I've been following this thread pretty regularly, and unless you posted your original post prior to 9:00 am Eastern Time, I never saw this picture.
Printable View
Everything I have read from the detractors up to this point really comes down to my original statement:
Quote:
I think from my personal experience people get a little more attached to their guns (and vehicles) more so then other kinds of kit. It is like an extension of them, and their ego. This has always been odd to me, as I have nothing to prove to anyone but myself, but the male ego is ****ing amazing when it comes to feeling special
Sorry about that I meant to link to the 12 moa upper.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61361
Thanks for providing the anticipated anecdotal response.
Rob_S I believe the posters that follow you comprehended my post, perhaps your view was obscured by your visor.
I was recently doing some reading on the topic of understanding chaos theory and variation in the manufacturing process. This vindicated my early impression that the “Chart” is crapp.
Now here is the point, the best parts do not necessarily yield the best product.
There are countless variables in manufacturing that affect the end result. The only way to know the quality of a part or complete weapon is to know the failure rate and causes of the failure at different time intervals.
While the chart has dribbles about pressure testing, individual testing and batch testing that might lead some to believe there is science afoot, the absence of failure rates renders it meaningless.
If you, or anyone else, could provide the failure rate for each AR by manufacturer at various intervals during its life cycle based on round count and time that would be useful.
Simply put Rob, your chart fails to meaningfully address quality.
The post above the pic of the bcg claimed no BM owners show bcg pics. So I followed right up with mine which was staked correctly. Not that hard to understand.
If you missed it here it isIB4 generic 1 and a million reply.Quote:
That is the purpose of collecting data, and that is the purpose of this thread. I have yet to see any Oly, or BM, or DPMS owners post photos of their properly staked carrier key
I don't think you read that book very close. Do you honestly believe that you can take inferior metals input into the same manufacturing process and come out with a better gun at the end a meaningful number of times because of multiple variable set theory? That's some fuzzy logic, alright.
I smell a person from a third tier manufacturer trying to justify corner cutting.
No I don't believe that at all and I did not make that claim. The highest quality parts coupled with the best process are most likely to yield the highest quality result.
I have no involvement in the industry and I do not claim to be an expert on manufacturing. Just pissing in the Koolaid of the chart worshippers by pointing out the claims of quality in the sacred chart are not supported by any numbers.
I have two complete Noveske rifles, a LMT lower and an old bushmaster. So far the Noveskes are on track to match the bushmaster's reliability. Of course my sample size is too small for that to be a statistically meaningful observation.
It may well be and I'm sure if he contacted BCM with his issue, Paul Buffoni will gladly help him correct the issue.
Statistically insignificant based upon quality control and the company's eagerness to understand any problems and correct them.Quote:
Are instances of where the total of the BCM product being less than the sum its parts a problem with the manufacturing process or quality control or statistically insignificant based on manufacturing volume?
Bushmaster is rather notorious for its quality control issues and chronic inability to meet the minimum standards required by the military.Quote:
If the same failure rate was experienced by Colt, LMT or Bushmaster would it be news? What I am getting at here is does two or however many out of the box failures there have been represent a significant percentage of the manufacturing volume?
At the bottom is a tab called "Expanation of Features" that explains everything in it.Quote:
Where is the information on the sacred chart that guides the first time AR buyer to the reliable AR, surely the chart should be able to answer such a question based on its stated objective?
It's simply not true that "every manufacture makes something that turns out to be 'parts is parts'."Quote:
I am sure one of you chart humpers will be quick to point out that every manufacture makes something that turns out to be “parts is parts” but you have to put it into context of overall production volume for it to have any more meaning than someone claiming their bushmaster has never failed.
These are very easy to find. There are numerous instructors who run high-round count courses and take note as to which brands of rifles go down and which ones easily handle the stress put upon them by the users. For example, Pat Rogers of EAG Tactical keeps a book that documents every failure he has in his course, the cause of it, the brand of the rifle, and, if possible, the remedy.Quote:
But you chart humpers want facts, drawings explanations, now lets have some cold hard statistics from you, not anecdotal "my bcm has never failed, and I have alot of posts."
