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

**rob_s** · 12-06-10, 08:43

Originally Posted by Mac5.56

Throughout 23 pages of this thread, this guy has been saying the same thing the entire time. Notice his post count. Most of his posts have been in this thread, saying the same thing over and over again. The sad thing about him, is that there have been multiple people that have attempted to explain in very rational ways what it is he is missing, but he fails to grasp that. It's pretty obvious he just wants to pick a fight at this point. It's about as exciting as poking a dead dog with a stick.

He has said repeatedly that he's upset that he was called an idjit, and has spent the rest of the thread attacking the Chart in an effort, I guess, to discredit me. Why an acknowledged and admitted troll is allowed to remain is somewhat confusing.

The only amusing aspect of his posts is that he's spent this entire time proving that the initial assumption was correct. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm the fact.

**rob_s** · 12-06-10, 08:56

Originally Posted by Paul Howe

We need to keep pushing the manufacturers for better quality, but it will be a never ending battle.

We have better educated AR consumers today than ever before. I get emails almost weekly from officers, training officers, purchasing agents, and departments asking to use the Chart or some part of the Explanation of Features, or both, to make their case for buying better quality out of the gate rather than buying crap first and quality later. This forum has several people who have shared stories of exactly that, and I know of a few departments that have gone through this. Buy once, cry once, and some departments are lucky to have people that understand this and use the tools and information available to them to educate the rest of their chain of command.

I do think that the educated consumer has driven the overall quality up. Whether through the Chart, the Explanation of Features, or similar posts on forums all over the 'net, people know more than they did before, and they are demanding more from their manufacturers of choice, and the manufacturers are complying. DPMS alone has started doing more, better, since we first started tracking these things with the Chart. There have been manufacturers that have contacted me specifically to talk about getting more checkmarks on the Chart. I think this is somewhat of the tail wagging the dog, but if it means the consumer gets things staked correctly right out of the gate it's a good thing.

It's refreshing that the days of brands like Hesse with out of spec pin holes, out of line receiver extensions, etc. are pretty much gone and we can split the hairs that we do. Even if you buy, or are stuck with, a DPMS or an Oly you can stake, stake, ream, lube and you're pretty well off to the races. Is it "as good as"? Hell no. Is it better than it would have been otherwise? Hell yes.

**Jim D** · 12-06-10, 09:23

Originally Posted by rob_s

Even if you buy, or are stuck with, a DPMS or an Oly you can stake, stake, ream, lube and you're pretty well off to the races. Is it "as good as"? Hell no. Is it better than it would have been otherwise? Hell yes.

I think that's one of the biggest benefits to "The Chart" getting distributed as widely as it has. If you know what some of the commonly cut corners are, you know what to look for, and what to address if you have problems.

Whether it's staking, chamber dimensions, buffer weights...its get the reader looking at the places they need to be looking to correct any shortcomings that may show up.

As has been said before, to a department that shoots 200 rounds/ year through their patrol rifles...they don't always need the best barrel steel, double chrome lined barrels, or mil-spec RE's. Their guns just need to run when they're picked up.

**C4IGrant** · 12-06-10, 09:44

Rob is right about manufacturers noticing their position on the chart. A large AR manufacturer that I consult for has asked me about moving up in the chart and what is needed in order to do that.

In the end, this benefits the the consumer (which is the goal).

C4

**barrelwrench** · 12-06-10, 11:02

I understand the chart and the need for it and glad it was published.
Would milspec be considered the bar to gage the quality of an AR, and if so, what would be considered above the bar.

**C4IGrant** · 12-06-10, 11:23

Originally Posted by barrelwrench

I understand the chart and the need for it and glad it was published.
Would milspec be considered the bar to gage the quality of an AR, and if so, what would be considered above the bar.

Think of "Mil-Spec" as the lowest quality acceptable to the US Govt for a fighting weapon.

Are their AR's above "Mil-Spec"? That is really subjective at this point. Meaning, have we seen bolts or barrels made out of better materials? I don't think so.

The biggest things that people point to as "better" are barrels with Middy gas systems, different types of coatings/finishes and the KAC IWS Bolt.

For me, buying a hammer forged barrel (with a middy gas system) and a mil-spec BCG is about as good as it gets. YMMV.

C4

**Longhunter** · 12-06-10, 15:13

I recently bought a ddm4v3 and was pleased to see it on the "chart", can't remember if I saw the chart before or after buying the carbine, but regardless I found it very interesting and educational.

I can understand why some folks may get angered by the chart but I don't agree with their reasoning or lack there of.

thanks.

**Longhunter** · 12-06-10, 15:31

I've seen the "mil-spec term thrown around on this board quite a bit and understand what it means but was curious as to why the term USGI is not used... is it an outdated obsolete term, like my M1A supermatch with all USGI parts except for the barrel and receiver? Or my 5 million series M1 rifle?

I remember one poster in this or another thread said the only way to get a real Mil-spec rifle was to be in the Military, but from what I've read there appears to be a bunch of contractors supplying less than desirable rifles to our men today. Just curious, thanks.

**Ric_Knight** · 12-06-10, 19:32

MIL-B-11595E lists three steels; ORD 4150, ORD 4150 Resulfurized and Chrome-Moly-Vanadium. All seem very similar in composition.

Does this indicate that one of these 3 must be used to be acceptable?

**C4IGrant** · 12-06-10, 19:41

Originally Posted by Ric_Knight

MIL-B-11595E lists three steels; ORD 4150, ORD 4150 Resulfurized and Chrome-Moly-Vanadium. All seem very similar in composition.

Does this indicate that one of these 3 must be used to be acceptable?

Correct. With that said, the most desirable of the three is CMV. The reason is because it is the hardest of the three.

C4