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

[JC0352]

As I pointed out early on it is like the consumer report that ranks the Hyundai over the Honda because the Hyundai has more speakers and better acceleration. It is missing the quality of manufacturing component.


I am open to any reasonable and understandable definition of reliability.

I have been using the statement of failure to function out of the box.

Let say when it is delivered reliablity is failure to fire, failure to cycle or extremely poor accuracy.

A true analysis would include time and rounds fired.

I don't think you could use the car argument... The two cars could be in the same class, but there are no standards to use as a baseline. ARs are based on a military weapon, which has minimum standards in regard to dimensions, materials used, yada yada. Doesn't common sense dictate that the weapon that doesn't meet some of those standards will be more likely to fail?

[justin_247]

As I pointed out early on it is like the consumer report that ranks the Hyundai over the Honda because the Hyundai has more speakers and better acceleration. It is missing the quality of manufacturing component.

There is a myriad of information on this website regarding quality of manufacture.

Just on the chart, for example, the purpose of HPT and MPI is to verify that a component meets quality control standards so as to increase lifespan, strength, and reliability, ie, to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failure. The purpose of using the proper quality of steel in the manufacture of barrels is to increase lifespan, reliability, accuracy, and avert catastrophic failure under high-stress conditions. The purpose of checking to see whether the carrier key or the castle nut is properly staked is to ensure that the weapon doesn't come apart after usage, thereby inducing a potentially catastrophic failure. The purpose of parkerizing underneath the FSB is in order to ensure that it is removable in case one needs to replace a broken one or a bad gas tube or barrel. The purpose of using a mil-spec receiver extension instead of a commercial-spec one is to ensure that the inferior metal the commercial extension is manufactured out of doesn't fail in a high-stress environment, such as using it to knock in a door, and to ensure maximum compatibility with most stocks.

And this is just the absolute baseline of the information out there that exists. Whether or not a company does these things speaks measures about the quality of rifles produced by said manufacturer.

I could go on and on about just the chart. The SMEs on this website have forgotten more about these weapons than the vast, vast majority of people learn in a lifetime, and can explain in far greater detail the above information and why things are.

If you really want to go into quality details, there's a plethora of information on other items on this website. There are threads discussing why certain castle nuts and receiver end plates from certain brands are superior to others in strength due to their metallic composition. There are threads on why Carpenter 158 is used on bolts versus other kinds of steel. There are threads on the benefits of 7075 aluminum versus 6061.

But all of this is useless if you simply hang out in this thread asking mindless questions without bothering to actually hang around the site and read a little!

[STAFF]

When it's posted right below the post it is obvious. Key is staked fine. If I told you it was colt you prob shove it right up your... Upper receiver.

Stupidity and acting like an idiot is not something we take to well around here.

Bye.

[RogerinTPA]

I see that the "chart haters" have low post counts. This shows me that they need to research this forum quite a bit more and they will quickly see that this forum does NOT beat up on the "non chart" manufacturer's, they simply show proof as to why they would not defend their lives or the lives of others with that specific "non chart" rifle. Ignorance is not an excuse or proof that ........... Well, see the thread title.

Mouth breathers with nothing to do from TOS and other forums, cheering and heaping praise on BM, OLY, DPMS, Stag....etc... because, it's what they own and are emotionally attached. It happens a couple of times a year.

[STAFF]

Folks, keep to technical discussions. If you don't know what you are talking about, understand what the chart really says or are just upset that you bought a low quality AR and are wanting to justify it, step away from the keyboard or you will find yourself looking in from the outside.

[seacoastnh]

How did the wheels fall off of this so quick?

I do not think the information seacoast is demanding exists. I'm unaware of any scientific study, that lists the numbers of rifles produced by every manufacturer, and also has an all encompassing list of every single malfunction, by every single rifle, with every single owner/operator, distilled down to cause, to eliminate ammo, magazine and operator error.

So, yea, you can keep demanding "proof", because you know its not there.


Bob

What I did was point out a significant deficiency in the chart.

I did demand proof once Justin made the following claim that it existed:

Statistically insignificant based upon quality control and the company's eagerness to understand any problems and correct them.

I suspect Colt could tell you the number of defects they will likely produce next year. I will concede that it is not likely to happen and that the information on failure rates for various manufacturers is not readily available.

The point is that the chart fails to address manufacturing quality in any meaningful way.

The Koolaid drinkers and those wearing the effete yellow visor claim that my observation is false or that the chart is misunderstood.

I am not looking for the information, I am not asking for the information except sarcastically in response to one of ROb_S' posts as way of reinforcing my point.

Does the chart mean that the DD is an order of magnitude more reliable than the S&W? Two orders of magnitude? Three?

The chart can't quantify reliability.

I am comfortable with my purchases.

As an aside you only need a statistically significant sample, not information on every failure of every rifle.

[Doc Safari]

I don't think you could use the car argument... The two cars could be in the same class, but there are no standards to use as a baseline. ARs are based on a military weapon, which has minimum standards in regard to dimensions, materials used, yada yada. Doesn't common sense dictate that the weapon that doesn't meet some of those standards will be more likely to fail?

A better analogy would be a real German HK91 versus one of the Century 922(r) compliant builds. I think there would be no doubt that the genuine Heckler & Koch rifle would be superior to a gun being sold as a replica by Century Arms. You have to think of the "right of chart" M4's as being more like Century builds, and "left of chart" M4's as being more like the genuine military rifle.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow if you just spent $900 on a Bushmaster, DPMS, Spike's, or CMMG, or something, but I had to finally admit years ago that, yes, there really is a difference in AR quality.

[justin_247]

I suspect Colt could tell you the number of defects they will likely produce next year. I will concede that it is not likely to happen and that the information on failure rates for various manufacturers is not readily available.

The point is that the chart fails to address manufacturing quality in any meaningful way.

The Koolaid drinkers and those wearing the effete yellow visor claim that my observation is false or that the chart is misunderstood.

I am not looking for the information, I am not asking for the information except sarcastically in response to one of ROb_S' posts as way of reinforcing my point.

Does the chart mean that the DD is an order of magnitude more reliable than the S&W? Two orders of magnitude? Three?

The chart can't quantify reliability.

I am comfortable with my purchases.

As an aside you only need a statistically significant sample, not information on every failure of every rifle.

So, this data is so important to you, but you're not going to call any of the major manufacturers or any of the people that I mentioned and try to get said data? If you refuse to do that, then you have accomplished nothing except waste a ton of air. Raising a criticism but doing nothing to help means that all you've done is wasted air.

You want consumer data? Pick up the newspaper and see how many bad guys got gunned down with soldiers wielding these weapons yesterday. When you're done with that, look and see who's manufacturing those weapons... HINT HINT: it ain't Bushmaster!

What you fail to understand is that the TDP, from which the chart was based, is the result of decades of research and design from government agencies cooperating with the firearms industry to determine how to ensure that the *millions* of rifles being fielded are reliable right off the shelf. The TDP, and the chart that follows from it, are the result of decades of the very same consumer reporting data that you're requesting.

[seacoastnh]

I don't think you could use the car argument... The two cars could be in the same class, but there are no standards to use as a baseline. ARs are based on a military weapon, which has minimum standards in regard to dimensions, materials used, yada yada. Doesn't common sense dictate that the weapon that doesn't meet some of those standards will be more likely to fail?

I made the statement earlier that the highest quality parts and highest quality manufacturing processes are likely to produce the most reliable product.

That is a fair criticism of the car analogy. The fact remains just because a manufacturer starts with a box of milspec parts and performs whatever test, absent manufacturing controls reliability is not a certainty.

The chart only addresses what the manufacturing process starts with, not the process itself.

[JC0352]

The fact remains just because a manufacturer starts with a box of milspec parts and performs whatever test, absent manufacturing controls reliability is not a certainty.

Proper assembly of those parts during manufacturing is crucial to a reliable weapon, but if Bushmaster/RRA, etc. settles for lower quality steel and batch testing instead of testing everything, do you think they're inclined to put the parts together as well as Colt/BCM, who goes the extra mile in parts quality and testing?