Advice on my first AR
- Thread starter Terentius
- Start date
Why don’t you make a post of detailed TDP specifics and explain what the differences actually are.
Manufacture techniques, barrel steel, bolts, engineeering specifics, etc etc
Explain the differences. Most people don’t understand anything we describe when listing things off like TDP or Milspec.
Kidd X, I have one question for you
Have you ever been in actual combat??
You sure talk like you have been " in the ####" , where you have had to depend on that mil spec equipment to bring you home safe?
If so, I offer you my thanks for your service, and will certainly put far more credence into what you post. I myself have never served, and as a " hobby shooter" , would never question an operators stance on weapons,,,as that would be asinine of me.
So,,,are you a hobby shooter or are you an actual operator with field experience?
So you want me to spoon feed the answers to others who are too lazy to do their own research?? No thanks. If folks are ok with sub standard parts and driven solely by price then so be it. I will provide a link to some of the criteria for milspec parts and offer a small explanation AGAIN, as to why milspec is a safe bet.
Milspec parts are properly manufactured from proper materials and meet dimensional or property specs. Barrels that are made of the proper steel will last longer. Chrome lining increases reliability and reduces wear. A properly heat treated, shot peened, and pressure tested bolt(of the right steel) also increases reliability and service life. A chrome lined bolt carrier increases reliability, eases cleaning and reduces wear.
A lower receiver that does not permit milspec magazines(Magpul Pmags are a good test mag) to drop free are not to spec(watch for the rivet to be the problem). A poorly machined lower can result in under/over sized pin holes which in turn creates it's own problems. A more recent issue would be improperly located buffer retaining pin holes. This creates unnecessary wear on parts that shouldn't show signs of wear. In the thread below the answer to an out of spec part is to use yet another out of spec part.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1553622-Anyone-sell-an-offset-AR-buffer-retainer
Nowhere have I ever said milspec was the be all to end all. What milspec provides is a STANDARD in which you can measure against. If multiple militaries and their SOF units are willing to bet their lives on milspec rifles then I am comfortable betting my days enjoyment on them.
Here's a link to what some of the milspec requirements are.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?55930-BCM-Stuff
Nope, never served. As I posted above, if our serving members are willing to trust their life to a milspec rifle then I'm comfortable trusting my days worth of fun to them as well. Should a more serious need arise then I'm still comfortable with my rifles.
If you're simply a hobby shooter who plinks for fun then your opinion on quality rifles has next to zero merit. Unless your life hangs in the balance or you're fighting the clock like a competitor, your experience and failures with your firearms have zero context. Plinking is a zero stress zero resultant activity. A failed gun at the bench while punching holes to waste time results in nothing more than more wasted time. A failed gun as an LEO/MIL type or competitor has a more significant impact. Clearly the LEO/MIL types have the most significant possible impact. Add in the folks who pay good money to seek professional training as well. A broken gun means a lot of wasted money and time.
If you read the thread I linked above you'll see that a hobby gun that is out of spec has created a problem. Here's another link where a poster mentions his lower having an odd out of spec design regarding detent springs.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1653038-dumb-question?p=14399021#post14399021
The list of threads involving AR problems related to out of spec parts is endless. Most of which could have been solved by buying/using proper in spec parts.
Pmags Kiddx are not stanag compliment incorrect demensions. Only the M3 meets the standard, and arguably exceeds it to be if not the best choice overall AR mags. I guess you really don’t know the history of what Milspec, Stanag NATO , TDP is. Are you just repeating what you herd from day M4 car.net ? You remind of a cgner named TDC. Lol.
Not concerned about STANAG requirements as I don't own or use other NATO issued weapons. Pmags were built for AR15 pattern rifles and as it stands is the only issued magazine for the USMC. They do however fit HK rifles, SA80's, and SCAR rifles.
I know a few guys that just recently picked up a S&W Sport 2 specifically to compete in 3 gun. I will let you know at the end of the season how they held up to competition.
I can say however, that several guys ran DPMS Oracles and Norcs for the last couple seasons without a single malfunction or problem. YMMV
Still recommend an LMT....you know, Just cause I run one....and like it.
I can say however, that several guys ran DPMS Oracles and Norcs for the last couple seasons without a single malfunction or problem. YMMV
Still recommend an LMT....you know, Just cause I run one....and like it.
I don’t mean to insult or be hostile here so don’t take it that way. BUT
That doesn’t mean anything.
Its like me saying my Topas got me to work just fine. All let you know how it worked next year with all the results. My buddies drove a corvette and a Porsche and all stick to my Mercedes G wagon.
You have no data. No specifics. Nothing to add that is useful.
Stoner99,
No offence taken.
OK, the useful data part...
There is some good data here in this thread and, my response was mostly tongue in cheek. However, I can give some honest insight as well.
I have carried a C7/C8 since the mid 90's at home and on multiple deployments. I am very familiar with the platform.
I do compete in 3 gun, about 10 matches per season as well as "plinking" for fun to the tune of several thousand rounds per year.
My observations over this time have shown me that sometimes we really do get wrapped around the axle on AR's when it really isn't necessary.
For example, if several of my friends DPMS's are run very hard in competition with the only modifications being a brake, rail and optic, and no appreciable difference from my LMT, should they upgrade?
My LMT is 10 years old, has north of 12K rounds through it and just keeps on ticking. Several friends are running tier 3 rifles with similar performance results (including one Norc).
The reason I say I will watch the S&W's over the next season is because outside of combat, competition is the best test of quality for its intended purpose. We shall see but, if the last few seasons are any indicator, most tier 3 AR's are getting the job done for a fraction of the price of boutique and are a viable option for the vast majority of civvies.
No offence taken.
OK, the useful data part...
There is some good data here in this thread and, my response was mostly tongue in cheek. However, I can give some honest insight as well.
I have carried a C7/C8 since the mid 90's at home and on multiple deployments. I am very familiar with the platform.
I do compete in 3 gun, about 10 matches per season as well as "plinking" for fun to the tune of several thousand rounds per year.
My observations over this time have shown me that sometimes we really do get wrapped around the axle on AR's when it really isn't necessary.
For example, if several of my friends DPMS's are run very hard in competition with the only modifications being a brake, rail and optic, and no appreciable difference from my LMT, should they upgrade?
My LMT is 10 years old, has north of 12K rounds through it and just keeps on ticking. Several friends are running tier 3 rifles with similar performance results (including one Norc).
The reason I say I will watch the S&W's over the next season is because outside of combat, competition is the best test of quality for its intended purpose. We shall see but, if the last few seasons are any indicator, most tier 3 AR's are getting the job done for a fraction of the price of boutique and are a viable option for the vast majority of civvies.
For starters we all know that magazines are consumable, as in they wear out and get tossed out and replaced. Second, the first gen Pmags had short comings but then again that was 10 years ago and who the f**k still has or uses gen 1 PMags?! Second generation Pmags came out in 2009, 2 years after the first generation and the 2nd gen mags work like a champ in all weather conditions including the ARCTIC(not artic). Third, Magpul has had a CAGE code for their Pmags almost since the beginning. You know that neat alphanumeric code that signifies that X product is in the government purchase system. That means someone requested said product and a lot of it. Oh and I'm sure you were aware that all the HK 416 rifles used on the OBL raid were fed by Emags which is what the new gen 3 Pmag is based off of. Nothing wrong with the gen 2 pmags but Magpul managed to alter the dimensions so the gen 3 would fit AR pattern rifles as well as Hk 416's, SCAR's and SA80's as well.
If by NATO approved you mean to say they never met "STANAG" requirements then you would be correct and wrong. There is no officially adopted STANAG regarding magazines. There is however a proposed STANAG 4179 that mentions some magazine dimensions but was never adopted. The proposed STANAG 4179 is unofficially followed by some countries and/or manufacturers but is not a NATO requirement. Like HK for example, who selected their own sized magazine well as opposed to using the milspec dimensions from the AR that have been around for more than a half century.
Does there have to be a specific link to a story to validate the common sense logic behind sub standard low quality parts being used in(and low priced) rifles of questionable pedigree?? If you think a Colt Expanse uses the same parts as a Colt 6920 then you're clearly struggling to keep up here.... I thought we covered the economics of selling known brand badged products with sub standard low cost parts?
Agreed.
A gun run for competition is almost certainly run harder than the average plinker's rifle ever will be. However, the round counts are not high, the tempo is low volume over a short period of time under pretty clean conditions in most cases. Our magazine limits also prevent most of us from really getting the rifles hot and dirty. Taking a class/course where 400-800 rounds are shot per day for several days on end will show the weak spots.
All that being said, the sport II and the Expanse(as well as many others) are far from being feature rich or well thought out. They are slap together cheap rifles marketed for the first time AR buyer who knows little to nothing about the rifle. Can they handle a steady diet of 3 gun matches? Quite possibly yes. Will they suffer parts breakage sooner than they should? Quite possibly, in my opinion most likely. Is there potential for aftermarket parts to not fit? Absolutely..
If you want a reliable AR that will give you no grief made with proper parts then your safest bet is to buy a quality milspec rifle.. That's the bottom line.
I am not arguing with anyone as to the definition of quality/ top shelf gear. And, I would also advise potential buyers to buy the best that they can afford after doing their research.
You are right about 3 gun as far as my experience goes as well. An average season sees 9 or 10 matches with ~ 100 rounds each. Add in a practice regimin and it equals ~ 2K rounds of fairly hard use per year, albeit though in a controlled environment. Most recreational AR users will not shoot 2K a year in the hot / cold / rain / snow / sand etc while throwing it into/ onto dump buckets / tables etc. slamming home mag changes etc.
Which brings me to my point; it has been my personal observations that many budget AR's are routinely keeping pase with significantly higher quality rifles during the competition season in both accuracy and reliability and have been doing so over many years now.
This not an endorsement but an observation only.
You are right about 3 gun as far as my experience goes as well. An average season sees 9 or 10 matches with ~ 100 rounds each. Add in a practice regimin and it equals ~ 2K rounds of fairly hard use per year, albeit though in a controlled environment. Most recreational AR users will not shoot 2K a year in the hot / cold / rain / snow / sand etc while throwing it into/ onto dump buckets / tables etc. slamming home mag changes etc.
Which brings me to my point; it has been my personal observations that many budget AR's are routinely keeping pase with significantly higher quality rifles during the competition season in both accuracy and reliability and have been doing so over many years now.
This not an endorsement but an observation only.
I'm happy to hear that 1st hand. I have spent many hours of research and all evidence supports your conclusion. Thanks
Well obviously. You are shooting 5rd mags or 10 rd mags at most and for 100 rds at a time in 3 Gun competition. That means nothing. Lol. The conclusion to come to was buying crap ARs is a waste of time. Even for hobby guns. Colt Expanse is probably as low as I would go. $700 Canadian I would pay for it.
The problem with what you are doing is that people will see your posts and validate buying low end ARs, but then they will buy a bunch of them and before you know the wild claims start getting parroted as gosbel.
What people buy is there buisness but I will continue to point out the obsurdity of shooters purchase crap and stating it’s just as good BS.
