Why doesn't PSA uppers get any respect, they offer one of the best barrels made?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why doesn't PSA uppers get any respect, they offer one of the best barrels made?
Did you miss "Gas key properly staked" ?
Perhaps for the same reason AIMSURPLUS ( just to name one of the many many many...) is not mentioned - they're not a manufacturer per se - they put in a large enough order (of what is - granted- a quality item) and just slap their name on it.
Offering a version of a FN barrel and some other parts does not make you a manufacturer of a highly respected AR platform, nor put you in the same league of any of them.
Me thinks.
Per Ardua ad Astra.
STS - gone but not forgotten.
Thank you for the list.
I think one of the reasons is that PSA doesn't sell that many complete rifles compared to the number of uppers that they sell.
Second, Although PSA is a great vendor if you know what you are looking for, they offer several quality grades of components and you really need to look at the detail description of each item.
For example, just with BCGs, PSA sells a full mil-spec BCG that has C158 bolt and that is HPT/MPI inspected, a C158 bolt BCG that is not tested, and a 8620 bolt BCG.
Uppers are the same way. They same CHF FN barrel uppers, cut rifled FN barrel uppers, 4150 barrel uppers but not FN (Wilson?), and 4140 barreled uppers.
Most of their other parts are like this as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submoa77,
To answer your question…”no”.
To me, too many of "my concerns” are not met with a Rock River…
But maybe it’s just me…
--------------------------
.
.
Thank you for your "thank you". Thought my "list" was lost.
The original intent of my “list” was to give people the elements that make AR’s differ from each other, so they could do their own research and find out if a "Cagalicky Mohicky" AR is a good brand.
Modern technology allows someone to find justification for about anything. AR’s included.
…but what is good about modern technology, you can find the “facts”, IF you’re willing to do research to gain the information to discern the truths from the opinions and hopefully, make a good decision.
As you can tell by some of the earlier posts, most people are “research lazy” and just want someone to tell them “what’s a good brand”.
Maybe it is just me but I wanted an AR that didn’t just “look” like a real AR but why and what makes one was better than another. So, that's why I started making my "list".
With so few "views" of this thread the past few months, I figure it was my "title" or I just put too much value in my 90+ "concerns" and I was out in left field with my thinking.
Oh well, maybe it is just me...
.
I have had a RRA issue gun for several years and have about 8500 rounds thru it. I know I do not run it as hard as many of you do, but it has always worked. I also own an A4 varient that has some sentimental value. I've got around 500 trouble free rounds thru that one. That said, as I have more time to perfect my skills on a rifle, I will probably get a Bravo Company when I've saved up my lunch money.
My question is about the basic parts - I.e. upper and lower receivers on RRAs - how do they stack up if a guy decided to build his own? I see RRA lowers on a lot of home builds, as well as Stags and others. Are the basic materials and dimensions consistent with the upper end mil spec guns?
To say "a lower is a lower" would not be entirely accurate, however I believe that many users feel that there is more latitude given on lowers than uppers. As long as a lower is properly constructed and fitted (and this seems easier to accomplish) , they generally function correctly. The upper receiver group is far more critical to the correct operation of an AR-15, and this seems to be where many lower-end companies find corners to cut. These corners are in both crucial components such as barrel steel and treatments, bolt composition, etc., as well as testing and verifying fitness for use (HPT/MPI, etc.)
Bookmarks