Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 104

Thread: Do you know the definition of quality?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Urban Cessmaze
    Posts
    4,057
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)

    Exclamation

    Originally Posted by rob_s
    Also, most people's "me-spec" is nothing more than "cheapest gun that appears to be an AR-pattern firearm I could find at the gun show". That's fine if people buy based solely on appearance and ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    And what's wrong with that? If they're "requirement" is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
    And that's PRECISELY what M4C is NOT about.
    - Either you're part of the problem or you're part of the solution or you're just part of the landscape - Sam (Robert DeNiro) in, "Ronin" -

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,519
    Feedback Score
    2 (75%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I think the only reason we got the 16" M4 profile at all is because the various manufacturers simply assumed that what everyone wanted was a gun that looked just like what we saw on the nightly news.
    I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaykayyy
    And to the guys whining about spending more on training, and relying less on the hardware, you just sound like your [sic] trying to make yourself feel superior.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,253
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    It seems to me that when you compare an item to an established spec you have two options:

    1) the item is in spec

    or

    2) the item is out of spec

    That's it. Those are your choices. I think this has been mentioned already. If the item is in spec then IMO the process ends here. If the item is out of spec then you could take it a step further and try to determine if the deviation from spec somehow makes the item superior or inferior to the established spec. This is where you have to apply your own needs/wants and establish your own parameters and as a result only you can determine if the deviation from the established spec is in any way inferior or superior for your use.
    Steve

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
    I think you've put the cart before the horse. I don't know how long you've been following the commercial AR market, but for as long as I can remember the manufacturers were pushing "mil-spec" as if it meant something.

    All I, or we, have done is hold their feet to the fire with their claims, and asked consumers to educate themselves as to what they're being sold... and fed.

    do some idiots bang on the TDP drum a bit too hard? Of course. But I have been taking great pains to remove any mention of the TDP as a whole or any use of the term "mil-spec" out of the Chart and Explanation of Features for several years now. The TDP was the genesis of the list of criteria, yes, but there is a clear explanation as to what the choices are and why they matter in the E of F. You will notice there is no mention of barrel length, gas system length, gas port size, barrel profile, or any of the other features that are irrelevant to reliability and longevity.

    speaking of drums, you've been a member here for far too long to just now be bringing all this up. What's driving this now out of the blue? You say you're not stirring the pot but I'm not sure I believe that just yet. What was it that caused you to post this now? If you think you're bringing fire to the cavemen and telling people something they didn't know, the disclaimer I quoted above has been a part of the Chart for years.
    Last edited by rob_s; 05-01-12 at 10:15.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
    This is certainly true (cost/quality of the weapon matching up to one’s personal reqs). Like I posted, if your intended roll is to shoot 5rds a year at the pesky ground hog on your property, buy whatever you like (as it really doesn't matter).

    The slippery slope of choosing parts that do not conform to the TDP is that there are OTHER repercussions of this. Meaning, when I see a 1/9 twist rate on an AR, I IMMEDIATELY think out of spec chamber and overly large gas port. Another concern I have is that the gun is not assembled properly.

    To me, it is simple. If the company making the AR cannot spend the $7 dollars to upgrade from a 4140 to a CMV, what else did they go cheap on?? There are many more examples, but you get the point.




    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 05-01-12 at 10:20.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    2,553
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
    Not everything is poo-pooed because it's not TDP compliant. Midlength gas systems are wildly popular here. 16" barrels are freaking ubiquitous. Pencil/lightweight barrels are wildly popular. The vast majority of guns here are not select fire. Any Magpul/VLTOR/whatever stock is not compliant with the M4 TDP. Go to a pic thread and tell me how many of those you see. 4150 barrels often come on guns that are less expensive to the buyer than guns with 4140 barrels, so in that case why would the buyer not want 4150CMV? Stainless barrels are commonplace here for precision applications. Who here has ever said that KAC's E3 bolt is a bad thing (outside of possible logistical concerns)?

    The fact is there are a litany of features that are embraced here that are not compliant with the M4 or M16 TDP. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it is.

    Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
    Last edited by Palmguy; 05-01-12 at 10:31.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,152
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do?
    You can't compare the extra hauling ability of a truck with the potential live saving functionality of a firearm. Still if you are 100% certain you will never have to use your rifle to save a life, go find your best bargain and cut a corner or two. I suppose it really doesn't matter at that point except possibly making for an embarrassing outing on the range due to failures.

    However I believe most of us here come from the perspective that if our rifles are be called upon in a life saving emergency, we want them to be the most reliable and effective known variant for the job. It's really not all that complicated.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmguy View Post

    Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
    Right. Since you can get one in the $1K range, has one of the best names (if not the best name) in the AR world, is reliable and holds its value (which is very important if you need to sell it) the Colt AR is an easy choice.



    C4

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmguy View Post
    Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
    and because, regardless of WHAT spec it's built to, we have a better confidence that it will run for the new shooter so they can focus on, you know, shooting. We have all seen the poor new guy with his sub-par rifle having failure after failure and not learning a damn thing other than he should have bought something else.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    326
    Feedback Score
    0

    3 pages

    People either understand or they don't.
    This strikes me as 3 pages of some one trying to justify buying garbage by "muddying the waters".
    I guess I'm so simple minded that I just trust "the chart", and it's author.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" Thomas Jefferson
    "Civilization is a wonderful, but paper thin concept" JW777

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •