Posted: 4/30/2008 4:55:23 PM EDT
how do you respond to this RRA |
|
Two different approaches to building a .308 AR-style rifle. They upscaled a .223 platform to get where they are and to use the mags they use, while we designed a new rifle that uses the mags we use. The "technical weaknesses" cited are as they would be applied to the AR-10. as stated, not the LAR-8. The LAR-8's receiver IS longer, as is the carrier, but as a result the LAR-8 does work reliably with most FAL and L1A1 (metric and inch) mags. We acknowledge that not EVERY FAL/L1A1 is going to work with every LAR-8 (just as they don't necessarily work with every FAL) but at $5-$8 a pop for mags in good shape, you can buy 10, keep the nine (or even all ten)that work and resell those that don't work at the fun show and have 3-9x (depends on how much you pay for AR-10 mags and FAL mags) the mag capacity for the same price. Steve/RRA |
|
dont get me wrong, as soon as I see a chrome lined 16" barrel you will be getting my money. but your response doesnt seem to answer their statement that the feed ramps must be cut deeper into the locking lugs in order to feed from an FAL mag. or are you saying that you lengthened out the ramp, so that it slopes at a lower angle, over a longer distance (thus not into the locking lugs of the barrel extension)? |
|
Again, what Mark Westrom stated was as it would apply to his AR-10 (his subject being why the AR-10 doesn't use FAL mags), not our LAR-8. Alot of folks early on read what he wrote to say that we had to leave off a lug. That could not be further from the truth. It took quite a while, a lot of work and a bunch of photos (that are probably archived somewhere on ARFOM) to dispell that misperception. His discussion is really about his rifle, not ours. Our receiver is longer. Our bolt catch and mag release are different. Our bbl extension isn't missing anything...neither is the bolt. Steve/RRA |