these in the aftermarket, I may get one for my AR-15 (minus the folding ability). I really like how there is a feature to cant the buttstock to better fit the shoulder pocket. It really shows that Ruger was paying attention.

The trigger is serviceable, but nothing special in my opinion. I'm not a particular fan of the accutrigger in Savages so I may be biased here. I've learned to treat the safety like the first stage of a two-stage trigger, although it doesn't feel quite as nice as one. The trigger pull itself has a good amount of creep before it breaks. Luckily this creep is extremely smooth. I would compare the trigger pull to similar to a Geissele 3-gun trigger where you pull through smoothly until it just breaks without hitting a second stage wall. Obviously it doesn't move nearly as much as the 3G trigger before breaking, but a similar feeling. It's certainly not my favorite trigger, but it's not bad and some people may prefer it. Once aftermarket triggers come out for it, I will take price into account before buying. One thing I was particularly impressed with was the design of the trigger weight adjustment. The screw stops on both sides of the adjustment range to tell you not to overturn it. The way they made the stops is cheap and effective. I've seen adjustable set screws where the hole where the spring rides is slightly smaller than the tapped hole for the set screw. That way the set screw will stop on the second hole instead of compressing the spring too far. This is a very effective way to do it, however it requires drilling twice. Ruger simply put a ring of locktite on the screw near the base so the user can feel when it's getting to the limit of adjust the pull on the heavy side. To adjust the screw to lighten the trigger, the user must turn the screw out. Instead of an internal stop to prevent the screw going out too far, they just designed it so the screw stops on the inside of the lower receiver. I don't know why I was so impressed with that, it extremely simple and effective. I should note that because of this DO NOT try to adjust the trigger with the lower receiver off.

The magazine cycled with the included Pmag as well as several of the M14 mags I had lying around. It did not like the Vietnam era mags quite as much as new production mags. The older USGI mags tend to be tighter fitting in my M14s and M1a making it just too tight for the Ruger. This is not a real concern to me as the USGI mags costs considerably more and are more collector items now anyways.

My least favorite part about this rifle is the Samson rail. I do not like the thermal bushing system, and the handguard to barrel nut attachment just does not seem to be very solid. Mine came off center like this one:
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah106/Crapshot21/Mobile%20Uploads/20150806_221444-1_zpsnamg9xtt.jpg
I ended up taking off the rail and thermal bushings, reinstalling them and it centered from left to right. However the rail is still not centered vertically and the barrel looks like it droops (although its really the rail going upwards). Whats more alarming is that when I apply pressure to the rail and barrel to correct it, it actually moves slightly. Then when I put it back on the bipod it goes back to it's droop. This tells me the rail to barrel nut interface is not very solid. My Diamondhead VRS-T, BCM KMR, and SLR rails do not do this as they are completely solid on the barrel nut. This could be due to the fact that they use a proprietary barrel nut instead of a standard one, but I'm willing to bet some rails that use a standard barrel nut are more solid than this. I am currently considering other rails that use the stock barrel nut to replace the Samson as I do not wish to remove the barrel nut. The one advantage to the Samson (and I suspect the reason Ruger choose that rail) is that the barrel nut does not have to be perfectly timed as the thermal bushings allow some flexibility for the rail mount. Obviously this applies to the RPR only as it will have to be timed perfectly on an AR-15 due to the gas tube. If my barrel nut is not perfectly timed (and it may not be as it's not necessary), then I'm SOL and stuck with the samson unless I want to remove or time the barrel nut.

These are my initial impressions from messing with the rifle yesterday. I am waiting on optics and muzzle brake (Vias) before I can take it shooting for a range report. Overall I am very happy with the rifle. I think Ruger made some very intelligent decisions to get the rifle down to the price point it is being offered at. I'm actually quite impressed with the amount of thought that went into it from the manufacturing side. Of course none of these points matter that much compared to performance and accuracy, which I have not yet tested.

Originally Posted By sesimmons79:  Thats been one of my main concerns as well. Most of my Samsons rails are not aligned. Really hoping these will be able to be swapped

Originally Posted By Lennyo3034:  You're right, you can slide the Samson rail as far back as you want on the thermal bushings. That is not the case for any other rail I know of, even ones with proprietary barrel nuts. So that could be the big challenge then. Someone local to me has a Centurion C4 rail, I'll see what it looks like installed, but I don't have my hopes up.

Originally Posted By mattf26:
Who is selling at the best price right now? Cheapest I have found was $950.

