Are DPMS AR's good?

[lovemachine]

Well then, in that case, I trust my non-milspec RRA with my life. It goes bang whenever I want it to. And I'm sure it'll hit anything at 100 yards, but it won't now, since it's not zeroed in properly yet.

 

[sgreen3]

I think it kind of just depends what you do with your rifles I guess. But man AR talk can make for a heated topic. I like my DPMS alot, is it MilSpec? I have no idea. Do I need it to be? I dought it. If a guy wants to spend the extra coin for one of the more pricey AR's, thats his business. I think this is one of those debates that no one can win. If you find one you like for the right price, buy it. If it turns out not to be what you wanted sell it, youll be able to come pretty close to getting your money back im sure. But I have a hunch that it will do just fine for ya

 

[sloughfoot]

OK, you sucked me back in for one last time.

Non-Mil-spec does not mean less than mil-spec. Non-Mil-spec could very well be better than mere Mil-spec.

Mil-spec is a dimension on a drawing. (Did I say it better this time?)

All AR receivers and their internal components are made by just a few companies. The so-called "premium" AR builders get their parts from those very same companies as everybody else does.

The issue in my mind is not accuracy because all AR's are inherently accurate by the basic design. Although a premium barrel will enhance accuracy......

The issue is reliability and the confidence that a rifle will function with the ammo it is designed to shoot.

There is absolutely no difference between what folks consider a "high end" AR versus what is considered a "low end" AR. They are equally reliable.

And I think I can state that as a fact, by my experience with the "low end" AR's present on the firing line. In fact, I don't believe I have ever seen what is considered a "high end" AR on any firing line in NRA or CMP competition. They are all Bushies, RRA's, or thrown together mix and matches.

The only AR presented for sale by the CMP was a Bushmaster.

 

[CampingJosh]

Mil-spec is a dimension on a drawing. (Did I say it better this time?)

That's only part of the story. The military also specifies composition of materials and specific quality control standards.

You are right that "different" does not necessarily equal "worse." It also does not necessarily mean "better."

 

[mvician]

Mil-spec is a dimension on a drawing. (Did I say it better this time?)

Nope....mil-spec is MORE than a dimension on a drawing.



Mil Spec is a whole set of specifications for the materials used, the manufacturing, the QC/QA controls, the testing, even how the packaged rifle gets stacked on to a pallet. It is the whole process of how the M4/M16 is made.

Since Colt and FN are the only ones that have access to the actual TDP (Technical Data Package) they are the only ones who have the current "mil-specs". Info was leaked a few years ago, so some companies know what was in the package then and used it to make their rifles closer to "mil-spec". This and backward engineering is how some companies claim their rifles meet spec.

It's more than a "blue print".

 

[sloughfoot]

That's only part of the story. The military also specifies composition of materials and specific quality control standards.

You are right that "different" does not necessarily equal "worse." It also does not necessarily mean "better."

OK, A rifle built by Frank White is not "Mil-Spec". And it very well might not be. He doesn't use that as a selling point.

Can you say without any reservation that it is inferior?

Please don't say that it is inferior. I might just pop.

(But I guess if I pop, I will really go away then.....

BUt I am going to say it ONE MORE TIME. Both the US Army And the US Marine Corps Rifle teams use Commercial receivers and internal parts in their match rifles. Mil-Spec is not a consideration for these rifles that MUST be completely and UTTERLY reliable under a wide range of environments.

 

[esrice]

OK, you sucked me back in for one last time.

Good. One-sided debates are boring.

Non-Mil-spec does not mean less than mil-spec. Non-Mil-spec could very well be better than mere Mil-spec.

Correct. I mentioned this in my last reply.

Mil-spec is a dimension on a drawing. (Did I say it better this time?)

Incorrect. It is much more than that. It is specifications for +/- tolerances on machined parts, required processes, required metal types, specified testing procedures, specific sizes of parts, and even specified parts.

All AR receivers and their internal components are made by just a few companies. The so-called "premium" AR builders get their parts from those very same companies as everybody else does.

Some basic parts, like forged uppers and lowers, yes. Others, like barrels, are proprietary.

There is absolutely no difference between what folks consider a "high end" AR versus what is considered a "low end" AR. They are equally reliable.

Completely disagree. If that were the case we'd be seeing soldiers going to war with Olympics rather than Colts and carbine courses would be full of DPMSs instead of BCMs.

When someone like Pat Rogers, who's seen every manufacturer's version of a "fighting rifle" come through his courses, can quickly point to brands that often fail versus those that rarely fail, it makes sense to listen to his advice.

In fact, I don't believe I have ever seen what is considered a "high end" AR on any firing line in NRA or CMP competition. They are all Bushies, RRA's, or thrown together mix and matches.

The only AR presented for sale by the CMP was a Bushmaster.

Different rifles for different purposes. My frame of reference for quality is the ability of a rifle to spit lots of rounds quickly and without hiccups in less-than-ideal conditions. Your frame of reference is obviously different, centered on NRA and CMP competitions. There's nothing wrong with that. Milspec doesn't even factor into competition guns.

 

[mvician]

Milspec doesn't even factor into competition guns.

Good thing too.....mil spec for the M4/M16 is a 5" group or less at 100 yards

 

[esrice]

OK, A rifle built by Frank White is not "Mil-Spec". And it very well might not be. He doesn't use that as a selling point.

Can you say without any reservation that it is inferior?

Does Frank White build M4-pattern rifles? Fighting rifles? If not, then who cares about milspec? It doesn't even apply.

BUt I am going to say it ONE MORE TIME. Both the US Army And the US Marine Corps Rifle teams use Commercial receivers and internal parts in their match rifles. Mil-Spec is not a consideration for these rifles that MUST be completely and UTTERLY reliable under a wide range of environments.

There's a difference between match guns and combat guns.

 

[esrice]

Good thing too.....mil spec for the M4/M16 is a 5" group or less at 100 yards

Exactly.

 

[lovemachine]

Good thing too.....mil spec for the M4/M16 is a 5" group or less at 100 yards

I can't see a non milspec not being able to do that.

Edit: I'm not saying my RRA is any better than a milspec rifle. I now wish I had been more patient and bought one. But, I didn't. I was too excited about getting one. But for my needs, my RRA meets them.

 

[esrice]

I can't see a non milspec not being able to do that.

If ANY rifle could do that, then it would be "in-spec" for that particular specification of milspec. (confused yet? )

Remember, an entire rifle isn't simply "milspec" or "not milspec". Some parts may be within the spec. In the case of your RRA, your carrier key staking might be "in-spec" if its done properly, but your buffer tube might not be "in-spec" simply because it isn't the right size diameter.

 

[sloughfoot]

I guess that what I am missing is that you guys think the M4 is the only worthy fighting rifle? Lots of folks don't consider the M4 as a viable fighting rifle except for CQB. Those days are in the past. The military recognizes the need to reach out a lot farther.

Realities of the battlefield and all....

Talk to the guys on the Army Marksmanship Unit like I have. They would go to war with their match rifles. (after they take the lead out of them)

As far as the Army and Marines are concerned, there is no difference between their match and war fighting rifles, except their match rifles are a lot more accurate.

 

[lovemachine]

If ANY rifle could do that, then it would be "in-spec" for that particular specification of milspec. (confused yet? )

Remember, an entire rifle isn't simply "milspec" or "not milspec". Some parts may be within the spec. In the case of your RRA, your carrier key staking might be "in-spec" if its done properly, but your buffer tube might not be "in-spec" simply because it isn't the right size diameter.

Am I confused yet? Heck yea! I have a headache now...

I probably should just sell my RRA and buy a Daisy BB gun. But then I'll find out that one is crap because there's a milspec BB gun out there too

 

[esrice]

But for my needs, my RRA meets them.

And THAT'S the key. Not having milspec parts doesn't automatically make your rifle inferior garbage. It just means that the likelihood of having issues might've been greater. If your RRA has performed flawlessly then you're good.

My Bushmaster did everything I asked of it and it never missed a beat. However I've heard/read other people's accounts of having lots of problems with their Bushmasters. Now my experience with my Noveske has been the same, but you'll be hard-pressed to hear about serious issues with other Noveskes.

 

[esrice]

I probably should just sell my RRA and buy a Daisy BB gun.

You'll shoot your eye out!!

 

[mvician]

I guess that what I am missing is that you guys think the M4 is the only worthy fighting rifle?

And who here has said that?

 

[lovemachine]

You'll shoot your eye out!!

I have NEVER seen that movie

 

[sloughfoot]

I really don't want to fire this thread up again. But,

I would just like to say that the AR's that are somehow considered to be "low end" like the Bushmaster and the RRA and the DPMS are all built by people who strive to build the very best rifle that they can. They are not junk or unreliable as long as they are properly maintained. There is no company that can put an inferior product on the market and hope to survive.

Lots of guys depended on these rifles for many years before mil-spec and the latest versions of well marketed rifles came on the market.

Consider the M16 as the original version. It was absolutely Mil-Spec. There was no commercial equivelant. Yet hundreds of soldiers died as a result of the shortcomings of that rifle.

The term "mil-spec" has no special magic for me.

It just means lowest bidder.

Good night.......

 

[mvician]

Consider the M16 as the original version. It was absolutely Mil-Spec

The term "mil-spec" has no special magic for me.

It just means lowest bidder.

Good night.......

The "M16" is the .mil designation for the AR15, it was a commercially made design that was marketed to militarys around the world. There wasn't a "mil spec" for it at the time. The specs were developed from finding out what worked and what didn't. The specs have changed over the years.



MilSpec isn't a drawing or the lowest bidder.