DPMS vs. Colt

[aaangel]

Colt for sure.

another vote for colt. LE6920 $899 +tax @ GT distributor. already has the magpul furniture!

[jtran987]

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

[JSThane]

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?

[Bang4Buck]

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;

[JSThane]

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.

[Bang4Buck]

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.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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?

[Bang4Buck]

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.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

I say that as I would think the harshest of conditions would be extreme winter or a return to jungle conditions.

Additionally, how would the new piston driven AR types compare (S&W, Sig, Ruger for example)?

[howdy]

Definitions:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key ... rgTA&gid=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

DPMS isn't very highly-regarded in the AR community (who generally-speaking are very snobby about their brands), but you have to take that with a pinch of salt. Olympic Arms, DPMS, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms - they all take flack for not being Daniel Defense, Noveske or whomever and are a bit harder to sell down the road should you need.

I agree with Andy. As in all things gun, there exists a certain amount of snobbery for or against certain brands. However, the positive reputations on which that snobbery is based are generally well earned. But that said, you could buy a DPMS and be perfectly happy with it for the rest of your days. My first AR lower receiver was a DPMS. Never had any problems with it. My custom AR10 uses DMPS upper and lower receiver halves, which were sent to Noveske, who trued them up and added one of their N6 heavy barrels. It is extraordinarily accurate, and it has a mixture of bad (from the snob POV) parts, and good (from the snob POV) parts. I watched my son put 4 rounds into virtually the same hole with it once, at 100 yards.

If I was going to buy an M4 profile carbine, and not do anything to it other than maybe mounting a good RDS, I'd go for a Colt or maybe a Daniel Defense. If I was going to play Barbie Doll with my AR and do lots of things to it, I wouldn't worry about Colt, and I'd just get whatever was easiest on my wallet that didn't have a horrible reputation. I took my home-built AR15 DMR rifle to Tac Pro today and spent 8 hours ringing a 2/3 size IPSC steel plate at 500 yards.........and it isn't a colt.

If you're building your own, buy what you can afford. You can always upgrade later. If you're going to buy the ready made rifle, Colt or Daniel Defense would be very good choices.

It's the old "custom Colt 1911" versus Glock debate, written on a different canvas.

[JSThane]

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.

[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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

I agree in a general sense, but historical accuracy makes it worth pointing out that "Mil-Spec" is what sent the M16 to Vietnam without chrome-lined bores & chambers, or cleaning kits, or even proper ammunition for it, or even proper instructions on how to clean it, and COLT (back then) even argued that the rifle was a "self-cleaning design" (SOURCE), which I can tell you this morning after having sent 100 rounds downrange yesterday is most assuredly NOT true.

"Mil-Spec" may be hard won knowledge, but in actual practice it is often fudged or imperfectly implemented. And as the above makes clear, it can often be wrong. Like all things, it evolves, and when people of clean conscience are in charge of it, it always evolves in the right direction. But history informs us that this is not always the case, nor is it always reliable. And here's another thing. Mil-Spec manufacturers are making a product for a customer who is not likely to sue them. But civilian manufacturers have to build a rifle that is not going to kill its user, so they have standards that are ALSO fairly demanding. It's one of the reasons that 5.56 NATO ammo should not be fired in a .223 chamber. SAAMI enforces a stricter standard of tolerance for the chamber and throats of .223 rifles, even though they are (incorrectly) perceived as the same ammunition. Federal law may protect a gun manufacturer from being sued for the manner in which the owner uses his gun, but it does NOT protect them from liability in the event of a failure of the gun resulting in injury. The individual soldier cannot sue Colt for producing an inferior weapon......not that they do, but if they did......whereas I can sue DPMS all day long. Therefore, DPMS has as much of an incentive to produce safe and reliable weapons as any Mil-Spec manufacturer does.

So, Mil-Spec IS a good standard, but it is not necessarily the ne plus ultra of AR design and manufacture. It is good, but it is not perfection.

[cyphertext]

None of the rifles that are being tossed around as "Mil-spec" are truly MIL-SPEC. Not even the Colt. MIL-SPEC rifles are select fire, built for military use, and a Gov. inspector is the final approval. The rifles available commercially do not meet this, thus they are not MIL-SPEC. They are not select fire, the barrels are of a different length, and the Gov. does not inspect them. Don't believe me, just look at Colt's webpage. The M4 under the military section specifically states that it is MIL-SPEC. The LE6920 does not make that same claim, because they can't.

MIL-SPEC is also not the greatest and best thing since sliced bread. For example, a Melonite treated barrel is not MIL-SPEC. However, some tests show that Melonite outperforms chrome lining for protection against heat and corrosion. Stainless steel barrels for competition guns are more accurate than their chrome lined, "Mil-spec" brothers, but they are not MIL-SPEC. Noveske double layered chrome lining... again, not MIL-SPEC.

Many of the specs that the "mil-spec" guns follow won't make a hill of beans difference in a semi auto, civilian rifle. For example 4140 vs 4150 barrel steel. If you aren't laying down full auto suppressive fire, you are not going to see the benefit of the extra little bit of carbon in the 4150 barrel. Same with the different materials for the extension tube. Unless you are cracking skulls with the butt stock, you will not see a benefit in the 7075T vs 6061. MIL-SPEC even requires a specific twist rate of 1:7 twist, for firing the longer projectiles and tracer rounds that are not typically used by a civilian AR shooter. If you are shooting the cheap, 55 gr .223 ammo that is readily available, you would probably be better served with a 1:9 twist.

It is up to the individual to understand the differences in the materials and if they will see a benefit that outweighs any extra cost. Now, with all that said, in today's market, a Colt LE6920 with Magpul furniture can be had for less than $900... that is real hard to beat value wise. On the other end, a M&P15 Sport for less than $600 is a good buy as well.