AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/24/2017 12:27:51 AM EDT
| I'm looking at getting a new rifle and at first it was an easy decision to get an upper tier rifle like the DD but after reading some of the forums I have seen mixed reviews. My first though was that DD would be way above PSA but many people are comparing the two? How does the quality match up and which would you guys go with? |
|
Quoted:
Thanks guys, I would have thought it was an easy decision but other forums were comparing the two and I couldn't believe that. by forums, you mean the clowns over at akfiles that think cheap as hell when it comes to AR's, but than spend $1k on a stamped receiver AK |
|
Quoted:
by forums, you mean the clowns over at akfiles that think cheap as hell when it comes to AR's, but than spend $1k on a stamped receiver AK Haha. I recently joined Akfiles last summer after buying my first rifle. It's.....different. Very few of those guys would spend $1000 on a complete rifle. To them, if it ain't comblock and under $600, its junk. |
|
Quoted:
I have a DD and have assembled several PSA rifle kits. If you have the funds go DD. I like all my PSA builds, not one problem with any of them, but when I take the DD to the range it is pure joy. YMMV. Can you elaborate on the how the experience differs between them? |
|
Quoted:
A student brought a DD rifle to our DMR course. He was shooting IMI 77gr and was banging the 800Y target like it was his job. I sent a few through it too and it was a well built, accurate rifle that was an easy shooter. Yep my DD's are very accurate...even with standard 55 grain ammo |
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. At this point, the gun shoots better than I do but I don't plan to put better optics on it because it's my "tactical" gun for defensive purposes. It has never failed me and I'd buy the DD5V1 if I had the money. I highly recommend DD if you can spend the money.
|
|
Quoted:
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. At this point, the gun shoots better than I do but I don't plan to put better optics on it because it's my "tactical" gun for defensive purposes. It has never failed me and I'd buy the DD5V1 if I had the money. I highly recommend DD if you can spend the money. Wait...what? You're shooting 1.5" groups at 300 yards with Iron sights? I think the only comparison is that PSA has FN CHF barrels, where as DD makes there own CHF barrels. As far as build quality and finish DD is hands down better. |
|
Quoted:
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. 
|
|
Quoted:
Can you elaborate on the how the experience differs between them? I have switched out the stocks on my PSA builds, using the B5 SOPMOD stocks, but I like the DD stock better. My DD is the M4V5 lightweight version, mid-length gas system, 16" barrel. Accuracy wise, again subjective, but I do shot the DD better. I have an Aimpoint Pro mounted on it, with Aimpoint or Vortex optics on the PSA's. Again, all of my PSA builds have been rock solid. I put together a lightweight rifle for my GF, very similar to the DD, except it has a Magpul forearm vs. the picatinny rail on the DD. When we shoot them side by side, we both like the Daniels better. |
|
Quoted:
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. At this point, the gun shoots better than I do but I don't plan to put better optics on it because it's my "tactical" gun for defensive purposes. It has never failed me and I'd buy the DD5V1 if I had the money. I highly recommend DD if you can spend the money. 1/2 MOA at 300 yards with irons, and bulk 55 gr ammo? I'm not saying I don't believe you. I do doubt, however. I've never owned a DD rifle, but have had many Palmetto uppers. PA Uppers shoot well, but the BCM Uppers I have had outshine them greatly, in terms of accuracy. Now, the LaRue 18" upper I have, well, that's in another class. |
|
Quoted:
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. At this point, the gun shoots better than I do but I don't plan to put better optics on it because it's my "tactical" gun for defensive purposes. It has never failed me and I'd buy the DD5V1 if I had the money. I highly recommend DD if you can spend the money. Leave your fantasy stories at the range. |
|
I attended a Revere's Riders Marksmanship training event in Lexington, KY where you shoot scaled targets at 25 yards. The targets simulate 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards and 400 yards. The silhouette is the same shape at each distance, just smaller. I was using iron sights and I wear bifocals so I was having trouble seeing to begin with and I couldn't really see the 400 yard silhouette at all other than a black smudge. It may be significant to note that this was on an indoor range so we were not feeling the affects of weather or wind. The target for 300 yards is about 2 inches tall when you hold it in your hand and is tiny at 25 yards. The front sight blade would completely obscure the 400 yard silhouette and my bifocals just wouldn't work right at that distance.
The competition included mag changes and was timed for each of the five stages of the event. This was a refresher for the shooters in attendance because we had all shot this course of fire before that included prone, transition from standing to sitting or kneeling and transition from standing to prone. This is my second time qualifying as Marksman but I don't expect to improve on that score because of my eyesight. Almost everyone else was shooting with a scope of some magnification. It was my choice to run iron sights because I wanted to test my own skill without the aide of a scope. I do have a RDS on my rifle and have used it regularly. I just chose to run iron sights for this event. Ok, I didn't actually put a tape measure on the groupings and I threw all of my targets away right after I pulled them from the backer board except the one that scored well enough to earn the Marksmanship rating. The groups were not ALL 1.5" and some included wild flyers, but I did qualify. |
|
Quoted:
I attended a Revere's Riders Marksmanship training event in Lexington, KY where you shoot scaled targets at 25 yards. The targets simulate 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards and 400 yards. The silhouette is the same shape at each distance, just smaller. I was using iron sights and I wear bifocals so I was having trouble seeing to begin with and I couldn't really see the 400 yard silhouette at all other than a black smudge. It may be significant to note that this was on an indoor range so we were not feeling the affects of weather or wind. The target for 300 yards is about 2 inches tall when you hold it in your hand and is tiny at 25 yards. The front sight blade would completely obscure the 400 yard silhouette and my bifocals just wouldn't work right at that distance. The competition included mag changes and was timed for each of the five stages of the event. This was a refresher for the shooters in attendance because we had all shot this course of fire before that included prone, transition from standing to sitting or kneeling and transition from standing to prone. This is my second time qualifying as Marksman but I don't expect to improve on that score because of my eyesight. Almost everyone else was shooting with a scope of some magnification. It was my choice to run iron sights because I wanted to test my own skill without the aide of a scope. I do have a RDS on my rifle and have used it regularly. I just chose to run iron sights for this event. Ok, I didn't actually put a tape measure on the groupings and I threw all of my targets away right after I pulled them from the backer board except the one that scored well enough to earn the Marksmanship rating. The groups were not ALL 1.5" and some included wild flyers, but I did qualify. So your DD rifle shoots 1.5" at 25 yards. I'll take the PSA.
|
|
Quoted:
I attended a Revere's Riders Marksmanship training event in Lexington, KY where you shoot scaled targets at 25 yards. The targets simulate 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards and 400 yards. The silhouette is the same shape at each distance, just smaller. I was using iron sights and I wear bifocals so I was having trouble seeing to begin with and I couldn't really see the 400 yard silhouette at all other than a black smudge. It may be significant to note that this was on an indoor range so we were not feeling the affects of weather or wind. The target for 300 yards is about 2 inches tall when you hold it in your hand and is tiny at 25 yards. The front sight blade would completely obscure the 400 yard silhouette and my bifocals just wouldn't work right at that distance. The competition included mag changes and was timed for each of the five stages of the event. This was a refresher for the shooters in attendance because we had all shot this course of fire before that included prone, transition from standing to sitting or kneeling and transition from standing to prone. This is my second time qualifying as Marksman but I don't expect to improve on that score because of my eyesight. Almost everyone else was shooting with a scope of some magnification. It was my choice to run iron sights because I wanted to test my own skill without the aide of a scope. I do have a RDS on my rifle and have used it regularly. I just chose to run iron sights for this event. Ok, I didn't actually put a tape measure on the groupings and I threw all of my targets away right after I pulled them from the backer board except the one that scored well enough to earn the Marksmanship rating. The groups were not ALL 1.5" and some included wild flyers, but I did qualify. So, you didn't shoot 0.5 MOA @ 300 yards. Attached File |
|
OK, never mind. I thought I'd explained this clearly but apparently I haven't. I am sorry to have confused the issue and antagonized the general populace of shooters here. I felt I had something relevant to offer and was attempting to qualify my personal experience. Sorry to have offended anyone.
Quoted:
So, you didn't shoot 0.5 MOA @ 300 yards. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/193396/Zerobulletpaths-133376.JPG |
|
Quoted:
OK, never mind. I thought I'd explained this clearly but apparently I haven't. I am sorry to have confused the issue and antagonized the general populace of shooters here. I felt I had something relevant to offer and was attempting to qualify my personal experience. Sorry to have offended anyone. Quoted:
OK, never mind. I thought I'd explained this clearly but apparently I haven't. I am sorry to have confused the issue and antagonized the general populace of shooters here. I felt I had something relevant to offer and was attempting to qualify my personal experience. Sorry to have offended anyone. Quoted:
So, you didn't shoot 0.5 MOA @ 300 yards. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/193396/Zerobulletpaths-133376.JPG 300y vs 25y simulations have different factors that are not comparable. A ragged hole at 25y still is not representative of a 300y shoot |
|
Quoted:
OK, never mind. I thought I'd explained this clearly but apparently I haven't. I am sorry to have confused the issue and antagonized the general populace of shooters here. I felt I had something relevant to offer and was attempting to qualify my personal experience. Sorry to have offended anyone. I don't think you offended anyone, just made a few people scratch their heads at the 1.5" grouping at 300 yards, with irons, and not from a rest. That'd be...unbelievable. I don't think you intended to make up some tall tale. But the way you described everything was largely misstated. Yes, scaled targets do have an application in the shooting world. IIRC, the military has a scaled 25-600m target that's shot at 25 yds when access to a longer range is not available. Without even getting into wind and bullet drop, it's still not the same as shooting at the actual distances. A 1.5" group at 25 yards is exactly that. The scaled target is irrelevant, and doesn't represent anything in terms of groupings when firing at the actual distance. All it indicates is that you have the potential to hit a man/torso sized target at X meters/yards. If you wanted to roughly extrapolate what the groups might be 300 yards, those 1.5" groups would be projected at about 18". Stated in different terms, it'd be about 6 MOA. That's about twice the acceptable combat accuracy of an AR. I'm not trying to berate you. Just making a point that scaled targets really provide no meaningful information when it comes to group sizes. |
|
I agree with everything you've said, very succinctly. You said it better than I did/could but what you convey was what I was trying to explain after my erroneous initial statement caused such a flap. It was scaled and it was only 25 yards. I freely admit that it's not the same. Again, what I was trying to offer was real shooting evidence to the OP regarding use of a DD rifle. Not bragging, even if it seemed that way. I realize that shooting at 25 yards proves very little. I never intended to mislead or misstate anything. I did provide an explanation as well as a link to the Revere's Riders so anyone could examine the program as a point of reference.
I intend to expand my shooting exercises to include ranges out to 300 yards that are available at my home range. Quoted:
I don't think you offended anyone, just made a few people scratch their heads at the 1.5" grouping at 300 yards, with irons, and not from a rest. That'd be...unbelievable. I don't think you intended to make up some tall tale. But the way you described everything was largely misstated. I'm not trying to berate you. Just making a point that scaled targets really provide no meaningful information when it comes to group sizes. |
| So if the target is "to scale," wouldn't the groupings on said target also be to scale? In other words...The target is smaller (than it should be at that distance) therefore the groupings are smaller (than it should be also)? Come on man you know it sounded better when you typed it the first time... That's why you said it the way you did. I don't doubt that you really didn't consider the difference. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a DDM4V5 that I bought a few years ago and love it. I qualified Marksman last weekend shooting 1.5" groups with iron sights out to 300yds using 55gr bulk ammo. This was not a bench competition but standing, sitting and prone shooting positions without support. I could have done better if I could see better but I was failing at 400yds. 
|
|
I'm just not sold on DD AR's. I think it's the people I've seen worship at their alter.
I love the grip and stock and color options of DD. However, do I want to pay maybe $300 that I wouldn't on another rifle just because I like DD's plastic parts better? I don't know. I was at Palmetto in Greenville a few months ago talking to the sales guy and he showed me one of their AR's that was as close to a DD they have. I fell in love. Same weights and balance. Uses the FN CHF barrel in a mid length with I think the sales dude said was their own rail system. The finish wasn't DD, and the Magpul grip and Stock wasn't DD but I could also have bought two of them for the price of a DD. It's really going to come down to cost, and personal preference. But do yourself a favor, don't get something because other people influence you. Get what will make you happy. Me, my goal is to build an AR that will rival a DD and walk away like a rockstar. I need to go to bed, but I hope you get what makes you happy. I always tell people just get a Colt. But H&K is probably the best.
|
|
Quoted:
I'm just not sold on DD AR's. I think it's the people I've seen worship at their alter. I love the grip and stock and color options of DD. However, do I want to pay maybe $300 that I wouldn't on another rifle just because I like DD's plastic parts better? I don't know. I was at Palmetto in Greenville a few months ago talking to the sales guy and he showed me one of their AR's that was as close to a DD they have. I fell in love. Same weights and balance. Uses the FN CHF barrel in a mid length with I think the sales dude said was their own rail system. The finish wasn't DD, and the Magpul grip and Stock wasn't DD but I could also have bought two of them for the price of a DD. It's really going to come down to cost, and personal preference. But do yourself a favor, don't get something because other people influence you. Get what will make you happy. Me, my goal is to build an AR that will rival a DD and walk away like a rockstar. I need to go to bed, but I hope you get what makes you happy. I always tell people just get a Colt. But H&K is probably the best. DD has built a strong reputation for proven, over-time reliability. If anything, the new furniture may be the biggest detractor for many. He doesn't have a chance to get both, so empirical influence is the next best foundation to lead with before buying. DD has a better rifle than PSA. PSA is definitely GTG with their CHF line. |
AR Sponsor