Absolutely agree that both m4hk and grumpy provided an excellent and substantive perspective.
I don't have firsthand experience with RF, but you don't have to travel far to find that they're viewed fairly unfavorably. Is it warranted? Perhaps. But the extent of the level of criticism seems a bit over the top. I liked the comment about this test speaking to, "the maturity of the AR system." The truth is that AKOUs 5k tests subject these rifles to far more abuse than most will ever throw at their ARs. At the bare minimum, if someone is running their rifle through similar conditions, they are at least doing preventative inspections/maintenance.
Most here would likely put RF rifles at the bottom of their list. So the bottom of the barrel will withstand all this for 4k+ rounds and could be back up and running with a few bucks in replacement parts. This is also ignoring that it is a sample of one. It's possible there was a defect that is not present in the majority of their rifles. On the other hand, maybe this test rifle was an example of the best that RFs could produce. Neither conclusion can be accurately drawn from this one instance; it's simply a data point. What can be assumed, is that if they give it a good cleaning and spend a couple bucks replacing parts, it'll likely come right back to life. It's far from trashed.
Frankly, this test might work in RF's favor. I know that sounds odd. But if you ask around the forums about this brand, the general comments will make it seem like the rifle will crumble in your hands when you take it out of the safe. Yes, that's an exaggeration, but that sentiment is pretty much what you'd get.
Again, it's still a sample of one. So major conclusions cannot be made. If we go down that road, one could suggest the DDM4V11 performed worse. It wasn't as significant a failure with the trigger reset issue, but it failed at an earlier point and took it out of commission all the same. And by that same token then, the PSA Freedom AR is the current frontrunner. It made it through the 5k, and was the only one to run a full mag in their sand test. None of those conclusions would be fair or reasonable solely based upon one test. So, it's only fair to give RF a little benefit of the doubt that this could have been a defective fluke.
ETA: I saw that they did swap the BCG and finish things out without any further issues. Not only that, but the final attempt at shooting for groups suggests the barrel still has a lot left in it as far as accuraccy. I'm not sure why they didn't just replace some parts and try to run the RF BCG. Maybe I missed the part discussing why they didn't or couldn't try using the original?
Outside of the main test, it's an encouraging data point for nitrided barrels, and how they might hold up over time. That might be my biggest takeaway.
Bookmarks