PSA 20" Freedom Kit review pre-shooting

[C4IGrant]

Again, this will be a general reply to a number of your, and others, recent comments. In particular I'll address two points.

The first applies particularly to a number of your comments, but others can be guilty as well. Maybe it's not intentional on your part, and it my seem lazy for me to repeat portions of my last post, but you seem to have an affinity for non sequiturs. I get it, they are one of the more effective logical fallacies; as they require some rough elements of truth. In this specific instance, it's found in the "pistols and rifles" argument.

Assumption 1 - Cheap (inexpensive) pistols are equal to cheap ARs

Assumption 2 - Cheap pistols are not reliable, or chosen, for self defense

Conclusion- Cheap ARs are not reliable, and shouldn't be chosen, for self defense

This logic is flawed on multiple levels. First, the assumptions are inaccurate. Reliability of a firearm is drawn from design and configuation of the components. For pistols, the designs and configurations vary. Sure, the basic function of an auto loading pistol is going to be the same across brands. But one can't take an M&P slide and slap it on a Glock frame. Very few parts are interchangeable between models and brands. So, your attempt to correlate pistols to the AR platform simply doesn't play. What makes the AR platform inherently reliable are the same elements necessary with pistols; the design of the platform and configuration of the parts. While pistol components largely cannot be swapped, the exact opposite is true for ARs. As an example, suppose we had an Armalite AR from the 90s and a Stag fresh off the assembly line today. One by one, we could swap just about every component between the rifles; and both would still function.

The second assumption also takes some liberties that may not be correct. What makes a pistol cheap? And of the pistols that would fall into that category, are they all unreliable? Given the specific brands you call out when referencing "cheap" pistols, it seems that price is basically the primary variable. So, let's start with a good pistol; Glock. Ballpark pricing is around $500. One of their biggest competitors is S&W; and most would agree that they're rough equals in reliability. S&W pistols, like the Sheild and M&P, often sell in the $300-$400 range; or 20-40% less than the cost of a Glock. We could do the same cost comparisons with models from Brands like Ruger, Springfield, etc., but the point would remain the same. Now, your claim that people don't choose these brands and models for defensive carry is untrue. There are plenty of instances where individuals have used these examples in defensive situations; and they performed as required. Having identified what makes a pistol qualify as "cheap", let's apply the same formula to rifles. I'll use Colt, as they're the "standard" you'd likely site. They run about $1000. Thus, "cheap" rifles would be those in the $600-$800 range. Models from brands like PSA, Ruger, Wyndham, and S&W can all be found in this price range. So, people that chose these models and brands, expecting them to be reliable, are no less reasonable than those people who choose the "cheap" pistols.

As evidenced by the sections above, the conclusion you've attempted to draw simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Even if my position differs from yours, regarding what makes a firearm qualify as "cheap", the more important point stands. Given that the AR platform, in terms of functional configuration, is essentially identical across the spectrum of all brands, pistols simply cannot be used as a meter to draw conclusions about ARs.

Now, my second major point regarding this debate boils down to futility. Those taking the position that certain Brands are not worthy will often site lack of evidence, and challenge those holding opposing views to provide data to prove otherwise. Nothing wrong with this. However, the goalposts are continually being moved. It generally goes something like this...

Person A- "You need to take a Class, and then report back."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, what I really meant is that you need to take multiple classes under X conditions."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, you just don't know and it's a sample of one. I've been to every AR factory, have seen the assembly lines and standards, and Company X does so much more than Company Y."

No evidence presented will ever be sufficient. And even when evidence is provided, it often results in the "authority" making claims that amount to "Just take my word for it." If not the "trust me" line, instead they'll use more non sequiturs. Earlier someone mentioned how Travis Haley used a BM overseas, and that it performed in harsh conditions during major firefights. And, it's no secret that plenty of other contractors used bushy ARs during their time in the Middle East. So what was the reply? "Well, Travis didn't choose to run a BM." That point is irrelevant. So what if he didn't chose it. Did it not perform as required? And, if saying Travis didn't choose it somehow proves a point, then shouldn't the decision by his Contracting firm to select BM rifles be of equal merit? Also, I doubt Travis would willingly put his life on the line if he had no faith in BM rifles. And if Blackwater was seeing major failures, I'd have to believe they would have reevaluated their selection.

I could go on, but what's the point. As stated earlier, no amount of evidence would suffice. If, as a community, we purchased 5 Colt ARs and 5 PSA's with the intention of running them through a reliability test, trying to draw conclusions would be futile. If they performed equally, the goalposts would be moved. There'd be claims that the test wasn't hard enough, that it was a fluke to have all the PSAs perform, etc. If the Colt outperformed, many would call it undeniable proof that a PSA cannot perform like a Colt. But if the PSA outperformed the Colt, that same group would say the test isn't statistically significant. It's a complete crapshoot. No matter how big of a sample size. The path of the discussion is so predictable that we could make a flowchart.

TL;DR - More non sequiturs are not the solution. Try again.

Wow, that's wordy. Let me ask you a question, what is it you do for a living?


C4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Locutus]

The description of the upper on the website should say. I believe they used to also be marked FN on the barrel but this may have changed. Only the CHF chrome lined premium barrels were FN produced (or at least explicitly mentioned to be). I have no experience with anything but a nitride freedom upper though.

My mistake, looks like the standard premium barrels are (were?) also FN. I spent alot of time shopping for my PSA upper and I never saw a non-CHF FN barrel advertised and so I went with the nitride "freedom" instead. Wish I could have gotten one of those.

Thanks. I too bought the nitride Freedom rifle kit and with the exception that the BCG is the roughest example I've ever seen (I plan to replace it or at least buy a backup BCG), I'm actually quite happy with it. I had to use the forward assist on the very first round and then never a hiccup since and it seems to be more accurate than my aging eyes. I caught it on sale in January for $399 and I figure I got what I paid for - it's only a range toy that spends 99.9% of its time in the safe and I don't expect to ever bet my life on it.

[Norman]

Again, this will be a general reply to a number of your, and others, recent comments. In particular I'll address two points.

The first applies particularly to a number of your comments, but others can be guilty as well. Maybe it's not intentional on your part, and it my seem lazy for me to repeat portions of my last post, but you seem to have an affinity for non sequiturs. I get it, they are one of the more effective logical fallacies; as they require some rough elements of truth. In this specific instance, it's found in the "pistols and rifles" argument.

Assumption 1 - Cheap (inexpensive) pistols are equal to cheap ARs

Assumption 2 - Cheap pistols are not reliable, or chosen, for self defense

Conclusion- Cheap ARs are not reliable, and shouldn't be chosen, for self defense

This logic is flawed on multiple levels. First, the assumptions are inaccurate. Reliability of a firearm is drawn from design and configuation of the components. For pistols, the designs and configurations vary. Sure, the basic function of an auto loading pistol is going to be the same across brands. But one can't take an M&P slide and slap it on a Glock frame. Very few parts are interchangeable between models and brands. So, your attempt to correlate pistols to the AR platform simply doesn't play. What makes the AR platform inherently reliable are the same elements necessary with pistols; the design of the platform and configuration of the parts. While pistol components largely cannot be swapped, the exact opposite is true for ARs. As an example, suppose we had an Armalite AR from the 90s and a Stag fresh off the assembly line today. One by one, we could swap just about every component between the rifles; and both would still function.

The second assumption also takes some liberties that may not be correct. What makes a pistol cheap? And of the pistols that would fall into that category, are they all unreliable? Given the specific brands you call out when referencing "cheap" pistols, it seems that price is basically the primary variable. So, let's start with a good pistol; Glock. Ballpark pricing is around $500. One of their biggest competitors is S&W; and most would agree that they're rough equals in reliability. S&W pistols, like the Sheild and M&P, often sell in the $300-$400 range; or 20-40% less than the cost of a Glock. We could do the same cost comparisons with models from Brands like Ruger, Springfield, etc., but the point would remain the same. Now, your claim that people don't choose these brands and models for defensive carry is untrue. There are plenty of instances where individuals have used these examples in defensive situations; and they performed as required. Having identified what makes a pistol qualify as "cheap", let's apply the same formula to rifles. I'll use Colt, as they're the "standard" you'd likely site. They run about $1000. Thus, "cheap" rifles would be those in the $600-$800 range. Models from brands like PSA, Ruger, Wyndham, and S&W can all be found in this price range. So, people that chose these models and brands, expecting them to be reliable, are no less reasonable than those people who choose the "cheap" pistols.

As evidenced by the sections above, the conclusion you've attempted to draw simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Even if my position differs from yours, regarding what makes a firearm qualify as "cheap", the more important point stands. Given that the AR platform, in terms of functional configuration, is essentially identical across the spectrum of all brands, pistols simply cannot be used as a meter to draw conclusions about ARs.

Now, my second major point regarding this debate boils down to futility. Those taking the position that certain Brands are not worthy will often site lack of evidence, and challenge those holding opposing views to provide data to prove otherwise. Nothing wrong with this. However, the goalposts are continually being moved. It generally goes something like this...

Person A- "You need to take a Class, and then report back."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, what I really meant is that you need to take multiple classes under X conditions."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, you just don't know and it's a sample of one. I've been to every AR factory, have seen the assembly lines and standards, and Company X does so much more than Company Y."

