AR Quality - Question [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : AR Quality - Question


hounds2
03-16-2012, 07:34
I am not trying to start a flame, but i would like to know why some ARs are junk and others are top tier. if a gun is accurate, shoots reliable and looks good (they all look alike), why isnt it top tier? i have heard that colt is the standard and everthing else is less. i have heard bushmaster is junk. i know people that have them and love them. i just got my first AR. i looked around and handled a few. i bought a windham weaponry HBC for a bit over 800 bucks, including tax. it shoots more accurately than i can. it has never misfired (even on my reloads) and it has a lifetime warrenty (limited). the parts are interchangeable with other ARs. what more can you ask? i am not trying to argue but i am curios why so many people are adament that some guns are no good, when they appear to make their owners happy and shoot reliably. i am honesty asking this as i might be missing something. what would i get if i "upgraded" my windham for a colt, or other top tier off the shelf guns. please dont flame me, i would just like to know.

MrMurphy
03-16-2012, 07:47
Believe what you want.

I've carried weapons on duty, sold them and worked for a manufacturer in sales and technical support (you know, the guys who are supposed to know stuff....).

You pay for Quality Control and materials.

Colt is milspec, which is the baseline for quality in AR's. They make the original, no one else does. Doesn't mean they're perfect (they do screw up occasionally) but their rifles meet the government standard. Many others do not. They cheat with 'as good as' 'looks like' or similar in materials, using inferior metals, etc. Or they'll skip steps, like staking the gas block. That won't cause many issues for the average 30 rounds a range trip paper killer. Not all of us are that guy. If you run the gun hard (i.e combat conditions or equivalent) that unstaked gas block can come loose and turn the gun into a single shot.

That's just 1 example.

Top tier guns are what they are because the extra time and money is spent inspecting everything and making sure it's built right. Every time. There's still the possibility of an oops, but far less.

Bushmaster had a good rep once, when there were few players on the market, because they took their time and did it right. During the initial AR surge they lost that rep when they stopped taking the time and flooded the market with rifles not built right or with mistakes in production that got out into 'the wild'.

I inspect any rifle I'd buy simply because I do generally know what to look for (I'm not an armorer or gunsmith) and the technical spec sheet can tell you other stuff, like what steel is used in the barrel, etc.

I currently use an M&P15 bought in the Obamascare craze after i came home from 3 years overseas. Few other options existed at the time that were quality. It's not Milspec, but it's been heavily inspected by several good AR gunsmiths (the gas key was restaked, as was the castle nut, just in case, even though they'd both been staked to start) and I've run enough rounds in a hurry through it (2-3,000, most of that high volume in shooting drills) that it runs okay.

I'd rather have a Colt, BCM, LaRue, Noveske or similar and I'm working on it. But I don't carry a rifle for a living anymore, it's less an issue.

Your Windham rifle, if properly inspected will probably give you a lifetime of service without serious issue, since odds are, you won't ever run it hard enough to seriously matter. Just remember with ARs, like optics and hookers, you DO get what you pay for.

MD357
03-16-2012, 07:58
i am not trying to argue but i am curios why so many people are adament that some guns are no good

A LOT of it is underlying insecurity. You see it across several firearm platforms for whatever reason.


That being said there are significant differences between AR models that will and can matter for some depending on it's use. I actually understand people saying just buy a Colt, but I don't understand putting people down because they didn't. Either way, who cares what they think if your Windham is working?

hounds2
03-16-2012, 08:06
i can understand that. inspection does cost, and certainly will pay off in a combat situation where things must be consistant. i did look at the metals question and made sure that the same metals appeared to be used (i am not a metalurgist). i know in all guns barrels are important and for those that like little ragged holes thats huge. triggers are different too. both of those can add value and cost for the right person but for the average shooter it may not. so what you are saying is on some companies your odds of getting a lemon are greater, that makes sense. also, you also may get a good one which may be as good as any. that can be true in cars. i've had good chevys and bad chevys, but my good ones were as good as any car on the planet. you made some good points. thats what i am looking for.....thanks

svtpwnz
03-16-2012, 09:00
i'll put it this way. Would you buy a 9mm Highpoint for $175 or a Glock G19 for $195 ? Sure, they both will shoot a 9mm round and the Highpoint is reliable for the most part. So, which one would you take and why?

eracer
03-16-2012, 09:11
The difference in quality between a well-constructed AR-15 and a cheaply made one is obvious in so many ways.

fuzzy03cls
03-16-2012, 09:38
A LOT of it is underlying insecurity. You see it across several firearm platforms for whatever reason.


