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

[C4IGrant]

Thank you Mr. Howe for taking the time to visit M4c and give your input.

It is always appreciated.

Agree. Good post Mr. Howe and all correct. Every company is capable to producing something that will run and something that will fail.


C4

[rob_s]

I think it's important to get away from terms like "TDP" and "milspec" in general as, in the case of the former, few have seen it and, in the case of the latter, many misuse it. As I said in an article earlier this year, the spec can be divided into four categories

1. dimensions
2. materials
3. testing
4. assembly

what most companies mean when they say "milspec" is only #1, and even then not completely (as in the case of receiver extensions). This is why I have made every attempt to scrub the term from the Chart & E of F and instead try to address desirable features and explain why they are desirable.

That said, and again from another current article of mine, while"milspec" should be a base standard and not a goal, until more manufacturers can meet the standard it will have to serve as a goal.

[Mac5.56]

People often fall in love with things like guns, cars, football teams, political parties and the like. I don't. I never love something that can't love me back. It's OK to fail to be objective about your wife, your kids, even your cat, because you love them. No one really expects you to acknowledge that your new baby is ugly or your teen son is a creep, in fact, it is probably better not to acknowledge such. Failure to properly evaluate things is another matter. The Universe does not care that you love Chevys because you daddy loved Chevys and his daddy loved Chevys. Chevrolet is now Government Motors and that's not a good thing. Same with rifles. If you consistently fail to acknowledge mistakes you will have a considerably harder and less prosperous life.

You sound like someone I could get along with.... You mean to say that people should consider facts before jumping to conclusions? Such an outlook is almost heretical in this country right now...

[C4IGrant]

I think it's important to get away from terms like "TDP" and "milspec" in general as, in the case of the former, few have seen it and, in the case of the latter, many misuse it. As I said in an article earlier this year, the spec can be divided into four categories

1. dimensions
2. materials
3. testing
4. assembly

what most companies mean when they say "milspec" is only #1, and even then not completely (as in the case of receiver extensions). This is why I have made every attempt to scrub the term from the Chart & E of F and instead try to address desirable features and explain why they are desirable.

That said, and again from another current article of mine, while "milspec" should be a base standard and not a goal, until more manufacturers can meet the standard it will have to serve as a goal.

Agree Rob. Many lower quality AR manufacturers use the fact that their gun will interface with either an M4/M16 upper or lower is how they define "Mil-Spec."

The other point that needs to be discussed in threads like these is "statistical sampling." Meaning that if your frame of reference is ONE GUN or your "buddies" gun, then you need to realize that is not enough experience to say whether or not brand "A" is reliable.

I could go out and buy a Colt 6920 and an Oly. The Colt could go down inside of 3,000rds and the Oly would run 100%. From this, could I make the assumption that Colt sucks and Oly is a much better gun? Yep. Would that be accurate? No.

Quality materials coupled with correct installation is what really makes a gun run. Can you get away with using cheap materials, but installing things correctly? Yes (at least for awhile). On the flip side of this, you can have quality materials, but not assembly them correctly and the weapon will fail.

Most companies that use lower grade materials and don't follow any of the .Mil testing procedures, but follow SOME of the .Mil methods for assembly can produce a gun that will generally run for thousands of rounds. So in other words, they "get by." This is what adds much confusion for the consumer and why IZGuns felt the need to start a thread. Yes, your low quality AR is or has been reliable for you. Realize though that you are rolling the dice and at any time, something will either come apart or break.



C4

[Mac5.56]

First I would like to say that while IG's thread is a good idea, I have a feeling that we aren't going to get many takers from the owners of lower tier guns. It is my thought that with the amount of knowledge on this forum, people wont be lining up to get lectured...

But that said here is my experience:

It is hard for me to get butt hurt about something that I am admittedly new too, and that I don't have any real world experience with. I am a full on gear head, and it is important that my gear live up to what it is advertised for. If I bought a snow board at Walmart for my first ever trip, and that trip happened to be to the top of Breckenridge, if the board snapped I don't think I would be upset, hell I might be to dead to be anything... Cheap gear is what it is, cheap.

But I think from my personal experience people get a little more attached to their guns (and vehicles) more so then other kinds of kit. It is like an extension of them, and their ego. This has always been odd to me, as I have nothing to prove to anyone but myself, but the male ego is ****ing amazing when it comes to feeling special. Maybe with guns it is the idea of passing the gun down through the generations? I know that I cherish my mothers lever action that she gave me. Maybe people just don't want to hear that their purchase may not get passed down to little Johnny due to cheap parts?

Personally I purchased a SW MP15ORC (the C stands for compliant as I live in New York), and boy have I learned a lot in the 3500 rounds through the gun, replaced buffer spring, reamed chamber, ext. Do I own a top tier weapon at this point? No! Do I trust my life to it? Yea I do, but only after a lot of time on this forum. So I am willing to admit I didn't purchase a top tier gun, and if I had expendable income pouring out of my ass, I would buy another M4, but I don't, and so I wont.

This forum actually guided my purchase, and if it wasn't for Rob's chart I would have purchased a DPMS. The local gun shop guys swore by DPMS, said they were as good as Colt, that Colt was over ratted, and that I should just save the 700 (yes at the time DPMS were 700 dollars cheaper then Colts in my state), and get a Panther. However knowing that I knew absolutely nothing about the platform I found this forum, and I started reading and reading while I saved up the money. This was combined with shopping around my area. I am the kind of person that is reluctant to buy things online, and I made the choice at the time to only buy a gun I could hold, and feel, and not to order online. This limited me to my local gun shops. After much research my best two options were a Colt match gun and SW. I went with the SW.

What I have learned about SW I could write a book about, and everyone in a Ban State should read what I am about to write:

There is a ton of info out there about SW's learning curve regarding this platform. They didn't always have the right chamber, pMags wouldn't drop free, ext. My SW has what I think is a low serial number on the lower 73XXX. Since the purchase of the gun I have had the following problems:

2nd Round: Failure to feed, two scratches the length of the shell.

750 rnds: Failure to eject, stuck steel Wolf Case. Case ejects after re-charging handle.
775 rnds: Failure to eject, stuck steel Wolf Case, Case ejects again after using charging handle.
800 rnds: Failure to eject, stuck steel case, case puts gun out of action, and requires cleaning rod for removal. (all three of these failures were in the same high round count session).

After the above trip I came to this forum and get leaps and bounds of help. The gun ended up going back to SW, and they return it quickly and without complaint. They reamed the chamber, replaced the buffer and spring (with another carbine buffer and spring), and did an extractor upgrade.

Then:

2250 rnds: Shooting Romanian Surplus Ammo the extractor rips off the brass lip on the case, resulting in a stuck case that requires a cleaning rod to remove. This happened 2 more times with this ammo on another trip to the range.

I came back to this forum. Ended up listening to the advice of the experts and replaced the buffer with an H-buffer. I ate through the rest of that crappy Romanian ammo with no problems and haven't had a function problem since, but:

I just bought a single point sling attachment for the rifle. A MI that fits over the buffer tube and requires no smith work to attach. The result was a return, as my gun's compliant buffer tube (which is extended to prevent me from shortening the rifle) is commercial in spec and not MilSpec. The result is that I have to use a different sling attachment.

All and all I have found myself very frustrated with this rifle at times, but have been able to address most of the problems. What I am frustrated with the most is living in a Ban State. I am convinced that in order to get rid of the surplus early rifles SW made prior to the end of the AWB, that the company pushed them on to the Ban States for sale at large outfitters like Gander Mnt. I am convinced they offered these large outfitters a deal on all these rifles that no longer lived up to their new standards, and that I just happened to purchase one. I am half tempted to ask SW to honor their advertisements and replace all of the out of spec parts, but am not really interested in the long drawn out process that this would be.

So all and all there you go. That is a very humble assessment of my tier 2 rifle, and how it has caused me headaches. I do love the gun, it groups better then any of my friends AR's, even other SW's. Since I am a tall guy the stalk is pinned where I like it, so no complaints there, and since the Hbuffer it hasn't had so much as a hiccup. But I did learn a lot, and may do things differently if I had the chance.

[GermanSynergy]

I have a Bushmaster lower, purchased many years ago during the ban days (2001 IIRC). It has since been retrofitted with a LPK from G&R Tactical, milspec RE/LMT SOPMOD and Stark grip.

I got rid of the upper around 2004/2005 when I wanted a Colt 6920.

[R Moran]

120mm,
I agree, Pat Rogers has noted the same. That some of these truly crappy rifles even run at all is a testament to the design.

RobS,
Agree also, long ago, I thought we should just skip all the "mil spec" talk, as its much more then most people think it is. If you just look at the sheer numbers of guns manufactured by some, and the few problem guns that they put out the door, it should become obvious.

Many trainers, such as Pat, have noted the low quality and malfunction prone nature of the lower grade guns. However, no one has said that every gun they produce will choke constantly, and the better guns will never malfunction.

I've taken a few classes with Mr. Howe, and spoke with other well known instructors about his curriculum and thoughts. His reputation for integrity amongst all of them, is beyond reproach. I do not question what he has seen. That he has had better results then others with DPMS, is a conundrum, perhaps its the op tempo of his classes, he's just been lucky, or whatever, but I'd love to know why the differing experience.

Bob

[seacoastnh]

I thought this thread was going to be interesting, but the chart lovers have arived like ants at picnic.

This forum actually guided my purchase, and if it wasn't for Rob's chart I would have purchased a DPMS.

This site, the CHART, and our reviews here will turn those that want to turn, and piss off those not yet ready.

Rmpl

Okay chart lovers lets hear what makes the “Chart” more useful than a consumer report that ranks a Hyundai over a Honda because the Hyundai has better acceleration and two more speakers?

To me it appears to be nothing more than a check list of manufacturing specifications. You need only read a few posts into the thread that links the “Chart” and you start to find claims of certain manufacturing practices and features that improve reliability that are not listed in the “Chart.” This goes on for 50 pages.

I am not a manufacturing expert, but I believe the manufacturing process and controls are important. If you believe the process and quality controls are not important, then the chart is everything you believe it is. It has the specs, it must be quality, or maybe it’s a Hyundai.

If on the other hand you believe variation and deviation in the manufacturing process significantly impact quality then share with me the virtues of the “Chart” in discerning quality? Hopefully you have more than brand A uses batch testing and brand B tests each one.

What is the failure rate for each manufacturer after the weapon leaves the factory? Customer service won’t put Humpty Dumpty back together if Humpty bet his life on the wrong manufacturer.

I am going to speculate that Colt has a team of engineers that are responsible for managing deviation and variation in their manufacturing process and that if a company sell parts to colt, its process and quality controls are checked by colt. Colt may well belong in the first position, but what about the rest of the pecking order?

I want out of the box reliability, not customer service. Which column on the chart should I be looking at?

[Grumpy MSG]

Wow, the Mil.Spec. crowd sounds like they want to lynch folks who dare to think that non Mil.Spec. is not just scrap metal. Hmmmmmmmm. Colts with big pins, not milspec, huge POS; no flash supressor, not milspec, POS; AR15 bolt carrier not M16A1 carrier, POS; no bayonet lug (doesn't matter that you don't own bayonet), POS; 1 in 9 barrel (doesn't matter that you only shoot 55 grain FMJ), not milspec, POS; I could ramble on with a shopping list of these deficiencies. How about the Magpul, Tango Down, Troy... fans out there. Most of their products have no NSN, not Mil.Spec. POS. You can only use the M16 buttstock (moving sling swivel, not trap door), M16A1(fixed swivel, trap door), and the M16A2(longer, fixed swivel, trapdoor) or the two variants of M4 stock(one with, one without sling swivel) and the Crane SOPMOD. You can only use the A1 or A2 pistol grips. Absolutely, positively you cannot use a midlength gas system. You can see where i am going with this, relying strictly on Mil.spec. limits your options. Here is a story for you, I had 28 years in the Army (National Guard for much of it) I have had the opportunity to deal with lots of Mil.Spec. rifles, some brand new, others freshly remanufactured, others well worn, and some worn out. I plenty of experience as an operator, the one week armorers course, a good mechanical aptitude and 16 months in an active duty Infantry arms room. The rifles I dealt with during my career were M16A1s, M16A2s, M16A4s and M4s. I handled the Colts, the H & Rs, G.M. Hydramatics, and FNs.

I have seen brand new Colts come from the manufacturer failing the functions check. I pulled them from the box, degreased them and checked them myself. It happened both with M16A1s and A2s. I saw it happen with freshly remanufactured M16A1s, most of those were Hydramatics (2 should have been coded out, not remanufactured, worn out trigger and hammer pin holes), I have a firm belief they were made with softer aluminum than Colts and H & Rs. Several of those remanufactured rifles were marked M16A1MOD (they used to be M16s), two were marked XM16E1 (the earliest M16A1s). I will tell you all manufacturers have some problem rifles. It is how they stand behind them that matters.

Now instead of telling all the Delton, CMMG, DPMS, Bushmaster guys their rifle sucks, we should be helping them to improve the reliability of their rifle. After all, selling a rifle because the bolt carrier or castle nut wasn't staked seems pretty extreme. If the bolt holds up to 500 rounds, chances are it wasn't cracked and magnetic particle inspection wouldn't have found anything anyway. The odds of all the lugs cracking off at one time is incredibly low, almost non-existant, so there is another not so major issue. Is the chamber too tight would be an important one, but again not necessarily cause to sell the rifle.

I know my first privately owned AR has a Sendra lower receiver, with a bunch of M16A1 parts, has been a Frankengun changed from an A1 knockoff, to an A2 knockoff, to an A4 knockoff and back to an A1. With all I did with it, it still goes bang whenever I tell it to (99 44/100% of the time). If I feed it crap ammuntion it is not the rifle's fault it won't chamber a corroded round. Did it fire 100% of the time, I'd be lieing if I said it did, but slap up on the magazine fixed it every time I remember a problem. I have never been anal enough to log how many rounds I have fired.

[Rmplstlskn]

Then come the CHART haters...

I only wish I had access to "The CHART" years and decades ago... Would have saved myself a lot of frustration and problem AR15 diagnosis, as well as $$$.

The CHART is so people do not have to RE-LEARN history and past experience...

Rmpl