Build a complete AR-15 (including rear sight and magazine) for $386.21 shipped.

[barnbwt]

"Both sets of samples pass all the testing -- both static and dynamic and the meet print. Company A's bid is far lower than Company B's bid. Company B points out that even though it's more expensive, its product is far "better" than the TDP requirements."

You can't just change a key word in the discussion to suit your position. "Better" is far broader term than "quality." If discussing quality, which I thought we were, it is entirely possible (and not at all unlikely) that a product surpassing the minimum required specs for the TDP (or whatever) is brought to market. That's how you got the revised and improved TDP you mentioned in the first place.

"Now the question, if product from both vendors meet the TDP and if both pass the govt's testing, could one be "better" than the other? My answer is nope. Not per the customer's expectations. In fact without further testing to a changed TDP, it may not be of higher quality under any circumstance."

Just because I'm colorblind, doesn't mean I deny the color red is different from the color green. To say one product could not surpass (or even be in any way different from) another simply because the procurement folks haven't tested to verify that is very myopic. No, they can't rely on some supposed advantage before measuring it, but that doesn't mean a different process/product/whathaveyou produced within the contract constraints can't perform in excess of the requirements. Happens all the time when internal process improvements at a supplier deliver cost-plus items below budget or ahead of schedule (it does occasionally happen ), or simply when one producer of a competitive bid item has a better execution (not that I'm an expert, but there are those who assert that FNH/Colt/Remington service rifles vary in perceived reliability/utility in use. I'm sure the procurement officers deny up and down that that is a possibility, but that is what we've all read from enlisted infantrymen)

TCB

 

[CraigC]

Sorry, but no sale. Spending more does not necessarily buy more accuracy. How I wish that were true! It doesn't even always buy better machining -- irrespective of whether or now better machining produced any benefit in the operation of the end product. Same for reliability.

There are no absolutes but yes, quality of materials, fit & finish, accuracy and better machining usually costs more. Not always but usually. There are obviously going to be exceptions.

The finish is better than the Express has. But that finish is chosen to be worse on the Express. There is no evidence it's actually cheaper.

Huh? You don't think what is basically an "as machined", bead blasted and parkerized finish is cheaper to do than fully polished bluing???

 

[Aragon]

...There is a reason why, say, an M-Faux built to Military Specs does not cost $386.

Yeah, one huge reason. Because it's not priced at $386.00

The $800 ballpark does not come out of thin air. It is approximately what it would cost to put together an excellent quality Mil-Spec rifle...

Prove it.

Anyone suggesting that the price of an AR is based only (or even largely) on its cost to produce is fooling themselves. They're priced at what the market will bear -- which is a lot less of late. As ARs become more and more of a commodity, their price will be reflected more and more by their cost to produce and sell.

 

[Aragon]

There are no absolutes but yes, quality of materials, fit & finish, accuracy and better machining usually costs more. Not always but usually. There are obviously going to be exceptions.

Yes, they do typically cost more but their use does not always result in a higher quality firearm.

One could lap an AR barrel to within 10 Angstroms of its basic design dimension. The process would be hugely expensive and the practical (shooting accuracy) result would be no better than a barrel finished by conventionally used processes. Yet some would still insist that an AR built with such a barrel was of "higher quality" and it's simply not true from a customer's viewpoint.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, they do typically cost more but their use does not always result in a higher quality firearm.

One could lap an AR barrel to within 10 Angstroms of its basic design dimension. The process would be hugely expensive and the practical (shooting accuracy) result would be no better than a barrel finished by conventionally used processes. Yet some would still insist that an AR built with such a barrel was of "higher quality" and it's simply not true from a customer's viewpoint.

That's an interesting example from way out in left field. A better one would be that a barrel made from a hand-lapped Shilen blank is not only going to be more accurate, it's going to be more consistent, slower to foul and easier to clean than the one in your $386 example. Whether or not the customer wants or needs what it offers is irrelevant. It is still a higher quality barrel, that is guaranteed to shoot better and that results in a higher quality firearm that, of course, will cost more than your $386 DIY kit. Maybe the el cheapo barrel is "good enough", maybe it's not. That's up to the individual paying the credit card bill.

"Quality" is just a internet double dog dare thrown around on boards to impress those new to the hobby and preserve the self image of others who think paying more money deserves more respect.

Yes, I'm sure that's all it is.

 

[greyghost01]

WOW! There is one thing for sure there is a difference in peoples wallets, To be honest people buy what they can afford and are comfortable with. Because you bought a Ford over a Cadillac does not mean your Ford is junk.
Buy what you are comfortable with and you can afford, Later in life you will be able to buy other items, I own guns today that 30 yrs ago I would not of dreamed to spend that much money on.
And yes if I spend 2500.00 on a rifle as compared to 500.00 I would surely hope it was of better quality and material . Can you have as much fun with the 500.00 rifle yes you can.
Its like the AR vs AK debate a lot has to do with what YOU call accuracy
To me accuracy is 1/4 to 1/2 moa not found in a AK
If accuracy to you is 21/2 to 4" moa then your good to go, Can both Kill yes they can, It all depends on your personnel taste. Nobody else can make your decision. A lot of guys own AK because they are cheaper than a AR, But to them it automatically makes the AK a far superior weapon to the AR. And that's how we end up with LWRC is far superior than DPMS.
Yes I would hope that it is, But the DPMS is a solid rifle that shoots extremely well. We all have a price tag and defend ourselves as best as possible. The choice is YOURS

 

[Thermactor]

Which AR15s gained the most value during the banic?
The Colt LE6920s.

Not the Olympics. Not the Vulcan-Hesses. Not the DPMSs.

 

[Blade First]

"Which AR15s gained the most value during the banic?
The Colt LE6920s." - Thermactor

Hmmm...the Colt's model with an MSRP well north of $1k currently selling for less than $800 at multiple vendors gained the most value during the panic?!

I suppose it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Colt's is in dire financial straits again and would...again...willingly drop the price of a product to increase desperately-needed cash flow. Those special bond deals are an absolute bitch for those who are Colt fanboys.

The multiple "proofs" to the contrary, a serviceable AR-15 which could easily outlast its purchaser or builder is a reality...and it can be obtained or built for hundreds of dollars less than Colt's current loss-leader. And, in keeping with the thread, will meet even the fanboys "specs".

 

[Jackal]

"Which AR15s gained the most value during the banic?
The Colt LE6920s." - Thermactor

Hmmm...the Colt's model with an MSRP well north of $1k currently selling for less than $800 at multiple vendors gained the most value during the panic?!

Uh, 6920's were selling for around double MSRP during the panic.... They were selling like hotcakes for $2000-$2500, both locally and on Gunbroker.... Granted the increase in value was temporary, but market instability could strike again at any time. I sold every EBR I had on Gunbroker and pocketed several thousand dollars in profit. My investments paid off.

 

[boricua9mm]

Yeah, one huge reason. Because it's not priced at $386.00

Sorry, bub. Even Uncle Sam pays close to twice that for an M4. You think you're somehow going to get a BETTER deal? Why? Because you saw a way to put together a garbage AR for $386?

Prove it.

Anyone suggesting that the price of an AR is based only (or even largely) on its cost to produce is fooling themselves. They're priced at what the market will bear -- which is a lot less of late. As ARs become more and more of a commodity, their price will be reflected more and more by their cost to produce and sell.

I don't need to prove anything. Before you came alone, many have come here to THR to claim that they could build a Mil-Spec AR for significantly less than a competitively priced Colt. Time and time again, the parts they point to are NOT Mil-Spec components, and your thread is no different.

You can put together a BCM, LMT or Spikes for around $800 if you shop smart and avoid questionable parts and components. The end result is a rifle that, in my experience with these brands, can be trusted to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. The last Colt 6920 I purchased was $850 delivered. Prices are getting close to that now, in a down and out market.

You can put together some semblance of an AR for $386, but you're kidding yourself if you think you're getting a rifle fit for hard use. Like I said, put your money where your mouth is. Build it, lube it, shoot the crap out of it, and document it on video, warts and all. Most of us already know how the story ends...

 

[Oldschool shooter]

While I will agree that some manufacturers have better machined surfaces and may run tighter tolerances, if a part is in spec, it's in spec. In spec and pretty may give the appearance of higher quality, but not always the case. A lot of this is just marketing.

 

[Thermactor]

"Which AR15s gained the most value during the banic?
The Colt LE6920s." - Thermactor

Hmmm...the Colt's model with an MSRP well north of $1k currently selling for less than $800 at multiple vendors gained the most value during the panic?!

I suppose it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Colt's is in dire financial straits again and would...again...willingly drop the price of a product to increase desperately-needed cash flow. Those special bond deals are an absolute bitch for those who are Colt fanboys.

The multiple "proofs" to the contrary, a serviceable AR-15 which could easily outlast its purchaser or builder is a reality...and it can be obtained or built for hundreds of dollars less than Colt's current loss-leader. And, in keeping with the thread, will meet even the fanboys "specs".

fair disclosure, i don't own any colt products, i bought other brands of EBR.

 

[Skylerbone]

Boricua, nobody answered the call at my invitation either, I don't see a single thank-you to the OP by hoards skipping off to purchase their wunderkit and I'm gonna bet no one will put up or give up on the claims made. You'll never convince some folks that for a few dollars more (the cost of a PSA or S&W) that they could have an AR that will function. I'm also guessing that's where the original suggestion of $800 being the quality threshold came from and not an arbitrarily chosen number and I would agree, that amount will do nicely.

Oldschool, what some fail to understand is that not all parts are in spec, military or otherwise. It's one thing to procure parts for a 1911 that you know must be fitted, using a bit of knowledge, to your particular pistol. It is quite another thing to believe every part is drop-in. What's been said, and now repeated is that not one responder in this thread has vouched with evidence for the build that was linked. Not one person who, whatever their definition, can show that specific kit is deserving of the label "quality".

No, testing like MPI don't add quality to a part, they assure it, which adds "value" by that assurance that you don't own a defective part, more prone to breakage and unintended injury. Testing costs money. Labeling untested parts quality without reputation or proof; well that's just hollow.

So...the gauntlet has been thrown. Accept or let this miserable thread die already.

 

[Aragon]

While I will agree that some manufacturers have better machined surfaces and may run tighter tolerances, if a part is in spec, it's in spec. In spec and pretty may give the appearance of higher quality, but not always the case. A lot of this is just marketing.

Absolutely true if it's a good design to begin with.

From a quality assurance standpoint, it's in the best interests of manufacturers to reduce variances in their manufacturing processes until they hit the threshold of the manufacturing process. Reducing variance saves $$$ It's been proven time after time.

In other words if milling or turning provides machined features that meet the spec, a company should do all they can do to limit variances using those manufacturing processes. Adding an additional grinding/polishing/lapping step doesn't mean the part will be of higher quality. They might be prettier but not of higher quality.

 

[Aragon]

Sorry, bub. Even Uncle Sam pays close to twice that for an M4. You think you're somehow going to get a BETTER deal? Why? Because you saw a way to put together a garbage AR for $386?

LOL!! Do you really think the US Gov't (particularly the military) procures goods and services as inexpensively as possible? Really? Again, LOL!

I don't need to prove anything. Before you came alone, many have come here to THR to claim that they could build a Mil-Spec AR for significantly less than a competitively priced Colt. Time and time again, the parts they point to are NOT Mil-Spec components, and your thread is no different.

You can put together a BCM, LMT or Spikes for around $800 if you shop smart and avoid questionable parts and components. The end result is a rifle that, in my experience with these brands, can be trusted to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. The last Colt 6920 I purchased was $850 delivered. Prices are getting close to that now, in a down and out market.

You can put together some semblance of an AR for $386, but you're kidding yourself if you think you're getting a rifle fit for hard use. Like I said, put your money where your mouth is. Build it, lube it, shoot the crap out of it, and document it on video, warts and all. Most of us already know how the story ends...

LOL! "Mil-Spec" doesn't mean a darned thing when it comes to commercially procured goods. What does "Mil-Spec" mean in the context of an AR?

To an actual mil contractor like Colt it means the individual parts and the finished firearm meet the TDR. Since most manufacturers don't have access to the actual TDR (they're reverse engineered for the most part), how do they even know their parts are "Mil-Spec"?

I suspect the only functional test of a "Mil-Spec" part by the average manufacturer is to ensure their part operates correctly in a Colt or FN built AR/M4. Even then there would be no assurances, only the results of a functional test.

 

[Aragon]

Boricua, nobody answered the call at my invitation either, I don't see a single thank-you to the OP by hoards skipping off to purchase their wunderkit and I'm gonna bet no one will put up or give up on the claims made. You'll never convince some folks that for a few dollars more (the cost of a PSA or S&W) that they could have an AR that will function. I'm also guessing that's where the original suggestion of $800 being the quality threshold came from and not an arbitrarily chosen number and I would agree, that amount will do nicely.

No one here said a PSA or S&W AR would not function. Not sure where you came up with that one?

$386.21 is less than half of $800.00 That's a profound difference in the price of the firearms.

Oldschool, what some fail to understand is that not all parts are in spec, military or otherwise. It's one thing to procure parts for a 1911 that you know must be fitted, using a bit of knowledge, to your particular pistol. It is quite another thing to believe every part is drop-in. What's been said, and now repeated is that not one responder in this thread has vouched with evidence for the build that was linked. Not one person who, whatever their definition, can show that specific kit is deserving of the label "quality".

What does "Mil-Spec" even mean in the context of an AR/M4 given the fact that the huge majority of manufacturers don't even have access to the original and approved design? 90% of the AR parts out there are reverse engineered. The military gave them no blessing of any sort.

No, testing like MPI don't add quality to a part, they assure it, which adds "value" by that assurance that you don't own a defective part, more prone to breakage and unintended injury. Testing costs money. Labeling untested parts quality without reputation or proof; well that's just hollow.

Oh, now it's up to testing by individual companies? That makes sense as MPI certainly doesn't have access to Colt's drawings and test results that were indeed approved by the military. Better call it MPI-Spec in this case and not Mil-Spec.

So...the gauntlet has been thrown. Accept or let this miserable thread die already.

It's winter. Don't let your hand get cold while you wait.

 

[Aragon]

"Which AR15s gained the most value during the banic?
The Colt LE6920s." - Thermactor

Hmmm...the Colt's model with an MSRP well north of $1k currently selling for less than $800 at multiple vendors gained the most value during the panic?!

I suppose it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Colt's is in dire financial straits again and would...again...willingly drop the price of a product to increase desperately-needed cash flow. Those special bond deals are an absolute bitch for those who are Colt fanboys.

The multiple "proofs" to the contrary, a serviceable AR-15 which could easily outlast its purchaser or builder is a reality...and it can be obtained or built for hundreds of dollars less than Colt's current loss-leader. And, in keeping with the thread, will meet even the fanboys "specs".

Even simple little comparisons are startling. I suspect the labor standard at a union shop like Colt for assembly of sub-assemblies, final assembly, testing, cleaning and packing of an AR is darned close to 2 hours/unit given the UAW work rules, etc. Unionized direct labor is north of $50.00/hour (including fringes) for Colt. I suspect overhead for Colt's production (as a percentage of direct labor cost) is way over 100%, but let's call it 100%

That's $200.00/unit by itself and it might well be a lot more.

That's all sweat equity in a home build. $0.00. We could dig deeper and deeper and the costs will become apparent very quickly. Given Colt's financial situation, I wonder what sort of relations they have with their suppliers? Are they using their suppliers as banks which keeps them from getting the best price on materials?

 

[OneWound]

LOL!! Do you really think the US Gov't (particularly the military) procures goods and services as inexpensively as possible? Really? Again, LOL!



LOL! "Mil-Spec" doesn't mean a darned thing when it comes to commercially procured goods. What does "Mil-Spec" mean in the context of an AR?

To an actual mil contractor like Colt it means the individual parts and the finished firearm meet the TDR. Since most manufacturers don't have access to the actual TDR (they're reverse engineered for the most part), how do they even know their parts are "Mil-Spec"?

I suspect the only functional test of a "Mil-Spec" part by the average manufacturer is to ensure their part operates correctly in a Colt or FN built AR/M4. Even then there would be no assurances, only the results of a functional test.

MIL-SPEC means that it conforms to a set of standards set forth by the military. Ie, a product can operate within a certain temperature range, can function after this amount of testing, etc.

 

[PowerG]

Magnetic Particle Inspection.

The rifle in the OP includes a polymer upper. The barrel may or may not have a chromed chamber and bore...I couldn't determine this from the manufacturer's website, it didn't seem to say. The BCG apparently undergoes "rigorous testing", though what this consists of is not discussed. We're getting off the trail pretty fast if we're looking for "mil-spec".

Which in the context of a civilian rifle does have meaning. There are more than dimensional tolerances in the TDP/military specifications. Was an overpressure round fired, and then the BCG and barrel wet mag'd, cartridge case inspected? What kind of chamber dimensional checks were done? Bear in mind that for these tests (and the many others required) the technicians must have certifications at the level required by the government, and the procedure used must be approved and followed. MT certainly isn't a highly technical enterprise, however I would guess that relatively few kitchen tablers have the equipment and/or training to perform it in the garage. I would certainly agree wholeheartedly that most people who buy AR's probably aren't going to push their rifles to the point where this will make a lot of difference. Crack a bolt, buy another one, no big deal. But to make the assumption that some of these other rifles/parts boutiques have the same assurance of meeting very specific requirements sin't looking at it realistically. (That's why they do the testing.)

For accuracy's sake, I own a 6920 and an SP-1. I also own three other AR's, and have both built and assembled several others. One of the ones I own at present cost some less than the 6920, it's a good gun, I like it, after a couple of minor ergonomic changes. The other two cost more, one considerably more. I bought the 6920 because I wanted one. I can afford it. I'm old, all my junk is paid for. I also know something about quality assurance on both private and government projects (it's what I do for a living) and I know that some of the testing done on the Colts (and some other brands) does add appreciably to the cost of the guns. I watched some MPI being done this very day. Documenting the testing adds more. Could you get it for less? I have no doubt you can, but a point will be reached where being assured of acceptable quality (to my standards, no one else's) will not be possible at the price point, and that is an inescapable reality. I have neither desire nor need to explore this price point with my checkbook, and am very happy with the guns I have bought. If you're pleased with yours, then I'm very happy for you, congratulations.

 

[Aragon]

MIL-SPEC means that it conforms to a set of standards set forth by the military. Ie, a product can operate within a certain temperature range, can function after this amount of testing, etc.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about in this context? What about the zillions of AR builders who claim to be producing "mil-spec" ARs yet they have never submitted their products to the DoD for testing?

That would mean to be "mil-spec" they would have to build samples and submit them along with spares to some certified third party testing lab so that they could be tested per the DoD protocol. I've never heard any of that happening. Have you?

They could be building to say Colt's design (which has been approved) and therefore claim to be building "mil-spec" gear except that information -- the technical data package is still proprietary. The gov't MAY release the TDP to qualified companies when they are bidding the M16/M4 but again, that doesn't cover anywhere near all the makers claiming "mil-spec" ARs.

I suppose those firms (Colt, FN and possibly a few others) whose products have actually passed all the DoD testing could be sending kits to other companies for assembly and production testing, but that's obviously not happening.

I suspect in reality what "mil-spec" means for many builders is that a Brand X AR component pieces will fit and function in an AR built by an approved AR contractor like Colt. That of course doesn't mean that their AR or the component will actually pass the testing that Colt's did.

 

[Aragon]

Magnetic Particle Inspection.

The rifle in the OP includes a polymer upper. The barrel may or may not have a chromed chamber and bore...I couldn't determine this from the manufacturer's website, it didn't seem to say. The BCG apparently undergoes "rigorous testing", though what this consists of is not discussed. We're getting off the trail pretty fast if we're looking for "mil-spec".