That being said there are significant differences between AR models that will and can matter for some depending on it's use. I actually understand people saying just buy a Colt, but I don't understand putting people down because they didn't. Either way, who cares what they think if your Windham is working?
Well said.
Some also are military centric. They want what the military uses & will not accept anything less even it's a paper pusher, then put down everything else.
Also keep in mind these are parts systems & can be ungraded individually to better parts, when/if needed.

No use in debating things. If your happy with your rifle & it's intended uses, that's what counts.

Personally, EVERY AR I have shot cheap or expensive has shot about the same. Each has survived a 1K rd test in one session with nothing but lube.

Steve in PA
03-16-2012, 09:41
"milspec" is an overblown and overused word when talking about AR's.

Buy something other than brand "X" and all the so called "operators and wannabe operators" will belittle and berate you. There are lots of AR manufacturers popping up now and some are probably below standard.

RyanNREMTP
03-16-2012, 10:09
Of course it also depends on the user knowing how to take care of the rifle as well.

PettyOfficer
03-16-2012, 10:12
There are lots of AR manufacturers popping up now and some are probably below standard.

I won't speak to milstd other than mil-std's are used in most industries as a measure of durability.

A lot of the new ar manufacturers are just builders (like Red Jacket)... They buy most everything and just assemble... So now there's the concern about whether or not they buy cheap parts.

There are a few that make everything themselves, and that's where you should start. Well, as far as the uppers are concerned anyways.

CAcop
03-16-2012, 10:36
The AR-15 world of the enthusiasts reminds me of the 1911 world. (or even pistols in general) There are a lot of choices and each one is geared towards a certain customer.

Some manufacturers aim for the "mil-spec" crowd.

Some manufacturers aim for the "better than mil-spec" crowd.

And some aim for the "it looks like a mil-spec or better than mil-spec gun" crowd.

Figure out what kind of shooter you are or what purpose your weapon will be for and go with it. If you want a good reliable weapon for a reasonable price and you don't need to trick it out, a Colt will do just fine. If you have plenty of money to spare and want to try out the latest "better than mil-spec" a LMT might be up your alley. If you want a gun you will take out a couple times a year and put 40 rounds downrange each trip a no name gun will do just fine.

I think some people get too emotionally invested in their choice of gun.

Some spend a lot of money pimping out there gun to go to classes and train after the fact but work in a cube farm with no real chance of using the rifle to the limits of it's design when their life is on the line. Those folks get a little defensive when they realize people like them spent a lot of money and they are in danger of looking like a poser.

Others will buy a low tier weapon and pay almost as much as some of the better weapons but not run them as hard. They get butthurt that theirs really wasn't put together with much thought or care.

Just like the 1911 world does an accountant need a $4,000 1911 to go to training classes and CCW? Are they going to get butthurt if a Kimber outperforms their gun in the hands of an LAPD SWAT officer?

When it comes to AR-15s I just read an article up in Coptalk where a SWAT officer was involved in a shooting with his personal RRA AR-15. According to some he should have died because the rifle is inferior.

In the end buy what you want. Hopefully you will research some before you go. If you don't and the rifle works out for you, who cares? It's your money. Either sell it and buy something "better" or keep it and be happy.

Life is too short to worry about what other people think of you.

series1811
03-16-2012, 11:06
I never get too excited about these arguments and for the same reason I have posted over and over. My last two agencies kept detailed records of shootings and makes them available to employees (with names redacted) for review.

In hundreds of shootings, I could not find one single failure to fire from mechanical or quality reasons. I did find the following reasons for guns failing to fire.
1. Failure to chamber a round
2. Failure to take safety off
3. Magazine seated improperly
4. Gun in contact with object or person preventing gun from cycling properly, or being pushed out of battery
5. Gun disabled by gunfire (two of these, and both resulting in a line of duty death).

None of these reasons care what brand of weapon you are using.

I personally just decided that I was better off practicing failure drills as often as possible, rather than trying to ensure that my weapon never failed.

But, I recognize there are sure a lot of people out there that think they can engineer themselves out of needing to worry about that. :supergrin:

Javelin
03-16-2012, 11:34
If you upgrade from your Windham to a Colt I don't know honestly. A Pony on the side? I don't know anything about Windham.

I think the impulse purchasing only for folks to find out later after that their gun is not really all that great runs pretty deep. And then it is vicious because no one wants to learn that the gun they bought and spent a chunk of change on sucks. Happened to me - 3x over.

If you like your gun keep it. Maybe down the road you can get something like a LaRue, KAC, Noveske etc.

:wavey:

hounds2
03-16-2012, 12:09
thank you all for your replys. the fellow that talked about the inspections made a good point that i hadnt thought about. people that make the comment that the difference in quality is obvious are what confuses me. i cannot see any obvious differences. mil-spec is basically a benchmark for inspection and quality that may or may not be exceeded or even improved on by a manufacturer. it is possible that with new technology and the speed the govt moves one could build "down" to mil -spec. i was just looking for something that was totally obvious and easily quantified that would separate good from bad. random opionions of quality are worth just what they cost. time and performance are the only true measures of quality and it appears that it is still an open mystery to me. the fellow that mentioned a glock brought up a thought. i have and carry a glock. i shoot ipsc style combat meets with a glock. my glock costs a fraction of some of the 1911's that i shoot against. some of them (the 1911's) cannot make it through 2 stations without a problem. these are expensive guns, from good manufacturers of long standing, that are very ammo sensitive. i do not think they are junk. i have not seen a glock that had problems, with ammo or anything else. cost, and name, is not an indicator of quality and reliability. i appreciate the comments.

cyphertext
03-16-2012, 12:12
If you upgrade from your Windham to a Colt I don't know honestly. A Pony on the side? I don't know anything about Windham.

I think the impulse purchasing only for folks to find out later after that their gun is not really all that great runs pretty deep. And then it is vicious because no one wants to learn that the gun they bought and spent a chunk of change on sucks. Happened to me - 3x over.

If you like your gun keep it. Maybe down the road you can get something like a LaRue, KAC, Noveske etc.

:wavey:

A kinder, gentler, Javelin....I like it! :wavey:

Here's my thought....You have to decide if the price you paid represents a value to you. You can only do that once you understand the difference between the top tier rifles and the one you bought.

In my case, I purchased the M&P 15 Sport. Probably the AR that is most argued over across the 'net. Anyway, it is not mil-spec. But, it also can be had for $650 or less from local brick and mortar shops that allow me to see and inspect what I am buying before I buy. I compared the features of the Colt vs the Sport, and decided that for my use, the Sport would meet my needs and allow me to leave money in the gun fund. I'm not a soldier or LE, so I will not run the gun hard. The hardest I will run it is if I go to a carbine class. I decided what mil-spec type features were important and what I could live without.

Wil Ufgood
03-16-2012, 14:06
Does anyone have any links to comparison tests (legit ones) for different AR brands? I'd like to see how they stack up under "torture" tests.

Gunnut 45/454
03-16-2012, 14:10
So most of you guy's are off the caffine? This has been the most "no butt hurt" thread I've seen. No bashing of the non-mil spec guy! Wow there is hope. :rofl: As been said it your money buy what you wish and be happy. I'm very happy with all my non-teir 1 AR's they go bang everytime and put bullets where they need to be when I do my part.:supergrin:

MrMurphy
03-16-2012, 17:54
The S&W M&P15A (not Sport) had 3 of them run 14,000 rounds during a carbine course over 3 days in a test by EAG Tactical. No cleaning, just lube.

For a nonmilspec (but fairly close to it) gun, this is excellent performance, and one most Bushmasters, RRA's and similar, if assembled correctly, can at least hope to equal.

I'm not down on non spec guns for most uses, MY uses are not everyone's. But that performance of the M&P15 was why when my options were "none, M&P or RRA" I chose the M&P at that time.

WoodenPlank
03-16-2012, 18:06
The S&W M&P15A (not Sport) had 3 of them run 14,000 rounds during a carbine course over 3 days in a test by EAG Tactical. No cleaning, just lube.

For a nonmilspec (but fairly close to it) gun, this is excellent performance, and one most Bushmasters, RRA's and similar, if assembled correctly, can at least hope to equal.

I'm not down on non spec guns for most uses, MY uses are not everyone's. But that performance of the M&P15 was why when my options were "none, M&P or RRA" I chose the M&P at that time.

