Average shooter vs "Trained shooter"

[ST911]

OP is no longer with us, action unrelated to this thread. Thread can stay open and take its natural course. Have a great Tuesday, everyone.

[bamashooter]

I'm open to many of them and have used assorted ones in the military, as a government civilian, elsewhere. Regarding the statement of the government relying solely on low-bid is incorrect. Stringent requirements, to the point at times of being a little anal at times, are the norm for combat gear. And it wasn't unusual for equipment / firearms, ammunition, etc to be what we called "sole-sourced". In other words, there's this particular weapon, etc that is desired and Uncle Sugar knows this one manufacturer can do it, regardless of costs. It bypasses the normal procurement bureaucracy. That sole manufacturer will be given the contract; blah, blah, blah. Not an everyday deal but not unusual. I know this as fact.

As a government civilian, "they" sent me and others at times to "contracting" school. I kid you not. An "item" would be shown as needed. the contract let to company ABC. As the "contract monitor", it was my duty to oversee the fulfillment of the contract by "monitoring" it to include, periodic disburing of funds, meeting timeline schedules, testing, the actual "deliverables", etc. Though it sounds like a screwed up "all other duties as assigned" affair, I actually enjoyed it at times, learned a lot and really appreciated the interaction I had at times with the manufacturing and testing side of equipment and gear. This also provided me the opportunity to work with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) a time or two. They're the DoD equivalent of Disneyland. So anyway, there's my .02.

[Doc Safari]

I just want to address this "lowest bidder = crap" fallacy.

In the first place, I worked in procurement. The proper phrase is "lowest QUALIFIED bidder." You can also add to that "lowest qualified bidder THAT MEETS THE REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS."

The government sets the specifications, as well as the means to verify the vendor is following them (even if the government doesn't always follow through when it should). The jokes about $600 toilet seats, whether true or not, often speak of all the things that go into procurement, like writing specifications, getting samples (or knowing the vendors reputation), testing examples, verifying specs, awarding contracts, etc.

So, if a maker like Colt produces M16's for the government you can rest assured a team of qualified people wrote the specifications and Colt has to stick to them and be able to prove it. Having said that, we live in an imperfect world and when you have all these people and complicated standards involved, things do occasionally go wrong and bad product slips through. But the bottom line is the "lowest qualified bidder" has to meet and maintain the specifications set forth in the awarded contract. You at least have the assurance that a minimum acceptable standard is being met for the most part.

The other standard is COTS, or 'COMMERCIAL OFF THE SHELF', and what limited experience I have with that, COTS is where the government purchases a pre-existing product deemed to be acceptable to satisfy a contractual requirement, and IMHO that's where a lot of error is introduced.

[Kvjavs]

That's great that you have good experience with your bargain bin ARs. However you're a sample size of one. Talk to instructors who hold regular carbine classes and you'll hear a lot about students who roll up with DPMS, DelTon, Spikes, no-name parts builds, etc and end up being the ones who hold up the class with their persistent malfunctions.

No one said those guns never run, you're just much more likely to run into defects and issues with cheaper guns because they don't spend the money on QC

Spikes Tactical is budget grade? I know they aren't highly thought of over here but I haven't heard much about them shitting the bed often. They even put their money where their mouth is regarding certifications on their testing and barrel steel. But please do correct me if I'm wrong, knowledge is power, and all that jazz

Disclaimer: I don't own anything Spikes Tactical nor will in the future, just curious.

[wetidlerjr]

I just want to address this "lowest bidder = crap" fallacy.
In the first place, I worked in procurement. The proper phrase is "lowest QUALIFIED bidder." You can also add to that "lowest qualified bidder THAT MEETS THE REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS."...
...The other standard is COTS, or 'COMMERCIAL OFF THE SHELF', and what limited experience I have with that, COTS is where the government purchases a pre-existing product deemed to be acceptable to satisfy a contractual requirement, and IMHO that's where a lot of error is introduced.

Exactly! The nonsense about low bidder meaning low quality is just so much BS.

BusinessDictionary definition:
"Qualified bidder with the lowest or best bid price, and whose business and financial capabilities, past performance, and reputation meet the required standards"
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...le-bidder.html

[Sry0fcr]

My dad has a Bushmaster. He's taken it to the range once (family range trip). It's overgassed AF but worked for the entire mag that was shot through it, but hasn't seen any use since. This was probably 2 years ago. I was over his place around Thanksgiving and he asked me to clean and lube it for him. The castle nut was loose and his receiver extension was about to fall off. #justasgoodas

[vicious_cb]

This thread was not meant to start an argument, just want to point out that maybe some of us need to actually give things a try before judging. Or, maybe a few of us need to be honest with ourselves and stop acting like we actually use our rifles enough to actually judge other peoples choices on cheaper rifle purchases.

This thread is a joke. Its based on the assumption that people on this board have never tried or pushed cheaper brands in actual use. Yes, I have personal experience with cheaper brands and Ive had problems with them. More importantly Ive talked to instructors and shop owners who have seen and worked on more ARs than I will ever see in my see lifetime who DOCUMENT the problems they've had with various brands.

Also I like how you call Colt "high end", really? Colt is the MINIMUM std. of quality one should look for in a fighting AR.

[voiceofreason]

There is a reason why quality equipment is recommended and used by those that push their limits daily.

Most owners will not push their gear to their limits or even shoot out a barrel, so they won't notice nearly as many failure points. But when your outfit/cadre/armory goes through multiple high round count rifles, you being to notice patterns and over time it becomes clearer and clearer why some are better than others.

9mm Glocks have earned their reps as have Colt carbines. A Remington R1 or Del-ton may work great for a guy that shoots 200 rds a year. Doesn't mean that if you issued 1000 of each to a department and checked the reliability in 3 years you'll get the same result.

[T2C]

You’d hate me and my guns.

Same here. The carbines I used as loaners for my classes would make some people cringe, but they kept running with regular maintenance.

[26 Inf]

This thread is a joke. Its based on the assumption that people on this board have never tried or pushed cheaper brands in actual use. Yes, I have personal experience with cheaper brands and Ive had problems with them. More importantly Ive talked to instructors and shop owners who have seen and worked on more ARs than I will ever see in my see lifetime who DOCUMENT the problems they've had with various brands.

Also I like how you call Colt "high end", really? Colt is the MINIMUM std. of quality one should look for in a fighting AR.

Sid - Smpr Fi's gone, read ST911's post above. You read the forums long enough and this will happen, people get banned. It happened to Smpr Fi and it'll happen to others.







Edited for the Top Gun vibe