Upgrading a DPMS AR-15

[Nuclear]

Your DPMS is fine. Is the theoretical reliability less than a gun that has had the testing of every important part to mil-spec or higher standards. Maybe. But has anyone ever documented widespread failures of DPMS products? Not "Instructor X at school Y told my buddy...", but actual observed failures, preferably with some evidence. Not that I've ever seen (and I've seen lots of different gun's Ka-booms documented on the internet). And DPMS started as a parts supplier to the US military, then started making complete guns, which were THE ones to have during the early years of the multi-gun competitions. And those guys RAN those guns, both in practice and competitions.

And yes, I own a DPMS (among others), bought it before the AWB ban to give you an idea of its age. I've run it in the snow in the midwest, in the god-awful humidity in South Florida and the high heat and dust of Arizona. The only problems I've had are cheap ammo related and the fact I don't clean until I get a malfunction from carbon build up.

My observation is that more guns (and cars) are screwed up by people "upgrading" them when they work just fine.

The brand pissing contests are why I try to avoid AR threads.

 

[holdencm9]

I would trust a DPMS that I put several thousand flawless rounds through, much more than a Colt I just bought the other day.

As for milspec and all that, most of the benefit (to me at least) is peace of mind when buying a new gun, because various parts have been TESTED. But that doesn't mean they are any better.

To illustrate the idea:

Take two "identical" pieces of steel bar stock from the store.

Inspect one using magnetic particle testing and also by stressing it to its theoretical yield strength. Did it pass? Good. Put a mark on that one.

The other one? Well chances are, it would suit you just fine, but unless you MPI and HPT it, you can't be quite sure. It might have microscopic flaws in it that could cause fatigue failure or brittle fracture when you least need it. But chances are it will be just fine.

 

[shootniron]

I would trust a DPMS that I put several thousand flawless rounds through, much more than a Colt I just bought the other day.

As for milspec and all that, most of the benefit (to me at least) is peace of mind when buying a new gun, because various parts have been TESTED. But that doesn't mean they are any better.

To illustrate the idea:

Take two "identical" pieces of steel bar stock from the store.

Inspect one using magnetic particle testing and also by stressing it to its theoretical yield strength. Did it pass? Good. Put a mark on that one.

The other one? Well chances are, it would suit you just fine, but unless you MPI and HPT it, you can't be quite sure. It might have microscopic flaws in it that could cause fatigue failure or brittle fracture when you least need it. But chances are it will be just fine.

There you go trying to use common sense...that won't fly too well around here.

 

[kimberkid]

Think MEAL

Mags
Extractor
Ammo
Lube

The four major causes of failure. Invest in a repair kit.. Better extractor spring. A extractor O ring if needed.

Don't drink the kool-aid.

I've been shooting AR's for 30 some years and this is exactly what I was thinking ... especially the Kool-Aid part ...

What do you think we did before all these designer parts started coming out in the last 5-10 years?

We shot them ... a lot. The AR didn't get to so popular because it was a pile of crap.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

If I were to get and install a BCM BCG and maybe a charging handle, will my reliability be likely improved significantly to be comparable to a higher-grade AR-15-type weapon? If not, what else should I replace or at least get spares of? Would I need to replace the whole BCG or perhaps just certain parts of it?

If you envision this rifle being used in a defensive role then I believe upgrading your DPMS BCG with a higher quality unit is a wise idea. You can keep the DPMS BCG as a spare. With hard use a bolt carrier can crack at the cam pin slot and lugs on the bolt can break off.

 

[henschman]

DPMS' shortcomings are more than just with testing of materials. Very few of their rifles come with chrome lined barrels -- you have to get into their NFA/restricted ones to get this option. This is more of a longevity feature, but it also enhances reliability since a chrome lined chamber will not become fouled as quickly as a plain chrome moly one. Also, almost none of DPMS' rifles have a mid-length gas system. It is only an option on their stainless barreled competition carbine. This is a nice option to have, since it puts the proper amount of pressure on the BCG and leads to a longer expected life of the components. Also DPMS only offers a 1/9 twist barrel. This is fine if all you want to shoot is surplus, but many prefer a 1/8 or 1/7 twist so they can also shoot the heavier bullets for longer range, home defense, hunting, or a variety of other reasons. DPMS also uses 4140 steel for their barrels instead of 4150.