Originally Posted By Talyn:
Just got my 6.5 Creedmoor RPR at my FLGS.  $949.99 out the door.  

Will be rigging it out with an optic, rings and bipod in the next few weeks.

Pretty nice LRPR.

Originally Posted By Defender3:


Sure. I did not remove the barrel nut (17), but I did remove the "handguard nut" (88). For those that may not know, the RPR has a AR styled barrel nut that secures the barrel to the receiver and then (forward of the barrel nut) there is an additional handguard nut that times and secures the rail. The handguard nut is an AR15 styled akin to an AR barrel nut and my armorer's tool fit the pattern with no issues.

I started by removing the Samson rail by loosening the small underside allen screw and then the two side retaining screws.  A slight wiggle broke the bond with the thermal bushing (89), I slid the rail off and then removed the two-piece thermal bushing. Inside of the handguard nut is a small copper "handguard nut ring" (87) that appears to be about a coil and a half to the barrel outside diameter. I started with a spare Noveske 13" rail which is lightweight and small in overall diameter; the rail would not fit over the handguard nut.  I then used a spare Geissele 13" rail and while the inside diameter of the Geissele is larger than the Noveske, it would not clear the handguard nut.  I then sized the Noveske and Geissele barrel nuts and neither was large enough to accommodate the .308 barrel.  I then fiddled with the LaRue Stealth rail and while it apprears it would fit, the LaRue uses a clip retainer that is specifically fitted for an AR15 upper receiver. I didn't have much time so I just eyeballed the LaRue and replaced the Sampson rail.  

The inside of the Samson rail is grooved to fit the corresponding pattern on the thermal bushing. The Sampson, by design, has a larger inside diameter (maybe for suppressor clearance?) to the point it clears the handguard nut and requires the additional diameter of the thermal bushing. If I have time tonight, I'll take it apart again and take some pictures. Sorry I couldn't do more, I was pressed for time last evening so I didn't measure the handguard nut against the size of an AR15 barrel nut, but given the diameter of the .308 barrel, I would be pressed to think they are the same size.

   http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/RPR_zpssprger7c.jpg

Originally Posted By Talyn:
Just got my 6.5 Creedmoor RPR at my FLGS.  $949.99 out the door.  

Will be rigging it out with an optic, rings and bipod in the next few weeks.

Pretty nice LRPR.

Originally Posted By Defender3:
Some pictures (unscientific and crappy pic skilz).

Thermal bushing on the handguard nut:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1259_zpsaveibltq.jpg

L - R: Noveske NSR, LaRue Stealth, Geissele and RPR Sampson:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1265-1_zpsxffkyab7.jpg

Inside diameter of the RPR Sampson (actually a bit wider but I measured the outside of the splines, not the inside):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1266_zpstlgjjsxz.jpg

Inside diameter of the Geissele:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1267_zpsarn61u19.jpg

Inside diameter of the LaRue Stealth:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1268_zps4sylr7ms.jpg

Inside diameter of the Noveske:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1269_zpsoyzemnso.jpg

Handguard nut with thermal bushing:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1270_zpsakowjrau.jpg

Handguard nut outside diameter:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1272_zpsmunqdn8w.jpg

.308 barrel outside diameter:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1274_zpskabwxy6e.jpg

Noveske barrel nut (top), RPR handguard nut (left) and AR 15 barrel nut (right).  The RPR handguard nut and AR 15 barrel nut are the same and thus, interchangeable:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1276_zpsqbg01elt.jpg

The Noveske barrel nut doesn't quite make it far enough.  Sorry, no Geissele nut available, I didn't feel like taking apart an upper:  

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/defender3va/Ruger%20Precision%20Rifle/DSC_1277_zpsvdpipdxa.jpg

Originally Posted By Defender3:  Some pictures (unscientific and crappy pic skilz).

Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
That Noveske nut could be modified to work.

Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
That Noveske nut could be modified to work.

Originally Posted By avboiler11:
I know this is ARF....but what is the burning desire to go swapping the handguard?

Originally Posted By TSU45:

Someone help me out with this:

All AR15 barrel nuts have the same ID.  So if the one above, regardless of which rail manufacturer it is for, does not even make it all the way up the barrel, then no AR15 hand guard nut would fit, correct?

Ruger says it will work with any AR style hand guard.  From the above that doesn't appear so.  Maybe the meant .308 pattern?

Originally Posted By avboiler11:
I know this is ARF....but what is the burning desire to go swapping the handguard?