every mag i've tried works so far in my tests, all from the p-mag offerings so far. That is with the assembled lower and buffer assembly installed and the bolt and charging handle installed. All mags function as per the rifles design so far. One of my 5/10 pmags was a bit tight at first but after a few function tests it locks in and drops free like all the others. They all activate the bolt hold open device properly as well.
The Stag 10s NR stripped receiver set thread
- Thread starter jiffx2781
- Start date
Can anyone have a look and check if their Stag 10 mag latch seats like this ? It doesn't stick out nearly as far as in the BCL-102.
EDIT: IMI, Magpul and Lancer mags are no bueno, my XCR-M pistol mags are the only only ones that I can't rock out of it. I also tried both mag catches with the same results, the Stag's actual latch isn't out of spec from what I can tell.
Here's my BCL-102:
Here's my Stag 10:
And from the outside for reference:
EDIT: IMI, Magpul and Lancer mags are no bueno, my XCR-M pistol mags are the only only ones that I can't rock out of it. I also tried both mag catches with the same results, the Stag's actual latch isn't out of spec from what I can tell.
Here's my BCL-102:
Here's my Stag 10:
And from the outside for reference:
Last edited:
Can anyone have a look and check if their Stag 10 mag latch seats like this ? It doesn't stick out nearly as far as in the BCL-102.
EDIT: IMI, Magpul and Lancer mags are no bueno, my XCR-M pistol mags are the only only ones that I can't rock out of it. I also tried both mag catches with the same results, the Stag's actual latch isn't out of spec from what I can tell.
Here's my BCL-102:
Here's my Stag 10:
Looks like you need to twist your mag release in a bit more. The latch nub should protrude while the rest is flush with the magwell side. Your Stag 10 mag latch looks like it's set too far back and could have issues engaging the mag.
Needs a few more twists to make it flush.
It appears the same. I have only used the 10rd pistol mags in mine though.
Thanks Griffin, yours does appear the same. If you get the chance to try other mags, let me know.
This is fully seated with the match latch resting in the receiver, tightening it just pulls the button tighter into the spring and makes the threads protrude from the button... the only way I think I can get it to protrude further into the magwell would be to machine the receiver somewhat where the latch seats, or modify the magazine latch itself with a grinder around the stem and remove some material ?
What does the mag release button look like? Could that be limiting the amount you can adjust? Edit: just reread your post. I'm not sure what's going on there.
ya, I would look at using the warranty before doing any machining.
Yes, tried the BCL's and it was same result.
I'm glad people are waking up to how s hit irg is. I bought 2 beowulf mags from them assuming they would be pinned to 5 rounds since it did not state other on the thread. They were pinned to 2 rounds and they refused to issue a refund, saying they aren't allowed to break the law and refused to refund me or give me credit. I guess that doesn't include false advertising for them. I posted on their thread and my post was immediately deleted. Shortly afterwards the entire thread was deleted when people started to ask too many questions.
Last edited:
They pinned it to 2 rounds because according to the RCMP (I know that doesn't make it law) no magazine can hold more than 5 rounds of 223. I don't like IRG either but in this case they didn't do anything wrong other than listen to the RCMP who happen to hold IRG's import approval in their hands. If they go against them it could end their ability to bring things into Canada.
That’s not what he said though.
IRG had them for sale and wouldn’t say that they were pinned to two.
Some other poster said IRG told him they were pinned to 5, and IRG didn’t correct his post.
I also asked if they were pinned to two.
Anyway it’s only a few mags, no big deal.
They can be repinned to five.
What do you use as scope mounting hardware?
One piece cantilever mounts are great for AR15 but the AR10 longer receiver won't need cantilever for most scopes. Thus a set of rings would save weight.
Also most mount are 1.4-1.5" high for the AR15. With the Stag10 hi-tang a 1" ring heigth should give a better cheek weld, don't you think?
One piece cantilever mounts are great for AR15 but the AR10 longer receiver won't need cantilever for most scopes. Thus a set of rings would save weight.
