Dpms Or Rock River???


PDA






KBintheSLC
September 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
Hi All,

I'm new to the AR world and I'm trying to decide between the DPMS Panther "A2 Tactical", and the Rock River Arms "Entry Tactical". They are both relatively similar in features and price. Just wondering what your opinions are on which brand makes a better product. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dpms Or Rock River???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
September 17, 2007, 03:10 PM
I only have experience with DPMS, and all I can say is that I've had no problems with mine.

Bart Noir
September 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
There is some good reading at M4Carbine.net

Bart Noir

RockyMtnTactical
September 17, 2007, 04:22 PM
Between the two, I would pick RRA, but there are better options out there in those price ranges.

Check out Stag Arms.

Zeke Menuar
September 17, 2007, 04:40 PM
Neither

CMMG
Stag
Bushmaster
Sabre Defence
Armalite

ZM

JonB
September 17, 2007, 05:17 PM
RockyMtnTactical - are you still haunting the 'which is better' threads hoping to pimp Stag some more even though no one asked about Stag?

good grief....

Considering the OP, either will be fine and are probably very similar. Look at the options each have and spend your money on what makes you happy. You won't go wrong with either.

RockyMtnTactical
September 17, 2007, 05:29 PM
JonB,

Calm down.

This is an open forum where anyone can voice their opinions, isn't it?

10-Ring
September 17, 2007, 05:50 PM
I've shot both but own RRA, for that reason, I voted Rock River :cool:

dscottw88
September 17, 2007, 06:07 PM
Out of the two? Go with RR. If youv'e done your homework and ask around, majority will say go with RR.

Rocky Mountain is right though IMO. Stag has some great deals and although i'm not sure whether dpms or RR chrome line their reciever and barrels, I know Stag Does.

ArmedBear
September 17, 2007, 06:10 PM
There are better deals out there, and I'd ask myself if I really want to pay extra for something like that riser instead of a fluted barrel, and whether I really wanted a 7.5 lb. carbine.

But RRA makes good AR's. If you don't mind waiting a while to get one.

KBintheSLC
September 17, 2007, 06:42 PM
Waiting a while for RRA? Really? The gun shop down the road has about 8 on the rack.

ArmedBear
September 17, 2007, 07:05 PM
Interesting.

Ordering them tends to be really slow, and I've never seen one in the rack. Of course, this is California, so we usually don't buy off the rack. We're into "designer" black rifles here.;)

RRA's are popular, but again, people wait 6 weeks or more for them.

KBintheSLC
September 17, 2007, 07:30 PM
I see now. I failed to notice the CA. I forget sometimes that I live in Utah.

ArmedBear
September 17, 2007, 07:35 PM
I'm really happy with the upper I just got from J&T, myself.

Good price, absolutely flawless in every way I can possibly tell, works great, and arrived on my porch a few days after I put in the on-line order.

Instead of the RR above, I'd be tempted to have a fluted HBAR 16" gun put together. I don't really need the grenade launcher notch for anything, and I'd prefer a lighter gun that's at least as accurate. Fluted barrel looks good, too, but of course that's not why I'd get it.:D I'd skip the riser, but get a flip-up front sight, I think.

Again, there's nothing wrong with the Elite Entry or whatever they call it, but I'm not sure it's got the combination of features I'd pay extra for. Once you've gone through the agonizing process of deciding what you want, and you order up a gun, it would be hard to go back to just buying something as-is. No particular reason, really, but the AR is so modular, it's a shame not to take advantage of that.

BamBam-31
September 17, 2007, 07:40 PM
Buy RRA through Legal Transfers on AR15.com. Between me and my friends, we have seven or eight uppers, and they've all been VERY high quality. One of the RRA uppers had feed problems (weak extractor), but that was easily fixed. Other than that, perfect. Don't have any direct experience with DPMS, sorry.

RockyMtnTactical
September 17, 2007, 07:46 PM
KBintheSLC,

You should make your way over to FBMG in Sandy/Draper area, they carry Stag AR15's at decent prices.

jpwilly
September 17, 2007, 08:00 PM
Have two DMPS rifles. The fit and finish is great, they shoot great, they didn't cost as much as some of the other brands so I voted DMPS once here but twice with my wallet!

ZeroCool
September 17, 2007, 08:17 PM
I am sure that there is nothing wrong with DPMS and I would not hesitate to buy one just on the name but I wouldnt trade my RRA's for any other semi AR15 (including Colt).

The RRA's are extremely well made. They have a very tight fit and both of mine (middy 5.56 and M4 style 9mm) have been 100% reliable and pretty darn accurate.

I would say that if they are around the same price, you can not go wrong with an RRA. I doubt you will find many complaints about the RRA while the DPMS has a few detractors.

Also, if its important to you, DPMS rifles dont seem to come standard with chrome-lined barrels... I would even venture to say that they make a lot more rifles with non-chrome barrels than chrome.

I do like that DPMS teflon finish though. Nice and dark.

mp510
September 17, 2007, 08:24 PM
I voted Rock River Arms, as a company, not necesarily for your model selection. Only you can determine which configuration you like better.

Rock River has federal government contracts, that they won primary contractor (for the next 5 years) for both DEA and FBI.

I have also heard some concerned that their DPMS rifles have .223 chambers instead of 5.56- though DPMS advertises their government profile barrels as having 5.56 chambers.

In the end, there is a lot of people who like DPMS. There are a lot who like RRA. It's your choice in the end.

MudPuppy
September 17, 2007, 11:01 PM
deleted.

Wow, I just can't read today...drive through.

Wolf_TMD
September 18, 2007, 12:45 AM
Rock River is a top quality product. Be sure to get the Lightweight Entry Tactical. It has a lighter gov't profile under the barrel and balances better.

J_Dillinger
September 18, 2007, 12:50 AM
Rocky Mountain is right though IMO. Stag has some great deals and although i'm not sure whether dpms or RR chrome line their reciever and barrels, I know Stag Does.

dscottw88 - talked with a dealer at a local gun show for Rock River Arms and he claimed that none of their guns come chrome-lined. However, he said that unless your shooting auto like an M-16 then you don't need it. Supposedly, chrome lining only improves clean-ability and helps cool the barrel quicker (less friction). Also, he said that your accuracy isn't as good.......anyone have any input on this ?!?

forrestd
September 18, 2007, 12:54 AM
Of the two, RRA. Like others though, I'm going to recommend Stag if you're looking for a budget build. AR15sales.com has great prices on Stag uppers.

dscottw88 - talked with a dealer at a local gun show for Rock River Arms and he claimed that none of their guns come chrome-lined. However, he said that unless your shooting auto like an M-16 then you don't need it. Supposedly, chrome lining only improves clean-ability and helps cool the barrel quicker (less friction). Also, he said that your accuracy isn't as good.......anyone have any input on this ?!?

He's seriously retarded. Chrome-lining increases durability quite a bit, and RRA offers the option for chrome lining on their website. It is less accurate than stainless steel, but the trade off for durability is definitely worth the minimal amount of accuracy you lose.

jpwilly
September 18, 2007, 01:32 AM
Chrome is a benifit when you keep dumping ammo down the pipe and helps the chamber "self clean"...cleaning is simplified and barrels do last longer. Chrome barrels are reported to be a little less accurate though but I cannot confirm this from personal experiance. My DMPS M4 has a chrome lined barrel. My other "varmint" DMPS has a 20" SS bull barrel. Most of the DPMS uppers I've seen are chrome lined but when they first came out years ago they didn't have them - that has obviously changed!

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p38/jpwilly/101_0457.jpg
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p38/jpwilly/ARBULL20.jpg

Chris Rhines
September 18, 2007, 08:44 AM
The quality between the two will be pretty much identical.
I'd go with DPMS, because DPMS has been a long-term supporter of practical shooting competition.

- Chris

jay43
September 18, 2007, 09:12 AM
Bushmaster

damyankee
September 18, 2007, 01:21 PM
Got My RRA Middy with some mods in One week from ordering :)

Course I live in IL

RockyMtnTactical
September 18, 2007, 03:00 PM
Chrome is an essential upgrade if you want the most reliable weapon. Chrome enhances reliability, eases in cleaning, extends the life of the barrel by almost twice as long, and protects against corrosion.

cbsbyte
September 18, 2007, 04:16 PM
Both are good guns though I have have read negative comments about DPMS Quality Control. Like most AR manufactures Rock River does not make any of their parts, they just assemble from parts. Most of their parts are supplied by CMT except the barrel which are made by Wilson Arms(not Wilson Combat). CMT (which owns Stag) parts are used by many manufactures, including RR, S&W, Colt, CMMG, Bushmaster and a few others. In addition their are many other suppliers who make smaller parts such as DPMS for lower parts, LMT and BCM for BCG and a host of others that make lower and upper receivers and barrels. All these gun are comparable in quality. The only difference is features, price and build quality.

Obiwan
September 18, 2007, 05:18 PM
How exactly does chrome aid in reliability:confused:

I have a RRA and it has been a great rifle...but I honestly do not think I would/will buy another one

Or a DPMS

Both of them cut too many corners in MFG

But in the end...it depends on what you want....

Most of the tier 3 mfgs cater to the crowd that doesn't run their guns that hard

KBintheSLC
September 18, 2007, 07:18 PM
Most of the tier 3 mfgs cater to the crowd that doesn't run their guns that hard

So, in your opinion, who makes the best AR for heavy use?

RockyMtnTactical
September 18, 2007, 07:39 PM
How exactly does chrome aid in reliability

In a few ways. First of all, it's resistance to corrosion and pitting helps to retain reliability of the weapon. Many experts claim that along with a few other factors (like the powder and lack of cleaning kits), failure to chrome line the barrels was one of the biggest issues with reliability in the early Vietnam era.

Secondly, chrome is more "slick" than regular steel. The 5.56 cartridge is not tapered much, so much of the case makes contact with the chamber during feeding and extraction.

This is one of the reasons that chrome lined barrels handle steel cased ammo with greater ease than non chromed barrels.

aloharover
September 18, 2007, 07:52 PM
So, in your opinion, who makes the best AR for heavy use?

COLT, LMT, Daniel Defense

RockyMtnTactical
September 18, 2007, 11:42 PM
COLT, LMT, Daniel Defense

When did Daniel Defense start making AR15's on the same scale as LMT or Colt?

hags
September 19, 2007, 12:29 AM
Colt 6921, LMT, Stag....
how's the saying go, you can buy quality once or pay for it over and over again.
I dunno but you get the idea.

hags
September 19, 2007, 12:31 AM
When did Daniel Defense start making AR15's on the same scale as LMT or Colt?

When did they start making ARs at all?

Onmilo
September 19, 2007, 12:36 AM
I voted DPMS for someone wanting a starter rifle.
I don't buy complete rifles, I prefer to build them to customer specifications from a myraid of vendor parts.

Every manufacturer uses some really excellent parts and some really mediocre cost cutter parts.
Weed out the bad and use the good.

hags
September 19, 2007, 12:41 AM
Every manufacturer uses some really excellent parts and some really mediocre cost cutter parts.
Weed out the bad and use the good.

Except for Colt and LMT. Top notch bar none. :D

RockyMtnTactical
September 19, 2007, 12:53 AM
When did they start making ARs at all?

They did a VERY limited run of lowers, and they do some uppers, but other than that and accessories like rails and sling mounts, etc.... they don't. At least last I checked...

hags
September 19, 2007, 01:09 AM
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. :D

KBintheSLC
September 19, 2007, 02:36 PM
Except for Colt and LMT. Top notch bar none.

I have heard (from multiple, reputable sources) that Colt is just a name anymore. That their product is not really any "better" or differentiated than the RRA's of DPMS's. Why do you believe that the Colts are worth the extra $$$? Do the RRA's contain any sub-par components? If so, please share the specifics.

RockyMtnTactical
September 19, 2007, 03:01 PM
Who are these reputed sources you speak of??

That isn't true. Colt, LMT and others take more precautionary measures to ensure that the weapon is more reliable.

In a way, when you spend more on something like that, you're buying insurance. Yes, every manufacturer can put out a lemon and every manufacturer can put out reliable weapons. But the higher end companies like Colt, LMT, S&W, Stag Arms, BCM, Sabre, CMMG, etc... make better, more reliable weapons than RRA, Bushmaster, Oly, DPMS, etc...

Lots of guys have reliable DPMS rifles. I've seen Olympic AR15's outrun Colts, but those are the exceptions.

I do think that some people make too much of it. It really depends on what you want your rifle for, and some of the precautionary measures taken by some are overkill.

hags
September 19, 2007, 03:26 PM
Quote:
Except for Colt and LMT. Top notch bar none.

I have heard (from multiple, reputable sources) that Colt is just a name anymore. That their product in not really any "better" or differentiated than the RRA's of DPMS's. Why do you believe that the Colts are worth the extra $$$? Do the RRA's contain any sub-par components? If so, please share the specifics.

1. Your sources are wrong!

2. You must be kidding, a 4150, MP tested, pressure tested, stress relieved machine gun barrel or 4140 pot metal garbage?

3. Your sources are wrong!

Obiwan
September 19, 2007, 03:52 PM
The lower tier mfg's cut corners

Things like dremeling in feed ramps, not properly staking carrier keys, substandard extractor springs and inserts, incorrect chambers

And no, they do not have nearly the same QC as those that adhere to the mil-spec

Ask any of the major trainers....the guys that see lots of different weapons all on fairly high round count days

They get plenty of students with a bushmaster, RRa, Oly, DPMS that has worked fine for a few hundred rounds here or there

But they fall apart when they get run hard

RMT- I don't fire full auto, I maintain my weapons and Colorado is not a jungle environment.....but thanks for the advice from the vietnam era....

So while I like my chrome lined barrel....I do not pretend that it makes my carbine any more reliable

birdv
September 19, 2007, 03:59 PM
RRA unless your get the match DPMS upper and lower

JonB
September 19, 2007, 04:24 PM
but thanks for the advice from the vietnam era....

:neener: too funny

benEzra
September 19, 2007, 04:33 PM
dscottw88 - talked with a dealer at a local gun show for Rock River Arms and he claimed that none of their guns come chrome-lined.
RRA offers the option of chrome lined, stainless, or neither on all their rifles. Chrome lining is $40 more than unlined, according to their website.

hags
September 19, 2007, 04:35 PM
RMT- I don't fire full auto, I maintain my weapons and Colorado is not a jungle environment.....but thanks for the advice from the vietnam era....

So while I like my chrome lined barrel....I do not pretend that it makes my carbine any more reliable

Uh, you don't have to pretend, it does. The hard chrome does aid in extraction, that alone makes it more reliable than a non-chrome lined chamber.

It certainly and without a doubt makes it more durable.

f4t9r
September 19, 2007, 04:49 PM
Three letters for you and you will be happy , They are RRA

hags
September 19, 2007, 04:54 PM
I have heard (from multiple, reputable sources) that Colt is just a name anymore. That their product is not really any "better" or differentiated than the RRA's of DPMS's. Why do you believe that the Colts are worth the extra $$$? Do the RRA's contain any sub-par components? If so, please share the specifics.

These are guys who bought RRAs and DPMSs and now wish they had bought a Colt or LMT product.

JohnBT
September 19, 2007, 05:23 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 05:26 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 05:33 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 06:04 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 07:34 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 07:39 PM
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.:D

dphillips
September 19, 2007, 08:14 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 08:21 PM
Frankenguns work just fine, as long as the parts you buy are good quality... and the damn thing is put together correctly...

hags
September 19, 2007, 10:39 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 10:45 PM
uhh, so what problems have you seen with homebuilt ARs that were made with quality parts and put together correctly?

mrmeval
September 19, 2007, 10:50 PM
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
September 19, 2007, 11:41 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 12:34 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:18 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:19 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:41 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:44 AM
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:rolleyes: )

dphillips
September 20, 2007, 01:54 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 09:29 AM
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
September 20, 2007, 12:22 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 12:28 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 12:37 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 12:52 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:18 PM
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
September 20, 2007, 01:23 PM
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?

hags
September 20, 2007, 01:24 PM
This thread should be closed as it's moved waaaaay beyond what the OP is about, IMHO.

ArmedBear
September 20, 2007, 01:30 PM
The Army's M4 contract is with FN, of course. That's where I'm coming from with that last statement.

At least you finally answered the question about why a Colt is better. Your answer has nothing to do with being "more than the sum of its parts". Your answer is that the parts are better parts, with better tolerances. That's exactly what I was saying. It has nothing to do with who puts the pins in the holes.

I'm glad you're an ethical dealer who gives out good information. We need more like you. Seriously. But don't take offense if your fellows out there have made it so that that's not the baseline assumption. Clearly, you're more than happy to make all sorts of assumptions about other people.

ArmedBear
September 20, 2007, 01:35 PM
Are you capable of an original thought?

LOL

If something is true, and I wrote it, then it would look about like the truth written by someone else, now wouldn't it? You really don't think that your post was the first time I'd ever come across that information, do you?

I didn't ask what was different about Colt as a manufacturer, BTW, I asked for an answer about what was BETTER about their guns, and worth the price premium. And by asking, I wasn't denying that they are. I was asking for an answer that was meaningful. Damn near every manufacturer contracts out parts, or whole assemblies, in every field of manufacturing. Simply making it yourself doesn't make it better.

hags
September 20, 2007, 01:44 PM
The Army's M4 contract is with FN, of course. That's where I'm coming from with that last statement.

At least you finally answered the question about why a Colt is better. Your answer has nothing to do with being "more than the sum of its parts". Your answer is that the parts are better parts, with better tolerances. That's exactly what I was saying. It has nothing to do with who puts the pins in the holes.

I'm glad you're an ethical dealer who gives out good information. We need more like you. Seriously. But don't take offense if your fellows out there have made it so that that's not the baseline assumption. Clearly, you're more than happy to make all sorts of assumptions about other people.

Straight from the Colt military website:

Colt Defense LLC is the sole source supplier of the M4 Carbine to the US military and the only manufacturer worldwide that meets or exceeds all US military specifications for the weapon.

Guys like you make assumptions about alot of things and play loose with the facts.

As far as I know, FN is only contracted and licensed to make some M16A4s.

It has a little to do with "who puts the pins in", as there is a little more to it than that. There are humans involved with all phases of gun manufacturing, therefore there are chances for mistakes at all phases of gun manufacturing.

I have assumed nothing, I base my assertions on experience.

hags
September 20, 2007, 01:47 PM
If something is true, and I wrote it, then it would look about like the truth written by someone else, now wouldn't it? You really don't think that your post was the first time I'd ever come across that information, do you?

No, I'm sure you've seen alot of posts on the subject. I have seen it firsthand, in person, and in real life. It's called experience.

hags
September 20, 2007, 01:50 PM
I didn't ask what was different about Colt as a manufacturer, BTW, I asked for an answer about what was BETTER about their guns, and worth the price premium. And by asking, I wasn't denying that they are. I was asking for an answer that was meaningful. Damn near every manufacturer contracts out parts, or whole assemblies, in every field of manufacturing. Simply making it yourself doesn't make it better.

Wouldn't it follow that a better manufacturer of guns makes a better gun, or no?

ArmedBear
September 20, 2007, 02:00 PM
My mistake. FN was full of crap with their own announcements.

Wouldn't it follow that a better manufacturer of guns makes a better gun, or no?

Yes. Of course. What I wrote was that simply manufacturing parts doesn't mean you make BETTER parts.

If you make BETTER parts, you'll make better guns.

OTOH, a manufacturer who contracts out some parts to other companies who can make them better will have a better final product, still. If Colt makes the BEST parts themselves, they will make the best guns.

(Civilian example: a 10/22 with all-Ruger parts is a POS. Put parts from others who make them better in it, and it can be an impressive little gun, for what it is.)

You outlined how Colt makes better parts, to better tolerances. That's what matters. I haven't spent time in Iraq, but I do know a little bit about machining...

My point about military armorers is that the guns used in the field were not necessarily put together, in their present form, at Colt's factory or any other factory. And they still work the same, if assembled correctly. If you take a Colt apart, and put it back together, it's still the same top-quality gun, right?

Which brings us back to the original question, to which I think we had exactly the same answer.

(And at the moment, I'm sick, and bored. So sue me if I post here.)

dphillips
September 20, 2007, 05:34 PM
KBintheSLC, also check out, The Maryland AR15 Shooters site.
There is alot of good info. on that site too.
Two good books,The AR15 complete owner's guide by
Walt Kuleck and The AR15 by Patrick Sweeney.
Hope this helps some.

Eightball
September 20, 2007, 10:28 PM
So far as the comparison between DPMS and RRA.....I saw both next to each other in the shop when I bought my AR. Being a demanding and exacting rifle enthusiast, I of course inspected several examples of each, and discovered that the average DMPS was a more sloppily put together rifle, with slightly less fit and a slightly less adequate finish than the RRA. I bought my RRA, and have never had one complaint about it; the one thing the DPMS's had going for them was that they were cheaper. But, my way of looking at things is that if you get the right thing the first time, it won't matter what it cost, you'll never worry about it, only cherish the firearm; wheras if you go the "this one was $X00 cheaper" route, you'll always remember exactly what you paid for it, and you will always remember the other, absolutely perfect option as the "one that got away", and you'll kick yourself. For me, the RRA was the perfect weapon, what with quality, fit, finish, that awesome trigger, feel, balance, feature, etc....but to each their own. If the DPMS "does it" for you, then so be it, but my RRA is one of the more impressive AR's I've seen out there, and people who have previously used nothing but the "genuine item" are thoroughly impressed with my little 16" middy rifle.

I voted RRA.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dpms Or Rock River???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!