Right from the outset, I've been quite taken with the AR platform and its versatility. I'm not particularly enamored of its "black/tactical" look. Neither am I particularly enamored with semi-auto hunting rifles. Don't "hate" them, just not interested in them. (One of the reasons is that I reload, and don't like to be on my hands and knees looking for where it spewed the brass I want to reload.)

I have always thought a single-shot-ish AR would be 'nice'. Turns out, it's not much of a task to modify an AR to bolt action. In fact, there are companies "out there" doing that very thing. https://www.google.com/search?q=Bolt+action+AR&espv=2&biw=1536&bih=754&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCKD39bTmn8cCFY0qiAod9AECeg

They have a following in Great Britain, and I would expect in OZ, but I've never seen note of in from OZ.

Anyway, I'm operating the AR-10 chambered in 8mm-08 as a "single shot". No gas port and associated hardware, and therefore, not auto loading. One of the reasons to add a bolt handle instead of just using the existing charging handle is that most people mount their scopes far enough back that it is difficult to get to the charging handle easily. That's not the case in my rifle, as I prefer to mount my scopes as far forward on the receiver as I can possibly get them. On my rifle, the charging handle is not blocked by the ocular on the 'scope. I will still have to take the rifle off of my shoulder to operate the action though. I do that with a bolt gun anyway.

Converting to "bolt operation" only requires bolting a handle on the bolt carriage group, and milling a slot in the upper for the bolt handle. Pretty much a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned. The plan is this: One in standard configuration, i.e. semi-auto, and one in "bolt action". The bolt action one takes care of all of my wildcatting and subsonic 'itches', and the standard configuration takes care of "standard configuration".

I've got a few AR-15 80% receivers, but I don't think I have another AR-10 80% rcvr, so I'll have to get one. The good news is that they have dropped in price back to reasonable.

I'll post pictures when I get one configured with a bolt.

Paul

Ruger is on the band wagon. I'm on the fence.

RJ

Quote from: recoil junky;140595Ruger is on the band wagon. I'm on the fence.

RJ

It is just a bolt gun with tacticool stuff nailed to it, nowt 'AR' about it apart from initial look.

Drinksgin posted some comments on an American Rifleman article (and front page picture) of the new Ruger rifle. When I got my copy of the American Rifleman, I read the article. I'm going to be as kind as I can: That rifle is the stupidest, most absurdly "over-engineered", piece of garbage I have EVER seen. And I "like" Ruger.

This monstrosity was deeply disappointing. First, because it is so insanely over-complicated. It violates every principle of "simplicity" that the AR platform represents, AND every principle of "good" engineering. Specifically, don't complicate something's design "just because you can" OR because it will appeal to a group of people "mesmerized" by unnecessary complexity. Second, I am deeply disappointed in Ruger. I don't know if this rifle will be a commercial failure or not. (I was certainly wrong about the .17 HMR on that score.) But if this is a commercial success it will be 100% due to marketing to the adolescent y chromosome, not because it is a "good" rifle or design. If it is a commercial failure, it will be - AND SHOULD BE - 'hard' on Ruger. I hate to see any firearms manufacturer "go down". However, if this Frankenstein is an indication of the design group in Ruger these days, they NEED to go down.

I was simply stunned and disappointed with this new Ruger rifle. It is AGGRESSIVELY marketed as a "hunting" rifle. Long range "hunting": like 600 yd and longer. Another disappointment from Ruger. What a shame. I've been saying it for close to 20 years, but even I didn't want to believe it: Hunting - true hunting - where the skill of the Hunter is the determining factor, not the thickness of their wallets or "technology", is gone from this country. This rifle proves that sad truth.

This rifle would be "OK" at long range target shooting from a bench IF IT SHOOTS STRAIGHT, but given the absurdity of its design, I'd be embarrassed to be seen with it even at the range.

And that was the "nice" review.

Paul

PS - So you can make up your own minds: http://www.ruger.com/micros/rpr/?r=y

Paul

PPS - The only resemblance to a true AR is 1) LOOKS ONLY, and 2) THAT for marketing purposes. The idiotic lower receiver IS A CLAMSHELL! I have to let this go now.

Paul

PPPS - Can't let it go. NOTE the names and publications of the "experts". Those are people whose opinions you want to REALLY be careful of.

Paul

Quote from: gitano;140601PS - So you can make up your own minds: http://www.ruger.com/micros/rpr/?r=y



PPS - The only resemblance to a true AR is 1) LOOKS ONLY, and 2) THAT for marketing purposes. The idiotic lower receiver IS A CLAMSHELL! I have to let this go now.


Paul

I was just about to post the same link. (and in my eyes, it looks just like an AR10 bolt gun)

 Yep, my take EXACTLY The 1600 yards claims? Yeah, I can see that happening, but how many shots did that actually TAKE If the receiver was an actual piece of billet steel I could believe it.

And why on earth does Ruger insist on putting only a 20 inch barrel on a .308. I am truly baffled by this.

It truly is "lipstick on a sow".

RJ  

P.S. I'm no longer on the fence.

This 'thing' isn't an AR-10 bolt gun. Look at the guts. There is NO resemblance to the AR. It LOOKS like an AR, but that is 100% - or maybe 99 % - COSMETIC. Did you wander to the other tabs at the top of the page? You can see the guts under the "Features" tab. Look at the fire control group (trigger assembly). It is difficult to imagine something so unnecessarily complicated. ESPECIALLY since the original trigger design is both simple and effective. Tweaking it renders it benchrest capable.

There were 50 things they could have done to make a Hunting Rifle and STILL preserved the key features of the AR. The AR barrel mounting system is unparalleled. The tubular "hand-guard" (AKA forearm), could have been retained along with its contribution to the barrel mounting system without making it look like something out of 1950's Buck Rogers movie or something some paramilitary cop would have to have for "protection". There's NO need for the pistol grip. There's NO need for the "tactical" -ptooey- butt. Personally, I don't care for detachable magazines in hunting rifles, but I acknowledge that some folks do. It wasn't necessary to make a rifle that used AR magazines. Good thing you can stick a 30-roung magazine on that LONG RANGE HUNTING RIFLE! God knows you're gonna NEED 30 rounds to KILL anything at 1600 yards! GOOD GRIEF! What a disgusting insult to the eye and ANYONE that has the slightest sense of the aesthetics or history of hunting arms.

Everything about this monstrosity offends me. From my point of view, it represents a great deal of what is wrong with the hunting community today.

Paul

I did one better and held one with my good hand this afternoon (in .243). It's looks like an AR10 lower with a bolt action upper. Super heavy, but the stock adjusts 7 ways for Sunday. And the buttstock folds over but there is NO LATCH!!! The bolt when cycled, retreats (?) into the buttstock where the bolt would go if it was an actual AR10 in .308. And the lower is indeed a "clamshell" of aluminum.

My opinion, it's a total and complete waste of money.

So...

I got an AR-10 annodized upper and lower (80%) matched pair for $160 delivered.

http://customarpartsandkits.com/products/308-80-lower-and-stripped-upper-receiver-set (I paid $150 before shipping when I bought mine two weeks ago. Today they're $180 before S&H.)

A few fits and starts later, it's finished.




The barrel is a Carl Gustaf machine gun barrel originally chambered in 8x63 Swedish. http://1919a4.com/showthread.php?25523-Time-to-play-quot-Name-that-Barrel!-quot-please-help-id) This is the same barrel I have on my 8mm SLT using the .376 Steyr case. They can be had from Sarco for $40 +S&H.

Here are the procedural steps:
1) Cut barrel breech to fit the chamber length of the .308 Win,
2) Cut a new 8mm throat with my 8mm throating reamer,
3) Threaded it for the AR-10 barrel extension,
4) Installed the barrel extension,
5) Milled the 80% receiver to 100%,
6) Milled the 'deflector' off (that big lump behind the ejection port on the upper),
7) Milled a slot from the rear of the ejector port to accommodate the bolt handle,
8) Drilled and tapped the bolt carrier 1/4-28, (No small feat here, that bolt carrier is REALLY HARD),
9) Made aluminum bolt knob,
10) Assembled lower parts kit (trigger assembly and whole fire control group, safety selector, bolt catch, magazine release, take-down and pivot pins, and butt assembly),
Voila'! An AR-10 chambered in 8mm-08. (That weighs 11 lb 13 oz with a full 5-round magazine.)

It was a little more difficult to do than to write, but the above list covers the important issues. There were occasional outbursts of intense Naval vernacular - like when I broke a tap off in the bolt carrier and when a mill cutter grabbed the lower and yanked it out of the vise - but I didn't break anything, (other than the tap), and I still have all my faculties and body parts intact.

The range is closed today but will be open tomorrow so I'll get it sighted in and post a range report. If all goes REALLY well, I might take it goat hunting next week.

Paul