Also most mount are 1.4-1.5" high for the AR15. With the Stag10 hi-tang a 1" ring heigth should give a better cheek weld, don't you think?
Depends on the scope bell. The 1.5" lets you clear a 50 and 56 scope with ease. Keep in mind the main issue is the handguard and upper being one straight line. You don't get drop between the rail and the barrel/handguard like you would with a conventional bolt action rifle. I use 1.5" height. It seems to work for all AR15/AR10 type rifles. The high tang of the Stag 10 is minimal in height over what DPMS would label their low height. It's not even a consideration with the scope height between the two.
You are right, you don't need a cantilever mount. I generally prefer not to have one on a rifle that doesn't require them. However I love the Kinetic SideLok cantilever mount. The cantilever actually works well for the quick release mechanism. Otherwise I would go for rings or a non cantilever single mount.
Thanks for the reply.
You're right, 1" ring height would barely clear a 50mm bell and not a 50mm lens. A mount with built-in cant needing even more height.
But with a low powered variable scope it's not an issue.
I understand the high-tang difference isn't huge but an AR15 scope already feels a bit high for my large face.
With 1.5" high mount on Stag10, do you use a cheek-riser?
If not, do you have a chin weld or a really good cheek weld?
Yah. I dont think ill be doing business with them again
First off, the "high" rail height for the DPMS is the same as the regular Armalite, SR 25 etc. It isn't really higher, it's just DPMS used three different heights and the last one is the same standard everyone else was using. It makes zero difference for ring height. The difference between lower and high isn't noticeable, we're talking mm's here . People are concerned about this difference only to ensue that the picatinny rails of their upper receiver and handguard line up perfectly. A step up or down looks really bad and makes it non continuous/useless. In short this "high tang" is the normal height.
I don't have my Stag 10 yet (bought receiver and parts to build my own). However I do have a number of different A10/AR308 rifles and I used the typical 1.5" height (or close depending on the brand) without any issues. This also depends on how you hold the rifle. I prefer my head being up, rather than what a lot of people do with tilting their head down and looking towards their eyebrows to get the correct sight picture. With a head more upright position and this height, the sight picture is perfect when I snap up an AR308 from the low or high ready. It's right there. No searching for it. Which makes using 3X useable for fast shots. It's not if you're having to move around to get your sight picture. Also it's far more comfortable when shooting from a bench if I'm not having to cram up on the rifle and look upwards. I use these heights on any monlithic or monlithic style rail system. Keep in mind they are usually 1.47" to 1.49" from the base on top of the rail to the centre of the scope.
Here's a Kinetic Sidelok mount with 1.49" on BCL 102 and on a HK MR308A3-28 . Works perfect.
Here's the same scope mount with a 56MM NF 12-42X scope on a rifle with a Cadex Dual strike.
This is the ADM recon which is 1.47". This is on a DPMS G2 recon 308. It's perfect.
One of the main issues we used to have with mounting scopes on AR rifles was with the molithic style rail systems. Once the handguard had a continous rail from the rail on the top of the receiver, most of the rings we had weren't tall enough. I had to go extra tall for NF rings and a 50mm 5.5-22x to put it on an AR10 with a continous rail. These 1.5" AR single mounts made life a lot easier. Plus as I mentioned, they seem the perfect height for CQB, which also helps with the sight picture for tactical/target. Also the stock on an AR rifle is straight without the drop in the receiver/stock of most conventional rifles. While mitigating barrel flip by bringing the recoil straight back, it also makes the extra height required from these mounts/rings to get the correct sight picture.
I suspect you squish down on the stock fairly hard and likely tilt your head forward to get your sight picture. It's extra strain and an extra step. Plus often this contributes to scope bite with the bigger calibres and short eye relief. It's something worth looking into. Ultimately it will be what works for you. I find these work for me. But I'm average height. Everything is generaly made for me out of the box. This scope height also works that way for me. It may not be the case for you.
I hope this helps. Good luck.
Last edited:
