The above proves my point perfectly - thanks!
"My AR is better than yours"
"Iphone sucks, Android is better"
"Ford sucks, Chevy all the way"
blah blah blah.
Have fun guys.
In what way did it prove your point? No one has said I have X or Y and it is better than Z.
I think it helped to prove my point that you ducked every question I asked you. People that are so quick to say my gun has been flawless often are not nearly as quick to actually quantify it.
The likelihood that I will suddenly find myself in a sandbox or swamp somewhere with nothing but my RRA rifle between me and certain death is pretty low, by my estimation, so I waste no tears on the "chart" or "mil-spec" or what wanabee's have to say about my rifle.
I find it pretty amusing that you, Jon B and the like can't make a point without name calling. First, name calling is not only childish, it is not what this forum is about. Second, do you not believe that some folks buy guns as weapons and not toys. Lots of LEOs have to buy personal weapons. Are they "wannabes" or "armchair commandos"? Is a guy who not only buys a gun for HD but plans to put in the many hours of training and thousands of rounds of practice to be reasonably proficient with it and wants a gun that is a proven performer under those circumstances a wannabe or an armchair commando?
How is that use any better or worse than some guy that wants to sit in the hills, trick an unsuspecting canis to walking within a few hundred yards, and then shoot the thing for his own amusement?
As to the chart, only four people (now five) in this thread have mentioned it. It is telling to go look and see who those people were. You'll note that one of the few specific guns I mentioned in relation to another poster's comment that one cannot do better than an RRA, are not guns that conforms to "the chart." Also, just FYI, there is no current chart. The is still the TDP and some guns are built to that. Some are not. Of those that are not there are guns that are made with cost cutting and/or inferior methods or materials and there are guns that IMHO exceed what is called for or achieve perfectly good results in another way.
When it comes to ARs one needs to identify what he or she wants his gun to do? I would then advise the person buy a gun that is well suited for that task and has a proven track record in it. The fact is ARs are insanely versatile guns and cane be built and configured for a broad range of tasks. What is perfectly suitable for one is not for another. If I want a precision gun I wouldn't get a 6920 or 10.5" suppressed SBR. If I want a plinker to shoot at 0-300 yards I might not need an OBR or a KAC. If I want to be a competitive three gun shooter a JP rifle is going to better serve me than a 24" heavy barrel varmint rig. And if I need a patrol rifle, that gamer gun as nice and expensive as it is not what I want to stake my life on. One needs a gun built to do what one want's to do. Its like arguing about whether a 1 ton pick up is better than an M3 without first establishing whether you are going to be cruising the autoban or hauling a horse trailer.
It is also the case that some things are simply a better way to do things than others. There is no argument that not staking a gas key is better. Its not. It can, and it certainly has led to guns failing. Not staking a castle nut is a worse way to do it. A RE can work loose and cause a big problem. Now what the costs of an untimely failure are can vary significantly depending on what the gun is being used for. This is why three gun rifles often are set up in a way to make them flatter faster shooting guns but at the risk of being finicky.
When you establish an intended use and priority of qualities some guns really are better than others. To act like they are not is both ignorant and silly. To say that something is good enough, also does not refute the idea that something else is in fact better. To assert than people only want better for bragging rights is childish and ignores that better may actually matter in the way that person uses his or her gun.
'