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

[Palmguy]

Wow, this thing has jumped the shark. Shocking.

No I don't believe that at all and I did not make that claim. The highest quality parts coupled with the best process are most likely to yield the highest quality result.

I have no involvement in the industry and I do not claim to be an expert on manufacturing. Just pissing in the Koolaid of the chart worshippers by pointing out the claims of quality in the sacred chart are not supported by any numbers.

Perhaps you should stay in your lane, open your ears and listen and dial back the admitted trolling then. You see to want to force the discussion here into your preconceived dialog of "chart worshippers".

The point you brought up about parkerizing under the FSB is a perfect example:

"You say that I don't know does lack of finish under the front sight base results in a weapon more likely to fail? According to the chart it results in an inferior weapon so that means less accurate, shorter life span, more likely not to function out of the box or what?"

This isn't even a claim you are making about so-called worshippers of the chart, but you are actually saying that the chart is making a claim that it is demonstrably not (quite the opposite in fact), as pointed out by JC0352.

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.

You are correct that you are extremely unlikely to see internal QC data of any kind publicized by any company...and as such, it really is a pointless question. You've stated as much anyways by basically admitting that you are trying to stir the pot and lob rhetorical points over the fence.

No, the chart doesn't "mean" that any particular rifle is any order of magnitude more "reliable" than any other rifle. It also doesn't claim to. The prevailing sentiment in this community is not that a Colt is 1.687 times less likely to fail than a Bushmaster, so stop trying to put everything into that little compartment. It is a collection of features that are present in the M4 carbine used by the United States military, and the chart itself in tandem with the myriad of technical threads on this forum in which we are graced with the presence of subject matter experts in things like 'manufacturing processes' explain why these features are desirable in a fighting carbine. Take it for what it is, and stop trying to make it something it's not.

If you are comfortable with your purchases, rock on.

On a side note, I would recommend that you tone down the "effete" and "stupidity" comments or you will probably run into problems here.

[87GN]

I don't know does lack of finish under the front sight base results in a weapon more likely to fail? According to the chart it results in an inferior weapon so that means less accurate, shorter life span, more likely not to function out of the box or what?

In my experience, it results in rust under the FSB, which can cause FSB removal to be quite difficult.

[bulbvivid]

If nobody's going to start singing kumbayah together, then somebody ought to douse the fire and send everyone to their bunks.

[The_Hammer_Man]

When someone comes to me for information about AR-15/M-16's they usually ask me which brands/types of rifles/carbines I like and why.

In other words they're asking me which of the plethora of weapons being manufactured today do I have faith in. I then answer them by sharing information about products that I've "had good luck with" or that have consistently given me the results I wanted.
1) reliability

2) accuracy

IN THAT ORDER!

Why that order? Because sometimes,not always, in order to get one you have to sacrifice the other. With that said let me add that THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS to that rule. If you have any experience in fabricating or servicing AR-15/M-16's you know this for fact. It's a never ending search for "known good" parts and being meticulous in your assembly of those parts.

Definition of faith in this instance is :

The expectation that the weapon in question will go bang in a reliable and accurate fashion every time you squeeze the trigger.

How can we support that expectation? By making sure that all the parts being installed in our weapons meet a certain tolerances and consistency. It is impossible to hit the bullseye every time so they've developed testing parameters to help "keep them in the black". It's not perfect but it's the best mere humans can do at this time.

When I first looked at "The Chart" I was rather amused to find most of my part sources on there.(on both sides of the "line") Also, I found sources that I hadn't considered before.
(no examples here.. not setting off a brand war!)
This helped me to upgrade the quality of parts I was using in my builds.

Why was that important to me? It increased the amount of "faith" I had in my finished product. It allowed me to base my expectations of reliability and accuracy upon "known good" parts and accessories.

Now let's address assembly of those parts.
IF you start with "known good" parts, and keep all your ducks in a row, you SHOULD be able to assemble a reliable rifle/carbine that will perform up to expectation.

Your mileage will vary!!!!!

Give 10 cooks the same ingredients/recipe to make a cake and you'll end up with TEN DIFFERENT TASTING CAKES!! They'll be similar but not equal. Some will be better than others period.

Gonna stop now because I'm going brain dead.

[seacoastnh]

No, the chart doesn't "mean" that any particular rifle is any order of magnitude more "reliable" than any other rifle. It also doesn't claim to. The prevailing sentiment in this community is not that a Colt is 1.687 times less likely to fail than a Bushmaster, so stop trying to put everything into that little compartment. It is a collection of features that are present in the M4 carbine used by the United States military, and the chart itself in tandem with the myriad of technical threads on this forum in which we are graced with the presence of subject matter experts in things like 'manufacturing processes' explain why these features are desirable in a fighting carbine. Take it for what it is, and stop trying to make it something it's not.

If you are comfortable with your purchases, rock on.

On a side note, I would recommend that you tone down the "effete" and "stupidity" comments or you will probably run into problems here.

Your are right about the parkerizing. I could parse the language used in the chart, but it off my initial point.

I believe the author and primary proponent of the chart has made the claim that one of the purposes of the chart is to assist individuals new to the AR in picking a "quality" AR. The search is not working for me so I can't say for sure. I claim reliability is a fundamental component of quality. Since the chart can't quanity reliability it can't quantify quality. Had the point been merely acknowledged early on the suffering would have been over earlier.

As for "effete" and "stupidity" I always wait for the first stone to be cast by someone else, it was in response to "idjitts" and "mindless" respectively.

Pointing out a deficiency in the sacred chart was a tough call. I expected and recieved irrational responses. Not many substantive responses, while some profess to understand chaos and variation theory they seem incapable of admitting the chart does not account for it.

[CaptainDooley]

I would say this - if manufacturer is aware of the correct parts and intentionally doesn't use them and intentionally doesn't testthem properly, they more than likely do not have a quality assembly process. Whereas a manufacturer who understands the correct pates to use, as well as the correct testing and correct criteria for passing said testing, likely understands and adheres to proper assembly (which is actually demonstrated by the two staking items on the chart).

Also, I don't have the link because I'm on my phone, but there was a thread here that showed that properly made bolts and barrels, when tested properly, would have around a 3% rejection rate, whereas the same parts made from inferior materials, if held to the same standard of testing would be around 30% failure rate. Surprisingly the manufacturers using inferior materials only batch test, if they test at all. While this isn't hard, factual numbers about actual failures, simple logic should help you extrapolate some pretty accurate numbers of faulty parts put out by companies on the right of the chart.

[CaptainDooley]

I smell a teenager that thinks he is smarter then he is.

Naw, as many times as he's said "Chaos Theory", I'd assume he's a sophomore in college (they're the worst in undergrad) or a new graduate student that's taking his first advanced math course and thought he could come on here and school a bunch of "dumb trigger pullers". Sad thing for him is, anyone can go on any forum, and some of us that wound up here aren't trigger pullers, but are more in "Mensa Members" category...

[theforge]

Ok, I have been so amused by a lot of the comments I have seen here. First, I long preferred the M1/M14 type action, so when I first came here, not too long ago, I had two AR type rifles and was looking for a piston gun. My reasoning was I wanted something new but always like the piston system better (personal preference, not because I feel DI is inferior). The obvious choice at the time was the Stag, but when I looked at "the chart" and it put a lot in perspective. My first experience was with a colt m16 which I learned to shoot Marine Corps ROTC. My first AR that I owned was a Sabre Defence. I wanted an A2 rifle for high power so I built it with a cheap lower and a BM Target upper. Even then I could tell the difference. The Sabre Defence was just smoother in its cycle and balance, but I attributed it to the BM being new and an A2 vs M4gery. But then I read the chart and it reinforced what I knew in my gut, that the Sabre was just better. The BM met my needs, I score well in NRA Highpower without mods, but an SHTF rifle it is not. It would make a good loner to a neighbor in such a situation, but I wouldn't trust MY life with it when I could go with my Sabre. Then I decided to go with the LMT MRP, mostly because I find lately I tinker more than I shoot so I wanted something I could modify to meet my needs at whatever moment. The first time I took it out, I could tell it was crafted from a different timber. The point I'm trying to make, is that I'm a rifle man. I know quality when I see it. and while I can't vouch for all the brands on the left, I can vouch for a few, and they definitely are made better than those on the right. An I believe it is because the follow the QC guidelines stated. I feel complete confidence in taking my LMT or Sabre into a firefight. During the craziness of the last couple years, many so called high quality brands tarnished their reputations by trying to get guns out the door. This is well known, Sig, DPMS, olympic, even Colt (with their handguns only) are names that come up often. Did they fix and address those problems, yes (sig can be a pain). But what if you bought your rifle today and the SHTF tomorrow. There won't be a customer service rep to help you. I haven't heard of one issue with the rifles on the left.

[Iraqgunz]

seacoastnh,

I don't know if you are intentionally stirring the shit pot or if it's because you don't know any better. One thing I can say is when I read your posts and those of dieselgeek I actually regret starting this thread.

My reason for starting it was to read some first hand reports from those who have AR's from some of the manufacturers listed above as well as other lessen known or recognized brands.

Unfortunately there are still many who think that all AR's are the same and that parts are parts. Fortunately there are enough people that have the knowledge and experience to know what a bunch of crap that really is.

Also let me state that I almost never reference the "chart" nor do I care about the "chart". I base my opinions on my exeprience or that of other(s) whom I know to be competent and educated people.

Some people will not listen to any amount of reason and that's too bad. Another issue is that we have people buying AR's who have no clue as to how it works, it's history or anything else and certainly never carried one in a combat situation. This thread also proves something that has been stated numerous times. People hate to be told they're wrong or that they made a bad choice. And that instead of purchasing an AR for serious purposes it is used for punching paper or impressing friends.

Because let's face it. If YOU truly cared about the quality of your weapon and the potential consequences of it failing NO ONE in their right mind would buy a PIECE OF SHIT. I know that saying this is going to hurt some peoples feelings, but I don't care.

Something that would really, really make me happy would be if I could log-in to this site and never read another bad thing about any of the so-called "lesser brands". But, I have no control over that. The only one who does is the manufacturer. And they have no need to improve because they are consistently rewarded by those who are uneducated and continue to fork money over for their products.

In closing let me say this. I was actually a big hater of the M16. I thought is was a POS and not worthy. Then I started to learn about the weapon and how certain changes were made that deviated from it's original design, which in turn led to problems. I also started to learn that problems with the weapon were most often due to improper maintenance, crap ammo, shitty magazines and bad training practices.

I can now firmly say that I am one of it's largest proponents and I know from first hand experience that if the weapon is MADE CORRECTLY, and you do your job then the weapon will perform as it should.

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.

[Iraqgunz]

One more thing. A STAFF member asked that this thread get back on track and post relevant information pertaining to the spirit of this thread. Please, listen to that advice and let's do so before more people get nuked.