Del ton ar
- Thread starter Arobbins
- Start date
- Status
cat_IT_guy
Member
I built my AR off a Delton lower. No complaints to date, though admittedly I've only put 100 rounds or so through it.
jad0110
Member
Del-ton seems to have upped their quality a lot in the last few years, though it was never what I'd call bad in the past. More run-of-the-mil. For example, the complete DTI upper I bought 5+ years ago had a BCG with a gas key that had NOT been staked (by swaging a little bit of metal into the two screws securing the gas key with a small punch). The gas key came unstaked after only roughly 400 rounds of shooting, which allowed gasses to bleed off and not enter the "piston" inside the BCG (behind the bolt), turning my AR into a single shot 
.
I'm nearly certain today's DTI BCGs are staked. I also think the bolts may be shot peened and magnetic particle inspected, but others can confirm that one way or the other. I'm not sure of the other specifics, such as the extractor spring, etc. But from what I gather, they make a good product for a good price, and would consider DTI components in future builds. Actually, I used a DTI barrel and upper receiver extension in my retro AR build.
.I'm nearly certain today's DTI BCGs are staked. I also think the bolts may be shot peened and magnetic particle inspected, but others can confirm that one way or the other. I'm not sure of the other specifics, such as the extractor spring, etc. But from what I gather, they make a good product for a good price, and would consider DTI components in future builds. Actually, I used a DTI barrel and upper receiver extension in my retro AR build.
Good bang for your buck if you don't need to own a high end AR. I've bought a couple of their lightweight rifle kits and built them on my own lowers. When you look at the kits on their website, click on "customize", you can build them as you like with some limitations. That way you're not buying a lot of stuff twice.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Del-Ton has switched to a TDP or near TDP compliant BCG on their rifles. Their "Extreme Duty" carbine is nearly identical to a Colt 6920 on paper. They listened to the market, and they have indeed upgraded their parts and assembly practices. Del-Ton is a dark horse in the AR market.
henschman
Member
If you don't have their "extreme duty" version, the places they cut corners were by using 1/9 twist instead of 1/7 or 1/8, not chrome lining or nitriding the barrel (unless you selected the CL option on a custom ordered barrel ass'y), and not high pressure testing and magnetic particle inspecting the barrel. Also since they don't make available the grade of metal for the barrel or buffer tube, you can assume that they're using 4140 instead of 4150 steel in the barrels, and 6160 aluminum instead of 7075 for the buffer tube. Also their selections on barrel profile and gas system length are limited... if you want a middy you can only get a heavy profile barrel.
NWcityguy2
Member
People debate AR differences to death but the discussions often have little value because far to many people compare specs without tempering that knowledge with real world experiences. Things to think about: A 1:9 barrel will stabilize popular 75gr and 77gr bullets at reasonable self defense ranges. Or that the difference in trajectory between those bullets and a 69gr BTHP bullet are almost identical. Long bullets with high BCs (which you need a 1:8 or faster barrel for) benefit competitors who are chasing small advantages that don't always translate over the different styles of shooting.
Or do you see people consistently sharing their experience with damaged 6160 buffer tubes? The AR has been a popular gun to own for a long time. Are using cheaper materials actually lowering the quality of ARs or is the difference something you just see on a spreadsheet?
The OP's post was short but really what he is asking is if the Del-ton AR he already owns is GTG. The simple answer is only the OP can know for sure. Del-ton doesn't produce and AR with glaring design flaws (few companies do) or consistently faulty materials/methods (more common but still only effects a minority of AR users). But will your AR fire 10k rounds? Fire 10k rounds and then let us know. The same could be said for taking training courses, going on backpacking trips or using it in an actual life or death situation. My bet is if you trained with it consistently for years you will find yourself a much better shot with plenty of confidence in your rifle.
Or do you see people consistently sharing their experience with damaged 6160 buffer tubes? The AR has been a popular gun to own for a long time. Are using cheaper materials actually lowering the quality of ARs or is the difference something you just see on a spreadsheet?
The OP's post was short but really what he is asking is if the Del-ton AR he already owns is GTG. The simple answer is only the OP can know for sure. Del-ton doesn't produce and AR with glaring design flaws (few companies do) or consistently faulty materials/methods (more common but still only effects a minority of AR users). But will your AR fire 10k rounds? Fire 10k rounds and then let us know. The same could be said for taking training courses, going on backpacking trips or using it in an actual life or death situation. My bet is if you trained with it consistently for years you will find yourself a much better shot with plenty of confidence in your rifle.
Last edited:
Milspec is an interesting discussion. First, its exactly that, the government standard. That means it's what the government is willing to pay for under a competitive contract bidding situation, to get a rifle that meets their performance standards.
2MOA, not sub MOA. Mean rounds to failure past 5,000 rounds, not 50,000 rounds. Bolts that need replacement around X number of rounds, which they can't record, so it's inspect in place and replace when cracked.
At one time, cut barrel rifling because that was what Colt would pay for, when the majority of pistols and most modern battle rifles had long since moved to hammer forged. And those barrels delivered better accuracy, higher bullet speeds, and more durability across the board.
The M16 and M4 are built to a standard, but also to a price. Contract prices are known to be as low a $650, it's negotiable. What raises the price is testing every part, documenting it, then adding that paperwork trail including the labor to do it to have a package for a government inspector to rate compliance.
There are more durable materials, better processes, and higher standards that could be exercised, but the combat rifle is a 2MOA bullet launcher and all that extra expense wouldn't mean X more hits on the enemy for the dollar. That's where the milspec discussion gets even more interesting as some will say it's the best there is, where others know it's just a minimum standard, while others point out that a rifle costing 3X more simply won't hit 3X more enemy. Only the shooter can do that.
The proof in that argument is that the FN concept rifles retailing for over $2000 are no longer going thru any further development by our special forces as there's no measurable, documentable improvement for the money. We can choose sides and discuss it until the cows come home, but the "milspec" issue rifle really isn't all that, and frankly, we don't need much more. It's a pretty simple spec and I believe what the real issues around whether one is, or not, is simply supply and demand. We can't get enough of those parts, so the makers have to discount their wares to move them. If they can get the parts, they can price it where the market can bear it - whether the parts were all that more expensive or not. They aren't saying.
Goes back to that Colt contract price at under $650, but retails for $1,100. Somebody is making a cut in the supplier chain, Colt sells hundreds to distributors, distributors sell tens to the local long gun store. Got to pay for their overhead and shipping each step of the way.
Do we buy a $650 milspec gun or an $1100 milspec gun? Yes is the actual answer, it's not represented by the price as we see it in the armory rack or the gun store rack. And the cheaper gun might be more accurate than the expensive one. Or not.
2MOA, not sub MOA. Mean rounds to failure past 5,000 rounds, not 50,000 rounds. Bolts that need replacement around X number of rounds, which they can't record, so it's inspect in place and replace when cracked.
At one time, cut barrel rifling because that was what Colt would pay for, when the majority of pistols and most modern battle rifles had long since moved to hammer forged. And those barrels delivered better accuracy, higher bullet speeds, and more durability across the board.
The M16 and M4 are built to a standard, but also to a price. Contract prices are known to be as low a $650, it's negotiable. What raises the price is testing every part, documenting it, then adding that paperwork trail including the labor to do it to have a package for a government inspector to rate compliance.
There are more durable materials, better processes, and higher standards that could be exercised, but the combat rifle is a 2MOA bullet launcher and all that extra expense wouldn't mean X more hits on the enemy for the dollar. That's where the milspec discussion gets even more interesting as some will say it's the best there is, where others know it's just a minimum standard, while others point out that a rifle costing 3X more simply won't hit 3X more enemy. Only the shooter can do that.
The proof in that argument is that the FN concept rifles retailing for over $2000 are no longer going thru any further development by our special forces as there's no measurable, documentable improvement for the money. We can choose sides and discuss it until the cows come home, but the "milspec" issue rifle really isn't all that, and frankly, we don't need much more. It's a pretty simple spec and I believe what the real issues around whether one is, or not, is simply supply and demand. We can't get enough of those parts, so the makers have to discount their wares to move them. If they can get the parts, they can price it where the market can bear it - whether the parts were all that more expensive or not. They aren't saying.
Goes back to that Colt contract price at under $650, but retails for $1,100. Somebody is making a cut in the supplier chain, Colt sells hundreds to distributors, distributors sell tens to the local long gun store. Got to pay for their overhead and shipping each step of the way.
Do we buy a $650 milspec gun or an $1100 milspec gun? Yes is the actual answer, it's not represented by the price as we see it in the armory rack or the gun store rack. And the cheaper gun might be more accurate than the expensive one. Or not.
Armor Snail
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 530
I'll tell ya. I've been seriously considering I've of their 20" A4s.
- Status