If none of these things matter to you for the way you intend to use your rifle, that is fine... there was a guy on here last month who did a very cheap lightweight plinking build using a NFA poly lower and DPMS upper that he got on sale on Midway, and I thought it was pretty awesome. But the fact is, unless you get them on sale, DPMS uppers are not all that much cheaper than some that have the above-mentioned features. DPMS needs a lower price point to be relevant in the market, as far as my purchasing preferences go.

 

[holdencm9]

DPMS' shortcomings are more than just with testing of materials. Very few of their rifles come with chrome lined barrels -- you have to get into their NFA/restricted ones to get this option. This is more of a longevity feature, but it also enhances reliability since a chrome lined chamber will not become fouled as quickly as a plain chrome moly one. Also, almost none of DPMS' rifles have a mid-length gas system. It is only an option on their stainless barreled competition carbine. This is a nice option to have, since it puts the proper amount of pressure on the BCG and leads to a longer expected life of the components. Also DPMS only offers a 1/9 twist barrel. This is fine if all you want to shoot is surplus, but many prefer a 1/8 or 1/7 twist so they can also shoot the heavier bullets for longer range, home defense, hunting, or a variety of other reasons. DPMS also uses 4140 steel for their barrels instead of 4150.

If none of these things matter to you for the way you intend to use your rifle, that is fine... there was a guy on here last month who did a very cheap lightweight plinking build using a NFA poly lower and DPMS upper that he got on sale on Midway, and I thought it was pretty awesome. But the fact is, unless you get them on sale, DPMS uppers are not all that much cheaper than some that have the above-mentioned features. DPMS needs a lower price point to be relevant in the market, as far as my purchasing preferences go.

That's all fine and true (why get a DPMS upper when you can get a mil-spec PSA upper for less?) except the OP already has a DPMS and the question is to upgrade parts or start all over with a new rifle. I generally agree with the sound advice to just get a mil-spec (FA) BCG and be done with it, although a spare bolt itself would probably serve the OP just as well.

I agree that a chrome-lined barrel/chamber is nice for long-term durability, but not that big of a deal for a typical shooter. The 1:9 twist will only be an issue if shooting the very heaviest bullets. 1:9 is fine up to 69gr at least. The 4150 far as I can tell is only important for sustained fire, and very long term use. For the typical user it will never be an issue. Also the carbine gas length, if putting more pressure on the BCG can be alleviated by getting an H-buffer and/or FA BCG. Both will add mass/resistance to the system and slow it down, reducing wear and tear on the bolt.

I am not disagreeing with anything you said per se, but don't think the OP should just blindly buy a new rifle for its name, or blindly start buying new parts and installing them without knowing why it is beneficial.

Bear-girl, it sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it, running a cost-benefit analysis and whatnot. My revised suggestion would be to get a new complete mil-spec BCG from whatever company suits you. See how it runs from there. That'll set ya back $130 or so. If you still feel the need to upgrade after that, buy a complete barreled upper from PSA or somewhere for $300ish (they sell them w/o the BCG and charging handle).

Once you do that, if you want, buy a LPK or complete lower from somewhere and basically you have a brand new, second rifle...bought piecemeal but still cheaper than outright going and buying a new rifle right now. Then you can sell the DPMS or just keep it as a backup/beater/plinker. Enjoy!

 

[WinThePennant]

Here's a thought.

Just sell the DPMS outright and use the funds to purchase a new rifle with all the bells and whistles for around $1,000.

Think about it. All the cost you are putting into new parts will run you about the same.

ARs, however, are getting SCARCE. I just looked at PSA, and all their rifle kits are SOLD OUT. BCM is so behind on AR complete rifles that they are no longer accepting orders.

And, don't discount some fine rifles out there that are CHEAP. I've heard nothing but good things about S&W M&P Sport. I've never shot one, but they are supposed to be a great AR for around $625.

FWIW, don't get caught up in the AR one-ups-manship game. Chrome line barrels are not necessarily the end all be all. They are nice, but you can get by fine without them. Also, something you won't hear often, the chrome barrels tend to be less accurate. And, the manufacturer can screw up the chrome plating. So, chrome lined might not always be for the best.

One thing I would consider a must, and maybe it's just me, is I like my AR to have M4 feed ramps. Make sure barrel and upper receiver both have M4 feed ramps.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I have a better thought. spend any money you'd spend on stuff for the gun and take some rifle classes.

 

[holdencm9]

One thing I would consider a must, and maybe it's just me, is I like my AR to have M4 feed ramps. Make sure barrel and upper receiver both have M4 feed ramps.

Yes! Concur.

I have a better thought. spend any money you'd spend on stuff for the gun and take some rifle classes.

Also a great suggestion. But considering the primary suggestion thus far has been "new, mil-spec BCG" and those run, what? Maybe $160 ?

Most carbine classes are way more than that.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

160$ buys a lot of ammo.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

One thing I would consider a must, and maybe it's just me, is I like my AR to have M4 feed ramps. Make sure barrel and upper receiver both have M4 feed ramps.

In regard to M4 feed ramps, I agree in general with this post - http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1116&postcount=1

 

[357SIG]

In all the AR milspec arguments in all of the Internet, I have never seen anything to indicate widespread problems with non tested parts. Nothing. I have never seen anything to substantiate anyone's claim of more reliability fom tested parts. The fear comes from the idea that non tested parts are substandard, or lack QC measures to stop bad parts from leaving the factory. This is most definitely unproven theory, nothing more. If a person wants to blindly dump money into an already reliable rifle out of fear, then so be it. This is what unnecessarily parts people from their hard-earned money, like replacing a decent set of tires with half or more of the tread for no rational, logical reason. It's borderline paranoia.

A smart person does not follow the herd of sheep blindly over the cliff; they do their own research into the matter, with consideration of the collective theory. Research should never include someone's unfounded opinion, even if its the highest-regarded instructor. He needs to prove it in some way.

Your database is already poisoned from the very beginning, as you are taking data from a group of people in which 99% have no idea what they are talking about. When you dig into credible, or verifiable, sources, you will find that many of these issues are simply overblown. A great example is 4140 vs. 4150 steel. The true experts and metallurgists conclude that the difference is negligible in any realistic scenario. Rigidity Is the same, depending on heat treatment, etc.

You need to verify your data, and the lack of any real issues goes a long way to discredit anyone who speaks up about milspec being better. Milspec gives peace-of-mind, but does not guarantee any better reliability or durability over non tested.

Now, if someone wants to refute what I've said, do so, but kindly cite examples as to why I'm wrong, not just "you're wrong," or "you're stupid." The burden of proof is on the accuser, so it is your job to explain why nonspec parts are substandard and untrustworthy. Please make sure your examples include an analysis of exactly what nonspec part failed and why (metallurgy, out-of-spec...). Please cite anything hat shows it is a common issue, not just a one-time fluke. Anything other than this absolutely goes nowhere toward proving your point. If you can't get away with it in a college research paper, you can't get away with it in a credible argument.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Now, if someone wants to refute what I've said, do so, but kindly cite examples as to why I'm wrong, not just "you're wrong," or "you're stupid." The burden of proof is on the accuser, so it is your job to explain why nonspec parts are substandard and untrustworthy. Please make sure your examples include an analysis of exactly what nonspec part failed and why (metallurgy, out-of-spec...). Please cite anything hat shows it is a common issue, not just a one-time fluke. Anything other than this absolutely goes nowhere toward proving your point. If you can't get away with it in a college research paper, you can't get away with it in a credible argument.

When you dig into credible, or verifiable, sources...

Please cite YOUR credible, verifiable sources to support YOUR argument.

I'm unaware of any credibile study about the reliability/ruggedness of various AR parts from various AR manufacturers. If you can provide this information then it would be helpful to all of us.

I'll be the first to admit that in the area of reliability and ruggedness I give credibility to anecdotal reports from shooting instructors/schools that have extensive experience with students who bring various makes of ARs. I'm unaware that any of these instructors/schools have studied parts failures in any great depth.

When it comes to life saving equipment, such as an AR intended for defense use, most people are going to want the equipment that their life depends on to be as reliable as possible, and will spend extra money to purchase hardware that has been tested and positively proved to contain no flaws.

 

[Captains1911]

I'll be the first to admit that in the area of reliability and ruggedness I give credibility to anecdotal reports from shooting instructors/schools that have extensive experience with students who bring various makes of ARs. I'm unaware that any of these instructors/schools have studied parts failures in any great depth.

This is something that is constantly and conveniently overlooked or dismissed by those people claiming no evidence exists to suggest brand A is better than brand B. Regardless, it is probably the best evidence available, as it incorporates a very large sample size subjected to very high round counts and demanding firing schedules.

 

[powder]

In all the AR milspec arguments in all of the Internet, I have never seen anything to indicate widespread problems with non tested parts. Nothing. I have never seen anything to substantiate anyone's claim of more reliability fom tested parts. The fear comes from the idea that non tested parts are substandard, or lack QC measures to stop bad parts from leaving the factory. This is most definitely unproven theory, nothing more. If a person wants to blindly dump money into an already reliable rifle out of fear, then so be it. This is what unnecessarily parts people from their hard-earned money, like replacing a decent set of tires with half or more of the tread for no rational, logical reason. It's borderline paranoia.
A smart person does not follow the herd of sheep blindly over the cliff; they do their own research into the matter, with consideration of the collective theory. Research should never include someone's unfounded opinion, even if its the highest-regarded instructor. He needs to prove it in some way.

Your database is already poisoned from the very beginning, as you are taking data from a group of people in which 99% have no idea what they are talking about. When you dig into credible, or verifiable, sources, you will find that many of these issues are simply overblown. A great example is 4140 vs. 4150 steel. The true experts and metallurgists conclude that the difference is negligible in any realistic scenario. Rigidity Is the same, depending on heat treatment, etc.

If you can't get away with it in a college research paper, you can't get away with it in a credible argument

Absolutely 100%. Fear based rhetoric does not make a debate foundation.

"Mil-Spec" is the term for sales and convincing the shopper that it MUST be the best.

"Military specifications" are a set of parameters a supplier may stay within for producing/supplying products within a government contract. Since WHEN have the parameters for a government sales contract been considered to be a gold standard, for ANYTHING?

It (mil-spec) says absolutely ZERO about where those products stand in the QUALITY line up, against other products made by: SIG, Rock River Arms, DPMS, Robinson, etc..

Are "mil-spec" firearms sub-standard as a result? Absolutely not, but they are certainly not any better than the rest of the field, simply based on THAT label. That's not my opinion: it is a fact. My opinion is that we have salesmen coming out of the woodwork to sell their "mil-spec" everything: The Chart, AR parts, complete ARs, training, ammunitions, clothing, knives....and they NEED to refuse to let go of the "mil-spec" ghost, as it is the most used term to be found in their sales pitches.

 

[WinThePennant]

I've never thought of "mil-spec" as being synonymous with "best quality."

I do like to have "mil-spec" parts for my AR because I know that they are, for the most part, interchangeable. Makes it much easier to shop for spare parts, or swap out between rifles. You never know when that might come in handy, or even save your life.

 

[Captains1911]

I agree with your general definition of "mil-spec", however when its related to ARs, a rifle that doesn't meet mil-spec is generally of lesser quality, not better. There are some exceptions....DPMS is not one of them.

 

[357SIG]

Please cite YOUR credible, verifiable sources to support YOUR argument.

My argument is not the one requiring evidence, as my evidence is lack of issues in the lineups of various non-spec rifles. In this case, it makes my point that there is nothing to report. Since the issue is that non-spec rifles are inferior, it is not my job to prove that incorrect, but the accuser's job (the person alleging that they are inferior). That is how an argument works, and redirecting the question without answering it shows that the "redirector" has no leg to stand on.

Anecdotal issues do not equate to anything significant, especially if you have no idea what caused the failure. Was it ammo? Did the owner replace the offending part with aftermarket? Do they maintain their equipment at all? Was it the magazine? I could go on. Again, it is not wise to simply blindly follow someone's opinion, no matter who. I simply do not believe that any instructor has witnessed vast amounts of failures attributed to the status of non-spec. If I'm wrong, please cite examples of widespread issues.

 

[greyling22]

Bear-girl, I haven't read all the comments, so this may be covered already, but don't believe most internet hype.

There is a very vocal branch of the AR15 crowd is very snooty and elitist: only the very top of the line battle tests super rugged, overbuilt and expensive parts are acceptable. Everything else is absolute garbage. I don't know if they hold this opinion because they really run their guns that hard, they are trying to justify spending more than they needed to on a gun, or they just narrow minded. Your dpms is probably just fine.

