Well Said Azizza! It's not if they will fail, it's when. Mr.T I think the point some of us were trying to make is that you'll spend almost as much $$ for a lower tier gun, than you have to. That's all. If you like the Oly or DPMS brand, then fine. And if you only shoot once in a while, then they will probably be fine. But to your comparrison; would you pay a BMW price and be happy getting a Chevy Cobalt? No you wouldn't. And maybe a little of the bashing was this guy wanted all of us to read his e-mail, and much of it was really wrong. So if you're going to ask, then you better be willing to accept the answers. He asked, many answered, that's how it works.
In Regards to Olympic Arms
- Thread starter cyclopsshooter
- Start date
- Status
A lot of AR's are sold on the basis of being "mil-spec". The reason manufacturers sell M-4 lookalikes is because buyers want as close to what the military uses as possible. The old "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" adage is true. But you can't go to a Ford/Chevy/Chrysler dealer and buy a "Nascar spec" car. Neither can you go to a dealer and buy a true M-4 spec assault rifle unless you are a LE agency.
The beef starts when XYZ manufacturer touts their M-4ish offering as mil-spec, when they ignore the TDP for an M-4 carbine. The Chart merely spells out what is mil-spec, why it's features may be desireable, and who offers which of those features. It is a fact based document and carries no preference bias. Readers of the chart are the ones who are biased. Is a chrome lined bore as accurate all other things being equal? No. Will a non-lined barrel hold up as well or be as reliable under intensive shooting regimens? No. It's just a matter of what you need vs. what you want.
The real problem arises when people go straight to the chart section without reading the F&E sections. That, and owners who don't like hearing that they could have bought more gun for nearly the same money.
I'd wager that the number of AR owners who bought based on what the gun looked like, what someone they know told them was good, or what name was on the side of the gun far outweigh the number of owners who bought based on true quality, technical specs or professional shooter recommendations. If you fall into the first category and The Chart angers you, do you really have a reasoned argument?
The beef starts when XYZ manufacturer touts their M-4ish offering as mil-spec, when they ignore the TDP for an M-4 carbine. The Chart merely spells out what is mil-spec, why it's features may be desireable, and who offers which of those features. It is a fact based document and carries no preference bias. Readers of the chart are the ones who are biased. Is a chrome lined bore as accurate all other things being equal? No. Will a non-lined barrel hold up as well or be as reliable under intensive shooting regimens? No. It's just a matter of what you need vs. what you want.
The real problem arises when people go straight to the chart section without reading the F&E sections. That, and owners who don't like hearing that they could have bought more gun for nearly the same money.
I'd wager that the number of AR owners who bought based on what the gun looked like, what someone they know told them was good, or what name was on the side of the gun far outweigh the number of owners who bought based on true quality, technical specs or professional shooter recommendations. If you fall into the first category and The Chart angers you, do you really have a reasoned argument?
RedLion
Member
It seems we're arguing for the same idea. I'm simply stating that the Mil-Spec standards, or "The Chart" is only useful for comparing different companies/rifles, but does not prove which company is "better" than another, or which rifle is more "reliable", because that is completely determined by how the user or consumer defines "better" or "reliable".
The Chart is just a data point to help make a decision. When I bought my colt, it was after 2 weeks of reading data, using various charts, and the one I posted here yesterday. Thinking through what I was going to do with this gun, and price. In the end, I made a decision based on my best analysis. That's what you should do. There's no magic answer in the chart, but it's a great place to start. And if the gun you thought you wanted is lowest on the chart, at least you know that going in, and should know what to pay for it.
Ok OhioChief,
If you could pick up a Bushmaster "Patrolman's Carbine" brand new for $799 would that be a good price for a starter AR? Frankly I went through the chart and I read the explanations for the different categories and I have to say that I can understand why Bushmaster didn't meet all the criteria. The failure rates on some of the categories were probably so slight that they didn't pay to check every part. Staking the gas key and castle nuts even by the charts explanation sounded like it was really overkill. It sounded more like a criteria for keeping other companies out of the bidding process for providing weapons to the military to me. Regardless of that I still think I got a good buy and I still have not had any issues with it...not even a FTF and I've shot thousands of rounds through this thing over the last few years all with off the shelf cheap ammo. The biggest thing I think is how people take care of their weapons...I clean mine after every outing. I'm pretty sure that's why I haven't had any problems and plus I feel Bushmaster makes a fine operating weapon.
If you could pick up a Bushmaster "Patrolman's Carbine" brand new for $799 would that be a good price for a starter AR? Frankly I went through the chart and I read the explanations for the different categories and I have to say that I can understand why Bushmaster didn't meet all the criteria. The failure rates on some of the categories were probably so slight that they didn't pay to check every part. Staking the gas key and castle nuts even by the charts explanation sounded like it was really overkill. It sounded more like a criteria for keeping other companies out of the bidding process for providing weapons to the military to me. Regardless of that I still think I got a good buy and I still have not had any issues with it...not even a FTF and I've shot thousands of rounds through this thing over the last few years all with off the shelf cheap ammo. The biggest thing I think is how people take care of their weapons...I clean mine after every outing. I'm pretty sure that's why I haven't had any problems and plus I feel Bushmaster makes a fine operating weapon.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
How do you figure? It is easy and simple to do and requires no special tooling or extra cost. It also helps prevent some fairly common issues with AR15s - loose gas keys and loose telestocks.
cyclopsshooter
Member
from my perspective it was i getting dicked over if he went to my competition- but he ended up buying the oly- we fired 400 rounds through it today without a hiccup- we are both quite pleased-
and the dpms next town over did NOT have a carry handle and had a light barrel and a really crappy trigger pull!
so there!
Mr. T, I personally think that sounds like a decent price. I guess that was my point. Would you have paid 1,200 for it? Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, the Chart is just one data point to use as a reference when making a purchase decision. I used it, and several other sources before making a decision. Never intended to bash anybody's choice of a weapon.
SpeedAKL
Member
Interesting thread...these "Which AR brand is best?" or "My AR Brand is best / just as good as" threads always stir up emotions.
The point has been made numerous times, but it's worth making again: the AR you purchase is a good purchase decision if it was, 1. bought at a good price and, 2. fit for intended use. This rule holds for any gun, or really any consumer item. The problem with the OP's post was that the weapon he was describing fulfilled neither.
$1250 is a serious amount of money and shouldn't be shelled out without careful consideration and research. An Olympic is not a $1250 gun. It is a $600 gun. For $1250 I could buy most new ARs on the market save for high-end guns like Noveske or certain piston guns like LWRC or the Ruger SR556. To go back to the car analogy, paying $1250 for an Olympic is like paying $60,000 for a Honda Civic when the BMW M3 is sitting across the street for the same price. Nobody in their right mind would do that for the car, why do it for the gun? Unfortunately so many people wanted a black rifle during the Obama panic that this happened frequently.
The second problem with the gun in question is its intended purpose. A gun like a DPMS or Olympic is fine for casual range work. Both manufacturers make bull-barrel guns that are known to be exceptionally accurate. If you want an M4-profile carbine, DPMS should do fine as an entry-level gun for someone who is looking to get into the AR game for an affordable price. However, I would honestly not recommend an Olympic for even this application, as the brand has had numerous well-documented quality issues. Even a casual range gun becomes frustrating if it turns jam-o-matic or forces its owner to pony up for numerous replacement parts.
As for The Chart, it is not the Be All and End All of AR information NOR is it useless. It was designed by rob_s, a member here at THR and at m4carbine.net, to provide information on how various manufacturers' M4 carbines met various specifications and quality control requirements in comparison to a milspec M4. Colt's 6920 carbine is the closest civilian gun to the M4 and thus provides a good base of reference. A milspec gun is not essential or even preferable depending on application, but provides a good baseline for quality because the milspec carbine is known to gun well under hard use. The details of the chart range from application-dependent individual preferences (1:9 vs 1:7 twist, the better of which depends on the ammo you plan to shoot) to important quality control procedures (i.e. staking the gas keys on the bolt, which can come undone under repeated fire if not staked and thus ruin your day in hurry). Some manufacturers adhere to this list of specifications closer than others. That is a fact. Some people are also too attached to their own guns to acknowledge this.
I currently own a Bushmaster M4-type carbine. It does not look as nice on the chart as a Colt or LMT. I didn't care at the time because I was a looking for an entry-level AR to have fun with and hone my shooting skills. I paid roughly $700 for the gun, which was used. I was a college student at the time and could not justify $1200 on a gun given my intended use. In this sense the Bushmaster was a smart purchose. Now that I have more disposable income I am looking to get a more full-featured gun in the next few months, either an AR or some other carbine. Since I have the budget to shoot for ammo, since I am leaving the option open to attend a carbine class in the future, and since I want the gun GTG in an HD situation, the chart is now a useful tool for me in making a purchase decision.
Buy a gun that aligns with your budget and intended use. An Olympic makes no sense for a gun that will receive lots of hard use, just as a JP CTR-02 makes no sense as an entry-level plinker.
The point has been made numerous times, but it's worth making again: the AR you purchase is a good purchase decision if it was, 1. bought at a good price and, 2. fit for intended use. This rule holds for any gun, or really any consumer item. The problem with the OP's post was that the weapon he was describing fulfilled neither.
$1250 is a serious amount of money and shouldn't be shelled out without careful consideration and research. An Olympic is not a $1250 gun. It is a $600 gun. For $1250 I could buy most new ARs on the market save for high-end guns like Noveske or certain piston guns like LWRC or the Ruger SR556. To go back to the car analogy, paying $1250 for an Olympic is like paying $60,000 for a Honda Civic when the BMW M3 is sitting across the street for the same price. Nobody in their right mind would do that for the car, why do it for the gun? Unfortunately so many people wanted a black rifle during the Obama panic that this happened frequently.
The second problem with the gun in question is its intended purpose. A gun like a DPMS or Olympic is fine for casual range work. Both manufacturers make bull-barrel guns that are known to be exceptionally accurate. If you want an M4-profile carbine, DPMS should do fine as an entry-level gun for someone who is looking to get into the AR game for an affordable price. However, I would honestly not recommend an Olympic for even this application, as the brand has had numerous well-documented quality issues. Even a casual range gun becomes frustrating if it turns jam-o-matic or forces its owner to pony up for numerous replacement parts.
As for The Chart, it is not the Be All and End All of AR information NOR is it useless. It was designed by rob_s, a member here at THR and at m4carbine.net, to provide information on how various manufacturers' M4 carbines met various specifications and quality control requirements in comparison to a milspec M4. Colt's 6920 carbine is the closest civilian gun to the M4 and thus provides a good base of reference. A milspec gun is not essential or even preferable depending on application, but provides a good baseline for quality because the milspec carbine is known to gun well under hard use. The details of the chart range from application-dependent individual preferences (1:9 vs 1:7 twist, the better of which depends on the ammo you plan to shoot) to important quality control procedures (i.e. staking the gas keys on the bolt, which can come undone under repeated fire if not staked and thus ruin your day in hurry). Some manufacturers adhere to this list of specifications closer than others. That is a fact. Some people are also too attached to their own guns to acknowledge this.
I currently own a Bushmaster M4-type carbine. It does not look as nice on the chart as a Colt or LMT. I didn't care at the time because I was a looking for an entry-level AR to have fun with and hone my shooting skills. I paid roughly $700 for the gun, which was used. I was a college student at the time and could not justify $1200 on a gun given my intended use. In this sense the Bushmaster was a smart purchose. Now that I have more disposable income I am looking to get a more full-featured gun in the next few months, either an AR or some other carbine. Since I have the budget to shoot for ammo, since I am leaving the option open to attend a carbine class in the future, and since I want the gun GTG in an HD situation, the chart is now a useful tool for me in making a purchase decision.
Buy a gun that aligns with your budget and intended use. An Olympic makes no sense for a gun that will receive lots of hard use, just as a JP CTR-02 makes no sense as an entry-level plinker.
Well, from what I have read they all outsource their components anyways and are all built to the same basic specs. Neither I, nor any of my DPMS owning friends, have had any issues with our DPMS rifles, and I find that the DPMS rifles generally have a nicer finish then many of their contemporaries.
Honestly, I shoot my guns rather frequently (pushing around 300 or more rounds down the pipe on any given excursion) and choose/recommend DPMS over all other brands (although my Bushmaster seems to be built pretty well itself). I always check components when I get home to clean my weapons and all the parts inside do not show any unusual wear. Granted I maintain them to a sound standard and always make sure to oil them properly. Through my personal experience with their rifles, Panther has earned my trust.
I have one friend who has an Oly and it hasn’t given any fits so far either. Although he has only took it out 3 or so times, so it’s hard to say.
This is not to say that they are the best AR-15 on earth, but I would be shocked to find out that I got any better performance from any that were made by other manufacturers, cause I certainly haven’t witnessed better Groups/Reliability from RR’s, CMMG’s, BM’s, Colts that I have shot.
YMMV.
Honestly, I shoot my guns rather frequently (pushing around 300 or more rounds down the pipe on any given excursion) and choose/recommend DPMS over all other brands (although my Bushmaster seems to be built pretty well itself). I always check components when I get home to clean my weapons and all the parts inside do not show any unusual wear. Granted I maintain them to a sound standard and always make sure to oil them properly. Through my personal experience with their rifles, Panther has earned my trust.
I have one friend who has an Oly and it hasn’t given any fits so far either. Although he has only took it out 3 or so times, so it’s hard to say.
This is not to say that they are the best AR-15 on earth, but I would be shocked to find out that I got any better performance from any that were made by other manufacturers, cause I certainly haven’t witnessed better Groups/Reliability from RR’s, CMMG’s, BM’s, Colts that I have shot.
YMMV.
SpeedAKL
Member
I for one am not suggesting that a DPMS will automatically break under hard use. There has been a bit of hyperbole around lower-priced guns like DPMS or BM instantly blowing up under hard use.
The purpose of the chart was to illustrate the quality processes that can reduce the likihood of a gun going down. For example, Bushmaster batch-tests bolts and barrels at random with magnetic particle inspection, whereas Colt tests every individual bolt and barrel. This does not automatically mean that a BM bolt will go kaboom after 500 rounds; what it does mean is that your Colt bolt is statistically less likely to do so because barring an error at the factory it has been tested for defects.
SwampWolf
Member
I'm curious. If staking keys and nuts, in fact, have no basis for "special tooling or extra cost", why do you suppose all AR-15 makers don't do it?
SpeedAKL, I think the chart actually is great, it shows what your getting for the extra $$$ you are spending. Also I think the OP (no insult intended here) is way over charging for his OLY rifle, to the point of gouging a person who obviously does not know a whole lot about guns. Look that gun up on GunBroker.com and see what he could get it shipped to his FFL for. $1200.00? If I was looking to spend that kind of scratch on an AR you bet your butt I would be looking at a Colt, S&W, or Spike's Tactical build; if for nothing else then for the resale value of the weapon.
I think your arguments are fair and quite valid. The extra $$$ you spend on different AR's is not "all in the name brand" as some people seem to think. There is extra time and labor that goes into making those guns, and testing their reliability. For me, as a purchaser, I like to tinker with my guns, and am pretty good at fixing all things mechanical so it's not as critical to have these things. Nor am I going to war with my AR so for me the extra money spent wouldn't do a thing for me.
But I DO NOT think the extra money spent on a high end weapon is a waste of cash, and anyone that does doesn't understand mechanical devices very well IMO.
Now that being said, when I do change out my BBL, I will be going Chrome lined, and I will probably have the nut staked. Why? Because it's better that's why. When I change out my BCG, it will be with one that is the best quality. But that is the beauty of an AR... all the parts are easy to swap and basically either screwed or pinned together.
I think your arguments are fair and quite valid. The extra $$$ you spend on different AR's is not "all in the name brand" as some people seem to think. There is extra time and labor that goes into making those guns, and testing their reliability. For me, as a purchaser, I like to tinker with my guns, and am pretty good at fixing all things mechanical so it's not as critical to have these things. Nor am I going to war with my AR so for me the extra money spent wouldn't do a thing for me.
But I DO NOT think the extra money spent on a high end weapon is a waste of cash, and anyone that does doesn't understand mechanical devices very well IMO.
Now that being said, when I do change out my BBL, I will be going Chrome lined, and I will probably have the nut staked. Why? Because it's better that's why. When I change out my BCG, it will be with one that is the best quality. But that is the beauty of an AR... all the parts are easy to swap and basically either screwed or pinned together.
Last edited:
shadowalker
Member
That's why it's concerning that they don't, there is no good reason not to. It is fairly common for the gas key fasteners to loosen and even for the castle nut to back off, in both cases you have a weapon that wont function.
Basically if they don't do the stuff that is very easy what else are they not doing that isn't easy to spot.
Imagine if lug nuts didn't come properly tightened on some cars, wouldn't that make you concerned about what else they didn't do? It is very easy for the owner to do but he shouldn't have to do it.
My gas block is staked, and after thousands of rounds seems to still be locked in solid... same as the BBL. Could I take my Rifle to a Gunsmith and have them stake the barrel nut? Also, should I have them look at the BCG for the correct stake? I have so far put a SOPMOD bolt rebuild kit into my DPMS and the one piece gas ring. But I am wondering if I should have these processes done to my DPMS BCG. I mean I guess the old saying, if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it comes to mind here. But if it makes sense for Preventative maintenance on my gun I might as well do it.
kwelz
Member
An unstaked Gas key is broke. It will come loose eventually.
thanks for the info on the spreadsheet...I guess I was looking to see the info about the piston driven guns included here..I know some of makers dont have to worry about a properly staked gas key...as they are make from one solid piece...aka..S&W...Stag...etc.....
Last edited:
It can be done with a hammer and a punch.
Now, I ask you why something so vital to a reliable carbine is skipped by some manufacturers?
TonyRumore
Member
I am not going to defend Olympic Arms quality here, but if any of you guys were around in the mid 80's, Olympic Arms was doing all sorts things with the AR that no one else did. The flat top uppers were mentioned earlier, but they also provided options like stainless barrels, fluted barrels, bull barrels, free float tubes, 7.62x39, 6mm PPC, 9mm, 45 ACP,etc. At the time, the only other option was a Colt in either a rifle or carbine model with NO options whatsoever. That was it......there were crickets chirping in everyone else's shop....if they even had a shop at the time.
And no, Oly was not completely responsible for the 7.62x39 steel core ammo ban. Unfortunately, the youngster internet "experts" don't realize that the MARS AK-47 Pistols were being built years before Oly trotted out their pistol and those guns are what first got the ATF excited about the whole deal.
Whether you like Olympic Arms or not, they were the #1 most instrumental company to get the AR-15 ball rolling. You guys today, take all this stuff for granted...............
Tony
And no, Oly was not completely responsible for the 7.62x39 steel core ammo ban. Unfortunately, the youngster internet "experts" don't realize that the MARS AK-47 Pistols were being built years before Oly trotted out their pistol and those guns are what first got the ATF excited about the whole deal.
Whether you like Olympic Arms or not, they were the #1 most instrumental company to get the AR-15 ball rolling. You guys today, take all this stuff for granted...............
Tony
Last edited:
Well, you're wrong. Try Lightfighter.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
With threads like this, I always expect my DPMS rifle to blow up next time I use it. What with it being my work rifle, my training rifle and my class rifle it's hard a long hard life and has converted many a case of ammunition into spent brass.. and it has yet to let me down.
Who knows, maybe DPMS started making crappy rifles after I got mine in 2001. Maybe I just got lucky and got the rifle they forgot to make junk. Maybe the magic power of no flash hider or M203 barrel cuts keeps the suck at bay...
Who know, maybe it will blow up this weekend, or maybe even tonight. I doubt it. It will probably just eat another couple of PMAGs worth of chow like it always does.
Who knows, maybe DPMS started making crappy rifles after I got mine in 2001. Maybe I just got lucky and got the rifle they forgot to make junk. Maybe the magic power of no flash hider or M203 barrel cuts keeps the suck at bay...
Who know, maybe it will blow up this weekend, or maybe even tonight. I doubt it. It will probably just eat another couple of PMAGs worth of chow like it always does.
Va Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 83
A-MEN Click, and pass the ammo please. My DPMS is not a work rifle but I'll stake my life on it and pray I never have to.
There certainly are difference between the top tier rifles and the mid and lower tier rifles. I think some of the comparisons to autos gets a bit twisted but thats fine. Honestly buy what you like and deal with it from there. My Del-ton kit worked just fine. I had 2 jams, both from the same mag and fixed with a new mag. That mag jammed on other rifles as well and was retired.
The current Stag has run flawless so far. I am light on my rifles. Outside of a bad extractor I don't see where a lower tier rifle would let me down compared to a higher tier rifle. Again that is because I shoot maybe a couple hundred rounds a year through it and those are generally over half a dozen range trips. I just don't run them long or hard. If you do buy what you trust. For me, and my specific use, I trust most tiers.
The current Stag has run flawless so far. I am light on my rifles. Outside of a bad extractor I don't see where a lower tier rifle would let me down compared to a higher tier rifle. Again that is because I shoot maybe a couple hundred rounds a year through it and those are generally over half a dozen range trips. I just don't run them long or hard. If you do buy what you trust. For me, and my specific use, I trust most tiers.
What you heard ain't true.
And while there are a lot more "assemblers" than actual manufacturers, those manufacturers also make different grades of parts for guns.
You better tell FN they are doing it wrong then, since they chrome line some of their bolt action barrels.
When it comes to the average AR-15 (excluding the ultra accurate precision match/varmint rigs), chrome lining isn't going to matter that much when it comes to accuracy.
I'll take properly built rifles with good components when it comes to spending my hard earned dollars. Same goes for optics, accessories, ammunition, and magazines.
- Status