I'd like to add that it's possible to get a nearly bullet-proof, reliable, hell-and-back AR from almost any company. Broken clock, twice a day, that kinda thing. The issue comes in in how consistent a given company is in producing that quality.

Companies like BCM, LaRue, Colt, Daniel Defense, Noveske, and LMT are known for doing this day in, day out, with only rare hiccups.

Companies like S&W, Rock River, PSA seem to do a good job of it, but seem to more frequently have lemons pop up, and aren't always up to "mil-spec."

Other companies may fall into one of those categories, but many are somewhere below that.

Milspec may not be right for everyone in all cases, such as1/8 being an all around better twist than 1/7, different profile barrels, chrome vs. melonite/stainless, etc. However, some things that are "mil-spec" should be non-negotiable in almost any type of AR you could ask for. Things like properly staked gas keys, properly torqued barrel nuts and castle nuts, auto (or at least shrouded semi) carriers, proper height front sight towers, etc. Unfortunately, many of the cut rate companies skip these steps in favor of selling a lower priced AR, then try to act like they are just as good as the top end brands. While you might get lucky to get one that IS as good (or spend the time and money after the fact to make it such), this is by far the exception, and not the rule.

ArmoryDoc
03-16-2012, 19:25
I think what messes with peoples head the most is the fact that off-brands look like the Colt's and other premium guns so they must be good like them. "If it looks like an AR, it's an AR". You can't visually "see" the quality difference so it must not matter.

The quality difference IS there. And it matters greatly, unless you are an AR hobbyist.

G19freak
03-16-2012, 19:42
I don't even run my AR's hard and still bought a Colt---which I bought for possible SHTF situations and want my rifle to be the least of my worries.

Even my Frankengun is all BCM and DD parts.

series1811
03-17-2012, 05:25
I don't even run my AR's hard and still bought a Colt---which I bought for possible SHTF situations and want my rifle to be the least of my worries.

Even my Frankengun is all BCM and DD parts.

How often do you run immediate action drills for failure to fire? Enough so that you can rely on muscle memory taking over? You don't want to be learning that after the "SHTF".

WoodenPlank
03-17-2012, 19:13
How often do you run immediate action drills for failure to fire? Enough so that you can rely on muscle memory taking over? You don't want to be learning that after the "SHTF".

Hardware is not a replacement for software.

However, good software with crap hardware is almost as bad.

SNH Glocks
03-17-2012, 22:08
Buy what you like and can afford. I have ARs from Colt, Bushmaster, S&W and Olympic and they all work fine. Life is too short to worry about the little things. Good luck with your new Windham Weaponry!

arclight610
03-17-2012, 22:27
What is more important is understanding what the features mean and assessing your intended use. I no longer have to worry about getting in firefights and the worst combat I've seen since being out of the Corps was last weekend when I almost got overrun by several soda cans. If the SHTF ever does happen, having a gun is the most important thing.

However, now that PSA is putting out good AR-15's with "mil-spec features" for as low as other entry-level AR's why not?

hounds2
03-18-2012, 05:24
what exactly are the features that i should be looking for in a tier one gun, as opposed to any other gun. which are the most important. people mention that they bought a colt because they wanted no problems if the SHTF. what would any other gun need to meet that standard? please let me know specifics. a list of things to look for would be great in a new persons quest for a first time AR. it would be great if you could have list of things that you could research, or call the company and ask. what things should be staked? what kind of metal? barrel specifics? trigger? whatever. this is what i'm looking for. it seems to me that most manufacturers would attempt match the attributes of what everyone says is tier one. remember, it is what the buyer wants, not what they want to make.

series1811
03-18-2012, 05:53
Hardware is not a replacement for software.

However, good software with crap hardware is almost as bad.


Okay. But, if my experience is similar to other people's, and the majority of failures are not from bad hardware, but from bad software, why keep acting like they are from bad hardware?

I don't bring this up that often, because it seems to piss people off. But, in real shootings, are my agencies experiences that different from other agencies and departments FTF incidents in real events?

DAIadvisor
03-18-2012, 06:54
I wouldn't put much trust in term "mil-spec". Just because it's made for the military does not make it reliable or well made. Ask anyone who's been in the military about the "quality" of some of the equipment that you get.

On the AR note, I've owned several different ones over the years including Colt, and never had issues with any of them. A lot depends on the maintenance, your personal ability to use the weapon properly and your level of training. Is there a really low quality weapons somewhere? Probably. If you stick with at least somewhat known manufacturer, you won't have any issues with quality control or accuracy. (Yes, that includes Olympic too).

ArmoryDoc
03-18-2012, 06:58
I wouldn't put much trust in term "mil-spec". Just because it's made for the military does not make it reliable or well made. Ask anyone who's been in the military about the "quality" of some of the equipment that you get.

On the AR note, I've owned several different ones over the years including Colt, and never had issues with any of them. A lot depends on the maintenance, your personal ability to use the weapon properly and your level of training. Is there a really low quality weapons somewhere? Probably. If you stick with at least somewhat known manufacturer, you won't have any issues with quality control or accuracy. (Yes, that includes Olympic too).

You don't really believe what you wrote, do you ? :wow:

series1811
03-18-2012, 07:03
I wouldn't put much trust in term "mil-spec". Just because it's made for the military does not make it reliable or well made. Ask anyone who's been in the military about the "quality" of some of the equipment that you get.

On the AR note, I've owned several different ones over the years including Colt, and never had issues with any of them. A lot depends on the maintenance, your personal ability to use the weapon properly and your level of training. Is there a really low quality weapons somewhere? Probably. If you stick with at least somewhat known manufacturer, you won't have any issues with quality control or accuracy. (Yes, that includes Olympic too).

You've done it now! :supergrin:

"The Chart" will be coming out shortly to show how nothing you say could possibly be true. :supergrin:

DAIadvisor
03-18-2012, 07:18
You've done it now! :supergrin:

"The Chart" will be coming out shortly to show how nothing you say could possibly be true. :supergrin:

Yeah, I think I just hit the sore spot with Colt fan boys. :yawn:

MD357
03-18-2012, 08:00
I wouldn't put much trust in term "mil-spec". Just because it's made for the military does not make it reliable or well made. Ask anyone who's been in the military about the "quality" of some of the equipment that you get.

On the AR note, I've owned several different ones over the years including Colt, and never had issues with any of them. A lot depends on the maintenance, your personal ability to use the weapon properly and your level of training. Is there a really low quality weapons somewhere? Probably. If you stick with at least somewhat known manufacturer, you won't have any issues with quality control or accuracy. (Yes, that includes Olympic too).

You're obviously trolling!! There's too much logic and reason in this post. :cool:

Wil Ufgood
03-18-2012, 08:13
I wouldn't put much trust in term "mil-spec". Just because it's made for the military does not make it reliable or well made. Ask anyone who's been in the military about the "quality" of some of the equipment that you get.

On the AR note, I've owned several different ones over the years including Colt, and never had issues with any of them. A lot depends on the maintenance, your personal ability to use the weapon properly and your level of training. Is there a really low quality weapons somewhere? Probably. If you stick with at least somewhat known manufacturer, you won't have any issues with quality control or accuracy. (Yes, that includes Olympic too).
http://media.nj.com/boys_track_and_field_blog/photo/kaleb-zuidema-midland-park-javelin-file-d6aed6c8536a6a72_large.jpg

PlasticGuy
03-18-2012, 08:45
It all depends on use. We shoot them constantly, use them in industrial areas where rifles get physically beat up while just carrying them around, and operate in a desert where conditions are less than ideal for keeping any rifle running. We are issued Colts, and that is the minimum quality standard for my personal AR's because I train at home the same way I train at work. I also view my rifles the same way I view my fire extinguishers and seatbelts. I'm unlikely to need them in a life saving role, but if I ever need them they had better work.

That doesn't mean that everyone needs to buy a Colt (or better). If you shoot 200 rounds per year, and never plan to fight anything more dangerous than a soda can, buy whatever you want. You will probably never wear out any AR, and it doesn't really matter if you have a malfunction or two. I have seen Olympic Arms rifles so poorly built that it would have been dangerous to fire them, but some people don't mind inspecting them and sending them back to the factory if needed. Seems wierd to me, but it's their time and money. Whatever.

arclight610
03-18-2012, 08:49
what exactly are the features that i should be looking for in a tier one gun, as opposed to any other gun. which are the most important. people mention that they bought a colt because they wanted no problems if the SHTF. what would any other gun need to meet that standard? please let me know specifics. a list of things to look for would be great in a new persons quest for a first time AR. it would be great if you could have list of things that you could research, or call the company and ask. what things should be staked? what kind of metal? barrel specifics? trigger? whatever. this is what i'm looking for. it seems to me that most manufacturers would attempt match the attributes of what everyone says is tier one. remember, it is what the buyer wants, not what they want to make.

Generally a chrome-lined barrel, properly staked gas key and castle nut, magnetic particle tested bolt (checks for inclusions in the metal), shot peened carrier, 4150 barrel steel, forged upper and lower receiver, and 1/7 barrel twist.

mixflip
03-18-2012, 11:57
Why do some AR15's cost more than others???

http://www.gunsandgearreview.com/2010/11/800x600-normal-0-false-false-false-en.html

WoodenPlank
03-18-2012, 14:45
Okay. But, if my experience is similar to other people's, and the majority of failures are not from bad hardware, but from bad software, why keep acting like they are from bad hardware?

I don't bring this up that often, because it seems to piss people off. But, in real shootings, are my agencies experiences that different from other agencies and departments FTF incidents in real events?

Except software is usually cheaper (and only sometimes easier) to fix than hardware. Software is also (usually) easy to diagnose, whereas poor hardware can run fine for hundreds of rounds before suddenly crapping the bed.

Generally a chrome-lined barrel, properly staked gas key and castle nut, magnetic particle tested bolt (checks for inclusions in the metal), shot peened carrier, 4150 barrel steel, forged upper and lower receiver, and 1/7 barrel twist.

While the 1/7 twist is called for by military specs, it's the ONLY thing that can be done better. Otherwise, this list is dead on.

eyelikeglasses
03-18-2012, 19:13
I love how some people claim to "run" their rifle hard.
Some people are idiots.

CAcop
03-18-2012, 21:14
I love how some people claim to "run" their rifle hard.
Some people are idiots.

Drives me nuts when people ask others if they have taken their rifle to a class as if that is the true test of a rifle. If there is such a thing.

I think some people just go to classes and never train.

WoodenPlank
03-19-2012, 03:30
Drives me nuts when people ask others if they have taken their rifle to a class as if that is the true test of a rifle. If there is such a thing.

I think some people just go to classes and never train.

Running 500 to 1,000 rounds through a rifle in the process of 2-3 days is a pretty darn good test of a rifle's reliability. Parts don't tend to fail anywhere near as quickly when you shoot 60 rounds at the range three times a year, and clean it to factory new after every trip to the range.

PettyOfficer
03-19-2012, 07:29
Generally a chrome-lined barrel, properly staked gas key and castle nut, magnetic particle tested bolt (checks for inclusions in the metal), shot peened carrier, 4150 barrel steel, forged upper and lower receiver, and 1/7 barrel twist.

Heres a nice article someone posted here before: http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?81462-So-you-want-to-buy-an-AR-15-huh

series1811
03-19-2012, 08:03
Running 500 to 1,000 rounds through a rifle in the process of 2-3 days is a pretty darn good test of a rifle's reliability. Parts don't tend to fail anywhere near as quickly when you shoot 60 rounds at the range three times a year, and clean it to factory new after every trip to the range.

That's a good test of a rifle that is used for training classes where lots of rounds get fired in a row, or where it gets taken to the range and shot all day for fun..

Wouldn't a better test of a rifle for real life be to leave it in a car trunk for three months, then yank it out and fire two or three magazines that have been laying in the trunk, loaded, with it?

I remember the old debates about magazine springs getting weak. My old FTU took a bunch of Sig Sauer P226 magazines, loaded them with 15 rounds (to capacity) put them on a shelf, and pulled a few out every year for five years to see if any jammed. Up to five years, when they shot the last magazines empty, they had no FTF's.

Now is that test more or less valid to determine magazine reliability than the thousands of times, P226 magazines were loaded to capacity, and then immediately emptied druing normal range days?

I don't know.

Again, based on what I have seen in real life, more training would cause fewer FTF's much more dramatically than any increase in mechanical reliablity, from any of our weapons platforms, types, or brands.

series1811
03-19-2012, 08:11
Heres a nice article someone posted here before: http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?81462-So-you-want-to-buy-an-AR-15-huh

I love reading the reasoning on why 1-7 is better on Colt ARs (and I guess that we are supposed to believe that everyone else keeps producing 1-9 twists because they don't know how to reset their lathes cut a 1-7 twist.)

No chance that the reason Colts have 1-7 twists is that it is military spec to make tracer rounds more accurate, and Colt just doesn't care enough about the civilian market to make another barrel for the handful of sales, ratio wise, the get compared to military sales?

See, if you wait long enough, I start talking about the stupid stuff, too. :supergrin:

fuzzy03cls
03-19-2012, 10:48
Again these are parts..... You want to eliminate 90% of issues from a lower priced AR? Replace the BCG with a mil spec'd one & stake your castle nut yourself.

WoodenPlank
03-19-2012, 17:23
Again these are parts..... You want to eliminate 90% of issues from a lower priced AR? Replace the BCG with a mil spec'd one & stake your castle nut yourself.

If the castle nut is torqued properly, then staking is just a redundancy. I have had several ARs that were run hard, and never had the castle nut back out. Not a single one was staked or had loc-tite applied, but they were ALL torqued correctly. My current setup is staked, just for the sake of CYA, but nothing more.

bug
03-19-2012, 18:08
..........

Javelin
03-19-2012, 22:14
That's a good test of a rifle that is used for training classes where lots of rounds get fired in a row, or where it gets taken to the range and shot all day for fun..

Wouldn't a better test of a rifle for real life be to leave it in a car trunk for three months, then yank it out and fire two or three magazines that have been laying in the trunk, loaded, with it?


Probably not a better test than shooting it sustained for 14 mags.

The trunk test would be about the same as pulling the gun out of a gun safe someone bolts down in their garage to go plinking with every now and again.

:wavey:

JAFO1-12
03-20-2012, 13:44
milspec is as milspec does. treat your AR well, no matter the brand. just because it is military issue type doesnt really mean anything in the real world if you treat it like crap (like an 88Mike only using his m16A2 to sit on, and having fired it once, as opposed to a guy who got issued the same thing and trained with it and treated it well). with that said, i would always look at what you are using it for, what is your budget like, as being important for a civilian AR purchase.

MrMurphy
03-20-2012, 15:11
Agreed....... If you're a pure paper killer or coyote hunter it's not honestly gonna matter what brand.

I use my guns a bit harder than most and hold myself to 'issued standard or better' because while the odds are low, one day, I may just have to put all that crap back on, one last time. Not everyone does.

Spirit of 76
03-26-2012, 21:35
Drives me nuts when people ask others if they have taken their rifle to a class as if that is the true test of a rifle. If there is such a thing.

I think some people just go to classes and never train.

+1. This is something I've been asking myself for years! "Self," I say, "What good is it going to do you to spend $4000 going to that 5 day carbine class when 1: you know you can't afford to expend that much ammo on a weekly basis to keep your skills sharp, and 2) What are the chances that you'll last 30 seconds doing those drill on the range once the RO hears the rapid fire?":dunno:

Spirit of 76
03-26-2012, 21:40
Heres a nice article someone posted here before: http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?81462-So-you-want-to-buy-an-AR-15-huh

That's actually a pretty good article, but I do have an issue with the author. He starts out by explaining all the "must have" features and why you "must have" them - then he goes on to list a bunch of rifles that don't meet his own specs, and says they are all acceptable. Hmmmm....:whistling:

MrMurphy
03-27-2012, 03:21
Some ranges allow rapid fire.

The range i go to has bays, allows shooting on the move, rapid fire, ground shooting, movement to/from/around cover and with the caveat that they better know you're competent, full auto with the proper licensed weapons (also a lot of cops/SWAT in the area use it for training). They also do 50-1,000 meter rifle.

So yes, some of us DO get to practice drills. Not as often as I'd like, but at least every month or two with live rounds. This weekend was two and three man movement drills, shooting from cover and to cover, malfunctions, and bounding drills with 2 similarly trained friends of mine, both pistol and rifle.

series1811
03-27-2012, 03:24
The superceding part, that from my experience, that is the part most likely to cause a failure, no matter how much training, no matter which brand, no matter which specs, is the part that is holding on to the AR. :supergrin:

Let's see the chart on that one.

