View Full Version : FNG here with a Q
Simon_Belmont
01-09-10, 08:45
I bought DPMS AP4 about a year ago. After looking at "The Chart" I sold it and I currently have a BCM 16" complete upper coming in the mail. Now, I just don't know if I should buy a BCM complete lower or a LMT complete lower. I would like to keep the rifle straight BCM but I hear LMT is good stuff too. Any suggestions would be very helpful.
whats the $$ difference between the two?
I prolly wont be a big help as im looking to buy my first AR soon (BCM upper on idk what lower yet).
BCM has a big following on here and from what ive heard from various other places, its b/c of the quality.
Im looking at a different lower-YHM-(mainly bc of the discount i can get on it). I may upgrade the LPK down the road if i feel it necessary.
I cant see you going wrong with either of the two you listed.
GL!
Simon_Belmont
01-09-10, 09:00
Bravo Co has their complete lowers for 350. LMT has theirs for 330. For a $20 price difference a guess it is goining to be LMT assuming one isn't superior to the other.
You can't go wrong with LMT. Lewis Machine provides alot of parts to builders, other mfg.s and the military. They make nearly every component in an AR/M4/16 and most mfg.s source parts from LMT that would be inconvenient or decrease the profit margine to make themselves. Don't count LMT out, they are good enough for the boys in Crane.
I would say it either comes down to price or whether you want the BCM upper/lower consistency.
It would be a matter of $$ for me, just my $0.02
Bravo Co has their complete lowers for 350. LMT has theirs for 330. For a $20 price difference a guess it is goining to be LMT assuming one isn't superior to the other.
with only a $20 difference, most replies will probably say get teh BCM, haha.
im looking at about $150 difference in complete lowers which is pretty big for me so i really need to put the thoughts in. if its only 20 bucks...BCM may be the way to go for ya.
Bravo Co has their complete lowers for 350. LMT has theirs for 330. For a $20 price difference a guess it is goining to be LMT assuming one isn't superior to the other.
The BCM probably uses some LMT parts in their complete lower. It's hard not to wind up with some parts that stated life at Lewis Machine & Tool.
350 vs. 330? That is really negotiable for me. You do have a valid intrest in keeping it all BCM. I would also want my upper/lower to match if it was only a matter of $20 and the quality was the same. That being said, to a certain degree, a lower is a lower (assuming it's a reputable mfg.), just spend the extra $.
Now, I have seen some lowers made by people who didn't know anything about metalurgy and you wil probably never get anyone LPK to work in them.
The upper is much more critical to the weapon system.
I have three BCM uppers on LMT lowers and all fit & function fine. You can find complete LMT lowers for $300.
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 09:48
I have an LMT lower and the trigger pull is smoother than both of my Colts.:eek: IMHO, you can't go wrong with either lower, as I plan on getting a BCM lower for my next AR project, just to have a complete BCM weapon.
Simon_Belmont
01-09-10, 09:49
I bought that DPMS AP4 right after NOBAMA got elected and you couldn't find a black rifle anywhere. I just happened to walk into a gun shop and there was the DPMS. I paid way too much for it but at the time I figured it was better than a stick. I also have a complete Spikes Tactal lower that I built using "Gun Show" parts. But that was before I knew better. I actually had the trigger break on that lower. That being said I just want to get a complete rifle put together with quality parts that I can trust.
that "list" is worthless.
that "list" is worthless.
How so?
top of the list is expensive
bottom of the list is cheap
there is no concept of value
its cheap so quality must be cheap
Sorry but someone selling a rifle just cause some one scored it on a BS list is just plain crap. I have 2 DPMS one kit and one complete rifle and i challenge anyone to find fault with either rifle. my complete rifle was my first AR 7 years ago. it has more rounds down range between competition (3gun) carbine classes and just shooting that some people get threw there rifles that cost 3 times as much. the barrel still gives me moa. ive only had to replace gas rings, one extractor, and put a new roll pin in the mag catch(worked its way out a little so i just replaced it) and all that from a 600 dollar gun. And I have 2 doublestars (also not very high on the list) and they are great rifles. Now Ive heard some people have problems with there rifles but show me one rifle manufacturer that doesnt. DPMS sells alot of rifles. chances are theres gonna be problems. check the stakeing on the gas key before you buy. buy from a good dealer taht will fix any problems. i see zero reason to sell a working rifle just cause of "the list"
that "list" is worthless.
Thread Wrecker!
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 11:03
that "list" is worthless.
What "list" are you referring to? Is that the "Chart"?
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 11:15
Sorry but someone selling a rifle just cause some one scored it on a BS list is just plain crap. I have 2 DPMS one kit and one complete rifle and i challenge anyone to find fault with either rifle. my complete rifle was my first AR 7 years ago. it has more rounds down range between competition (3gun) carbine classes and just shooting that some people get threw there rifles that cost 3 times as much. the barrel still gives me moa. ive only had to replace gas rings, one extractor, and put a new roll pin in the mag catch(worked its way out a little so i just replaced it) and all that from a 600 dollar gun. And I have 2 doublestars (also not very high on the list) and they are great rifles. Now Ive heard some people have problems with there rifles but show me one rifle manufacturer that doesnt. DPMS sells alot of rifles. chances are theres gonna be problems. check the stakeing on the gas key before you buy. buy from a good dealer taht will fix any problems. i see zero reason to sell a working rifle just cause of "the list"
Depends on your definition of quality. The "Chart" was obtained through the individual manufacturers as what, on their M-4 type weapon, was built to the Technical Data Package (TDP). It is for folks who want a "quality" actual milspec reliable M-4 platform. The more blocks checked, the closer it is to the TDP, which the serious shooters on this forum prefer and what most folks would prefer, if they had to bet their life on it. No one ever stated that your weapon (DPMS) or any other AR to the right of the "Chart" will blow up when fired or will not run reliable or is a POS. Your usage is your business. Sort of like cars, some prefer high end models, some can only afford a Yugo. The Yugo will run, but most would prefer a higher quality car and will trade up, if and when the funds become available, for peace of mind.
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 11:18
top of the list is expensive
bottom of the list is cheap
there is no concept of value
its cheap so quality must be cheap
I thought the "Chart" expressed that. I thought everything left of center was a good value. The further left you move, the higher the quality, thus the price. Personally, I prefer a weapon, pistol and rifle, of high quality since my round count exceeds 12K annually. My pistols are all of the M&P line. Is it a HK? No, but it is durable, reliable, comfortable, and controllable, which in my book, is a great value. Others may not think so, but nor do I care.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "value" as it relates to AR platform?
this crap
1. Noveske
2. LMT
3. BCM
4. Colt
5. Sabre
6. Charles Daly
7. S&W
8. CMMG
9. Stag
10. Bushmaster
11. Rock River
12. DPMS
13. Doublestar
14. Olympic
1/2 of those ARS are just re-branded.
you have S&W over Stag.... Stag makes most of S&W parts for them.
you have Bushmaster over DPMS... both of those brands AND Remington are owned by Cerberus.
An AR is an AR is an AR. You wont see a difference unless you are comparing something like an Olympic to a Noveske. Anything in the middle is REALLY splitting hairs.
this crap
1/2 of those ARS are just re-branded.
you have S&W over Stag.... Stag makes most of S&W parts for them.
you have Bushmaster over DPMS... both of those brands AND Remington are owned by Cerberus.
An AR is an AR is an AR. You wont see a difference unless you are comparing something like an Olympic to a Noveske. Anything in the middle is REALLY splitting hairs.
While i do understand where you are coming from and while the "lower quality" guns on the chart may run at top end quality (and if yours do, then congrats), the bolded part above is simply just not true...
I have a feeling this thread may get the ole padlock here soon...
As for the OP...get the quality you can afford!
val·ue
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth:
3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit:
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:
paying more doesnt mean you get more. Granted a noveskee or BCM is a great rifle but if a "mil-spec" rifle functions as reliably for a lesser price then its value is higher by definition.
ill stop but that "list" is flawed. ill take the pepsi challenge any day.
to the OP why not build your own lower reciever. its easier than legos and will save you some cash. pic a lower with a roll mark you like. i like the sun devils and the lar grizzly skeleton. youve got the hard part working with the BCM now just snap together a lower.
val·ue
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth: 3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit:
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:
paying more doesnt mean you get more. Granted a noveskee or BCM is a great rifle but if a "mil-spec" rifle functions as reliably for a lesser price then its value is higher by definition.
i feel like a devils advocate mood today, but wouldnt the above highlighted area mean that a higher 'monetary worth' (insert the word cost here if you like) would mean it has higher value...?
building a lower is a good idea as well :)
can save some money and get EXACTLY what you want
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 11:37
val·ue
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth:
3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit:
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:
paying more doesnt mean you get more. Granted a noveskee or BCM is a great rifle but if a "mil-spec" rifle functions as reliably for a lesser price then its value is higher by definition.
DPMS is not a complete MilSpec weapon. Your analogy of an AR is an AR, escapes me. Sorta like a Car, is a Car is a Car. It is the quality of the weapon that is most valued here.
you asked how i was using value. the one you have highlighted means its value is more based on a resale value type basis.
and in all honesty a milspec lower is a milspec lower. if the holes arent drilled right you find out pretty quick and the word gets out and that company aint around for long. if you want something specific the best way is to build it. piece by piece. that way youre not spending money on a fire control group your just gonna pull out, or a stock and grip youre going to change anyway.
I thought the same. Ive shot Bustmasters, DPMS, Noveske, LMT, BCM and there is a HUGE difference in all of them.
a Bushmaster or DPMS just doesnt have the quality or ruggedness of a Noveske or BCM or LMT.
Its like the old saying with woodworking. Measure twice, cut once.
An AR is not just an AR. Spend the money and get the best you can. I went out and "rush bought" my first AR carbine right after the Assualt Weapons ban was lifted. Made the mistake of getting a Bushy M4A3 Patrolmans Carbine. While it shot ok, it didnt have nearly the quality parts that my 2 newest AR's do. Ive hand build, hand selected the parts for those to. My Bushy M4A3 doesnt even exsist anymore.
Im getting 3 times the accuracy and reliability out of my custom built rifles as I did my bushy. My rifles use all BCM parts and Novekse barrels.
There was someone else on here a while ago who kept going on and on and on about the same things you are. He argued even with the Industry Pro's who post here that they didnt know what they were talking about and he did.....
DPMS is not a complete MilSpec weapon. Your analogy of an AR is an AR, escapes me. Sorta like a Car, is a Car is a Car. It is the quality of the weapon that is most valued here.
Okay that statement was a bit out misconstrued. it made sense in my mind. my thought was more like this a hundai and a benz are no comparison. but in this case its more like comparing a ford f150 to a chevy silverado. they do the exact same thing with only minor cosmetic differences.
and the only non milspec part on my rifle is the buffer tube which really doesnt matter
Failure2Stop
01-09-10, 11:53
By and large, lowers are lowers, unless you get one that is really screwed up or has features that you cannot find on "most" lowers, such as better magwell flaring, ambi controls, and/or QD mounts built in.
Beyond that, there are differences in lower parts quality.
Simple things like springs may be replaced by lower cost options that do not provide the consistent performance that better/standard parts do. Improperly heat-treated parts will wear and/or break much earlier than standard/better parts. In many of the lower quality guns these parts will be exploited as an easy way to shave cost from the manufacturer, either lowering the MSRP to sell more units or to increase profit margin.
Now, the LPK quality is of lesser importance than most upper receiver concerns, but to say that they are all the same is just wrong.
Im getting 3 times the accuracy and reliability out of my custom built rifles as I did my bushy. My rifles use all BCM parts and Novekse barrels.
There was someone else on here a while ago who kept going on and on and on about the same things you are. He argued even with the Industry Pro's who post here that they didnt know what they were talking about and he did.....
im not disagreeing with you at all. trust me i have a bcm upper on a guentin billet lower. all im saying that selling a rifle just because its on some imaginary list is silly. now if youre actually not happy with it then sell it. get rid of the damn thing. ive got 5 ARs 4 budget rifles/builds and one uber rifle and the uber outshines the budgets by a long shot. but that doesnt mean the budget rifles dont work great.
Failure2Stop
01-09-10, 12:16
all im saying that selling a rifle just because its on some imaginary list is silly. now if youre actually not happy with it then sell it.
