Can a tier 2 AR/M4 be improved to tier 1 ?

[C4IGrant]

Ok I started the "Do you like your Stag?" thread. Thank you for all of the replies. Now let me ask this. Can a AR/M4 that is not top tier be brought up to a good quality rifle? I was ignorant when I bought the Stag, hence the reason for the Spikes upper on a Stag lower. I personally dont care about the roll mark. The roll mark could be a streaming pile of horse manure for I care. But by replacing parts that arent mil spec with BCM or other quality parts can the rifle be brought up to a better more reliable level?

If your gun was a complete STAG, I would do the following:

1. Add an H2 buffer.
2. Add a SpringCo BLUE CS buffer spring.
3. Check the staking on the gas key and castle nut.
4. Buy a spare BCG.
5. Shoot the gun until you break something and then call the manufacturer.



C4

[Sry0fcr]

What exactly is wrong with the rifle(s) that you have now? Do they satisfy your current needs / uses?

Probably the most relevant post in the thread thus far. "'Better is the enemy of 'Good Enough'".

[BufordTJustice]

Probably the most relevant post in the thread thus far. "'Better is the enemy of 'Good Enough'".

Yeah, except there is NO STANDARD for good enough.

"Good enough" could be absolute shit or high quality...or anywhere in between.

Mil spec provides a known standard. That's why it is important. Failure points can be estimated, service intervals implemented with confidence. If somebody wants to gamble with their own life, I won't stop them. However, on a gun that may defend a life, "shoot it till it breaks" is bad advice. What happens when it breaks when YOU NEED IT TO WORK?


But I won't be participating in the Redneck Olympics, despite being a redneck myself.


Dom, your Spikes upper on the Stag lower can be pressed into service with Grant's advice serving you best. If you are worried about this, or about recouping your investment, I would buy a Colt 6920 and not look back.

[Sry0fcr]

Yeah, except there is NO STANDARD for good enough.

"Good enough" could be absolute shit or high quality...or anywhere in between.

Mil spec provides a known standard. That's why it is important. Failure points can be estimated, service intervals implemented with confidence. If somebody wants to gamble with their own life, I won't stop them. However, on a gun that may defend a life, "shoot it till it breaks" is bad advice. What happens when it breaks when YOU NEED IT TO WORK?

For sake of argument let's assume that "good enough" is tantamount to "fit for purpose" even if not TDP compliant. Over time, I've evolved my thinking to, "If it works, it works."; with the understanding that all things mechanical will break, it's only a matter of time. Following the TDP is not infallible and offers no guarantee that a gun won't ever go down (the inverse is also true). What's needed is for users to understand the weapon system, how it works & how to maintain it so that they can place more emphasis on shooting than gear selection.

[BufordTJustice]

For sake of argument let's assume that "good enough" is tantamount to "fit for purpose" even if not TDP compliant. Over time, I've evolved my thinking to, "If it works, it works."; with the understanding that all things mechanical will break, it's only a matter of time. Following the TDP is not infallible and offers no guarantee that a gun won't ever go down (the inverse is also true). What's needed is for users to understand the weapon system, how it works & how to maintain it so that they can place more emphasis on shooting than gear selection.

I disagree with your assumption. You're attempting to assign a quantity or quality to something that is, by definition, UNQUANTIFIABLE.

The fact that these manufacturers fail to comply with the TDP (which is what makes an AR an AR) means that everything about their guns is an UNKNOWN. The TDP may not be the best technical standard available, but it is MORE expensive to comply with it than not to comply. So, by definition, these cheap-O makers are cutting corners. You can't defend that. And because you don't know HOW MANY CORNERS have been cut, you really don't know ANYTHING about the guns you're defending. You're defending an unknown quantity at best and a myth at worst.

Not everybody is an engineer, though a basic operational knowledge of the platform is beneficial. However, somebody doesn't need technical knowledge to know that some guns meet the specs that Stoner set forth and others do not...and to avoid the ones that do not.

I have no idea why you're trying to defend sub-par quality guns for defensive uses. Do you advocate for Hi-point handguns over Glocks?

[Surf]

The Stag Lower and Spikes Upper works well. I already mentioned the Stag is older and unfired. I consider any gun I own to perform to defend my life and my families. That is why I have the concern about the Stag. Just a side note, and I mean no disrespect to anyone. This site has a great wealth of knowledge, that is a FACT, however some posters aren't very friendly to new guys that aren't as knowledgeable has so many are here. Maybe consider some of us are here to learn from those that have far more and extensive knowledge and experience than others. Dom

I am attempting to make an earnest effort to pass on some of my experiences. First off, you should clearly state what your purpose is for your rifle(s) in your original post. Are you shooting cans off the back porch, are you in LE or plan on using the rifle for defensive purposes? Each will give you a different answer, at least from me. In the future, uses and budget help to formulate an appropriate reply.

If you are killing cans in the back forty, I would say not to worry about it, shoot it and if something breaks, then invest in fixing it, perhaps with better quality parts. For this purpose, your rifles as are will probably give you a lifetime of pleasure without upgrades.

Now if it is going to see defensive or critical uses I would offer similar advice that was given as "upgrades". Chances are, with a proper vetting your rifles will probably be just fine as they are. However my preference in this type of situation would be to have a weapon with the highest amount of reliability to perform as needed each and every time, so yes I would upgrade certain areas. Also for my purposes or what I would expect from anyone deploying a weapon for defensive purposes is that there should be high volumes of training, so a more reliable weapon is my preference. However I will not automatically offer such "upgrade" advice without all the pertinent shooters information, which I feel was not given.

You say that you have an unfired Stag yet it may be used to defend the family? One piece of advice....no weapon should be relied upon for this type of defensive situation until it has been fully fired for function and vetted as reliable. This should be a few hundred rounds in various types of fire / manipulations. It does not matter if it is your older unfired Stag, "upgraded, tier 1" Stag, or a Colt 6920 out of the box. All weapons should be properly vetted before being used for critical use or defensive purposes.

So I am trying to give sound advice. Is the advice sound for you to automatically "upgrade" these rifles for killing only cans? Not IMO and quite frankly I see that type of advice automatically dispensed when the question is asked, even without all of the information needed. Sure I could give you a blanket answer on what to "upgrade" but is that doing your occasional back forty, can killing enthusiast good advice? Not IMO.

[Sry0fcr]

I disagree with your assumption. You're attempting to assign a quantity or quality to something that is, by definition, UNQUANTIFIABLE.

IMO, function is quite quantifiable.

I have no idea why you're trying to defend sub-par quality guns for defensive uses. Do you advocate for Hi-point handguns over Glocks?

I'm not defending anything. A serviceable gun, is a serviceable gun. As far as I know the OP has not identified an issue with his gun yet and Spikes and Stag aren't quite Hesse or Olympic Arms. No, I wouldn't advocate Hi-Point over Glock, but if someone already has a working CZ I'm not going to tell them that they need to toss it in the lake and fork over money to Gaston either.

[Roklok]

If your gun was a complete STAG, I would do the following:

1. Add an H2 buffer.
2. Add a SpringCo BLUE CS buffer spring.
3. Check the staking on the gas key and castle nut.
4. Buy a spare BCG.
5. Shoot the gun until you break something and then call the manufacturer.



C4

Good advice here.

[BufordTJustice]

IMO, function is quite quantifiable.



I'm not defending anything. A serviceable gun, is a serviceable gun. As far as I know the OP has not identified an issue with his gun yet and Spikes and Stag aren't quite Hesse or Olympic Arms. No, I wouldn't advocate Hi-Point over Glock, but if someone already has a working CZ I'm not going to tell them that they need to toss it in the lake and fork over money to Gaston either.

Function on this round may not be function on the next. You can advocate playing the AR lottery all you want. I'm simply against that.

I advocate buying a KNOWN QUALITY gun...even for a "fun gun". There's nothing "fun" about clearing a malfunction several times per magazine.

[Sry0fcr]

Function on this round may not be function on the next.

That's true for anything. Even more so if you're not performing any inspection or preventative maintenance on your gear.

You can advocate playing the AR lottery all you want. I'm simply against that.

I'm not advocating playing a lottery either. Any gun I own is going to have to prove itself trouble free for at least 500 rounds with no cleaning or lube before I consider it "good", "tier 1" or not.

I advocate buying a KNOWN QUALITY gun...even for a "fun gun". There's nothing "fun" about clearing a malfunction several times per magazine.

You know what, so do I. But I also advocate using common sense and not jumping to the conclusion that anything other than Colt, Noveske or BCM will automatically shit the bed and spontaneously combust when the flag drops.