Wow, this thing has jumped the shark. Shocking.

Quote Originally Posted by seacoastnh View Post
No I don't believe that at all and I did not make that claim. The highest quality parts coupled with the best process are most likely to yield the highest quality result.

I have no involvement in the industry and I do not claim to be an expert on manufacturing. Just pissing in the Koolaid of the chart worshippers by pointing out the claims of quality in the sacred chart are not supported by any numbers.
Perhaps you should stay in your lane, open your ears and listen and dial back the admitted trolling then. You see to want to force the discussion here into your preconceived dialog of "chart worshippers".

The point you brought up about parkerizing under the FSB is a perfect example:

"You say that I don't know does lack of finish under the front sight base results in a weapon more likely to fail? According to the chart it results in an inferior weapon so that means less accurate, shorter life span, more likely not to function out of the box or what?"

This isn't even a claim you are making about so-called worshippers of the chart, but you are actually saying that the chart is making a claim that it is demonstrably not (quite the opposite in fact), as pointed out by JC0352.

I suspect Colt could tell you the number of defects they will likely produce next year. I will concede that it is not likely to happen and that the information on failure rates for various manufacturers is not readily available.

The point is that the chart fails to address manufacturing quality in any meaningful way.

The Koolaid drinkers and those wearing the effete yellow visor claim that my observation is false or that the chart is misunderstood.

I am not looking for the information, I am not asking for the information except sarcastically in response to one of ROb_S' posts as way of reinforcing my point.

Does the chart mean that the DD is an order of magnitude more reliable than the S&W? Two orders of magnitude? Three?

The chart can't quantify reliability.

I am comfortable with my purchases.

As an aside you only need a statistically significant sample, not information on every failure of every rifle.
You are correct that you are extremely unlikely to see internal QC data of any kind publicized by any company...and as such, it really is a pointless question. You've stated as much anyways by basically admitting that you are trying to stir the pot and lob rhetorical points over the fence.

No, the chart doesn't "mean" that any particular rifle is any order of magnitude more "reliable" than any other rifle. It also doesn't claim to. The prevailing sentiment in this community is not that a Colt is 1.687 times less likely to fail than a Bushmaster, so stop trying to put everything into that little compartment. It is a collection of features that are present in the M4 carbine used by the United States military, and the chart itself in tandem with the myriad of technical threads on this forum in which we are graced with the presence of subject matter experts in things like 'manufacturing processes' explain why these features are desirable in a fighting carbine. Take it for what it is, and stop trying to make it something it's not.

If you are comfortable with your purchases, rock on.

On a side note, I would recommend that you tone down the "effete" and "stupidity" comments or you will probably run into problems here.