Question About AR Barrel
- Thread starter albayo
- Start date
Hi,
DPMS (Panther Arms) is: Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services.
NO!
Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
Go here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA#gid=2
And here: http://www.m4carbine.net/forum.php
and educate yourself regarding the AR15/M4.
Regards.
Mark
DPMS (Panther Arms) is: Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services.
NO!
Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
Go here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA#gid=2
And here: http://www.m4carbine.net/forum.php
and educate yourself regarding the AR15/M4.
Regards.
Mark
notsorichguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- The city that rhymes with fun
What is wrong with DPMS?
They make a non-chi-com AR, that is more afordable than your standard LMT or KC?
I held one in 308 the other day and it didn't look or feel like it was going to break and at half the cost of a LMT, a real bargain as well........ I almost bought it......
They make a non-chi-com AR, that is more afordable than your standard LMT or KC?
I held one in 308 the other day and it didn't look or feel like it was going to break and at half the cost of a LMT, a real bargain as well........ I almost bought it......
I refer you to the links posted above.
DPMS do not follow the TDP.
To quote a more knowledgeable person than myself' "just as good as, isn't".
This is precisely why I don't usually post here, too many samples of one, personal opinions passed off as facts, and people trying to justify something that they bought.
Try taking this discussion to M4C or LF, and see how far you get.
Regards.
Mark
DPMS do not follow the TDP.
To quote a more knowledgeable person than myself' "just as good as, isn't".
This is precisely why I don't usually post here, too many samples of one, personal opinions passed off as facts, and people trying to justify something that they bought.
Try taking this discussion to M4C or LF, and see how far you get.
Regards.
Mark
I am as familiar with the above links as you, but you're not reading / understanding this thread.
To repeat: the OP is talking about a barrel, not an entire gun, and I have witnessed good-shooting DMPS barrels.
Who gives a darn about the TDP? Is the OP going to war? Or is he interested in whether or not a barrel he has in hand may shoot okay? It most likely will. On the other hand, the most likely result of your scare-mongering is the OP dumping the barrel and buying a Noveske or some such, which he almost certainly does not need for his purposes.
My JP Enterprises barrel did not follow the TDP. My current Lilja / ATRS barrel does not follow the TDP. Good thing, as they shoot better for my purposes than a barrel following the TDP possibly could (due to chamber dimension issues).
M4C is largely for people in force occupations (LE and MIL), and LF is largely PMC. Totally different needs than a guy who shows up here asking a simple question about his barrel.
Now, if the OP returns to say "I'm taking this barrel to Libya for some contract work", I might suggest that he not do so. But he won't be doing that.
So, to be more broad-minded, let's ask the OP what he wants to use the barrel for and provide better-informed advice.
DPMS is regular run of the mill AR barrel -
1-9 twist may prohibit you from shooting heavier (longer) 77gr projectiles.
Also even if the barrel is marked 5.56 the chamber may be 223 - you may experience issues with 5.56 ammo. You can always get the chamber reamed to 5.56 specs...
1-9 twist may prohibit you from shooting heavier (longer) 77gr projectiles.
Also even if the barrel is marked 5.56 the chamber may be 223 - you may experience issues with 5.56 ammo. You can always get the chamber reamed to 5.56 specs...
He asked a simple question, and got the simple answer.
Why would you not stake your life on a DPMS barrel (upper, complete rifle, misc. part, etc.)? Because it is not as good as. Noveske does not follow the TDP either, but no one would balk at taking one in harms way.
Also, why compare the barrel to anything but another similar barrel, that usually costs the same, or a little more? Sure, he may be lucky, and get one of the barrels that shoot well enough for his purposes, but the chances are a lot slimmer when the item is produced by a company that does not follow a recognised standard.
DPMS cuts corners, uses inferior components, and are not as good as rifles that cost pretty much the same. No need to compare them with Noveske, when Spikes, etc. are available.
Also, I am willing to bet that there are more hobbyists, airsofters, etc. registered on M4C and LF than real shooters. That does not make the advice they give (and the BS they don't put up with) any less relevant to anyone looking at the AR15/M4 platform.
Regards.
Mark
Why would you not stake your life on a DPMS barrel (upper, complete rifle, misc. part, etc.)? Because it is not as good as. Noveske does not follow the TDP either, but no one would balk at taking one in harms way.
Also, why compare the barrel to anything but another similar barrel, that usually costs the same, or a little more? Sure, he may be lucky, and get one of the barrels that shoot well enough for his purposes, but the chances are a lot slimmer when the item is produced by a company that does not follow a recognised standard.
DPMS cuts corners, uses inferior components, and are not as good as rifles that cost pretty much the same. No need to compare them with Noveske, when Spikes, etc. are available.
Also, I am willing to bet that there are more hobbyists, airsofters, etc. registered on M4C and LF than real shooters. That does not make the advice they give (and the BS they don't put up with) any less relevant to anyone looking at the AR15/M4 platform.
Regards.
Mark
- Location
- California North
My first service rifle was built around a DPMS 16 inch uber heavy stainless barrel. That thing would embarrass an awful lot of bolt guns, my most accurate AR thus far.
Please note, rant follows:
Not that effing chart again, I'm sick of that effing thing - it was out of date the first time I saw it, and that was when Chr*st was a Corporal (or at least KevinB was
). Most of the info applied only to rifles sold in the US when it was current. Next time someone waves that b*stard thing around like they just found the one true source of wisdom in the universe, I'm going to set fire to the entire internet. 
Rant ends, normal communication follows
Not that effing chart again, I'm sick of that effing thing - it was out of date the first time I saw it, and that was when Chr*st was a Corporal (or at least KevinB was
). Most of the info applied only to rifles sold in the US when it was current. Next time someone waves that b*stard thing around like they just found the one true source of wisdom in the universe, I'm going to set fire to the entire internet. Rant ends, normal communication follows
I can't imagine why .......
That stupid chart is just people who haven't got a clue passing the same idiot advice back and forth so many times that everyone thinks it is gospel.
I spent nearly two years building high end AR's using lots of DPMS parts and we never had a single complaint and only ran into one single part that was out of spec enough to cause an issue. There is nothing wrong with DPMS parts. I bet I have test fired a lot more AR's using DPMS parts than all the idjiots going around bashing DPMS cause they read it somewhere.
notsorichguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- The city that rhymes with fun
It took me a while to find this again........ But so worth it
Cheers!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajfiE3iq78k&feature=related
Cheers!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajfiE3iq78k&feature=related
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
It took me a while to find this again........ But so worth it
"What is your life worth... it will fail when you need it most..." Haha. :
Thanks for proving my earlier statement correct.
I stated that I don't usually post on this forum for a couple of reasons, and lo and behold it happened here too.
As soon as someone points out some simple facts, a bunch of b*thurt DPMS/Oly/Norinco/etc. fanboys with high post counts jump in and start ranting their opinions in the hope that the noise will drown out the truth. Kinda reminds me how the anti's and Liberals get their way.
The chart that you all seem to hate is a tool. It allows people to compare their potential choices to an accepted standard (the TDP, that you also, for some ?the same? reason, seem to dislike), and make informed decisions as to what features they feel are most desirable to them. The information comes from the manufacturers. It applies to US made products, because it is primarily for US shooters. Think of it as a consumer advice site for shooters. I've never seen people who purchased waffle-irons or chain-saws get that bent out of shape when their "beloved" doesn't get best-of-breed.
If the chart is out of date (it is currently being updated), it is partly because some manufacturers got all bitter and twisted about having their "milspec" top-of-the-line wonderguns rated against the accepted standard and no longer wanted to play. Hopefully, they have now seen the light, and will look at it as an opportunity to show how far they have come; and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.
People who go out and shoot at a few cans twice a year, or just want an "M4" to show their friends, probably don't need a gun that meets the TDP as much as say, a LEO, but the chart allows them to evaluate that decision using facts rather than opinions from some "experts" on an internet forum with high post counts.
The chart shows people that they can get a higher quality AR for only a little more money, or in some cases, if they shop around, even less money. Just because someone wants something built and tested to a higher standard than say an Oly, using for example, better barrel steel or a (I dread to use the word - "milspec") rather than "civilian" receiver extension, it doesn't mean they have to get a Noveske, and the chart allows them to evaluate their options.
Also, nowhere on the chart does it state that guns that do not meet the accepted standard will not run, or are "jamamatics", it just happens to be the case that in hard use, they appear to have more issues than others. Here, I am talking about AAR's from very respected users and instructors, who have reported higher percentages of issues with these guns. This is in multi-day, multi-thousand round training sessions, or use in austere environments.
The issues reported tend to relate to features where the manufacturers did not follow the TDP, and therefore did not tick as many boxes on the chart. When guns have castle nuts and gas keys coming loose, and those manufacturers are ones who, for whatever reason they feel justified, do not stake, or improperly stake, those parts, then it's what the police call a "clue".
I really could care less if you've assembled 10 000 DPMS/Oly/whatever, I am willing to bet that none of them ever get taken into harms way, and they are probably more than adequate for the people that purchased them to go plinking with, shoot competitions, etc. Most, if not all, will probably never have an issue, and will be passed down the generations. That doesn't make them the same as guns that are built to a higher standard, using better materials with more rigorous QC. As I quoted earlier, someone whose opinion I value more than my own in this matter, " just as good as, isn't".
Don't bother responding to this post, I won't be returning to this thread, I have a life, and my mother always told me not to waste my time arguing with idiots. Something about dragging me down to their level...
Regards.
Mark
I stated that I don't usually post on this forum for a couple of reasons, and lo and behold it happened here too.
As soon as someone points out some simple facts, a bunch of b*thurt DPMS/Oly/Norinco/etc. fanboys with high post counts jump in and start ranting their opinions in the hope that the noise will drown out the truth. Kinda reminds me how the anti's and Liberals get their way.
The chart that you all seem to hate is a tool. It allows people to compare their potential choices to an accepted standard (the TDP, that you also, for some ?the same? reason, seem to dislike), and make informed decisions as to what features they feel are most desirable to them. The information comes from the manufacturers. It applies to US made products, because it is primarily for US shooters. Think of it as a consumer advice site for shooters. I've never seen people who purchased waffle-irons or chain-saws get that bent out of shape when their "beloved" doesn't get best-of-breed.
If the chart is out of date (it is currently being updated), it is partly because some manufacturers got all bitter and twisted about having their "milspec" top-of-the-line wonderguns rated against the accepted standard and no longer wanted to play. Hopefully, they have now seen the light, and will look at it as an opportunity to show how far they have come; and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.
People who go out and shoot at a few cans twice a year, or just want an "M4" to show their friends, probably don't need a gun that meets the TDP as much as say, a LEO, but the chart allows them to evaluate that decision using facts rather than opinions from some "experts" on an internet forum with high post counts.
The chart shows people that they can get a higher quality AR for only a little more money, or in some cases, if they shop around, even less money. Just because someone wants something built and tested to a higher standard than say an Oly, using for example, better barrel steel or a (I dread to use the word - "milspec") rather than "civilian" receiver extension, it doesn't mean they have to get a Noveske, and the chart allows them to evaluate their options.
Also, nowhere on the chart does it state that guns that do not meet the accepted standard will not run, or are "jamamatics", it just happens to be the case that in hard use, they appear to have more issues than others. Here, I am talking about AAR's from very respected users and instructors, who have reported higher percentages of issues with these guns. This is in multi-day, multi-thousand round training sessions, or use in austere environments.
The issues reported tend to relate to features where the manufacturers did not follow the TDP, and therefore did not tick as many boxes on the chart. When guns have castle nuts and gas keys coming loose, and those manufacturers are ones who, for whatever reason they feel justified, do not stake, or improperly stake, those parts, then it's what the police call a "clue".
I really could care less if you've assembled 10 000 DPMS/Oly/whatever, I am willing to bet that none of them ever get taken into harms way, and they are probably more than adequate for the people that purchased them to go plinking with, shoot competitions, etc. Most, if not all, will probably never have an issue, and will be passed down the generations. That doesn't make them the same as guns that are built to a higher standard, using better materials with more rigorous QC. As I quoted earlier, someone whose opinion I value more than my own in this matter, " just as good as, isn't".
Don't bother responding to this post, I won't be returning to this thread, I have a life, and my mother always told me not to waste my time arguing with idiots. Something about dragging me down to their level...
Regards.
Mark
Overall nicely written, but still missing the point. The OP, who is almost certainly not going into harm's way, has no need for a TDP-compliant gun. DMPS barrels are perfectly adequate for most civi uses, as you have pointed out above, finally, and I suppose better late than never. C'ya.