The quality of components put into the gun, or even just the lower are not imaginary.
The mindset of "parts is parts" when it comes to ARs is wrong, even if it is "only" lower parts.
The idea of replacing an item that has a significant potential for failure with one with a greatly reduced probability of failure is not silly. In fact some would call it good planning.
The quality of components put into the gun, or even just the lower are not imaginary. AGREED
The mindset of "parts is parts" when it comes to ARs is wrong, even if it is "only" lower parts. AGREED
The idea of replacing an item that has a significant potential for failure with one with a greatly reduced probability of failure is not silly. In fact some would call it good planning.AGREED
all im saying is the "list" shouldnt be used as a sole reason for selling a rifle.
http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=122
these are nice lowers and if you buy a completed one you save a little over the lmt too.
I uderstand the MilSpec idea, but why do so many actually take something either MilSpec or close to it and then change it over to something that is not MilSpec. For example, I have PDF files of the Specs for the M16A2, M4 and the M4A1 and all of them specify the fixed front sight. Many of the mods we do are a far cry from MilSpec.
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 13:42
I uderstand the MilSpec idea, but why do so many actually take something either MilSpec or close to it and then change it over to something that is not MilSpec. For example, I have PDF files of the Specs for the M16A2, M4 and the M4A1 and all of them specify the fixed front sight. Many of the mods we do are a far cry from MilSpec.
Because the TPD is the minimum quality, not the ceiling. There are parts that exceed the TDP. The other reason is the AR platform is modular, so you can configure it to your individual needs. I have 3 with fixed FSBs, which I prefer and one without, which has a different configuration, that I also have a fondness of. Who cares about the hand-guards, pistol grip or stock? Virtually no one leave the weapon in it's store bought configuration. All of those items are cosmetic. I've had rails installed on all of mine, and swapped out the pistol grips and stocks for better quality ones. The most important parts are the ones that are built with the correct steel, inspected, BCG, etc... within the TDP, that will keep your weapon operating reliably. That's something I'm not willing to skimp on.
Get the BCM lower. Cost difference is negligible, and everything else being equal, I prefer stuff to match.
As for the Chart debate, I gotta agree with Lee Indy. Too many people make too much out of the chart. It's premise is solid, and aside from a few minor debates the info seems to be good as well, but for god sakes, if your (fill in right side rifle here) runs, keep the damn thing and shoot the snot out of it. To me, it's become a giant dick measuring tool that some use to make themselves feel good.
RogerinTPA
01-09-10, 14:02
Get the BCM lower. Cost difference is negligible, and everything else being equal, I prefer stuff to match.
As for the Chart debate, I gotta agree with Lee Indy. Too many people make too much out of the chart. It's premise is solid, and aside from a few minor debates the info seems to be good as well, but for god sakes, if your (fill in right side rifle here) runs, keep the damn thing and shoot the snot out of it. To me, it's become a giant dick measuring tool that some use to make themselves feel good.
Using your analogy, isn't every materiel thing, that has ever been made of varying degrees of quality, value, and cost, be used in the same "dick measuring tool"??? FWIW, buy what you want, but if you truly believe what you say, why did you buy that new car, that new house, that new widget, that new whatever, when the previous one did just fine??
Using your analogy, isn't every materiel thing, that has ever been made of varying degrees of quality, value, and cost, be used in the same "dick measuring tool"??? FWIW, buy what you want, but if you truly believe what you say, why did you buy that new car, that new house, that new widget, that new whatever, when the previous one did just fine??
It's become a giant dick measuring tool. I seriously doubt that's what it was intended to be. The raw information on the chart is great. It's the application of that information by some people that starts to wear thin after a while.
I make my purchases based upon what I need and/or want (and yes, they are usually informed decisions). The problem some people have is separating and understanding the difference between the two. Just because a rifle doesn't spec out as well as the next one on a chart does not mean it will not run or you should not own it. Simple as that. I understand that some people are just wired to want to have "the best", but when you have people selling rifles that run, or trashing others they've had no experience with... that's where internet charts and information can actually be a bad thing.
For example, I like Jeeps. I could make a chart for Jeeps that favors larger tires, a 6 cylinder motor, locking differentials, 4 to 1 transfer case, skid plates, heavy duty axles, rock rails, and presto... I've just explained how a Rubicon is MUCH better than a standard SE model. I doubt many people would disagree, but not everybody needs a Rubicon, and most casual enthusiasts would probably find that even the standard SE model is a very capable off road machine, and still gets the groceries home. Did I do a bad thing by creating a chart that showed the differences in various models of Jeeps? No. I just pointed out what was what. But then people on the internet start recommending to college girls that they have to buy a Rubicon, regardless of intended usage, simply because the chart I made said it had better stuff on it. Now my chart has been hijacked and the whole damn world is collapsing. And it sucks.
Ok, I'm done ranting now. :D
I have a RRA lower on my BCM 16" Middy now. For my next build, I am going to get the BCM lower. BCM stuff is always good quality and built to the correct specs.
lawusmc0844
01-09-10, 20:26
I don't think anyone here advocated selling a complete DPMS or Bushmaster if it works just because its not a BCM or Colt. However, I know they'll tell the owner of that DPMS or Bushy to inspect the rifle and upgrade parts as necessary (install O-ring if cases extract at 5:30-6:00, replace unmarked BCG with HP/MPI tested BCG, stake gas key and castle nut if needed, etc.)
I like the chart because it tells the shooter which brand of AR is built closer to the TDP. I believe in quality and want my ARs to be as close to my issued M4 as possible. I don't understand the "as good as" crowd/mentality because why wouldn't anyone want the best they can afford? Even if you don't shoot 10K a year (I wish I could take a carbine class but I am active duty and ammo is hard to find these days) wouldn't you want a weapon from a reputable company? I personally want ALL my weapons to be reliable enough to survive combat in places like Afghanistan or Vietnam. I can trust my BCM BFH middy, DDM4, LWRC, Glock 19, Springfield Mil-spec and even my Mosin Nagant (fun/range gun). I don't risk my life with a Lorcin or a Hesse AR with UTG or CAA shit on it just because its cheap and somehow "as good as." I've bought shit accessories before I knew better and now I always look for quality before price, never just a low price.
If you are happy with a DPMS and only plink with it, good for you. I got no problem with that at all, its YOUR rifle. However, don't come to people like me and try to tell me that your DPMS or Olympic is "as good as" my BCM then call me a snob because I "paid for a name." If you buy 5 Bushmasters and then bash people who like/prefer Colt as "kool-aid drinkers", you are the one that drinks Bushy "kool-aid" and "pays for a name". (Some people here might know this individual from other forums:rolleyes:)
I vote for the LMT complete lower, with the sopmod stock and ergo grip.
It's become a giant dick measuring tool. I seriously doubt that's what it was intended to be. The raw information on the chart is great. It's the application of that information by some people that starts to wear thin after a while.
I make my purchases based upon what I need and/or want (and yes, they are usually informed decisions). The problem some people have is separating and understanding the difference between the two. Just because a rifle doesn't spec out as well as the next one on a chart does not mean it will not run or you should not own it. Simple as that. I understand that some people are just wired to want to have "the best", but when you have people selling rifles that run, or trashing others they've had no experience with... that's where internet charts and information can actually be a bad thing.
For example, I like Jeeps. I could make a chart for Jeeps that favors larger tires, a 6 cylinder motor, locking differentials, 4 to 1 transfer case, skid plates, heavy duty axles, rock rails, and presto... I've just explained how a Rubicon is MUCH better than a standard SE model. I doubt many people would disagree, but not everybody needs a Rubicon, and most casual enthusiasts would probably find that even the standard SE model is a very capable off road machine, and still gets the groceries home. Did I do a bad thing by creating a chart that showed the differences in various models of Jeeps? No. I just pointed out what was what. But then people on the internet start recommending to college girls that they have to buy a Rubicon, regardless of intended usage, simply because the chart I made said it had better stuff on it. Now my chart has been hijacked and the whole damn world is collapsing. And it sucks.
Ok, I'm done ranting now. :D
+1
thats what i was trying to say but my eloquence could use some tunning
Failure2Stop
01-10-10, 07:57
For example, I like Jeeps. I could make a chart for Jeeps that favors larger tires, a 6 cylinder motor, locking differentials, 4 to 1 transfer case, skid plates, heavy duty axles, rock rails, and presto... I've just explained how a Rubicon is MUCH better than a standard SE model.
ARs aren't Jeeps.
Anyway, it's a flawed comparison, one that thankfully we haven't seen for a while.
Comparing a Colt 6920 to a BM M4 is more like getting a Jeep Rubicon with a 6 cylinder motor that is installed loose, skid plates made out of a flattened Fanta can, and seatbelts that are mede out of bungee cord. They look the same, and do the same thing when you drive around the parking lot, but in real application, they are not equal to the thing they are pretending to copy.
Now, if you were comapring a Noveske SPR to a Mini14, your analogy would be right on.
Does everyone need a 6920? Nope. There are plenty of owners that would be just as happy with an Airsoft gun, but that is not who we orient this site to.
This thread makes my head hurt.
To the OP, it's a flip of the coin. If you want to save $20 get the LMT, if you want the weapon to match (upper/lower) get the BCM. Same quality.
ChicagoTex
01-10-10, 08:43
is more like getting a Jeep Rubicon with a 6 cylinder motor that is installed loose, skid plates made out of a flattened Fanta can, and seatbelts that are mede out of bungee cord.
Yup, that sounds about like any Wrangler I've driven.
*ducks* :D
Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with getting a lower end rifle for lower end money if you have lower end needs. Finding what you have meets or exceeds your needs doesn't mean a more expensive rifle will meet needs MORE, as there is no more.
Car analogies seem in vogue for this thread, so let's go with this one: I've never driven faster than 95mph in my life. I have no interest in going faster, it's illegal and, to me, a bit too scary. My last car had a top speed of 110mph, my current one has a top speed of 153mph - I still have no interest going faster than 95 (or really, more like 85 - the one time I hit 95 I was navigating a hairy merge and lost track of my speed). Granted, I bought my current car to replace my previous car for a zillion reasons besides top speed, but the fact is, provided it can go at least 95mph, top speed is irrelavent to me except for bragging rights/dick measuring.
Michael Schumacher (the winningnest F1 driver in the world, for those who don't know) regularly drives a car capable of above 200mph, he needs that capability for his every day livelihood. Likewise, serious Operators and competitors need a rifle with extraordinary performance for their everyday livelihoods (and sometimes their lives). For them, it's not about bragging rights/dick measuring, it's about getting the job done.
There are different rifles for different folks. I am NOT an Operator, serious or otherwise so my first AR that I just finished building is a Keyhole marked (YHM-manufactured) BM 16" M4-profile carbine flat-top upper that I mated to a YHM stripped lower that I filled in with a G&R LPK, Magpul MIAD, and Magpul CTR Stock. The only key peformance upgrades I've made were to get a BCM extractor upgrade kit and an H buffer. This is not a Serious Rifle for Serious People, but it is a good intermediate rifle for a beginner who was strapped for cash and wanted something just on the good side of decent.
I will shoot this rifle, and shoot it, and shoot it, and shoot it some more until something breaks - when it does, I will replace it with a higher quality party and go back to shooting until the next thing breaks, repeat ad nauseum or until I get more prosperous and/or bored and replace the whole upper entirely. This does not make me a lesser person, this does not make me an idiot, I built a rifle to my spec to fulfill my needs - it does and I have no reason to think it won't continue to.
The only time to beat yourself up for buying a cheaper rifle or cheaper parts is when you could have gotten something much better for the same cash.
ARs aren't Jeeps.
Anyway, it's a flawed comparison, one that thankfully we haven't seen for a while.
Comparing a Colt 6920 to a BM M4 is more like getting a Jeep Rubicon with a 6 cylinder motor that is installed loose, skid plates made out of a flattened Fanta can, and seatbelts that are mede out of bungee cord. They look the same, and do the same thing when you drive around the parking lot, but in real application, they are not equal to the thing they are pretending to copy.
Now, if you were comapring a Noveske SPR to a Mini14, your analogy would be right on.
Does everyone need a 6920? Nope. There are plenty of owners that would be just as happy with an Airsoft gun, but that is not who we orient this site to.
I understand your problem with the analogy, but I think the point remains: Both are modular objects that are offered in many different trim levels. Not everyone needs the "top of the line" and in fact, it would be overkill for the majority of users.
Your snipe at the analogy is where I lose most of you guys. My experience, limited as it may be, is not that the "right side" guns fall apart upon purchase or simply won't run, it's that the left side guns are just better made weapons constructed of superior components. Kind of a glass half full, glass half empty sort of thing.
My experience, limited as it may be, is not that the "right side" guns fall apart upon purchase or simply won't run, it's that the left side guns are just better made weapons constructed of superior components. Kind of a glass half full, glass half empty sort of thing.
That's about right... Keep in mind that this site caters primarily to 2 types of shooters:
1. Those who will actually take their guns into harm's way. This includes military, police, and people serious about home defense or personal survival. This requires a gun that's most likely to be reliable right out of the box, with less question about internal parts quality, and accessorized/modified/assembled by people who have experience in this particular arena. The term "mil-spec" also denotes a certain level of quality control in the parts construction, again giving peace of mind. It doesn't only mean that a part is made out of such and such material to such and such dimensions, but also that its been tested to such and such a standard.
2. Those who will run the snot out of their rifles on ranges or in classes throughout the year. These people don't want to shell out $500-700 for a class (+ammo, driving, etc.) only to have a gun that goes single shot on them, breaks a spring somewhere inside, or suddenly loses grouping as the barrel heats up. This group will also be more likely to modify their guns or accessorize them to meet their needs, and will generally know how to do it.
In both these scenarios, "the chart" or "the list" isn't an end all-be all document. The pros and mods on this site aren't espousing that any manufacturer not in the top five should be tar and feathered and have his business burned to the ground. They're simply saying that if your gun is for heavy duty usage, looking at the left end of the chart will yield a gun more likely to suit your needs and not go T.U. at the worst possible time, as it was built right the first time around. Right side... buyer beware, but if its working for you and your needs, go for it. That's what I get from this site.
RogerinTPA
01-10-10, 10:12
That's about right... Keep in mind that this site caters primarily to 2 types of shooters:
1. Those who will actually take their guns into harm's way. This includes military, police, and people serious about home defense or personal survival. This requires a gun that's most likely to be reliable right out of the box, with less question about internal parts quality, and accessorized/modified/assembled by people who have experience in this particular arena. The term "mil-spec" also denotes a certain level of quality control in the parts construction, again giving peace of mind. It doesn't only mean that a part is made out of such and such material to such and such dimensions, but also that its been tested to such and such a standard.
2. Those who will run the snot out of their rifles on ranges or in classes throughout the year. These people don't want to shell out $500-700 for a class (+ammo, driving, etc.) only to have a gun that goes single shot on them, breaks a spring somewhere inside, or suddenly loses grouping as the barrel heats up. This group will also be more likely to modify their guns or accessorize them to meet their needs, and will generally know how to do it.
In both these scenarios, "the chart" or "the list" isn't an end all-be all document. The pros and mods on this site aren't espousing that any manufacturer not in the top five should be tar and feathered and have his business burned to the ground. They're simply saying that if your gun is for heavy duty usage, looking at the left end of the chart will yield a gun more likely to suit your needs and not go T.U. at the worst possible time, as it was built right the first time around. Right side... buyer beware, but if its working for you and your needs, go for it. That's what I get from this site.
Very well said indeed.
As other's have stated, there are numerous tacked threads to get your gun from the right of the "chart", upgraded with quick fixes, to run more reliably so you can run it in a carbine course or bet your life on it. The "chart" is the baseline that most of us build upon, based on individual needs. If don't want a install a (Insert accessory here) because you don't need it, then don't.
Getting butt hurt because someone chose an AR poorly, or it's all they could afford, then condemns everyone on this forum for being a snob with a better rollmark, is just ignorant (Lacks knowledge), and does not progress the discussion of having the most reliable AR one can obtain, for personal protection, training or to take into Harm's Way. Stop whining, read the tacked threads, upgrade your weapon, take a class or two a year, come back, share your experiences and factual knowledge with others, join a training group with folks in your area, and learn from others with more experience. Personally, I'm trying to learn something new about my firearms and how to effectively apply them, everyday. So I also include myself in the "ignorant" category.
QuietShootr
01-10-10, 10:23
this crap
1/2 of those ARS are just re-branded.
you have S&W over Stag.... Stag makes most of S&W parts for them.
you have Bushmaster over DPMS... both of those brands AND Remington are owned by Cerberus.
An AR is an AR is an AR. You wont see a difference unless you are comparing something like an Olympic to a Noveske. Anything in the middle is REALLY splitting hairs.
Please stop spewing crap. You wouldn't be here from ingunowners, would you?
Ok, I am new and don't know crap. But from what I've read HERE it seems that as long as certian parts are mil-spec(I hate that term, all it means is thats good enough for the average grunt, but it is a point to measure off of) you are good to go. I don't think a MUR is mil-spec, but it is quality. Some stuff mil-spec don't matter. I don't need or want a M203 cut on the barrel. I would like SS 410 over chrome moly barrels, but if I go chro mo I want the good stuff and chrome lining. I demand a Shot peened, MPI inspected proof fired BCG and barrel. Thats the stuff that matters. I read the chart, I looked at what mattered and thats what I'll but/build/use.
Op, both are top line lowers. Go with which ever you want. LMT and BCM are good stuff. Lowers are really not that big of a deal if they are quality. I was told to choose a roll mark I like and go with it. I would add get a name that is known for quality. Both your choices are. Up to you now.
the_fallguy
01-10-10, 13:30
To answer Simon_Belmont's question, I would personally go with the BCM complete lower. Paul has gained a reputation for going the extra mile with his products. You can find numerous posts on multiple forums singing the praises of BCM's quality (including my own).
As to selling your DPMS to get a rifle that is further left in the chart, good on you, mate. There is nothing wrong with improving the odds in your favor if you have the monetary means to do so. Some of us don't get the opportunity to wring our carbines out all the time, and have to save up just to attend classes. I want to make sure that no "surprises" pop up in the middle of a class, and I believe that buying rifles to the left of the chart assures me the highest likelihood of success.
On a separate note, I am pleased to report that my BCM upper will already feed ammunition with fast strings of fire that my Del-Ton upper (along with two other DTI's and a DPMS) could not even extract without mortaring.
I am on another site and the biggest question about AR is 'what should I get?"
The answer I now give is what are you going to use it for? If your just going to have a range gun then a Bushy, DPMS etc would be fine. But if your looking at betting your life, and those of loved ones, on the rifle then get the best you can afford.
A manufacturer needs to cut costs to bring a product to a certain point, so quality IS suspect. A slow simple range rate of fire is not going to test and stress the parst in the AR like firing 300rnds down range as fast as you can will.
As to the OP:
I love BCM, Paul has been great with any question I have had. LMT is a good choice as well. As everyone said you can't go wrong with either.
I am on another site and the biggest question about AR is 'what should I get?"
The answer I now give is what are you going to use it for? If your just going to have a range gun then a Bushy, DPMS etc would be fine. But if your looking at betting your life, and those of loved ones, on the rifle then get the best you can afford.
A manufacturer needs to cut costs to bring a product to a certain point, so quality IS suspect. A slow simple range rate of fire is not going to test and stress the parst in the AR like firing 300rnds down range as fast as you can will.
Bingo.
Amazingly, that question is rarely asked by many who give advice.
Failure2Stop
01-11-10, 02:46
This has become repetative and tedious.
Car analogies are completely misrepresentative of the issues at hand, however, there are very few issues with lower receivers, and either the LMT or BCM will treat you well.
When it comes to complete rifles or uppers a few $ spent toward a quality item will result in a better item. I remind all readers that the TDP should be viewed as the minimum acceptable standard. Exceeding those specs for the sake of precision or parts life costs more, not less, if one wants to maintain reliability. Would anyone try to save $100 on a car by getting brakes made out of substandard material and parts? (rhetorical)
This site is a resource for those that want to have weapons to support a skill-set, not to create a 200 rounds a year gun. The goal of obtaining a firearm with good cost efficiency is great, as long as the gun meets the minimum requirements.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.