I haven’t shot this one yet, but I put a bunch of rounds through 2 of the same supremes but with 13.7” barrels. They are loads of fun, and I never had any issues
radically modifying the barrel to receiver interface
What year do you think this is, 1900?
The bolt and barrel lock together; how it's held into the receiver is wholly irrelevant from a safety perspective. That's how the gun can be made of aluminum in the first place, by the way.
No no, not from like a safety perspective of course.
What I mean is that the Supreme has become renown for incredible accuracy, and part of that comes from it's fix barrel design. What RDSC/Shield is doing is machining the receiver to essentially be an AR interface with an extension and a barrel nut ect. This adds a second joint which would inevitably create and additional tolerance and reduce accuracy. How much so? From OP's YouTube videos, apparently less than I'd functionally care about, but not zero. I'm not pushing 5.56 to 800m+ ever.
These builds turned out super awesome apparently, and OP has proved it. When I first saw it, it definitely seemed sus but they've done a good job of it. I'm debating one of these in 16" or an M1 "not a BM59 officer..." build as my next project. In theory they could do them in x39 considering that both the bolt head and now barrel are AR parts, which excites me.
I'm not entirely sure why RDSC/Shield's solution to this problem would in any way involve more machining especially because replacement barrel nuts would be easier and cheaper to fabricate, but there's no accounting for taste I suppose.
Well dang! I had actually spoken to a Henry rep about exactly this and he told me that the Supreme had a direct thread barrel, i.e. the barrel is male external thread and screwed into the receiver. But it was an AR style extension and nut all along! Thanks for that link. The pictures show more of the internals of that rifle than I've seen anywhere else.
I decided to go with 5.56 since I want to shoot this a lot and don’t want to pay 300BLK prices. I think I’ll eventually swap to 7.62x39 but for now I want to test 5.56 10.3” ballistics
I recently used mine for a 3gun match. I don't have the barrel swapped and still running factory furniture. But I put my 1-6 strike Eagle on it and zeroed at 50m. This had my rounds hitting point of aim at 50 & 200m and then I was easily hitting the IPSC range steel at 300, 400, 500 and 600m using the marks on the BDC reticle.
Honestly in love with this thing.
Only gripe is the mag catch doesn't move far enough when pressed so pulling mags out can be a bit tricky. There's a plastic plate at the back of the magazine well that has a tab on the top that the rear of the magazine pushes into. This stops ar15 pattern mags from wobbling front to back. It is plastic though and easily removable. But my plastic tab broke off and now my crossmags tilt backwards enough to let the nose of the bullet to hit the lower part of the barrel extension when cycling. Fortunately the mags I plan on using fit tight without the little tab so we're in luck.
This is by far the better rifle. If you want to do .44 Magnum things, buy the .450 Bushmaster version (both of these are worth your while to reload, unlike most everything else).
Swapping the barrel on these guns is trivial, as you can see from the post, so if you don't like it you can always change it.
I really really want the folding stock to be good, but I think the pic rail needs to be higher. RP doesn't show many pics of it built up, and custom photo looks like the comb height is really low. Add and optic and and it seems like we'd be beard welding pretty hard.
13
u/escv_69420 Jul 15 '26
Hell yeah! How is it? The idea of radically modifying the barrel to receiver interface kinda scares me, but I love what RDSC is doing with these.