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

[Norman]

If someone would like to do a research project that would really be of high value, why not try to gather the "failure rate" data from the various manufacturers? All of them seem to offer a "lifetime warranty," so they should know how many returns there have been, and what the failure was.

This statement shows your limited comprehension of the subject matter.
Although I’m sure companies keep statistics on what percentage of guns are returned, I can’t imagine them releasing accurate info of the type you are asking for. Also, not everyone that has a failure or issue, sends the gun back to the manufacturer.
A better method would be to get opinions from professional trainers that see many different brands on a weekly basis. That would be statistical data one could use.

[nolanwb]

This statement shows your limited comprehension of the subject matter.
Although I’m sure companies keep statistics on what percentage of guns are returned, I can’t imagine them releasing accurate info of the type you are asking for. Also, not everyone that has a failure or issue, sends the gun back to the manufacturer.
A better method would be to get opinions from professional trainers that see many different brands on a weekly basis. That would be statistical data one could use.

In your opinion, I have limited comprehension of the subject matter. I had hoped that the responders would attack the message and not the messenger, but forget that. Like many people in society some "assume" this and that about another person. I've made not such judgment about others because it lacks relevance.

In your limited comprehension of the subject matter, if any manufacturer of AR rifles had a very good failure rate, they should be pleased to have it posted. Only those with poor statistics would or should be hesitant.

[Don Robison]

I had hoped that the responders would attack the message and not the messenger, but forget that.

It might help your position if you told people what your credentials are other than just shooting it before it was the M16. There are a lot of people who have shot prototypes that don't know squat about the system they are shooting. I'm not picking on you; just giving some friendly advice.

[nolanwb]

"Very sorry that I didn't read all of the ten zillion posts on this topic. I'll try to do better in the future. However, at my age I can't promise. I do find all of these posts particularly interesting since I am, most likely, the first person on this board to fire the weapon which was to become the M-16. We thought that the USAF had lost its mind since it was such a departure from the Garand, the M14, and/or the M1 Carbine, etc."

Just because you shot the weapon that became the M16 doesn't mean you know much about it. If you were to speak about flying a C130 in Vietnam I am sure many of us would be interested in what you had to say.

The reason many people come here is to learn about the M4. No one is here to make you read or belive anything. Not many will want to listen to your foolish statements either.

Just as I imagined, you attack the messenger and not the message. And, it doesn't matter that I flew the C-130 during Vietnam any more than it matters that anyone else served in a particular theater. We did what we did. But, any intelligent person looks around and learns regardless of what they were doing in a particular action. And, if anyone is interested in a particular thing, they probably have spent hours researching pertinent information.

What's the point of your statement "Not many will want to listen to your foolish statements either?" Tell me why I should listen to your opinion, in that case? Where college did you attend? Again, there's nothing to be gained in slamming people.

I have just noted that others here have made the comment that they wouldn't want to rely on a particular brand of weapon/rifle for their survival. My point was why one should rely on a single weapon for their survival. Perhaps I went the long way around to make the point. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't prove or solve anything by attacking another person. I'll be pleased to match intelligence with you if that's what you are implying by your "foolish" remarks statement.

I wasn't bragging that I was one of the first people to shoot the AR, just showing how long I have been interested in the particular weapons system. Read my message again if I failed to make the point. And, I was trying to make the point that I am still interested in learning more. Visiting this board is not my only resource for the AR, nor has it been for years and years, even though it is a very good one. "Every person is my superior in that I may learn from them."

In addition, I was, and am, simply trying to make the point that it would help to have actual statistical data to evaluate any company that makes the M-4, etc., before writing them off completely. That's whether one can get such data, or not. But, if a particular company were to have a very small failure rate of their components, they should not be hesitant to share such info with prospective customers. It would be really great for sales. If some companies were to respond, while others did not respond to a questionnaire, that should be of interest, too. It seems that this would be useful information for everyone on this board. The M-4 is a "version" of the M-16 or AR platform, so the data should cut both ways.

[usmcvet]

You came across as arrogant and looking for a fight. Looks like the second assumption was right on. Arguing with you is not something I am interested in Doing. I went to Norwich University. Where did you go to school?

[CoryCop25]

It's very interesting to read everyone's opinion on what is the best rifle on the market. However, much of it seems to be based on theory rather than statistical data. Statements like "the RRA or the Stag rifles suck" really don't "git 'er done." Or, a statement like "one of my friends owns a XYZ rifle and it's a piece of crap," doesn't give one anything of value. One needs much more statistical data to make a reasonable judgment.

Please research the forum as well as you can and look for less aggressive posts and threads on this matter. The statistical data is out there and glowing like the sun. First off, the well educated users on this forum will not say RRA, Stag, S&W M&P, Bushmaster and so on and so on "suck".
The more informed members will explain to you the use of improper barrel steel (4140 vs 4150), wrong front sight sizes (F marked), poor carrier key staking (no matter what Young manufacturing says), no castle nut staking, shrouded or non shrouded bolt carriers, M-16/ AR-15 bolt carriers, out of spec chambers, wrong twist rate, and poor small parts quality control.
These issues, or combinations of, cause the above mentioned brands to be less reliable than brands that are equal to or better than the TDP such as Colt, DD and BCM. I am not a rich man by any means so if I am going to invest $1000 of my hard earned money into a rifle, I want the best rifle for my money. Sure I can get a DPMS for $800 but after I fix broken parts and replace shot out barrels, I will have spent well over the extra $200 a BCM costs.
Buy ONCE Cry ONCE is my motto. My children are young and I know that my grand kids will enjoy my ARs.

[nolanwb]

You came across as arrogant and looking for a fight. Looks like the second assumption was right on. Arguing with you is not something I am interested in Doing. I went to Norwich University. Where did you go to school?

Nope. Don't have time for fighting, and that's your opinion, of course. As for school, I finished Louisiana Tech University, USAF UPT, Brooks Institute of Photography, East Texas State University, and Northwestern State University. But, that is not important in the realm of these things. You asked. One must know what they say about assumptions...

It was not my intention to argue with anyone, as I said several times in my previous messages. There is no "attitude" in the message that you just responded to...that's your "assumption." I'm simply saying, and it has been said before on this forum, that statistical data is what one really needs in order to evaluate anything fairly and objectively, not subjective comments. And, I was simply trying to suggest ways that such data might be acquired. How can one argue with that? Beats me.

I was just hoping that someone on this forum had the contacts that would enable them to gather such important information, either from the manufacturers or the trainers, and put up a "chart" which shows the "failure rate" of the various companies that make M-4's. And, what the various failures might be. One never knows until they ask, or try. It might be tough to get really relevant information for evaluation. Everyone knows that it depends upon usage of the weapon before the failure happened. If Xyz company's weapons normally failed after 100,000 rounds that's a pertinent statistic. However, if the same company had a great number of weapons failed after only 3,000 rounds of use, that would be even more important, too, it seems. Perhaps that's too simplistic for consideration, don't know. Not trying to be argumentative, or show an attitude in any way. Just trying to present something for further consideration and thought.

Someone, trying to be helpful, and I appreciate that, suggested that one should list their accomplishments behind their names. In theory that would be really great. But, it would be too easy for anyone to simply make up impressive credentials. I'm just trying to ask common sense pertinent questions, and gain relevant information. Guess I should be like the "little red hen."

[R Moran]

Great(sigh)

Its been brought up before, probably in this thread. The overwhelming opinion for industry types and other sme's is that no manufacturer is going to release that info, good or bad, period.

Its been asked in duty pistol discussions. Most manufacturers have the PD sign non disclosure agreements, so no one knows why one gun failed and another passed.
I believe one poster, even contacted Ruger(?), and was told, that info is not available.

I suppose if you did a bit more reading around here, you might have figured that out.
What we do have, as noted previously, is a large amount of "anecdotal" evidence, that starts to become very convincing.
When multiple well known instructors report the same brands continuing to give poor performance, class to class, and the same brands, continue to give superior performance over the long term, cops call that a clue.
One could also then "assume" that certain materials, manufacturing & assembly processes , and test procedures used by the consistently superior performing guns have something to do with it, and therefore, other guns made the same way, could reasonably be expected to perform in a similar fashion.

But what do I know, I only have 12 years of schoolin......all the way to the sixth grade.

Bob

[nolanwb]

Great(sigh)

Its been brought up before, probably in this thread. The overwhelming opinion for industry types and other sme's is that no manufacturer is going to release that info, good or bad, period.

Its been asked in duty pistol discussions. Most manufacturers have the PD sign non disclosure agreements, so no one knows why one gun failed and another passed.
I believe one poster, even contacted Ruger(?), and was told, that info is not available.

I suppose if you did a bit more reading around here, you might have figured that out.
What we do have, as noted previously, is a large amount of "anecdotal" evidence, that starts to become very convincing.
When multiple well known instructors report the same brands continuing to give poor performance, class to class, and the same brands, continue to give superior performance over the long term, cops call that a clue.
One could also then "assume" that certain materials, manufacturing & assembly processes , and test procedures used by the consistently superior performing guns have something to do with it, and therefore, other guns made the same way, could reasonably be expected to perform in a similar fashion.

But what do I know, I only have 12 years of schoolin......all the way to the sixth grade.

Bob

That's alright Bob, I finished the third grade seven times. But, I did finish "shade school university" out on the farm as a kid. Much more pertinent to one's life.

Anyhow, forgive me for being a bit lazy. Perhaps my suggestion should have been, "Would someone gather all of the anecdotal evidence on this forum and put it together in a chart for me?" LOL Man, have you tried to read all of the posts here? I'm so old I might not finish reading 'em all, but I'm trying. But, you caught me, I just tried to cheat and get the info without doing too much WORK. Work is a four-letter word in my personal dictionary.... That's why I elected to fly in the military rather than "WALK"...another one of those four-letter words.

Dang, I catch on quick, just show me seven or eight times...

Thanks for your thoughts. I figgered em out after I dug up my ole lexicon to give me "sum hep." LOL Man, I've stirred up a hornet's nest. Ya don't have to know a dang thing about anything in particular to know the importance and relevance of doing research, the gathering of relevant and pertinent information, and the evaluation thereof. For me, I kinda go with something that I read on a billboard one time, "Can't is only found in the dictionary of fools." So, I keep on foolin' around...not taking "can't be done" as an answer. Sometimes I "Can't hardly."

[120mm]

: What we do have, as noted previously, is a large amount of "anecdotal" evidence, that starts to become very convincing.
When multiple well known instructors report the same brands continuing to give poor performance, class to class, and the same brands, continue to give superior performance over the long term, cops call that a clue.

Us researchers call that "qualitative data". Individually, it is an anecdote, with limited utility. But if you collect enough anecdotes that coincide with a set of variables, you can triangulate your way to a pretty damned precise set of data.

One could also then "assume" that certain materials, manufacturing & assembly processes , and test procedures used by the consistently superior performing guns have something to do with it, and therefore, other guns made the same way, could reasonably be expected to perform in a similar fashion.

The Young Manufacturing guy is a ****ing moron. Just because it is possible to improperly stake a gas key, and some people don't understand what it's for, doesn't mean you don't do it as a safety measure. His "logic" in that statement is just wrong.