Questar or Dlask upper receiver

I have no experience with Questar's ARs, but do with Dlask, and would go with the Questar.
 
I wouldn't buy a Dlask one either. I already have too many I'm content with.

I don't know about Questar's receiver specs, but I do know they service us to the hilt.

My next one will be an ATR.

ETA ... oh wait, you're asking about an 'upper' receiver. Take your pick.
 
Clobbersauras said:
Would like to see your data on that.
Click to expand...

Does Dlask MP their barrel and use the proper steel per mil-spec, or just 4140?

Is it chromelined?

Does it use taper pin consistently?

Does it use the proper height of FSB?

Well, the price should reflect the difference in material and details.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that a mil spec barrel is better than a custom stainless match barrel? Just cause a part is mil spec doesn't make it better than another part. It just means it meets the requirements of the military.

Milspec has got to be the most overused and misunderstood term ever.
 
Suputin said:
Are you seriously suggesting that a mil spec barrel is better than a custom stainless match barrel? Just cause a part is mil spec doesn't make it better than another part. It just means it meets the requirements of the military.

Milspec has got to be the most overused and misunderstood term ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Who the hell is this Greentips guy? What the hell does he know about AR-15s?! I bet he doesn't even own one. :p
 
Suputin said:
Are you seriously suggesting that a mil spec barrel is better than a custom stainless match barrel? Just cause a part is mil spec doesn't make it better than another part. It just means it meets the requirements of the military.

Milspec has got to be the most overused and misunderstood term ever.
Click to expand...

Different applications called for different materials and constructions.

There are different types of stainless steels outthere too.

Since you are the SME, pull the metallurgy data and educate us the type of stainless steel you are referring to - explain to us point by point the pros and cons of different materials for different types of application.

I admit I am not the SME, last time I touched any engineering related stuff was 15 years ago when I did my undergraduate study in engineering. I know close to nothing! I think everyone will be glad to see your analysis backed by proper reference to demonstrate how each material is best chosen for its application, with consideration of environmental factors. Perhaps this is something we can sticky here if it is properly done.

Let's start with Mil-Spec per MIL-B-11595E 4150 CV steel vs 416 SS (or whatever SS you are referring to)

Btw: my previous post refers to the difference between Mil-Spec per MIL-B-11595E 4150 CV and 4140.
 
greentips said:
Different applications called for different materials and constructions.

There are different types of stainless steels outthere too.

Since you are the SME, pull the metallurgy data and educate us the type of stainless steel you are referring to - explain to us point by point the pros and cons of different materials for different types of application.

I admit I am not the SME, last time I touched any engineering related stuff was 15 years ago when I did my undergraduate study in engineering. I know close to nothing! I think everyone will be glad to see your analysis backed by proper reference to demonstrate how each material is best chosen for its application, with consideration of environmental factors. Perhaps this is something we can sticky here if it is properly done.

Let's start with Mil-Spec per MIL-B-11595E 4150 CV steel vs 416 SS (or whatever SS you are referring to)

Btw: my previous post refers to the difference between Mil-Spec per MIL-B-11595E 4150 CV and 4140.
Click to expand...

:popCorn:
 
Since you are the SME, pull the metallurgy data and educate us the type of stainless steel you are referring to - explain to us point by point the pros and cons of different materials for different types of application.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when did I claim to be an SME on anything?

What I am saying is that milspec does not mean THE BEST. It only means that it meets the specifications set out by the military. The military has specific reasons for setting out its specifications, which rarely if ever have anything to do with accuracy or longevity.

If milspec barrels are so great, why do none of the benchrest guys use barrels built to that spec? I'll bet that not one single guy on this forum has a chrome lined, mag particle inspected milspec barrel on a long range target bolt gun. Why would that be, if milspec is THE BEST?
 
Suputin said:
I'm sorry, when did I claim to be an SME on anything?

What I am saying is that milspec does not mean THE BEST. It only means that it meets the specifications set out by the military. The military has specific reasons for setting out its specifications, which rarely if ever have anything to do with accuracy or longevity.

If milspec barrels are so great, why do none of the benchrest guys use barrels built to that spec? I'll bet that not one single guy on this forum has a chrome lined, mag particle inspected milspec barrel on a long range target bolt gun. Why would that be, if milspec is THE BEST?
Click to expand...

You yourself are falling into the same trap that you're trying to dispel in pushing a match stainless barrel on a 10.5-11.5" gun without defining it's use. For me, what's best isn't a match stainless barrel on a short barreled AR. I'd only ever be shooting a 10.5" offhand, and usually within 100m. I would have no benefits in accuracy in having a heavy stainless barrel. It may even be a negative in that it would induce fatigue quicker. Personally, under these conditions I would want the lightest, most durable barrel possible. A heavy match stainless barrel would NOT be best in this situation.

If you want to shoot your 10.5" match stainless AR on a bench, knock yourself out. That may be best for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom