Budget AR parts quality.

[CA139]

I'd like to know which were junk. And what specific parts. I'm not doubting your blanket statement, but I'd like to get an idea of what has failed in the past. To help the little guys.



Wait. A 25yo armorer is telling you what is what on AR's. Not a 25yr veteran, but a 25yo armorer???? Again, I'm not looking for a fight, but I don't trust the 25yo armorer. The immense likelihood is that he's parroting what mgmt says. MOST people take a LONG time to form their own opinions versus the ones spoon-fed to them.

My point is that you could totally BS a 25yo armorer. Short of having some pretty good stats on the individual guns and tracking it over time, it's really just a "feeling" that is reinforced every time they notice a gun that has a long time between service and another of another make that has a problem. ("See? That Chevy is in the shop. They're trash. I've had 3 Fords and not one of them has even had an oil change in 50 years!")

My FURTHER point is that there is zero chance that PSA makes the best best best and "all the rest" are pretty much equal. That's the Magic Grits argument. (3 degrees befoah top dead cennah)

Maybe he was 30yo but since I'm in my 40's anyone below a certain age looks extremely young. He worked at Battlefield Las Vegas so was speaking for the shop's cumulative experience and what he sees on a day to day basis. And this is the busiest range in the country which easily gets many guns to 100,000 round counts very quickly and well past that. They only hire ex military. He also told me gun companies basically give them stuff for free all the time because their volume is so high that it's like the ultimate torture test in terms of round count.

His point was not that PSA was not the best best best, only that they are by far the longest lasting, require repairs and cleaning the least frequently. He made a point to specifically say they are not the most accurate either but as far as durability goes it's a good thing because they are built with slightly looser tolerances which diminish accuracy but improve reliability.

 

[weekendracer]

So more QC than lack of quality materials most likely? Some machine shop running their machines at taxi cab speeds and not checking his lot variations or changing cutting tools from the part 1 to part 1000 that day.

This is where I am. You want a rifle that doesn't rattle when you pick it up? Spend $1500 on it and get matched EVERYTHING. My issued Colt M4 makes almost much noise as my 8 year old daughter when I'm trying to watch TV. You can twist it, you can see through it in some places, it shoots good enough for government work when I do my job.

 

[CA139]

This is where I am. You want a rifle that doesn't rattle when you pick it up? Spend $1500 on it and get matched EVERYTHING. My issued Colt M4 makes almost much noise as my 8 year old daughter when I'm trying to watch TV. You can twist it, you can see through it in some places, it shoots good enough for government work when I do my job.

That's the point I am trying to make.

Bigger tolerances mean lower accuracy but more longevity and reliability. But the tighter tolerances not only come with a high price cost, but also make the gun less durable and require more maintenance.

In the end I don't think the accuracy gained by going to tighter tolerances is going to make any difference in either recreational or defensive shooting, maybe only competitive. Unless you're a very long range sniper.

 

[CrackPot]

I don't own any assault weapons yet but was thinking of buying an AR and an AK before they get banned. AK prices have skyrocketed in recent years, wish I had bought one years ago but AR prices have dropped precipitously.

You may have missed that my post was being snarky because of your poor use of language.

I recommend you not use the term "Assault Weapon" at all and "Assault Rifle" only when referencing a full auto rifle such as a M16. You are otherwise falling into the gun grabber mentality and lexicon.

Assault Weapon is solely a political/legal term. Political in that they like the term because it sounds scary. Legal because of the 1994-2004 federal AWB and current MA AWB. Still, it is good to not use the term unless you are specifically referencing the law for some reason.

 

[weekendracer]

That's the point I am trying to make.

Bigger tolerances mean lower accuracy but more longevity and reliability. But the tighter tolerances not only come with a high price cost, but also make the gun less durable and require more maintenance.

In the end I don't think the accuracy gained by going to tighter tolerances is going to make any difference in either recreational or defensive shooting, maybe only competitive. Unless you're a very long range sniper.

Personally, I think most guns shoot better than the shooter is capable of. If I had a dollar for everyone who had me shoot their guns to 'check the sights', well, I could buy a couple boxes of .40. The point is, we tend to think it's a hardware issue when it's actually a software issue.

When I do my job right, my PSA AR10 will put rounds almost through the same hole at 100. It's a $800 gun in .308. Granted, I put in some sweat equity, but I paid less than $800 for the parts. I've also found, ammo probably makes more of a difference than the gun itself. Cheap ammo is all over the place in weight. I've never broken down my cheap .308, but my match stuff is within a hundredth of a gram between rounds (probably 10 boxes checked before my ADD kicked in). The cheap stuff is a tenth off the average sometimes. No idea what the difference in weight was caused by, but the difference is there. Finding the grain your gun likes is worth the effort. All kinds of little things that add up.

 

[CA139]

Personally, I think most guns shoot better than the shooter is capable of. If I had a dollar for everyone who had me shoot their guns to 'check the sights', well, I could buy a couple boxes of .40. The point is, we tend to think it's a hardware issue when it's actually a software issue.

When I do my job right, my PSA AR10 will put rounds almost through the same hole at 100. It's a $800 gun in .308. Granted, I put in some sweat equity, but I paid less than $800 for the parts. I've also found, ammo probably makes more of a difference than the gun itself. Cheap ammo is all over the place in weight. I've never broken down my cheap .308, but my match stuff is within a hundredth of a gram between rounds (probably 10 boxes checked before my ADD kicked in). The cheap stuff is a tenth off the average sometimes. No idea what the difference in weight was caused by, but the difference is there. Finding the grain your gun likes is worth the effort. All kinds of little things that add up.

I agree as well, the differences at most distances and ranges are not that huge but some people value the difference between shooting 1/2 to 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 inch groups at 1-300 yards. I don't.