Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 891364" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>While I think that "mil-spec" is a heavily abused term, in and of itself it only means a narrow set of specifications that the military deemed necessary to ensure an item would perform to a certain standard (reasonable performance for the cost incurred). </p><p></p><p>There are a lot of AR parts suppliers and builders who use premium parts that meet or exceed the spec. But you'll usually not find parts present that don't at least meet that standard. There are plenty of AR companies that use substandard parts in their builds though. </p><p></p><p>All parts regardless of spec will rarely fail in a light use rifle and Kurt is correct that most malfs will be due to improper maintenance or reassembly issues such as misaligned gas rings. </p><p></p><p>In most cases the culprit responsible for true parts failure will either be very poor quality materials used in manufacture of the part, or excessive heat. Heat kills springs, degrades soft materials such as extractor inserts and contributes to metal stretching and fatigue failure under pressure.</p><p></p><p>If you're wanting a weekend plinker and light duty home defense carbine, paying premium prices for the best of the best is overkill. But if you intend the carbine to be capable of extreme use and long term durability, the better the parts and materials the more likely it will perform as expected.</p><p></p><p>Unlike some AR snobs, I don't look down on anyone who buys a $750 AR as unwashed or uninformed. But if they believe it will hang with a top notch build under extreme conditions, they <em>might</em> wind up disappointed. Nothing in life is a sure bet, but you can stack the odds in your favor.</p><p></p><p>I've got a DPMS lower with a Professional Ordinance upper that's very reliable since I upgraded the bolt (a $4.95 insurance policy that everyone should get). I shoot it in competition because it's so light, I have an advantage in speed over a short course.</p><p></p><p>But I went with a Noveske for a hard use carbine because I wanted something that would not only inspire confidence, but be very durable in the event it saw a lot of extended firing. There's an AR to fit virtually every budget. Where people wind up disappointed is when they want $$$$ performance for $$ price. JMO, YMMV</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 891364, member: 1132"] While I think that "mil-spec" is a heavily abused term, in and of itself it only means a narrow set of specifications that the military deemed necessary to ensure an item would perform to a certain standard (reasonable performance for the cost incurred). There are a lot of AR parts suppliers and builders who use premium parts that meet or exceed the spec. But you'll usually not find parts present that don't at least meet that standard. There are plenty of AR companies that use substandard parts in their builds though. All parts regardless of spec will rarely fail in a light use rifle and Kurt is correct that most malfs will be due to improper maintenance or reassembly issues such as misaligned gas rings. In most cases the culprit responsible for true parts failure will either be very poor quality materials used in manufacture of the part, or excessive heat. Heat kills springs, degrades soft materials such as extractor inserts and contributes to metal stretching and fatigue failure under pressure. If you're wanting a weekend plinker and light duty home defense carbine, paying premium prices for the best of the best is overkill. But if you intend the carbine to be capable of extreme use and long term durability, the better the parts and materials the more likely it will perform as expected. Unlike some AR snobs, I don't look down on anyone who buys a $750 AR as unwashed or uninformed. But if they believe it will hang with a top notch build under extreme conditions, they [I]might[/I] wind up disappointed. Nothing in life is a sure bet, but you can stack the odds in your favor. I've got a DPMS lower with a Professional Ordinance upper that's very reliable since I upgraded the bolt (a $4.95 insurance policy that everyone should get). I shoot it in competition because it's so light, I have an advantage in speed over a short course. But I went with a Noveske for a hard use carbine because I wanted something that would not only inspire confidence, but be very durable in the event it saw a lot of extended firing. There's an AR to fit virtually every budget. Where people wind up disappointed is when they want $$$$ performance for $$ price. JMO, YMMV [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom