DSA RPD? Does anyone have experience with these things? My LGS

>>34277168
Trading complete, factory built guns for a gun built from a kit by some people that have an awful reputation for QC is a god-awful idea, regardless of whether or not you'll shoot em or not.
If anything, use them for trading stock at a gun show for something more valuable.

>>34277168

Hello?

>>34277350

That was a major problem online. Many people are complaining of guns that were nearly non-functional. I haven't seen any reports in the last few years about them and my gun store claims that none of the rifles they've sold have come back for warranty work

>>34277350

I am also uncomfortable with the fact that the barrel is not chrome-lined and the major selling point for this gun is rapid fire from its 100 round belt. Otherwise it's just a really big heavy AK

Posting again. Trying to keep the thread alive.

Does anyone here actually own one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vGbL45_qVs

This is probably the most recent and substantial review I've seen. Do you know when the one you're interested in was made?

>>34277651

Do not know what year it was made. Per some dated YouTube videos I know the rifles built five years ago have some serious problems and Military Arms channel ended up sending theirs back for a refund

They did just get them in stock this week

>>34277389
Because they were only available when ordered.
It seems the primary issue is the striker geometry is a little bit off but can be fixed with a handfile

>>34277757

I am not comfortable with filing or doing any serious Gunsmithing. Mounting a scope or swapping out Parts is about the most I can do.

Also the rear sight was too small. I was having a very difficult time getting a clear sight picture. It was very hazy

>>34277828
if the sight sucks then you're not gonna enjoy shooting it (unless u go optics, and I'm not sure if that's possible with the RPD) Given all the other unrelated issues, you should probably pass. $2200 is too much for a non-functional toy