Dpms Or Rock River???

[JohnBT]

Not me. Very satisfied with my barely used (60 rounds) $800 RRA Entry Tactical with a chrome-lined barrel and an extra Brownell's 30-round mag.

I still might buy a Colt even though it's 50% more, but I'm keeping the RRA.

John

 

[KBintheSLC]

Weird... when I started this thread, I was hoping that I could get a clear picture of what was the better product. Unfortunately, with all of the conflicting opinions, I am more confused than when I started.
Some say RRA is great, some say it sucks. Some say Colt is worth the extra $$, some say it's not. Some say go with the chrome upper, some say it is not that important on a civilian rifle.
I guess it really boils down to a personal choice, and how the gun will be used/maintained.
Anyway, thanks for everyones input. I'm still not sure what I will buy for my first AR, but you have all provided me with some good food for thought.

 

[hags]

Weird... when I started this thread, I was hoping that I could get a clear picture of what was the better product. Unfortunately, with all of the conflicting opinions, I am more confused than when I started.
Some say RRA is great, some say it sucks. Some say Colt is worth the extra $$, some say it's not. Some say go with the chrome upper, some say it is not that important on a civilian rifle.
I guess it really boils down to a personal choice, and how the gun will be used/maintained.
Anyway, thanks for everyones input. I'm still not sure what I will buy for my first AR, but you have all provided me with some good food for thought.

I think it all boils down to quality and you pretty much get what you pay for, most of the time.
Look at it like that and you can make some sense of all the differing opinions.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I don't think RRA sucks. I just know that you can get a better product in the same price range (Stag), and an even better product if you spend just a little more (LMT).

Like I stated, it depends on what you want it for... and even if you want it for self defense, RRA doesn't make a horrible product... but why get a RRA when you can spend the same amount of $$ and get something a little better?

 

[dphillips]

Before you buy anything, go to ar15.com and
do some reading. I've built two ARs, it not very
hard if you buy a complete upper. The lower goes
together with simple tools. And ar15.com has complete
instructions on how to put the lower together with
pictures.The money you save, you can put towards ammo.

 

[hags]

Before you buy anything, go to ar15.com and
do some reading. I've built two ARs, it not very
hard if you buy a complete upper. The lower goes
together with simple tools. And ar15.com has complete
instructions on how to put the lower together with
pictures.The money you save, you can put towards ammo.

Yes, build a frankengun that doesn't function when you take it to the range and then make others pay for the money you saved.







Just kidding, that never happens.

 

[dphillips]

Both ARs I built work well, about 10,000 rounds
through them. I would guess I saved $300
on each. If nothing else, buy a complete
upper, and a complete lower and put them
together. But if you are looking into ARs,
AR15.com has some of the best info. on
complete rifles, brands, parts ect.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Frankenguns work just fine, as long as the parts you buy are good quality... and the damn thing is put together correctly...

 

[hags]

Frankenguns work just fine, as long as the parts you buy are good quality... and the damn thing is put together correctly...

Considering some of the intelligence levels I've seen with problem homebuilt ARs even that statement doesn't cover it.
If you want a no BS website with guys who run their guns hard, know their equipment and share what they know check out www.M4carbine.net.
Fine site.

 

[taliv]

uhh, so what problems have you seen with homebuilt ARs that were made with quality parts and put together correctly?

 

[mrmeval]

I have a RRA lower. It is very precise and has very tight tolerances. This made it very good to build a rifle with. I could not have afforded an off the shelf gun with the features I wanted so got all the parts over a year and now I have one.

 

[hags]

uhh, so what problems have you seen with homebuilt ARs that were made with quality parts and put together correctly?

1. Way off topic.
2. That's not what I said.
3. Quality parts and correct "building" are not at issue.
4. These are usually the guys that buy the cheapest, oldest, out of spec., import ammo and then can't get it to reliably function in their guns.

 

[ArmedBear]

2. That's not what I said.

hags, that's exactly what you said.

You claimed that guns made from parts don't work right, whereas you get a better gun when you pay a markup for the same parts in a brand-name box, in a configuration you may not exactly want.

And I claim that you're wrong.

You can't name a problem, so you claim that's not what you said. Or if you can, then name it.

4. These are usually the guys that buy the cheapest, oldest, out of spec., import ammo and then can't get it to reliably function in their guns.

And junk, out-of-spec ammo works differently in an AR, depending on who put it together? It may work in a Mini-14, but that's the upside of a gun that's designed and built loose.

LMT's are some damn nice guns. Damn expensive, too. And they're also not your standard milspec AR, generally. Apples and oranges, but in the same caliber.

Note that I'm not saying, "buy cheap." I am, however, saying that just because all your parts aren't stamped with the same brand name, that doesn't mean that your gun will be any different.

 

[hags]

Quote:
2. That's not what I said.

hags, that's exactly what you said.

You claimed that guns made from parts don't work right, whereas you get a better gun when you pay a markup for the same parts in a brand-name box, in a configuration you may not exactly want.

Uh, wrong, this is what I said.

Yes, build a frankengun that doesn't function when you take it to the range and then make others pay for the money you saved.

You're looking for someone to argue with, it's not me.

And junk, out-of-spec ammo works differently in an AR, depending on who put it together? It may work in a Mini-14, but that's the upside of a gun that's designed and built loose.

No, out of spec, junk ammo doesn't work. Don't buy it.

LMT's are some damn nice guns. Damn expensive, too. And they're also not your standard milspec AR, generally. Apples and oranges, but in the same caliber.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. LMT doesn't make a "gun" your average gun guy can buy. They generally are your standard milspec AR parts and certainly barrels. Explain your apples and oranges, but in the same caliber statement 'cause I'm at a loss.

 

[hags]

You claimed that guns made from parts don't work right, whereas you get a better gun when you pay a markup for the same parts in a brand-name box, in a configuration you may not exactly want.

If you're going to misquote me at least make an intelligent statement. All guns are made from parts. Some are more than the sum of their parts and some are just parts.

 

[dphillips]

I was just stating that you can build an AR
for quit a bit less that buying a complete gun.
If you are set on a complete gun, there are
many manufacturers. Armalite, DPMS, Bushmaster
Colt, Rock River Arms, Stag, Fulton Armory, Wilson,
Les Baer, JP and I'm sure there is a few more.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yes, build a frankengun that doesn't function when you take it to the range and then make others pay for the money you saved.

So what the hell DOES that mean?

That was your response to someone who said one can put an AR together.

Explain what that meant, if it didn't mean what I and others thought it meant.

Also explain how a regular run of the mill milspec LMT (not the integrated free float upper or other major upgrade) is "more than the sum of its parts." What does that mean?

The parts may be BETTER, but ARs are put together from pieces by guys in tents in Iraq and they work well enough for a really demanding combat situation. Are they more than the sum of their parts? Or are they just guns built from quality parts that anyone with some experience and documentation can put together, and therefore they work?

What DOES "more than the sum of its parts" mean?

(And don't worry, I won't buy crap ammo )

 

[dphillips]

As far as ammo goes, I've used everything
from my reloads, Radway surplus, UMC
American Eagle, Wolf, and Black Hills with
no problems.

 

[hags]

Quote:
Yes, build a frankengun that doesn't function when you take it to the range and then make others pay for the money you saved.

So what the hell DOES that mean?

I can tell you what it doesn't mean, it surely doesn't mean this:

You claimed that guns made from parts don't work right, whereas you get a better gun when you pay a markup for the same parts in a brand-name box, in a configuration you may not exactly want.

I think it speaks more to the type of people I've encountered than it does on building a gun piece by piece.

The parts may be BETTER, but ARs are put together from pieces by guys in tents in Iraq and they work well enough for a really demanding combat situation. Are they more than the sum of their parts? Or are they just guns built from quality parts that anyone with some experience and documentation can put together, and therefore they work

They are? The US military buys M4s and M16s, parts are replaced by guys in tents in Iraq, trained, experienced men in accordance with the TM. Yes, they are more than the sum of their parts, they are built and maintained correctly and function as they should.

LMT's are some damn nice guns. Damn expensive, too. And they're also not your standard milspec AR, generally. Apples and oranges, but in the same caliber.

Which conflicting statement would you like me to respond to, the one above or the following?

Also explain how a regular run of the mill milspec LMT (not the integrated free float upper or other major upgrade) is "more than the sum of its parts." What does that mean?

In general, you can build a gun piece by piece, and if you use all high quality, cost no object parts then guess what, you'll be paying more than if you bought a complete gun from a quality manufacturer. Most guys buy cheap to save even more money and wind up with less than stellar performance. I don't advocate one choice over the other, I'll sell you a complete gun or any parts you'd like, it boils down to the ability, experience and competency of the end user and what they're looking for. Some people don't want anything to do with building an AR, they just wanna shoot. Some people like the experience and want to learn. Other people are into the hardware more than shooting and go that route.

 

[ArmedBear]

So basically, your statement didn't mean anything at all, hags. It was a comment, worded so it was not understandable as such, about some people you have encountered, without mentioning those people until now.

There are guns that are truly more than the sum of their parts. Generally, those are custom bolt guns or handmade muzzleloaders. Anyone can buy the parts, but only a few can turn them into something great.

The AR, on the other hand, is engineered to go together like a very precise puzzle. All the "more than the sum" is in the engineering and initial manufacture. Modular guns designed for mass production tend to be like that. If you take the parts of any 870 and put them together with others that are not damaged, the gun works perfectly. That's the point of the engineering.

One can screw up an AR, and turn it into something less than the sum of its parts, but all it requires to make it work as intended is proper assembly. That's not such a big deal, due to its design.

It sounded as if you were trying to tell someone that he has to be a skilled gunsmith or gunmaker to build a good AR, and that's just the usual BS I expect from a dealer who sells the things. Those of us who have spent some time on the other side of the counter, and have some knowledge and experience, have heard more BS from gun dealers than perhaps anyone else outside of car salesmen.

Pardon me if that's not where you're coming from, but, like you, I've had some experience with certain types, and the red flags go up.

Now, without resorting to something as vague as "more than the sum of its parts" which has no concrete meaning, can you tell us WHY a Colt is worth the premium price over another gun with quality parts and the same specs? (Note that the Army apparently doesn't think Colt is "all that", either.)

 

[mrmeval]

That is what these sorts of 'discussions' invariably boil down to. I'd suggest finding out what competitions use the gun as you would then find out who won and see what their rifle is.

I'd also suggest you use your best judgement based on the length of time the company has been in business, BBB complaints, any competitions won with the rifle, credible reviews and then buy the one that seems best. It's all a learning experience. There are guns it took me a while to learn about because the differences are incredibly trivial minutia and ones (hesse/vulcan) I know never to buy.

Even though I've gotten subtle hints that my AR is a wretched POS assembled out of rat droppings, old tractor parts, parakeets and inscribed with invisible santaic runes I'm pretty sure no one would let me take the first 10 shots at them at 600yards with it.

KBintheSLC
Weird... when I started this thread, I was hoping that I could get a clear picture of what was the better product. Unfortunately, with all of the conflicting opinions, I am more confused than when I started.
Some say RRA is great, some say it sucks. Some say Colt is worth the extra $$, some say it's not. Some say go with the chrome upper, some say it is not that important on a civilian rifle.
I guess it really boils down to a personal choice, and how the gun will be used/maintained. Anyway, thanks for everyones input. I'm still not sure what I will buy for my first AR, but you have all provided me with some good food for thought.

 

[ArmedBear]

Beware of just using competition results, though. It will weed out the REAL junk, but depending on the competition, the brand name can be about as relevant as whether Ford, Chevy or Dodge won the last NASCAR race.

The AR is the ultimate "parts" gun. Everything in it can be replaced, with little or no external indication that it has. That's why people look for brands of the parts themselves. Triggers, barrels, furniture, sights, mounts, everything has a brand name. The reality in every such product is that big brand name manufacturers sometimes make their own components because they can make them cheaper -- or occasionally better. That's not necessarily bad, but it's not necessarily good, either.

Now I'm not saying anyone HAS to put an AR together, or even pin an upper on a lower, even though eventually you'll have to clean the gun anyway. It's just that a debate over which repackager is better starts to get silly.

To the OP: the reason this is confusing is that the "brands" are basically just assemblers of different configurations. Unlike a seemingly similar question about whether someone recommends Remington vs. Ruger bolt guns, for example, most AR sellers don't make the barrels or most other parts, and the gun engineering is virtually identical except in a few cases like VLTOR uppers. There's nothing wrong with that, and it probably will save you money if you can get exactly the combination of features you want as a package.

It just means there's no universal good answer to a question like "DPMS vs. RRA". Both sell a lot of guns to LE, and they work fine.

Which one has a better deal on the combo of features you want? That'll give you as good an answer as any.

Furthermore, if you shoot the gun enough to break it, or you start getting into competition that requires extremely accurate or abuse-resistant guns, you won't mind shelling out for a REALLY expensive one later, or parts to do a really high-end build. But DPMS, RRA, etc. guns are in daily use all over the place and they work fine.

 

[JonB]

Even though I've gotten subtle hints that my AR is a wretched POS assembled out of rat droppings, old tractor parts, parakeets and inscribed with invisible santaic runes I'm pretty sure no one would let me take the first 10 shots at them at 600yards with it.

HA! another good quote from this thread. Love it.

 

[hags]

So basically, your statement didn't mean anything at all, hags. It was a comment, worded so it was not understandable as such, about some people you have encountered, without mentioning those people until now.

There are guns that are truly more than the sum of their parts. Generally, those are custom bolt guns or handmade muzzleloaders. Anyone can buy the parts, but only a few can turn them into something great.

The AR, on the other hand, is engineered to go together like a very precise puzzle. All the "more than the sum" is in the engineering and initial manufacture. Modular guns designed for mass production tend to be like that. If you take the parts of any 870 and put them together with others that are not damaged, the gun works perfectly. That's the point of the engineering.

One can screw up an AR, and turn it into something less than the sum of its parts, but all it requires to make it work as intended is proper assembly. That's not such a big deal, due to its design.

It sounded as if you were trying to tell someone that he has to be a skilled gunsmith or gunmaker to build a good AR, and that's just the usual BS I expect from a dealer who sells the things. Those of us who have spent some time on the other side of the counter, and have some knowledge and experience, have heard more BS from gun dealers than perhaps anyone else outside of car salesmen.

Pardon me if that's not where you're coming from, but, like you, I've had some experience with certain types, and the red flags go up.

Now, without resorting to something as vague as "more than the sum of its parts" which has no concrete meaning, can you tell us WHY a Colt is worth the premium price over another gun with quality parts and the same specs? (Note that the Army apparently doesn't think Colt is "all that", either.)

I don't know who you are or where you're coming from. I don't appreciate your tone or your implications. I'm not thin skinned but I won't let someone on the internet question my integrity.
I have been on the other side of the counter and treat all my customers as I would like to be treated.
If you spent as much time behind the trigger as you seem to spend online posting in forums you'd have a much better picture of things.
I don't think you're very adept at reading "tone" or meaning in an online post.
I wasn't trying to, nor do I "BS" anyone, I try to tell it like it is.
I think you answer your own question here:

One can screw up an AR, and turn it into something less than the sum of its parts, but all it requires to make it work as intended is proper assembly. That's not such a big deal, due to its design.

If you can define "less than the sum of it's parts" as used here in your post then you can by default define "more than the sum of it's parts", or you don't have a basis for your statement.

Once again, Colt is a Tier 1 manufacturer of ARs. They are mil-spec, they use better materials, tighter tolerances, better manufacturing practices, higher QC, they do their own machining, they fabricate many of their own parts thus insuring a stricter adherence to their quality/manufacturing standards.
They go above and beyond what most "consumer" brand AR "manufacturers" do.
The US military has been using Colt for the last, mmmmmmmmmmmm, at least forty years. So where are you coming from with that last statement?

 

[hags]

To the OP: the reason this is confusing is that the "brands" are basically just assemblers of different configurations. Unlike a seemingly similar question about whether someone recommends Remington vs. Ruger bolt guns, for example, most AR sellers don't make the barrels or most other parts, and the gun engineering is virtually identical except in a few cases like VLTOR uppers. There's nothing wrong with that, and it probably will save you money if you can get exactly the combination of features you want as a package.

This sounds strangely like something I posted on the first page of this thread:

Seriously, of the two "manufacturers" mentioned I know firsthand that one is simply an assembler. They don't manufacture anything. Alot if not most AR "manufacturers" in fact don't, they are simply assemblers or final machinists.

Except for Colt and LMT.

Are you capable of an original thought?