No evidence presented will ever be sufficient. And even when evidence is provided, it often results in the "authority" making claims that amount to "Just take my word for it." If not the "trust me" line, instead they'll use more non sequiturs. Earlier someone mentioned how Travis Haley used a BM overseas, and that it performed in harsh conditions during major firefights. And, it's no secret that plenty of other contractors used bushy ARs during their time in the Middle East. So what was the reply? "Well, Travis didn't choose to run a BM." That point is irrelevant. So what if he didn't chose it. Did it not perform as required? And, if saying Travis didn't choose it somehow proves a point, then shouldn't the decision by his Contracting firm to select BM rifles be of equal merit? Also, I doubt Travis would willingly put his life on the line if he had no faith in BM rifles. And if Blackwater was seeing major failures, I'd have to believe they would have reevaluated their selection.

I could go on, but what's the point. As stated earlier, no amount of evidence would suffice. If, as a community, we purchased 5 Colt ARs and 5 PSA's with the intention of running them through a reliability test, trying to draw conclusions would be futile. If they performed equally, the goalposts would be moved. There'd be claims that the test wasn't hard enough, that it was a fluke to have all the PSAs perform, etc. If the Colt outperformed, many would call it undeniable proof that a PSA cannot perform like a Colt. But if the PSA outperformed the Colt, that same group would say the test isn't statistically significant. It's a complete crapshoot. No matter how big of a sample size. The path of the discussion is so predictable that we could make a flowchart.

TL;DR - More non sequiturs are not the solution. Try again.

Well said.

[wildcard600]

Thanks. I too bought the nitride Freedom rifle kit and with the exception that the BCG is the roughest example I've ever seen (I plan to replace it or at least buy a backup BCG), I'm actually quite happy with it. I had to use the forward assist on the very first round and then never a hiccup since and it seems to be more accurate than my aging eyes. I caught it on sale in January for $399 and I figure I got what I paid for - it's only a range toy that spends 99.9% of its time in the safe and I don't expect to ever bet my life on it.

Yeah, I wasn't brave enough to use a PSA BCG as I have yet to see one in real life that dosen't look pretty terrible along with all the reports of poorly constructed ones. My barrel had a bunch of cosmoline looking brown stuff inside that I assume was rust preventative that caused stuck cases until I got it cleaned out and the front site post (FSB is fine) was rusted and looked like they picked it up out of the parking lot. BUT for the $189 (IIRC) shipped that I paid it runs good on the castoff/leftover parts pistol that built with it.

[26 Inf]

Again, this will be a general reply to a number of your, and others, recent comments. In particular I'll address two points.

The first applies particularly to a number of your comments, but others can be guilty as well. Maybe it's not intentional on your part, and it my seem lazy for me to repeat portions of my last post, but you seem to have an affinity for non sequiturs. I get it, they are one of the more effective logical fallacies; as they require some rough elements of truth. In this specific instance, it's found in the "pistols and rifles" argument........

I could go on, but what's the point.
TL;DR - More non sequiturs are not the solution. Try again.

Everything that I've read from you has been thoughtful and well constructed. Something I think we should all appreciate regardless of our beliefs.

[Kdubya]

Everything that I've read from you has been thoughtful and well constructed. Something I think we should all appreciate regardless of our beliefs.

Thanks 26, I appreciate the kind words. Too often valid points on each side are lost because of personal attacks, so I try to keep it about the merit of ideas. Doesn't mean I'll always be right, or everyone will agree, but that won't stop me from challenging opinions that seem inadequate.

[Kdubya]

I don't think the question is "Can PSA make a decent gun ?", I think they have proven that they can indeed make a AR-15 that will run with Colt,BCM,DD. If you choose the top shelf "premium" parts AND PSA's QC team actually showed up to work that day you have a pretty good chance of getting something on par with the above mentioned "top tier" brands.

The problem lies in PSA's lousy QC/QA, and the fact that their product line runs the gamut from likely GTG (FN Barreled uppers) to complete garbage (PTAC). So the result is one man's PSA gun (PTAC) is not the same as another man's PSA gun (FN barrel and premium bits). One can't simply say "PSA is GTG" with such wide variance in product quality offered and piss poor QA/QC to boot.

Most people can not be bothered to go into the minutiae of explaining the rube goldberg PSA product line when someone asks "Is PSA any good ?". Its easier to simply answer that they are not as good as other companies like Colt, DD or BCM who don't dilute their brand by offering trash as well as good parts and who have actual QA/QC.

My PSA runs like a sewing machine (after I fixed it) and trust it nearly as much as my BCM stuff (which has never failed). But when my friends ask me about parts and uppers I send them to BCM or Sionics because I don't want to risk them getting some bum shit and having to deal with crappy CS.

^^^I can definitely respect and appreciate this point of view. Unfortunately, not everyone can be this objective. Often brands like PSA are treated as though they could never do anything right, or that they could never put out a product that will hold its own against the "top tier". It might be a small contingent, but they're pretty vocal.

One thing I've harped on previously is equity, and I think that applies here. Using your example of PSA's portfolio of rifles, you raise a point that is generally not applied equally. There is certainly a difference between PTAC and their Premium FN models. However, that shouldn't necessarily dictate that we judge them by the lowest common denominator. We could, but that same scrutiny needs to be applied to someone like Colt. By that same token, we should be able to judge Colt based upon the Expanse. In instances where the Expanse is mentioned, any critique is quickly squashed. The general tone is, "The Expanse had been discussed, we're not going to go through it all over again; just disregard that model." This wouldn't be a problem if other brands were afforded that same courtesy; but they're not. No one says don't buy a 6920 because Colt has diluted it's brand with the Expanse.

Regarding recommendations to friends, I get it. If someone doesn't have the appetite of ability for understanding the intricacies, it's better to play it safe. Howerver, when you've told them to go with Colt, do you typically add a caveat that they should avoid the Expanse? That question is not really directed towards you, and was more so rhetorical. I'm fairly confident that type of advice has likely been given. So, is it really any more complex to tell someone, "If you're going PSA stay away from anything PTAC and stick with the Premium line." This is obviously not a one size fits all, and we need to know our audience. Some people out there can be given very specific instructions and still find a way to mess things up. But, apples to apples, advice to avoid PTAC is no more complex than advice to avoid the Exapnse.

Again, I appreciate your position and definitely agree it has merit. Above all else, acknowledgeding that PSA can make a rifle on par with the "accepted" brands is not something many are willing to do. I definitely respect your objectivity. Out of curiosity, what did you need to do to fix your PSA?

[Stickman]

Again, I appreciate your position and definitely agree it has merit. Above all else, acknowledgeding that PSA can make a rifle on par with the "accepted" brands is not something many are willing to do. I definitely respect your objectivity.

I don't think anyone here believes that everything PSA makes is utter garbage. The issue most posters have is they do not sell a known good product with any form of regularity.

I own an Olympic Arms that is wonderfully reliable. A fellow instructor had an Olympic Arms which he had over 80k through with his SS barrel and it still grouped well enough. I pulled it from service due to the barrel extension peening, OA replaced the entire URG for him. Two wonderful examples does not mean OA put out a fantastic product. OA manufactured their own products and were able to determine the level of QC. Based on PSA accepting rejects and reselling them, and their lack of manufacturing, I place them below OA.

It is common for people to attempt to justify their "nicer" purchases from an emotional attachment. However, when you find knowledgeable detached professionals with no personal skin in the game with continual negative experiences, it takes that same emotional attachment to attempt to justify their brand being as good as others.

[JC5188]

^^^I can definitely respect and appreciate this point of view. Unfortunately, not everyone can be this objective. Often brands like PSA are treated as though they could never do anything right, or that they could never put out a product that will hold its own against the "top tier". It might be a small contingent, but they're pretty vocal.

One thing I've harped on previously is equity, and I think that applies here. Using your example of PSA's portfolio of rifles, you raise a point that is generally not applied equally. There is certainly a difference between PTAC and their Premium FN models. However, that shouldn't necessarily dictate that we judge them by the lowest common denominator. We could, but that same scrutiny needs to be applied to someone like Colt. By that same token, we should be able to judge Colt based upon the Expanse. In instances where the Expanse is mentioned, any critique is quickly squashed. The general tone is, "The Expanse had been discussed, we're not going to go through it all over again; just disregard that model." This wouldn't be a problem if other brands were afforded that same courtesy; but they're not. No one says don't buy a 6920 because Colt has diluted it's brand with the Expanse.

Regarding recommendations to friends, I get it. If someone doesn't have the appetite of ability for understanding the intricacies, it's better to play it safe. Howerver, when you've told them to go with Colt, do you typically add a caveat that they should avoid the Expanse? That question is not really directed towards you, and was more so rhetorical. I'm fairly confident that type of advice has likely been given. So, is it really any more complex to tell someone, "If you're going PSA stay away from anything PTAC and stick with the Premium line." This is obviously not a one size fits all, and we need to know our audience. Some people out there can be given very specific instructions and still find a way to mess things up. But, apples to apples, advice to avoid PTAC is no more complex than advice to avoid the Exapnse.

Again, I appreciate your position and definitely agree it has merit. Above all else, acknowledgeding that PSA can make a rifle on par with the "accepted" brands is not something many are willing to do. I definitely respect your objectivity. Out of curiosity, what did you need to do to fix your PSA?

You continually bring up the expanse. That rifle was nearly universally panned here, and Colt excoriated for putting out "garbage". I don't know why you keep mentioning it like it gets a pass. It does not.

I know this, because I was one of a (very) few that defended Colt for putting it out as an entry level rifle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SupraT]

I have a few PSA branded Microbest bolt carrier groups that work without issue. I doubt I will ever have a problem with them compared to some of my "nicer" ones.