TexasCHLforum.com

I'll point out one more thing: if it's a survival situation, most of us won't fight (and shouldn't!), but run and hide instead. A survival rifle wouldn't see "war-zone" use. It would get used as sparingly as necessary, not from a need to preserve the gun, but from a need to conserve ammunition. In fact, in a non-military survival-type situation, I would argue that a semi-auto isn't the best choice anyway, and offer almost any other kind of firearm, provided that firearm is less mechanically complex. A basic bolt-action .22, or .22 revolver, would be where I'd start, followed by centerfire bolt-actions and lever-actions.

If you're looking to prepare for a Red Dawn type scenario or fight off the zombie hordes, a semi-auto makes sense, provided you have a resupply of ammunition. I guarantee you won't be able to carry enough ammunition to wear out your gun.

While having "extra" features go into the manufacture of your rifle IS nice, I still don't see how it provides any practical benefit for the vast majority of us, nor that their omission will cause any issues.

I get the linked chart, BUT...

I honestly don't see how those differences in construction make any practical difference in use, aside from the rifling twist rate. Yes, some of those are features that are nice "fail-safe" bits, but it's somewhat like arguing that a 1911 is a safer firearm than a Glock, because the 1911 has a manual safety and a grip-activated trigger block (grip safety), and a Glock doesn't.

Background: I've owned/shot DPMS and Stag, and my "patrol" rifle at work is a Colt M4, fully mil-spec (as are all the patrol rifles at my dept). The -only- failures of any kind I have experienced or observed were caused, in order of frequency, by bad magazines, bad ammunition, or improper maintenance. Bent/broken magazine feed lips and stuck followers seem to be the worst offender. Steel-cased ammunition follows a close second, along with bent/dented cases. Trailing a distant third place for malfunctions, in my experience, is poor maintenance, usually gunked-up actions from repeated failures to clean the rifle properly. I have not noticed any increase or decrease in accuracy across the manufacturers, rifling twist rates (with most commonly-available ammunition), etc. (excepting purpose-made target rifles, but they're another breed). I have not noticed any reluctance to feed ammunition across manufacturers. I haven't noticed any issues with the bolt carrier group. (Isn't the M4/16 BCG -only- a requirement if the rifle's full-auto-capable, anyway?)

What I'm asking for is instances where these "shortcuts" actually caused failures, under "normal" use by the "average" user.

jtran987 wrote:Colt for sure. DPMS would be a waste of money. Colts retain their value and are built much better.

I'm curious as to specifics. I have DPMS and Stag Arms ARs. I've shot Colt rifles. I honestly don't see a difference, and all I've ever seen in reviews are generalities like the one above; ie, DPMS quality sucks, Colt is built better, etc, but never an example or list of problems. It winds up sounding like "Get a Chevy, because Fords are unreliable," but without anything backing it up, it honestly appears to just be brand loyalty and nothing more. So...

What sort of quality control problems has DPMS had? Why, specifically (outside of resale value of the Prancing Pony), is Colt a better buy?