Maybe you should hire one moron to balance things out. Do your part for the economy and all. :D
Printable View
http://www.oa2.org/forums/viewtopic....=asc&start=125
Someone who works for Olympic Arms (Rattler) claims they are illegal and that is why OA does not use them. He also says chrome lining it bad and that is why OA won't use it.
Wow there is so much gayness posted there that I thought my brain was going to melt down.
I quit going to my local shops after I was told that the Uncle Mike's gear they carried was better than Eagle Industries and like Rider79 they think DPMS is the shit. :rolleyes:
We now have a newer shop that leans more towards the tactical side of firearms and they carry some good gear. It's even owned by a firefighter :eek:!!!
That being said though, the only gun store I hang out in is G&R Tactical via the errornet. :cool:
rsilvers, thank you for posting that link. That is 10 minutes of my life I cannot have back. I am now dumber than I was before I read it and I'm pretty sure most of the working part of my brain melted and ran out my nose and left ear. :p
May God have mercy on your soul! :cool:
Wait, Grant posts in that thread? Now I gotta go back and finish. My brain actually shut itself off in an effort of self-preservation while I was reading it...
Holy crap...
So Olympic Arms invented:Quote:
So "mil-spec" only matters when it is for "combat"? Well geesh, then why are we even having this cionversation? Isn't that the whole point of this thread? 99.9% of the AR's manufactured are not going to combat, and it is known when they are being manufactured that they are going out for civilian distribution. Yet the talk amonst the ABC'ers is that Oly's product is not up to standard because they are not "mil-spec" enough for them. It will be good to let the rest of those guys know that mil-spec isn't as important to them after all because they are not in combat...
And what happens when a legitimate improvement is made to the AR15/M16 system, that truly is better, but is not onl that glorious TDP? The better product, the improvement must therefore be rejected because it is not according to the almighty 'spec'. Like when Olympic Arms offered the first flat top receiver. The mil-specers must by their own standard reject it because it is not in the TDP. Or when Oly introduced the free-floating handguard: REJECT. Or when Oly manufactured the first Free-floating Integreal Rail System Handguard where the rails and the handguard itself are one integral piece? REJECT. Not 'mil-spec'. The defence of mil-spec is a self-defeating exercise in futility, and nothing more.
Seriously though, my point in the remarks I have made thus far are not to defend to attempt to abdicate mil-spec enmasse, but simply to point the folly in defending it. Better does not mean mil-sepc, and mil-spec does not mean best available.
1. The Flaptop Receiver
2. The Free Float Forearm
3. Free Float Forearms with Integral Rails
Wow, I had no idea they were such a contributor to the design of the AR.
I made the mistake of reading it too... :rolleyes: