Someone please help me understand this new DAR701...

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
409   0   2
Location
Onterrible
I was surfing the DLASK website today and something occurred to me.

Here is a pic of the "new" DAR701 series AR15 clone:

NEW_DAR_014.jpg


Looks very Buck Rogers. Not that there't anything wrong with that, except here is the ad copy:

New DAR-701:
# Semi-automatic
# Chambered for Military 5.56 and .223 Remington
# Accepts all standard magazines, parts, and accessories
# 6-position adjustable stock
# Flat-top upper with picatinny rail
# Free-floating aluminum picatinny hand guard
# Flat-top upper with Picatinny rail
# Your choice of 11.5" or 14.5" stepped barrel (11.5" shown)
# Your choice of Dlask open-ended or closed-ended flash hider
# Sight rail as shown not included
# Class: Restricted
# Made in Canada
Click to expand...

Now take a moment to digest the text I bolded in the Ad copy. The quad rail forearm is FREE FLOATED. Now look at the Sight Rail. It seems it's bolted to the upper's piccatinny rail AND bolted to the front gas block.

I'm just a lowly Mechanical Engineer, but it would seem to me that using that sight rib would rigidly connect the tip of the barrel to the upper, which is exactly the condition that a free floated forearm is supposed to circumvent, right?

:roll:

Did I say it looks very Buck Rogers yet? :lol:

By the way, it would look WAY better with a magpul stock to compliment the "starwarsian" lower receiver.
 
Here's a clearer picture
DLASK701.jpg

What I don't understand is why screw around with a perfectly good proven design for the lower and upper. Without the top rail it would look a lot better. I still don't like the modified upper and lower though (just my traditional bent I suppose). No case deflector and no port door either :cry:
 
GrensVegter said:
I think it looks quite good but I would drop the top rail so the barrel is free floated,ps the upper and lower are milled from billet and not extruded(sat and watched it been made)
Click to expand...

Ouch... I'm surethat lowers the price! (not)
 
Well, I have to think the lack of a case deflector will be murder on lefties like myself. Also, the lack of a port cover will preclude any military or LEO sales. Seems like a big area for dirt and grit to enter the system which relies on fairly tight tolerances to function well - not a great idea IMHO.

The lower looks like any other lower with cosmetic differences, so maybe if you put an A3 upper on there and loose the rail it would be more practical and still retain much of thestyling DLASK was after. Wonder if they have any pics of that lower mated to a standard upper?

Also wonder if they sell this new design as a stripped lower only? :wink: I wouldn't want to shell for that gun only to turn around and swap the upper...?

Lastly, a modern slot milled bolt seems like a waste of time/effort/looks if your upper has no forward assist provision...???

Will we be seeing these in future SG1 or Battlestar Galactica episodes? :?:
 
Looks like they did the PAC5 style upper. Same with the lower, has the PAC5 look to it. You will notice that the front pivot is a lot lower than regular AR15. In my expert opinion, that is the semi auto version of the PAC5.

dar_pump4.jpg

dar_pump3.jpg


You know, if they are already doing billet uppers, I should just have them make my AR180B upper that takes AR15 barrels! Doing it myself would probably end up looking like a Liberal trying to hump a doorknob.
 
People will still buy it and despite any shortcomings they will post how great it is so their totally out fo spec purchase will not be called into question. Joe for some reason doesn't realize that if he makes an AR15 compatible with everyone else maybe he'll sell more, no cut carry handles, pinned rails, set screwed gas blocks etc etc. let the end user decide how badly he wants to fu@k up his rifle, it doesn't need to come that way from a manufacturer. As always YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom