Stripped lower question?

J

Jayph

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Going to start an AR-15 build that will take place as the extra funds allow. I was looking at the DPMS and Stag arms stripped lowers. Is there one better than the other or are they both good products that just come down to personal preference?

Second Where is the best place to get a PSG-1 style grip and skeleton stock? Thanks in advance. :D
 
Built up a Bushy, Eagle (Armalite) and DPMS lowers. Competed with all of them. Not a single problem with any of them.

Shoot 'em while we can !
 
which lower has the same color as colt. I am going to build rifles out of my colt parts and want it all to match and function. Does anyone know were to get some upper receiver parts for the colt ar15a1 upper with shell deflector? I won't be using a1 uppers to build, using a2's.
 
All the STAGs I've got come with a rich, dark blackish anodizing. Seem to be pretty consistent colour wise. I just picked up a new complete lower from a friend who needed cash, colour-wise it matched right up an older, spare upper I had on hand from a few years ago.

The DPMS & Bushmaster lowers/uppers I've handled over the years have varied in colour. As for your Colt parts, it depends on how old they are. Older Colt stuff is various shades of gray, while later stuff is more black, really dark gray, etc...
 
Hungry said:
Built up a Bushy, Eagle (Armalite) and DPMS lowers. Competed with all of them. Not a single problem with any of them.

Shoot 'em while we can !
Click to expand...

People used to say that eagle arms was total crap, but I swear that must have been before armalite bought them. I have an eagle arms lower and its on the the best machined pieces i have ever seen :D Quality craftsmanship. If bushy and dpms are the same, then thats good to know.

*edited for misinformation :(*
 
Last edited:
Brentn said:
... I know that RRA lower/uppers do not use milspec dimensions, and there are some fitting issues with mixing and matching their upper/lowers. I personally would avoid them unless you use both the upper and lower together.
Click to expand...

And how exactly do you "know" this? It's a rather argumentative statement to make without at least some evidence to back it up.

Over the past 2 years we've sold hundreds of RRA lowers as well as uppers, complete rifles, etc. and I have to say that I have yet to see any evidence that these (to use your words) "do not use milspec dimensions".

Is it possible that an 'out of spec' unit slipped out of the factory? Of course... that's happened to every AR manufacturer out there... but to make the statement you made is Bull S#!T plain and simple.

If you have specific evidence to support your statement then please share that with everyone... otherwise your statement is nothing more than your opinion... based on nothing.

Respectfully

Mark
 
Brentn said:
Theres a huge post on it on THR, I'll dig it up if you insist.
Click to expand...

Well that must make it true then...:rolleyes:

Sorry for the sarcasm but honestly I'm not "insisting" on anything... merely saying that making such statements without some offer of proof or evidence to support the statement is rather lame.

THR is not different than Gunnutz, AR.com or many other user forums... a lot of the posting are very questionable and often quite inaccurate. Just because "so and so" said something doesn't make it true. I have personall worked with, sold, handled, etc. 100's of RRA units and my personal experience DOES NOT support the statement you made... so I have to ask on what FACTS you make your statement. You now say that you were repeating something you read elsewhere... but who knows what actual fact or evidence there was for those statements?

There are a lot of RRA users here in Canada who own the guns and they have NOT experienced the "fit" problems you suggested... not to say that someone didn't find a tighter fit here or there... but not what you suggested. Before you make such a statement you should be very sure that it is in fact correct... sounds like all you did was read something and repeat what you read... if the information was not correct then what value is your statement?

Mark
 
Questar said:
Well that must make it true then...:rolleyes:

Sorry for the sarcasm but honestly I'm not "insisting" on anything... merely saying that making such statements without some offer of proof or evidence to support the statement is rather lame.

THR is not different than Gunnutz, AR.com or many other user forums... a lot of the posting are very questionable and often quite inaccurate. Just because "so and so" said something doesn't make it true. I have personall worked with, sold, handled, etc. 100's of RRA units and my personal experience DOES NOT support the statement you made... so I have to ask on what FACTS you make your statement. You now say that you were repeating something you read elsewhere... but who knows what actual fact or evidence there was for those statements?

There are a lot of RRA users here in Canada who own the guns and they have NOT experienced the "fit" problems you suggested... not to say that someone didn't find a tighter fit here or there... but not what you suggested. Before you make such a statement you should be very sure that it is in fact correct... sounds like all you did was read something and repeat what you read... if the information was not correct then what value is your statement?

Mark
Click to expand...

Hey mark,

I apologize and yes your right, I jumped to conclusions. I know that you have had the most experience with RRA here on the boards, I am sure as you sell the parts.
I brought it up because the post is long with lots of feedback in both negative and positive directions for RRA.

I never really read the post, just glimpsed at it, and the last thing I want to do is spread mis-information. I should have said "I think" instead of stating directly that they do not use mil spec parts. I will edit my post if I can after this one.

Here is the thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324557&highlight=rra+milspec
 
Don't sweat it... the main reason I called your statement into question was so others who read it will understand that it's unwise to "take statements at face value". Just because someone says something does not make it true... that goes for my statements as well. Too many users of these FORUMS just believe what they read at face value... and unfortunately all too often the information they're getting is wrong or at best "half truths".

I started to read the thread you listed from THR and honestly got only a little ways into it and had to stop... I was laughing too hard to keep going.

It always amazes me how "everybody is an expert". It also is a constant source of wonder how people use (or should I say mis-use) the word Mil-Spec. Most don't have any clue what it means and often it's impossible to really understand what the user intended it to mean when he used it.

An excellent explanation of the use and mis-use of the term "Mil-Spec" was written a few years ago (Oct 2005) by BravoCompanyUSA for the AR15Armory.com FORUM site:

I wrote this a while back but thought it would be worth while to put the question out there again.

What is Mil Spec ?

What does that term mean to you ?

It is an overused term in this industry (and at times, I have been as guilty as anyone).

I think the term and its honest definition has evolved over time.

In order to understand how it is used today, I think we need to take a look back at the civilian/commercial AR industry in its' relative infancy. In the days where there was only Colt and a bunch of low budget copies.
If we look back about 15-20 years ago, the quality of the average parts offered on the market was significantly less than what we choose from today. If you picked up a parts kit or complete rifle, chances are your set up included such products like:
-Cast front sights instead of forged
-Roll pins used instead of steel dowels to pin a front sight
-Sling swivels with no rubber sleeve
-Washers for flash hiders that came straight from a hardware store
-Plastic handguards with no heat shield or if they had them – plastic
-Plastic delta ring
-Receivers that an inferior plating (Not HC anodized)
-Chrome molly was presented as chrome lined
-Lower parts that were probably reject scrap M16 parts that were sloppily cut and reparked
-A buffer and spring not fit for an airsoft rifle

Then as the market grew, so did competition. Competition spurred strategies such as “our parts are better than your parts because of . . . “. Which led to a slow influx in higher quality parts and rifles. In many ways (as I remember it) Bushmaster (aka Quality Parts Inc.) led this charge with a article in Spring 1992 Soldier of Fortunes “Fighting Firearms”, titled Bushmaster Builds a Better M16. At the time Bushmaster was the only major company making a rifle with a chrome lined bore, correct trigger and takedown pins, and a bayonet lug,

As the market and competition grew, the term Mil-Spec became one of the most popular descriptions in the industry. It was a term used to define a difference between some lower quality materials and some new higher quality materials.
Its my opinion that an honest use of the term "Mil-Spec" in that context was to say, our delta rings are not plastic but are made of aluminum – just like the military version.
Or our front sights are not cast, but forged like the M16 would have. In that it described the use of materials and manufacturing that are generally consistent with the military issued version.

Well with the current continuing growth of the AR industry coupled with the powerful tool of the internet, information (and sometimes mis-information) can be disseminated at a rate never before imagined. With this, terms and expectations have changed dramatically to the sophisticated consumer.

So what does Mil-Spec mean today ?
My $.02 - In its most technical and literal sense it means as defined by the TDP (TDP is Technical Data Package, an acronym I learned from JLM). As I understand it the TDP would be all of the manufacturing dimensions, material and manufacturing specifications, quality control testing, and tolerances (+/-) as set forth by Colt for the production of the parts and complete rifles as delivered to the US Military. This information is owned by Colt and is very purposely not released for public consumption. (FN now leases this info for the US M16 rifles it produces) Which really means that by a strick literal definition none of us really know what the true 100% Mil-Spec is. Or you could say there are a very small handful of people in the world that do – and they ain’t talking. Although I do like the Colt product (not the political BS), the above paragraph should not be taken as an advertisement for civilian Colt. Because I personally do not believe that true 100% Mil-Spec QC is anything civilians or LE will get from a store bought AR15. My personal belief is that a true 100% Mil-Spec carbine can only be acquired (indirectly) through your local military recruiters office. (i.e. – enlistment or re-enlistment). But that debate is perhaps a different topic?

The Colt TDP is to say that every other AR has been reverse engineered. Which really does not directly translate into a bad thing. There are thousands and thousands of private security, law enforcement, and other non-military personal that are fighting for their lives and our freedoms with a DPMS, Bushmaster, Rock River or Armalite rifle – all over the world, and they are doing quite well with it.

So back to the topic at hand – the contemporary definition of Mil-Spec. If the sophisticated consumer defined true 100% Mil-Spec as the TDP, and none of us consumers will have the TDP and therefore can not confirm that a product complies to the TDP, then the term can only be used in reference to a military context discussion about an issued rifle.

I feel the honest contemporary definition of Mil-Spec in the context in which we use it would be “Mil-Spec” is short for “Mil-Spec feature”.
Some examples:
To describe a Mil-Spec trigger pin or take down pins, is to say they are the standardized and not the oversized type.
To describe a Mil-Spec front sight, is to say that it is forged and a taller “F” to be barreled to a flattop and the shorter to be barreled to an A2 upper.
To describe a Mil-Spec M4 profile barrel, is to say that it is 4150, chrome lined, and 1/7 twist. Or even to say regarding chrome molly/chrome lined vs. chrome molly, where chrome lining is Mil-Spec.
To describe a Mil-Spec stock, is to say that the dimensions are compatible with Colt stocks as opposed to the large OD of various commercial units.

It is my opinion that this is the current definition of the term Mil-Spec (Mil-Spec = Mil-Spec feature).

Your thoughts ? . . . . . . . . . When you hear the term, how do you interpret its meaning ?


Signature:

Semper Fi !


So what's the point? The point is that we (the public) can't buy a truly "Mil-Spec" AR since the only truly Mil-Spec AR is in fact the one sold to the US military and by contract neither COLT or FN are allowed to sell that firearm to civilians. Any other firearm (and any other use of the term) would be incorrect... so in a sense you were 100% correct when you said that Rock River Arms was NOT a Mil-Spec gun... but neither is every other AR manufactured by every other company selling guns to the public.

In the public relm the use of the word Mil-Spec has come to mean something else... and in that sense most manufacturers (Rock River Arms included) meet the grade.

When it comes to AR's everyone has an opinion and opinions are like a**holes... everyone has one :)

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom