"Oh No! I bought a BM/RRA/Stag before I knew better!"

[Iraqgunz]

I disagree because it's wrong.

1/7 vs. 1/9 isn't perception. It's fact. A 1/9 will generally not stabilize rounds over 69gr. Some will some won't. 1/7 will and you can still use it for 55gr. with very good accuracy that is proven time and time again. Those barrels just happen to be better made.

I don't know if "bolt bounce" is an issue in semi-autos and to be honest never really noticed anyone mention it here.

If you think that "milspec" in the real world as you called it isn't relevant then you must be high. Bolts that aren't HP/MPI tested are a big deal and it would be to you if it was your gun that went tits up.

I witnessed a Bushy bolt crack in half during a firefight in Iraq first hand. Trust me it was a big deal at the time. Would a Colt have done the same thing? Who knows. But, Colt bolts are tested to a standard and have to pass a standard.

It also wouldn't be irrelevant if you were a contractor, police officer or a citizen using your AR and had a failure to extract (due to incorrect chamber) that caused your weapon to malfunction which ended with you getting killed.

You are basing your decision on the fact that you have a sample of one that works for you. Not a sample of hundreds or thousands. Also, most people don't want to be told that they made a bad choice. It happens all the time not just with guns.

You can say what you want, but the only ones who will buy it are those who don't any better. I ain't him.

It's cool IRQG. This is an area that I know many will disagree with. And I will definitely disagree with them. We can even forget the whole "Mil-Spec" argument that many people like to use. The point is; many of the specs, attributes, features, etc... that supposedly makes one AR "Better" than another, is simply a matter of perception. And that perception is based upon a person's need and use. If you think 1:7 is "BETTER" than 1:9, that's cool. If you think bolt bounce in a semi-auto is an issue, that's cool. If you think mil-spec is referring to performance based on .223 ammo, that too is fine. But many of the features and specs on so called "Better" guns, are totally irrelevant in the real world. Therefor, I don't base my opinion of a weapon on some irrelevant list of specs. I base it on how it performs. But we are allowed to disagree.

[uwe1]

It's cool IRQG. This is an area that I know many will disagree with. And I will definitely disagree with them. We can even forget the whole "Mil-Spec" argument that many people like to use. The point is; many of the specs, attributes, features, etc... that supposedly makes one AR "Better" than another, is simply a matter of perception. And that perception is based upon a person's need and use. If you think 1:7 is "BETTER" than 1:9, that's cool. If you think bolt bounce in a semi-auto is an issue, that's cool. If you think mil-spec is referring to performance based on .223 ammo, that too is fine. But many of the features and specs on so called "Better" guns, are totally irrelevant in the real world. Therefor, I don't base my opinion of a weapon on some irrelevant list of specs. I base it on how it performs. But we are allowed to disagree.

I think the twist debate on 1:9 vs 1:7 is less important than having a barrel built to a KNOWN quality. I would take a Daniel Defense barrel with 1:9 twist and 4150 steel because it would likely be properly gassed and chambered over a 1:9 twist Olympic Arms barrel. If all you plan on using is ammo that is under 69 grains, then 1:9 will serve you fine, but given the fact that a good 1:7 barrel will shoot 55 grain bullets just fine, there isn't any reason to choose 1:9 and limit your ability to shoot 75-77 grain projectiles.

As far as quality control take for example, BCM or Colt. You know what you're getting, and you know that the parts were all tested. Forget using the mil-spec term, and just focus on the requirements in the TDP and what the military requires in a hard use gun. Why buy a gun that is built to a lesser standard when that gun could be the one you need to defend your life with one day?

Another car analogy, maybe relevant, maybe not...Let say CarCompany A tests every one of its components to make sure that they are all functional and working before building the car, test driving it, and sending it out for shipment. Now CarCompany B just takes a large shipment of components and tests a few from each batch, and not finding any issues, proceeds to assemble and ship out cars. Are you more likely to receive a car in PERFECT working order from Company A or Company B? Both companies will likely produce many perfectly working cars, but it would be much more likely that Company A will have a higher rate of success. The question is, would you be willing to pay a little more to buy a car from Company A? I would.

Better guns have attributes that are completely relevant . Barrels made from higher quality steel are more durable. Proper sizing of gas ports reduce wear and recoil in the gun. Correct chamber size helps to reduce malfunctions. A bolt constructed of the proper steel (HPT/MPI tested) will be more durable (especially in high round count classes) than a bolt machined from lesser quality steel.

ETA: IG beat me to it...

[Iraqgunz]

You are obviously a fanboy. Off with your head.

I think the twist debate on 1:9 vs 1:7 is less important than having a barrel built to a KNOWN quality. I would take a Daniel Defense barrel with 1:9 twist and 4150 steel because it would likely be properly gassed and chambered over a 1:9 twist Olympic Arms barrel. If all you plan on using is ammo that is under 69 grains, then 1:9 will serve you fine, but given the fact that a good 1:7 barrel will shoot 55 grain bullets just fine, there isn't any reason to choose 1:9 and limit your ability to shoot 75-77 grain projectiles.

As far as quality control take for example, BCM or Colt. You know what you're getting, and you know that the parts were all tested. Forget using the mil-spec term, and just focus on the requirements in the TDP and what the military requires in a hard use gun. Why buy a gun that is built to a lesser standard when that gun could be the one you need to defend your life with one day?

Better guns have attributes that are completely relevant . Barrels made from higher quality steel are more durable. Proper sizing of gas ports reduce wear and recoil in the gun. Correct chamber size helps to reduce malfunctions. A bolt constructed of the proper steel (HPT/MPI tested) will be more durable (especially in high round count classes) than a bolt machined from lesser quality steel.

[TROPICS]

Your stupid analogy is just that. This post is about as insightful as your other. Please refrain from anymore nonsense. Iraqgunz.

I'm sorry. I didn't know everyone was so sensitive, my mistake. This entire thread is "off the mark".

[Smedley]

'gunz, I've got a question for ya. Off track a little, but you seem to have been there and done that. So, regardless of make, would you recommend running an AR "wet", or "dry" in a sandbox environment?

I witnessed a Bushy bolt crack in half during a firefight in Iraq first hand. Trust me it was a big deal at the time. Would a Colt have done the same thing? Who knows. But, Colt bolts are tested to a standard and have to pass a standard.

[MistWolf]

A little something about "batch testing" vs "100% article testing". There is more to controlling and assuring the quality of a part than performing a 100% article inspection.

A part from a company with 100% article and poor quality control will have more failures in the field than a company performing batch testing with excellent quality control.

This isn't as obvious as it looks as most do not understand the difference between "Quality Control" and "Quality Assurance". Quality Control is a function of manufacturing and is in the hands of the person making the product. Level of quality is controlled by the the person and processes used to make the product.

Inspection processes can only assure that quality control was performed correctly.

What that means is, a company that performs HPT/MPI on every bolt and barrel which has a culture or process that lead to poor quality control will put out a lower quality product than a company that performs batch HPT/MPI testing but has a culture and processes that result in excellent quality control.

From what I understand, KAC does not perform HPT/MPI inspections on their bolts or barrels (or perhaps only perform batch testing) yet there are no reports of KAC failures or question of their quality. That's because they have a proven culture and processes that result in excellent Quality Control and HPT/MPI as Quality Assurance is not needed. It also means that a bolt and barrel not needing to have an HPT performed has a bit more service life. You can also bet that KAC has confidence in their processes because past tests have consistently resulted in an extremely low or even non-existent failure rate

[rsgard]

KAC doesn't make a standard AR15 bolt. Apples and oranges.

[Iraqgunz]

I have lived in the desert most of my life. The high desert of California and now the low desert of Arizona. I have spent 4.5 years of my life in the middle east and Afghanistan.

I ran my AR's wet over there and I do so over here. It has always worked for me.

If the weapon became too "dirty", sandy or whatever then I did a wipe down and relubed it.

'gunz, I've got a question for ya. Off track a little, but you seem to have been there and done that. So, regardless of make, would you recommend running an AR "wet", or "dry" in a sandbox environment?

[uwe1]

A little something about "batch testing" vs "100% article testing". There is more to controlling and assuring the quality of a part than performing a 100% article inspection.

A part from a company with 100% article and poor quality control will have more failures in the field than a company performing batch testing with excellent quality control.

This isn't as obvious as it looks as most do not understand the difference between "Quality Control" and "Quality Assurance". Quality Control is a function of manufacturing and is in the hands of the person making the product. Level of quality is controlled by the the person and processes used to make the product.

Inspection processes can only assure that quality control was performed correctly.

What that means is, a company that performs HPT/MPI on every bolt and barrel which has a culture or process that lead to poor quality control will put out a lower quality product than a company that performs batch HPT/MPI testing but has a culture and processes that result in excellent quality control.

From what I understand, KAC does not perform HPT/MPI inspections on their bolts or barrels (or perhaps only perform batch testing) yet there are no reports of KAC failures or question of their quality. That's because they have a proven culture and processes that result in excellent Quality Control and HPT/MPI as Quality Assurance is not needed. It also means that a bolt and barrel not needing to have an HPT performed has a bit more service life. You can also bet that KAC has confidence in their processes because past tests have consistently resulted in an extremely low or even non-existent failure rate

You have a point, and I was over-generalizing in my example to keep it short. Obviously a company with a known reputation with internal QC/higher standards is capable of producing a better product than a company with inferior methods, but more testing.

However, in the realm of AR15s, it appears that the better companies generally manufacture their guns/parts from higher quality materials to a higher standard of quality control, and then test the finished products for defects.

[Smedley]

Thank you. The reason I asked is because some recent posts reminded me of the Jessica Lynch incident. Speculation I read at the time was that everything was "over-lubed" and sand particle attractant.
With frequent attention to detail I wouldn't have thought "over-lubed" would be a deciding factor under that circumstance. I remember having that discussion with my Dad, who was WW-II ETO, and that's the first explanation for the alleged weapons failure the both of us had (over-lubed in the sandbox)...

I have lived in the desert most of my life. The high desert of California and now the low desert of Arizona. I have spent 4.5 years of my life in the middle east and Afghanistan.

I ran my AR's wet over there and I do so over here. It has always worked for me.

If the weapon became too "dirty", sandy or whatever then I did a wipe down and relubed it.