I think it is an excellent deal and everyone should buy them up (for no other reason than a hot spare).Originally Posted by Grand58742
C4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dealer
I think it is an excellent deal and everyone should buy them up (for no other reason than a hot spare).
C4
Banned
Right on.
If people had any idea of the ammount of items/compononets we reject before acceptance or get sent back as latent defects, then their head would spin.
All Milspec (not RE's) means is thats what the dod or agency speced or required . I could write a 500 page white paper on the history of procurement , purchasing, and government design oriented products that would make you never want to use the word milspec, again.
Long story short, just beacuse some agency or DoD wants something (and if they designed it, 90% of the time it will not work/fail) does not mean the product is the best of its type.
It's become a buzz word that I equate with terms like "bananna clips".
Senior Member
This is why informed consumers who do their due diligence learn what the milspec is, and determine for themselves if it's "better" than other choices, or not, and if it's worth the [likely] additional cost, to them, or not.
Dealer
I would agree that it IS possible to go ABOVE the TDP (no question). In fact, I can think of several ways to do it (economically) that would provide a superior product (IMHO).
With that said, VERY FEW companies meet the TDP.
So if companies are not meeting the TDP, what standard are they meeting???
C4
Banned
I tend to defer to the manufacture as the expert in relation to their products. They are the ones who did the R&D, engineering, sourcing of materials, manufacturing, QC, ect.
There is no standard for AR15's outside of what we accept as "standard".
The TDP is ONE baseline set forth to build the M16/M4. Are there better ways to do things? Aboslutley.
Knowning what we know about the Stoner System, and how it works, incorporating new techologies into it, I think the TDP is less relevent then when everyone was worrying about weather or not the the FSB was markerd or it was parked underneath.
I shoot a SR15M1, just like you. We can both agree, that it's not standard, and that its proablly the best product on the market of its type (AR15).
Member
Is it just me, or hasn't this horse been beaten enough?
I feel like a quality vs standards vs price discussion happens every single time something like this is posted (BCG, Barrels, Triggers...)
While I enjoy the page after page of Brand A vs Brand B vs the US Military standard, couldn't we just drop the OP into the "Where can I get it" thread and be done? It is a great deal. PSA has lots of them lately.
flamesuit (on)
Carry on....
Oh, and Happy Friday everyone
Last edited by skijunkie55; 08-16-13 at 13:48.
Industry Professional
You pretty much answered the question here. I am definitely not entering into the PSA lower argument just stating that nothing is truly milspec unless if it met what I stated in my first post. So what does this mean? It means that the government inspectors located at the manufacturers facility are ensuring that all materials, build process and testing is done in accordance to the TDP.
As for others who build parts, rifles etc, they could state that they build towards meeting military specifications, however nothing is truly milspec. Milspec often implies that everything produced follows the same materials, build process, testing and protocol's developed for the TDP which is very often not the case. Not saying anything about PSA, but as an example of the receiver extension, just because it fits stocks designed for a tube that fits military specifications, does not make it Milspec.
Might sound like semantics, but the inference many companies use with the word or wording of "milspec" is often misleading to uninformed buyers. Just like if you built homes using DR Hortons designs. Might look like a DR Horton home and you claim it to be a DR Horton spec home, but who is to say that your build process, choice of materials and craftsmanship is of the same quality as DR Horton. Just to be fair it is possible to build a rifle that meets or exceeds military specifications, or you might actually build the home better than DR Horton, but that does not make it a DR Horton home or a milspec rifle.
Even if I use the exact same materials, testing, build process etc, that is similar to milspec standards, it is still not Milspec. It was built towards military specifications but it is not truly milspec. Semantics perhaps, but there is a certain amount of "implied" meaning or guarantee of quality build process, materials and testing when you label things milspec or DR Horton. How do I know that something touted as "milspec" is actually of true milspec quality? You don't really unless if a company goes far enough to provide proof of how their rifle is built, parts, materials used and testing process. Not many do that. Oh, btw, DR Horton is a poor example.
Senior Member
Bottom line for me is, PSA seems to make pretty good entry level stuff, using some pretty good components at very impressive price points, and they seem to stand by their products. If it suits your needs and budget, go for it. If you prefer Colt, BCM, Noveske, etc...then buy that. But why to do have to go on and on with either nitpicking one brand, or trying to convince everyone they are all the same? Can'r we simply agree that there are differences in quality, and differences in price, and we should all attempt to meet our own needs? This shit gets old, especially on what is advertised as a serious use, no-nonsense, technical based forum.
Industry Professional
Sorry a few posts popped up while I was typing. Indeed rifles can be built to exceed Milspec. Milspec is simply a minimal .gov standard that the manufacturer / vendor must follow / meet in order for it to pass inspection. On the plus side, it does tend to ensure that the commonly noted critical areas of the rifle are built to a certain standard, using certain material types and testing procedures that are known to produce a quality weapon.
Industry Professional
Maybe I need to re-read this thread. I don't see anyone here saying that the item mentioned in the first post was pure crap or too expensive and wouldn't work for the majority of enthusiasts out there? I don't think that anyone argued that there are differences in quality, prices and that everyone should purchase according to their own needs? I think this is often the sentiment of this forum. Be an informed buyer, purchase the best rifle that you can afford that meets your own individual needs. This does not mean that anyone should be delusional that all rifles are the same because they outwardly look alike. Because we know that they are not.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks