TexasCHLforum.com

Bang4Buck

Everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions on this subject. Obviously we're fairly passionate about our choices.

I would encourage the OP to go to a dedicated forum (M4carbine.net or ar15.com) and read various articles by people who spent years in the military and have put 10's or 100s of thousands of rounds through an AR and make an educated decision. Both forums have great posts that have been very enlightening to me and countless other shooters.

Bang4Buck

gigag04 wrote:M4Carbine.net is a great place to start.

Bang4Buck

I agree with everything stated above. I regard mil-spec (minus the select fire trigger) as a minimum of what I am willing to accept in a self defense rifle. Others have gone beyond that spec, such as KAC sr-15.

My main agrument is with such a small price differnce, why not go ahead and get a colt 6920, which will also hold its resale value far better than a Bushmaster or DPMS.

And for those on a budget who are not as concerned about the infamous chart and mil-spec, this S&W is one of the best deals out there. Just look at the reviews:

http://grabagun.com/smith-and-wesson-m- ... black.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bang4Buck

My loyalty is to a quality standard in manufacturing, not a brand. If colt, bcm, daniel defense, etc.... Suddenly stopped following the mil-spec, I would not longer consider buying them.

For what is it worth, I was watching a 3 gun competition the other night on TV. A couple competitors had failures on their ARs. None of them were using mil-spec. Might have been the ammo or mag.

I just know when I am on dedicated AR forums I hear the worst stories about the non-mil-spec ARs. And many of the people there were ex military heavy users of ARs.

Bang4Buck

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
If you want something to survive the harshest of conditions and still run, buy mil-spec.
Wouldn't you buy an AK, an M1, no longer made FN, or bolt action for that?

I would feel pretty good going to battle with a mil-spec AR like our soldiers use. If you are a sniper, I'd think a bolt action makes sense.

AK is obviously a solid choice. FN SCAR will do you just fine.

Bang4Buck

JSThane wrote: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.

I'm not suggesting I'm a subject matter expert. I'm going based on very reliable info and extremely smart people on other forums dedicate to M4 carbine/AR15 platform.

The normal, average user has an AR that spends most of its time in a safe and hits the range a few times a year. A typical LEO officer will never put their AR what it would go through in a war zone in the middle east. You're probably right the normal user can shoot any of those and be ok. If you want something to survive the harshest of conditions and still run, buy mil-spec. My argument is look at the difference in price between these brands. Not a big difference between the one's on the right side of the chart and a colt 6920. So why in the world would anyone spend around $700 on a bushmaster (sounds like the name of an adult film from the 70s) when they can buy a colt for $879 and it is mil-spec. And guess which one has far better resale value?

One of the key differences on the chart is whether the manufacturer does batch test or individual tests on key parts. You pay a little more for having each part tested. To me, it is worth it to know it meets specs.

Bang4Buck

JSThane wrote:
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?

The chart I'm going to link to is both famous and infamous. You can click on it to expand in the first post. It is probably not completely up to date since it is a few years old, but it is still a fairly accurate guide. What is does show is Colt, BCM, DD are following mil-spec guidelines, while others do not. Stag, Bushmaster, RRA, Olympic, DPMS were ranked the lowest in terms of following mil-spec government requirements. I wouldn't trust any of those ARs in a situation where my life was on the line.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showth ... p?t=132850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you just want an AR to have fun with, buy whatever you want. If you want a serious zombie apocalypse battle rifle, I personally would stick with Colt, BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske and Knight's Armament. FYI Knight's Armament is not shown in the chart but their SR-15 is regarded by many as the finest Ar-15 you can buy out of the box. The only thing that scares people is their bolt carrier group is proprietary (thought it is by far the best) so you can't interchange it with BCG from other ARs.

Here is another link explaining more:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key ... utput=html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bang4Buck

CainA wrote:For what it's worth:

http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.ph ... arrel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just purchased my first AR, which ended up being an Smith M&P, no FA or dust cover, but no biggy to me.

I would spend the extra $80 and get the magpul furniture like the one in my post above.

Bang4Buck

Colt, Bravo Company, Daniel Defense, knight's armament, and noveske will all make a mil-spec AR15.

All but the colt will be well above $1,0000. The $879 colt I showed you above was well over 2 grand during the panic. You are unlikely to ever see these prices again for one.

Bang4Buck

MikeStone wrote:Thinking about my first AR. (.223/5.56)

My budget is around $1000. I'm debating a Colt or the DPMS Recon. The thing I like about the DPMS is the SS barrel, quad rail, and Magpul accessories. The thing I like about the Colt...is that it's a Colt. (I know that means a lot...not really giving up too much. Still a 4150 chromed barrel, etc.) Thoughts?

Colt all the way. Mil spec. Here is one with magpul furniture for $879:

http://grabagun.com/colt-mfg-co-inc-le6 ... -30rd.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Put a rail on it later

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt

Re: DPMS vs. Colt