So you put a micrometer to it and verified that it was over .2500"? Ever consider the hole in the lower is what was out of spec? (far more likely)
I'm not calling the statement untrue, but something tells me you have no way to quantify it. None of the manufacturers, including Colt and PSA, are particularly loose-lipped about their equipment, processes, QC practices, etc.
Not true. At the very least, you save the 10% FET by building.
10% less? Have you been watching prices? You can put a PSA carbine together for well under $400.
Do you really want to pick that fight with me?
The truth is rather the opposite, in that people who cling to the "must be milspec" dogma don't understand that "milspec" is a uniformity standard, and being other than can easily be (and often is) superior. I'll take a not-"milspec" 9310 bolt over a C158 bolt every time. It's stronger and more wear resistant. All the free float parts and low pro gas blocks everyone uses? Yeah, not "milspec". Are you getting the point?
No, it's the whole iceberg where individual machine parts are concerned; QC here means it either meets the dimensions and mechanical properties specified, or it doesn't. "Milspec" is also an improperly and over-used term. Notice how I always put it in quotations? There's a reason for that.
Patently false statement. You are aware that not only are many of our M16s and M4s made by FN, but that they also produce our machine guns, yes? And though none of us know the exact reasons, Colt did not win the latest contracts for new M4s
http://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-16-m4-premium-carbine.html
$750 for their premium M-forgery, which is the only thing they make that could even be considered halfway milspec. That's $50 more than I just paid for a 6920, and my 6920 came with a carry handle, two magazines, and a cleaning kit. In what universe is the PSA a better deal, even if the quality is on par (and let me assure you it is not)??? Now I realize the price of Colts has come down in recent months, but even if they were still going for 800, I would gladly pay the extra 50 bucks for the Colt over the PSA.
Milspec isn't a dogma, it's a basic set of parameters for quality control. Failure to meet, and preferably exceed, those parameters will result in spotty quality, mainly in the form of premature bolt breakage, extractor failure, etc. I would rather have a properly made and tested 158 bolt over a 9310 one that didn't go through testing and inspection individually. Just because you lengthen the barrel by a few centimeters or change the location of the gas port does not in any way negate the vast majority of the milspec parameters.
The dogma is rather coming from people who parrot "there's no such thing as a civilian milspec AR15." While this is technically true, it's also irrelevant. It is entirely possible, and necessary, that a civilian AR15 be of milspec quality. Again, and don't just brush over this, there are thousands of serious professionals out there using semi automatic AR15s with 16'' barrels. It is extremely easy to apply the milspec requirements to semi auto AR15s, just like they can be modified to apply to a Mk18 and still keep all their relevancy in terms of basic quality control.
Even with the tax, you still can't build an AR for less than you can buy a complete one, all things being equal. Don't ask me why, that's just how it is.
Now on an anecdotal level, I've built and worked on a few ARs over the years. I cringe whenever I see value brand parts because there's always something. They just don't go together right, and often don't work right. I've also seen the quality plummet in recent years. Most of the stuff I'm seeing now is pure garbage.