PlasticGuy
03-27-2012, 09:45
If the castle nut is torqued properly, then staking is just a redundancy. I have had several ARs that were run hard, and never had the castle nut back out. Not a single one was staked or had loc-tite applied, but they were ALL torqued correctly. My current setup is staked, just for the sake of CYA, but nothing more.
A properly torqued castle nut may stay in place. Same with the gas key. Then again, I have seen several come loose. A properly torqued AND staked one won't. There is no downside to staking, so I insist on it.

PlasticGuy
03-27-2012, 09:51
+1. This is something I've been asking myself for years! "Self," I say, "What good is it going to do you to spend $4000 going to that 5 day carbine class when 1: you know you can't afford to expend that much ammo on a weekly basis to keep your skills sharp, and 2) What are the chances that you'll last 30 seconds doing those drill on the range once the RO hears the rapid fire?":dunno:
Get your instruction from YouTube. Practice on a range that doesn't allow realistic training. Really? If you don't care, fine, but then why are you here discussing it. If you do care, try harder. There are better ways if you really care, and not all require huge amounts of money.

CAcop
03-27-2012, 11:08
Running 500 to 1,000 rounds through a rifle in the process of 2-3 days is a pretty darn good test of a rifle's reliability. Parts don't tend to fail anywhere near as quickly when you shoot 60 rounds at the range three times a year, and clean it to factory new after every trip to the range.

Maybe it's because I have been to instructor level schools and seen all kinds of AR-15s make it that I don't trust a school to weed out the worst. One of my instructors was issued a DPMS full auto for his PD's SWAT team. He hadn't cleaned it in several thousand rounds. He straight up said he was trying to break it by shooting it so he could get "better" rifle. He hadn't been able to do it. He was begining to think DPMS might actually be a good rifle.

This is before I knew about "the chart" and how his rifle should have gotten him killed or fallen apart at the range.

I think if you know what you are doing you can make just about any rifle run hard. If you are a tard who is going to neglect your gun get a Glock and a Mini 14 you will never know the difference and they can handle neglect a lot better.

CAcop
03-27-2012, 11:19
Probably not a better test than shooting it sustained for 14 mags.

The trunk test would be about the same as pulling the gun out of a gun safe someone bolts down in their garage to go plinking with every now and again.

:wavey:

Rifles tend to bounce around in the back of a patrol car. I've never seen a rifle in my safe bounce around.

We put ours in gunracks that don't fit so they rattle around all shift long.

Javelin
03-27-2012, 11:30
Rifles tend to bounce around in the back of a patrol car. I've never seen a rifle in my safe bounce around.

We put ours in gunracks that don't fit so they rattle around all shift long.

Maybe there should be a new category where you duck tape your AR to a Dillon Tumbler for a sustained period of time before shooting.

:rofl:







Sent from my Fisher-Price phone
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/customavatars/avatar2503_1.gif

trlcavscout
03-27-2012, 13:35
Believe it or not, some don't, but their are mil-spec products and then their are commercial or hobby products. Depending on you needs either may work. But look at every component, even charging handles. Even the best mil spec handles will eventually wear or brake but will last longer and perform better over all. Same with most components. So yes most AR's made will work fine and perform good to a point just depends on what you "want" or "need".

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

WoodenPlank
03-27-2012, 17:09
Maybe it's because I have been to instructor level schools and seen all kinds of AR-15s make it that I don't trust a school to weed out the worst. One of my instructors was issued a DPMS full auto for his PD's SWAT team. He hadn't cleaned it in several thousand rounds. He straight up said he was trying to break it by shooting it so he could get "better" rifle. He hadn't been able to do it. He was begining to think DPMS might actually be a good rifle.

This is before I knew about "the chart" and how his rifle should have gotten him killed or fallen apart at the range.

I think if you know what you are doing you can make just about any rifle run hard. If you are a tard who is going to neglect your gun get a Glock and a Mini 14 you will never know the difference and they can handle neglect a lot better.

Any company can produce a quality, reliable AR. Just some have a better track record of it than others. While DPMS doesn't have the best track record, it doesn't mean they don't occasionally spit out a good rifle. I'd just rather pay a bit more money and not have to take as many chances with it.

nathanours
03-27-2012, 19:12
Any company can produce a quality, reliable AR. Just some have a better track record of it than others. While DPMS doesn't have the best track record, it doesn't mean they don't occasionally spit out a good rifle. I'd just rather pay a bit more money and not have to take as many chances with it.

Yep, a lot has to do with QC and consistency.