Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 416

Thread: Status of NEW Comparison Chart of Commercial M4-pattern carbines

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,422
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Let them know that this project will go through with or without their participation.

    To be fair, experience has taught me to be careful about answering questions when I don't know how my responses will be used. I'm sure it's no different for others
    Last edited by MistWolf; 05-01-11 at 15:38.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    869
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Tagged.....

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    Rob you must be mellowing!

    At the top of the page under thread tools you can subscribe to a thread.
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Orion Arm of the Milky Way
    Posts
    426
    Feedback Score
    0
    I never knew there were so many ar makers out there. Whole rifles, parts, accessories, etc. This is one big industry! I don't see how you can keep up with it all. I never saw your chart, but all one has to do is go to any ar forum and you will eventially see it referenced.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    I don't know if this is what you're doing, but I just wanted to point out that it may not be 100% reliable to base the chart on the words of a company representative, no matter their perceived level of technical knowledge. As a real-world example of this, when I was building my rifle I made a point to contact manufacturers to get more detailed information than could be found in their product descriptions. When asked if their A3 upper receivers had M4 feed ramps, the rep at DPMS plainly said, "No." When I got all the parts together, however, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the upper did, in fact have M4 feed ramps and they matched up perfectly to the extended feed ramps in my YHM barrel.

    Perhaps instead of making "The Chart" simply a checklist, you should consider making it a gathering of field data. For example, instead of an X or not, one would see 50% for the row "M4 Feed Ramps." Of course this wouldn't work with all rows (it may be impossible or impractical to verify things like magnetic particle inspections of BCG's, metal content of barrels, etc), but I think this solution may further the goal of making manufacturers accountable for quality rather than ticking a box on a marketing brochure.

    Finally, thanks for all the work you have and continue to put into this.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    The original Chart began as an informal polling of instructors, dealers, and end users which was then filtered through the manufacturers themselves to find out if they agreed and they were given an opportunity to refute things they didn't like by posting here.

    This time around is going the otherway. I am starting with a formal polling of the manufacturers (and it is a bit more involved than checking a box) and they are responsible for the answers they give by including their name, position in the company, and email address at the end of the poll (this information is kept confidential and will not be published unless an issue arises). If a company mis-represents themselves in a negative light, that is their issue and their fanboys can cry up the food chain and get it corrected (which is an example of when the name of the person who completed the form may be made public). If a company mis-represents themselves in a positive light the end-user community will again flex their muscle and make it known, at which point the manufacturer may find themselves in a bit of a shitstorm. Again the name of the person who completed the form may become public at that point.

    See the comments elsewhere in this thread where there is discussion about how to rate the manufacturer's responses.

    This isn't just "ask DPMS what they do and take their word for it", and it is also not "ask one guy who bought a DPMS 5 years ago what his gun looks like". It's an attempt to reconcile the two.

    Keep in mind that the Chart has always been a living document and has been updated and changed numerous times over the years. Now it's just a cardinal change that requires a scrapping and a rebuild from the ground up.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    Understood. Do you know of any existing field study/poll like what I suggested? As I feel it may have some benefit to accountability in quality control I would consider starting up the effort if none currently exists.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    The original Chart was more of a "field study" in that it relied on information from industry professionals and end-users more than the manufacturers. If this isn't what you're talking about can you explain it a bit better? I didn't really understand your "50%" example from your first post.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,817
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    In the case of Armalite I was working with a guy bat was helping me but he's no longer there
    Maybe check the lakes and ravines closest to the Armalite facility.


    All kidding aside I appreciate the effort you are putting into the Chart. I found it very helpful when I was first getting into ARs a couple years ago. I look forward to the new version.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    The original Chart was more of a "field study" in that it relied on information from industry professionals and end-users more than the manufacturers. If this isn't what you're talking about can you explain it a bit better? I didn't really understand your "50%" example from your first post.
    It's pretty close. Let's use a hypothetical part: The Leroy Jenkins Upper Receiver Model A. Leroy Jenkins, Inc. claims this upper has M4 feed ramps and Teflon hard-coat. Under the "M4 Feed Ramps" column you might see 50% (413). That means out of 413 owners polled, only 50% actually had the M4 feed ramps. It's a lot more granular that way. The only problem would be abuse. I can imagine Leroy Jenkins, Inc. sending in a bunch of pictures of feed ramps in Colt receivers masquerading as his own.

Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •