The Official Why My DPMS, Del-Ton, Oly Arms, Etc. Is Better Than Anything Else Thread

[Mac5.56]

Why was my post of my bcg deleted.

He said bushmaster. It was obvious he was speaking to me by saying "make it work". Don't know why you're denying it.
Also my statements are off my first hand knowledge.

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.

[Mac5.56]

Everything I have read from the detractors up to this point really comes down to my original statement:

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

[CaptainDooley]

The second post, linked below, by btaksier complains of out of the box problems with his BCM.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=65753

No one seems to be calling BS on the claim, so I believe it is valid. Possibly even a fact.

That link goes to a post about a parallax tactical barrel installed by the end user. How does BCM figure into that?

[STAFF]

Why was my post of my bcg deleted.

He said bushmaster. It was obvious he was speaking to me by saying "make it work". Don't know why you're denying it.
Also my statements are off my first hand knowledge.

We deleted your pic of a BCG because it had no value (as you simply posted a pic of a BCG with comments).

No, it was not obvious which is why we called you on it and your low none technical posts.

[seacoastnh]

That link goes to a post about a parallax tactical barrel installed by the end user. How does BCM figure into that?

Sorry about that I meant to link to the 12 moa upper.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61361

[C4IGrant]

Sorry about that I meant to link to the 12 moa upper.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61361

One barrel not shooting that good of a group is not something I would be concerned about. Now if you see 100 of them, then I would be alarmed.


C4

[seacoastnh]

I like the way [insert brand here] Trucks look. But I trust a mechanic more then myself if that mechanic tells me that said brand is prone to breaking, and having problems. You are making a hollow argument against people with real world experience.

If the combination of quality parts decreases both in the field and out of box failures, then the chart holds every bit of knowledge that you are claiming it doesn't. I realize that is hard for you to wrap your head around, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept. A+B=C.

Maybe you should re-take whatever class gave you an introduction into the Scientific Process.

Thanks for providing the anticipated anecdotal response.

I don't even know where to begin with you.

Can you state your purpose/question in one simple straightforward sentence so that perhaps someone can make sense of it and attempt to respond?

So far every one of your posts is not much more than ranting and raving and I'm unsure how anyone is supposed to respond to that.

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.

[seacoastnh]

One barrel not shooting that good of a group is not something I would be concerned about. Now if you see 100 of them, then I would be alarmed.


C4

That is my question, is it one failure in five million or is it one in a hundred?

Not just for BCM, but for all the manufacturers.

[dieselgeek]

We deleted your pic of a BCG because it had no value (as you simply posted a pic of a BCG with comments).

No, it was not obvious which is why we called you on it and your low none technical posts.

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 is

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

IB4 generic 1 and a million reply.

[stifled]

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.

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.