Originally Posted by
BufordTJustice
You can consider something "good" or "tier 1" all day. It doesn't make it so.
Failures from non spec parts can happen suddenly and without warning...like a crack or inclusion on a bolt that WOULD have been discovered by HPT/MPI testing...but what you're recommending is that if somebody has a batch-tested item, they should still have just as much confidence in that item. I disagree.
A bolt with an undiscovered flaw could fail AT ANY TIME and there is no way you could know prior to the failure. Same with an extractor that is not made from tool steel and shot peened, same with a barrel made from cheap steel and not HPT/MPI, same with a barrel extension that does not meet required hardness specs (could allow headpsace to grow over time).
You CANNOT KNOW what will fail in a gun that is not made to spec. CANNOT KNOW. At least with milspec there are safeguards due to using specific, high quality materials, tight tolerances, and specific assembly techniques. Buying a gun that does not adhere to these standards is a GAMBLE.
You are advocating that if somebody has a substandard gun that may be used for defensive purposes that they should just "trust" that gun after a certain number of rounds.
There is a reason that Pat Rogers "Filthy 14" wasn't a Stag, Bushmaster, DPMS, CMMG, or Olympic Arms. I bet Pat wishes those would work just as well as a BCM/Colt/LMT/DD, since they all cost a LOT less for him to buy. But the fact is, they don't stand up to the abuse like a properly made carbine. You can tout something as "good enough for you" all you want...but trying to push that FAITH onto other people could eventually get somebody hurt or killed.
I never said that any of these guns will "automatically shit the bed". What I did say was that their failure modes are far less predictable than with mil spec guns because set standards have not been employed. What don't you understand about this? You don't know what you don't know about these sub-par guns.
Bookmarks