If anything, your post has demonstrated your inability to comprehend basic information or to do any modicum of research on this issue. Instead, you demonstrate your ignorance with a lengthy and profane post that reflects very poorly upon yourself.
Were it not for the hard work of folks like Rob Sloyer, Grant Timberlake, and the other SMEs on this site in getting out this important information, many of us would have purchased inferior, failure-prone rifles that cannot be trusted. Personally, before I found this site, I was interested in purchasing a DPMS. After educating myself and asking numerous questions, which were kindly answered with detailed answers, I decided upon a DD rifle instead.
Ok, I'll bite. (just because I like playing devil's advocate)
I like my Rock River Varmint upper. It does not match TDP, it wouldn't even register on the chart.
But for what I ask of it, it does a GREAT job.
The barrel is a stainless bull barrel, which definitely isn't 4150. But it will shoot sub .5MOA.
It has not been MPI, but for a bench gun with a 1" thick barrel, I'd be shocked if it has an issues that .223 ammo would cause issues with.
It does not have a 5.56 chamber. It has a Wylde chamber. Which is perfectly fine for bench rest shooting. I haven't ever had a failure to extract with it (or any failure at all), but I know it isn't 5.56.
It came with a rifle stock, so the extension wasn't commercial. But first on the list was a UBR stock to replace it, which includes its own buffer extension.
The chart IS great. Information helps us all. I used it when buying a BCM upper recently. You just have to know what your needs are, what information the chart provides, and where you want to make what sacrifices.
Nope, sorry looks to be clearly touching the screws and doing it well.
http://tapa.tk/mu/414366d5-73b5-5993.jpg
Dare to compare:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6993
Your staking is marginal.
As I stated early on it is out of the box reliability that I am interested in as measure of quality, customer service is irrelevant to the concept.
Excellent, what are the numbers? What is the basis for your personal knowledge?
I am aware the reputation of bushmaster for poor quality and LMT's reputation for good quality, so what is your point?
Like the radio with an extra speaker in the Hyundai, the feature may or may not make it a better product.
Well I gave you an example of BCM producing a "part is parts" or as someone in the thread referred to it a "lemon." Produce anything long enough and you will produce a defect, it is all about understanding probability and as I wade through your post I can see the concept is lost on you.
Whether you ship it or not is another part of the equation.
I am pleased to hear it, go a ahead and post the samples sizes and your the regression analysis and I will accept my failures with google.
Keep thirsty koolaid drinker!
Your second picture looks a little better. However in Justin's defense your first picture was canted at an angle which clearly showed a gap on the right top indent. Perhaps you should look at your picture more objectively so you can clearly see what was discussed. Or perhaps in the future better picture quality. New camera, better lighting would be a start. Shall we find you a chart for cameras?
Seacoast,
Here's an idea... instead of pushing your bodily excrement fetish on us and constantly asking questions without providing any data yourself, how about you list something on the Chart that is completely unnecessary and has no beneficial value? Otherwise, all of these provocations are senseless and troll-like.
There are a couple people in this thread who are obviously not interested in learning anything. They are here to "piss in the kool-aid," as they see it. Having a rational argument with such fanatics (of what, I don't know--perhaps pissing?) is impossible. So what if his carrier key has feel-good staking instead of mechanically-sound staking; he has a point to make!
I forgot Stifled what was his point exactly? Oh yeah to bring down the "Chart" and all knowing members of M4C.
Hope he packed a year supply of MH meals. If not I hear Grant wants a group buy. Maybe he can get some leftovers.
We have given you the tools to make an informed decision. Shit or get off the pot!
What is your definition of reliable?
I don't understand what you have against the chart... It simply lists how certain manufacturers follow, or don't follow, the TDP. (If my understanding of the chart is not correct, correct me.)
If you're bushy, is "out of the box reliable" for your needs, that's great. I don't see where you're going about the chart being worthless.
Gee Justin you made a number of statements related to statistics above, where are the numbers. You said "statistically insignificant" did you make that up?
Pointing out that the chart does not measure quality because it fails to address failure rates is not the same as claiming to know the relationship between a particular feature and failure of the end product.
I don't know does lack of finish under the front sight base results in a weapon more likely to fail? According to the chart it results in an inferior weapon so that means less accurate, shorter life span, more likely not to function out of the box or what?
I doubt it has any affect on the above, but I am a chart skeptic.
Don't forget the numbers you implied you had.
Where does it say that?
This is what is says: "There have been some reports of these parts rusting in the unprotected area, but it is unlikely that rust in these locations will affect the function of the carbine."
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...=5&output=html
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6642
D90 is GTG, you should have a very nice picture to share then.
Seacoast it sounds as almost if you want a "Guarantee" that whatever you purchase based upon the information provided will never have issue. The "Chart" merely shows what brands use what, and if they are reliable parts and will be the least likely to experience failure. Like all things there are failure points in everything.
Did the Priest give you a Guarantee that your marriage would be perfect after you said your vows. Did your wife Guarantee to you that she would remain pristine and beautiful and not show her age or gain weight after having kids. Did your mirror give you a Guarantee that you would always look "awesome" in that sleeveless t-shirt that accentuates your goatee and mullet. NO
Just find what suits you and be done. Anything from the 1st left to the 5th position on the chart shall serve you well out of the box without upgrade.
I didn't imply anything. I said you should speak with Pat Rogers, Grant Timberlake, or Rob Sloyer. Before you do that, I encourage you to read more from SMEs on this site, Lightfighter, and even ARFCOM, and you will discover what I'm saying is entirely accurate.
You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge at all on this matter, so I don't see why I should go about wasting more time to cook you a proverbial steak so that you can eat most of it and then insult my cooking after your stomach is full.
How did the wheels fall off of this so quick?
I do not think the information seacoast is demanding exists. I'm unaware of any scientific study, that lists the numbers of rifles produced by every manufacturer, and also has an all encompassing list of every single malfunction, by every single rifle, with every single owner/operator, distilled down to cause, to eliminate ammo, magazine and operator error.
So, yea, you can keep demanding "proof", because you know its not there.
What we do have though, is a large number of anecdotal accounts, as reported here, and other web forums. Much of it, is reported by top level, well known and respected instructors, who by nature of their job, see alot of carbines, all under, reasonably similar conditions and round counts. They can ID the malfunction and the cause. After a while, trends begin to emerge, again while unscientific, there it is.
Par Rogers and Larry Vickers, have both noted trends of poor performing guns from specific manufacturers. Reports of an entire swat team's issue of guns, not working properly, and an LE rep on vacation. These are men who don't have the luxury of waiting for customer service.
I personally witnessed the same type of situation.
Paul Howe, chimed in, and I mentioned his findings also, he is the only one who has not seen an issue with one particular brand. Its a stumper, but even he has stated, he will keep better track of it, and see what happens.
So what do we have left to go on? A list of known better or at least minimal parts quality, manufacturing and assembly techniques and procedures, etc. etc. "the chart" as it were.
No one said, a gun from the left side, guarantees you trouble free performance, and a gun from the right, will automatically be a headache. Only that, the chances of a good, trouble free, reliable and durable gun, will come from the left side.
If you read the "explanations" part, as a consumer, you can decide what is and what is not important to you.
Remember though, there is a difference between a "better product" and a "better choice".
Now, wheres that "tap out" emoticon I've been asking for:laugh:
Bob
As I pointed out early on it is like the consumer report that ranks the Hyundai over the Honda because the Hyundai has more speakers and better acceleration. It is missing the quality of manufacturing component.
I am open to any reasonable and understandable definition of reliability.
I have been using the statement of failure to function out of the box.
Let say when it is delivered reliablity is failure to fire, failure to cycle or extremely poor accuracy.
A true analysis would include time and rounds fired.
[/QUOTE]I am open to any reasonable and understandable definition of reliability.
I have been using the statement of failure to function out of the box.
Let say when it is delivered reliablity is failure to fire, failure to cycle or extremely poor accuracy.
A true analysis would include time and rounds fired.[/QUOTE]
Your looking for Purple dragons and Pink unicorns. I think you would have a better chance at proving the paternity of Nancy Pelosi is actually Glenn Beck!