Which in the context of a civilian rifle does have meaning. There are more than dimensional tolerances in the TDP/military specifications. Was an overpressure round fired, and then the BCG and barrel wet mag'd, cartridge case inspected? What kind of chamber dimensional checks were done? Bear in mind that for these tests (and the many others required) the technicians must have certifications at the level required by the government, and the procedure used must be approved and followed. MT certainly isn't a highly technical enterprise, however I would guess that relatively few kitchen tablers have the equipment and/or training to perform it in the garage. I would certainly agree wholeheartedly that most people who buy AR's probably aren't going to push their rifles to the point where this will make a lot of difference. Crack a bolt, buy another one, no big deal. But to make the assumption that some of these other rifles/parts boutiques have the same assurance of meeting very specific requirements sin't looking at it realistically. (That's why they do the testing.)

For accuracy's sake, I own a 6920 and an SP-1. I also own three other AR's, and have both built and assembled several others. One of the ones I own at present cost some less than the 6920, it's a good gun, I like it, after a couple of minor ergonomic changes. The other two cost more, one considerably more. I bought the 6920 because I wanted one. I can afford it. I'm old, all my junk is paid for. I also know something about quality assurance on both private and government projects (it's what I do for a living) and I know that some of the testing done on the Colts (and some other brands) does add appreciably to the cost of the guns. I watched some MPI being done this very day. Documenting the testing adds more. Could you get it for less? I have no doubt you can, but a point will be reached where being assured of acceptable quality (to my standards, no one else's) will not be possible at the price point, and that is an inescapable reality. I have neither desire nor need to explore this price point with my checkbook, and am very happy with the guns I have bought. If you're pleased with yours, then I'm very happy for you, congratulations.

You're right, the TDP does include a lot more than basic dimensions and tolerating. Just try to find (for example) public domain test data on heat treating of rifle barrels and you'll quickly find that some of this information is carefully guarded.

My question is, what about the AR builder with a solid reputation who has never submitted their parts or their finished guns to any sort of outside agency for testing yet claim to be "mil-spec?"

They were careful when they reverse-engineered the Colt AR16. They bought several units from difference sources in an attempt to get a representative sample. They put their coordinate measuring machines and hardness testers to work and they ultimately created their own drawings.

Then they either made the parts or had them made to print (likely a bit of both) and assembled/tested the guns. I'm sure most have some sort of design verification protocol and production verification protocol but it's still a world away from submitting their firearms to the DoD for testing yet they claim to be building "mil-spec" ARs.

 

[PowerG]

Without the testing, it does not meet the military specification. Period. The part may be just as good, but without doing and documenting the specified tests, following specified procedures, then you have not completed the process.

 

[Archangel14]

Perfect quality isn't much more thanks to the free BCG group in this:
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-1...g-mid-16lw.htm

It's amazing that you can get such a quality upper for that price.

 

[Aragon]

Without the testing, it does not meet the military specification. Period. The part may be just as good, but without doing and documenting the specified tests, following specified procedures, then you have not completed the process.

I was reading a book the other night about bespoken English shotguns. One of the things Purdy, H&H and the rest do is have their barrels proofed by outside testing labs. It doesn't mean that they are any better -- just that they have passed the specifications set by XYZ laboratory.

We do that in the US too. We have SAMMI specifications of course, but we also have Underwriters Laboratories, the Good Housekeeping Seal, the National Sanitary Foundation, etc., etc. depending on the industry.

Quite interesting there isn't a mil-equivalent lab of some sort to allow those that claim their product is mil-spec to prove it -- even if it never underwent actual mil evaluation.

 

[HKGuns]

Most of you appear to be missing the point.

The point of this is to show how you can build one as cheaply as possible. There are applications for such a rifle and the point is not mil-spec or not, the point is you can actually build one now for less than $400.

Would you bet your life on it? Probably not, but I imagine it would work just fine for a range rifle or a plinker.