 

[meanmrmustard]

That's all fine and true (why get a DPMS upper when you can get a mil-spec PSA upper for less?) except the OP already has a DPMS and the question is to upgrade parts or start all over with a new rifle. I generally agree with the sound advice to just get a mil-spec (FA) BCG and be done with it, although a spare bolt itself would probably serve the OP just as well.

I agree that a chrome-lined barrel/chamber is nice for long-term durability, but not that big of a deal for a typical shooter. The 1:9 twist will only be an issue if shooting the very heaviest bullets. 1:9 is fine up to 69gr at least. The 4150 far as I can tell is only important for sustained fire, and very long term use. For the typical user it will never be an issue. Also the carbine gas length, if putting more pressure on the BCG can be alleviated by getting an H-buffer and/or FA BCG. Both will add mass/resistance to the system and slow it down, reducing wear and tear on the bolt.

I am not disagreeing with anything you said per se, but don't think the OP should just blindly buy a new rifle for its name, or blindly start buying new parts and installing them without knowing why it is beneficial.

Bear-girl, it sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it, running a cost-benefit analysis and whatnot. My revised suggestion would be to get a new complete mil-spec BCG from whatever company suits you. See how it runs from there. That'll set ya back $130 or so. If you still feel the need to upgrade after that, buy a complete barreled upper from PSA or somewhere for $300ish (they sell them w/o the BCG and charging handle).

Once you do that, if you want, buy a LPK or complete lower from somewhere and basically you have a brand new, second rifle...bought piecemeal but still cheaper than outright going and buying a new rifle right now. Then you can sell the DPMS or just keep it as a backup/beater/plinker. Enjoy!

I agree, and add: CH isn't really known for accuracy, something I want in an AR. If not, I'd only buy AKs.

Melonite is where it's at, if you ask me.

As far as all this non-mil spec vs mil spec nonsense: haven't we been here...ALOT? Some stuff that's military grade is nice to have, and some is just plain subjective. Give me the FA BCG, M4 feed ramps, and staked gas key. Keep the CH crap, I like smallish groups. Smaller the better. That's what an ARs for!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

My argument is not the one requiring evidence, as my evidence is lack of issues in the lineups of various non-spec rifles. In this case, it makes my point that there is nothing to report.

There's no documented evidence because nobody is collecting it. Anecdotal reports (anecdotal evidence) from reputable instructors/schools with extensive experience suggests there are issues.

The bottom line is if somebody wants to spend money for a higher grade BCG, with parts have been inspected and determined to be free of flaws that can impair reliability in a defense gun, then that's his/her business.

Likewise if you want to rely on questionable parts whose quality is not assured by inspection then that's your business.

 

[Bear-girl]

As I said in an earlier post, if we had a complete data set with reliability data on all AR-15’s ever built, we could probably extract factual statistics about which brands and designs are the best from a reliability standpoint. However, we only have an incomplete data base, and some of the data may be faulty, although I suspect the people sharing their experiences are probably pretty close to describing their experiences accurately. As a boss I had once told me, “If you have all of the data you need to make a decision, then anyone could make that decision; the trick is to make the right decision without having all of the data you need.” That is the case here – insufficient data, but I still want to determine a good course of action, so we have to rely on approaches that are not sufficiently documented with facts, and therefore I must consider anecdotal information also.

Some people have said that use of DPMS or similar rifles have proven very unreliable in their classes; others have indicated that those guns had good reliability in their classes. Is one wrong and the other right? No, it only shows that some of the DPMS-type weapons will fail, especially with hard usage, but there is no guarantee of that failure. Those instructors with many DPMS failures have said that better quality guns (Colt, PSA, etc.) have not failed as much in their classes. I don’t think we had anyone saying that Colt rifles tend to fail in their classes, so we may be able to conclude that some brands are more reliable than others.

Regarding mil-specs, some specs won’t matter. For example, a functional spec, such as “have a carry handle”, is not important if I don’t want that function. However, material specs probably do matter. Although I can’t prove it, I am willing to accept that a material that meets mil-spec for a particular part is a better material than some other material. For example, 4150 steel is about 10% stronger than 4140 steel. Is that difference important in a rifle barrel? I don’t know, because I am not a gun designer, but common sense would tend to point that way. However, I can not quantify the difference in desirability or reliability.

Yes, my DPMS AR may be one of those that would survive a hard-usage teaching class just fine, but there is no way to know that in advance, but if it did survive one, I still wouldn’t know if it would survive a second one. However, I am coming to the conclusion that getting a few additional parts may be wise in order to keep my carbine running smoothly, whether it has hard usage in its future or not. As several have said, a mil-spec BCG, an LPK, and maybe a better buffer, plus an assortment of miscellaneous springs, pins, extractors, etc. would go a long way to improving the reliability (or at least maintainabilty), even if it doesn’t bring it up to the reliability of a top-tier AR. If I may pull some numbers out of the air, use of these parts may improve reliability from maybe 0.95 to 0.98 in light-duty/plinking usage (with that difference never being noticed), but it may also improve the reliability in hard-usage/defensive applications from 0.6 to 0.9, which is very significant.

For those that demand hard, factual evidence on performance differences, it was suggested in a recent post that that data does not even exist. I concur, and even if it did exist, I doubt that it would be available to us. However, there are times that we need to make a decision without having sufficient data, so in that case we do the best we can, relying on anecdotal data, intuition, common sense, and logical thinking, all of which may be subjective, but they are all we have to go with. I really appreciate all of the comments. As I said in an earlier post, I think each one is an honest expression of your experience, and I am learning a lot from this information and the discussions. Thank you all!

 

[Quentin]

Very intelligent comments, Bear-girl! And it is admirable to want to increase the reliability of a firearm that may be needed if that very bad day ever comes.

I am not a fan of the DPMS except as a light duty range gun. As you said, some perform well and others do not. From all the reports I've read, results are all over the board. Nothing like the consistency you see with Colt or BCM or Daniel Defense or a few others.

In the long run, I think replacing the DPMS is the best move as there always will be a question in the back of your mind. But that requires selling and hoping you recover most of your investment.

Another good option you mentioned is buying a quality BCG like BCM's. For around $150 that will give you the shot peened bolt, HP/MP inspected, a proper extractor kit, proper steel, a properly staked gas key and the M16 bolt carrier (which adds 0.5 oz which is almost what the heavier buffer would add, 0.9 oz). The LPK is a good idea, or at least better trigger and hammer pins since I have seen reports of those pins breaking or "walking out" which would cause a "click" situation.

And the option of buying a BCM or maybe PSA upper receiver and selling your current upper or keeping it as a spare is a feasible path to follow. The upper is much more likely to be the problem, not the lower other than a weak pin or trigger part (hence the recommendations of replacing the LPK).

You might find this older thread (link below) very illuminating. Do note Rob's last statement, "Obviously, if you have that "thousands of trouble free rounds" DPMS, you may feel perfectly comfortable with leaving it alone. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about, how secure YOU feel in the thought that you may use this carbine for self, family, or society defense."

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7376

ETA:
I will say that in 2009 I went through a process much like what you're considering. I bought an ArmaLite upper and put it on a S&W lower that I built up with a Del-Ton LPK (selection for AR parts was terrible back then).

In early 2010 I bought a Daniel Defense BCG and put the ArmaLite BCG back as a spare. Then as luck would have it I found a sale on custom DD uppers later in the year so I got the one I wanted minus the BCG. That upper went on the S&W lower and later I replaced its LPK with a DD LPK, keeping the old one as a spare. Then I found an ArmaLite stripped lower so I built it up and ended up with a complete ArmaLite I could sell. Instead I kept it as there were many things I liked about it or than self defense use.

Anyway, the point is to never paint yourself into a corner, it's probably not wise to do expensive upgrades to the original DPMS unless they aren't permanent to the rifle (i.e. replacing the gas block, adding rails unless they're drop in, and of course "ninja crap"). As you know the BCG or a complete upper give you leeway if want to change path down the road.

 

[357SIG]

There's no documented evidence because nobody is collecting it. Anecdotal reports (anecdotal evidence) from reputable instructors/schools with extensive experience suggests there are issues.

Again, please cite these problems. I have not seen this. Again, let us kno that this is factory rifle, not a home build. Also, what brands? See, you are not answering the question. You are stating a perceived fact, but cannot substantiate it. Because of statements like yours, we have people wanting to go out and replace their good, working rifles with new ones for no good reason.

Nobody is collecting the data because it is not significant enough to warrant. It is a waste of time because the perceived issues are nonexistent. Another Internet rumor that the uninformed will buy hook, line, and sinker.