Sabre Defense vs. DPMS

[vanfunk]

Back to the original question for a moment:

Yes, get the Sabre Defence rifle (or carbine) for $895. Here's where a store being "out" of something has done you a favor; the Sabre is a better built gun than anything DPMS offers from the factory.

vanfunk

 

[Art Eatman]

Y'know, I really do dislike arrogance and "talking down" and all that Low Road stuff. You children either play nice or go to your room.

, Art

 

[FlyinBryan]

Can you clarify this statement, and perhaps define "fine rifles"?

sure rob.

i would say that a fine rifle is one which will serve its owner well for the purpose it was intended to serve.

to clarify, a rifle that is dependable, accurate, with attention to fit and finish everywhere that it matters.

as far as experience, i have never owned either of these.

ive only owned colt and bushmaster, starting about 15 years ago.

 

[M&PVolk]

Honestly, the religious devotion to "the chart" has become incredibly tiresome. The condescension that comes with it is irritating as well. All the chart contains is a list of Colt features that may or may not be shared by other manufacturers, and as such, is inherently flawed. The chart supposes that Colt is the only company to build a proper rifle, and disregards any other design as flawed. The chart DOES NOT provide you with any clue about the usability, weight, or accuracy of any of these rifles.

I do not own a Colt, and while I'm sure it is a fine weapon, that does not make any other weapon less good. I am not an AR expert, but I have several friends who are. Some have Colts, some have Delton, some Bushmasters, Stag, DPMS, etc. Ironically enough, they all find different strengths in each rifle that they own. I have yet to hear a Colt owner actually praise their gun as the best of their collection, merely the best mill spec'd. This is why many Colt owners also own other brands, too.

Pick the AR that you like. Nearly all AR's being made are quality guns, "mill spec" or not. If your goal is to fight the zombie hoards in hostile situations, then get the Colt, or better yet, forget the Colt and get an AK. If you want an AR for plinking, fun, or hunting, a Colt actually may not be the best choice after all.

 

[innerpiece]

get real kentukky.. and rob....
only you and anyone that totes yer lil chart knows what a good rifle is?!

that chart merely, and ONLY applies to the specific model of rifle specified.. and its represented in so many threads about rifles that are NOT on that chart!

while that "chart" may have some usefullness, it is ONLY to the specific models specific to that chart...
other wise youd be saying, every colt, DPMS, Bushmaster etc are the same and can be compared because of that quite limited chart... so again, grow up, yall are debating something that has NO relevance....


now, to the OP.. if you cant get a DPMS, but you can get a Sabre... why wouldnt ya get the Sabre get it, and fast.. might be gone by the time you get back... actually, wheres that gun store?! lol
but serious, if you ever get a chance to nab a DPMS, dont hesitate if its priced right, they are great rifles. I know personally.

take care everyone!

ip.

 

[FlyinBryan]

Y'know, I really do dislike arrogance and "talking down" and all that Low Road stuff. You children either play nice or go to your room.

, Art

your right art, my apoligies.

we should try to be more constructive where our differences are concerned, myself included.

to the o.p.

it should be noted that i have seen JUST THE UPPER AND BARREL from a sabre go for around 1000 bux, so financially it would certainly make sense to go with the sabre.

i still think you should go with whichever one appeals to you, they are both good rifles.

let us know.

in fact, i would be interested in a range report from either.

 

[Coronach]

Sigh. The chart again.

People. The Chart was designed to identify features present or lacking on certain rifles, with an eye towards showing what is (more or less) important on a "fighting rifle".

I can make two observations about this:

1. It is a statement of facts. Unless you dispute the facts, getting all bent out of shape about The Chart is just silly. "OMG, the chart says my rifle doesn't have parkerization under the front sight base! HOW DARE THEY!"

2. It is a set of standards created for a fighting rifle. If you ain't fighting with your rifle, you probably don't need to worry about what the chart says.

Rifles are tools, and tools have purposes. I would not take a box stock DPMS carbine to Fallujah. I would not spring for a Colt or a LMT if I was just using the rifle recreationally. In the same sense, I would not use a Formula One car as my grocery getter, and I also would not enter my Dodge Charger in the Indy 500.

Mike

 

[innerpiece]

right on Coronach.
yeah yer name has corona in it. thats cool!
I agree, and cant over emphasize that beyond it being a "battle rifle" chart.... it IS MODEL SPECIFIC!!! and it gets throw into thread that have NOTHING to do with ANY of the rifles on that chart.

if a rifle sees a fight, its a battle rifle, regaurdless of design.

just wondering... rob. if my lowley DPMS saved my familys and my life in a defence situation... even if it wasnt chrome plated with gold spokes..... would it be a "fine" rifle?

ip.

 

[taliv]

what's tiresome is having THIS conversation in every AR thread.

i've washed my hands of the situation. if people aren't smart enough to understand what coronach just said without being told, then let them waste their money. if they're still not smart enough to understand it AFTER being told, then natural selection will take care of the problem eventually. in the meantime, they won't be hard to spot; just look for the "ARs is jammomatics! I am trading mine for an AK!" posts

 

[proven]

innerpiece- several posts have been deleted and there was a warning from an admin. why the need to push the issue?

 

[MAKster]

Every time this issue comes up I always wonder why people put so much stock in mil-spec for the M4 yet when it comes to almost everything else used by the military/police the specifications are usually dismissed as being the outcome of stupid bureaucrats, lowest price bidder, or political interference. For example, people regularly say the Beretta 9mm pistol is inferior and was not chosen based on the merits but because we were caving in to NATO, bribing Italy for an airbase, etc.

 

[Coronach]

Every time this issue comes up I always wonder why people put so much stock in mil-spec for the M4 yet when it comes to almost everything else used by the military/police the specifications are usually dismissed as being the outcome of stupid bureaucrats, lowest price bidder, or political interference. For example, people regularly say the Beretta 9mm pistol is inferior and was not chosen based on the merits but because we were caving in to NATO, bribing Italy for an airbase, etc.

Because, in this instance, it is a case of meeting the minimum spec set forth for a DOD M4 rifle. No one is saying that the Colt is perfect, and we can debate all night long whether or not parkerizing under the FSB makes a difference, but you can't really say with a straight face that a rifle that does not meet these criteria is better for having not met them (with the exception of user/use-specific details like rifling twist rate, though most of the people who seem to know enough to intelligently discuss optimal twist rate for various uses don't seem inclined to get into stupid debates about The Chart...funny, that). You can say that the rifle is just as good, and- depending on your use- I may well agree with you, but you can't really say it is better. You can also say that a rifle is better for your use because it meets other specs not listed in the chart (and depending on the situation, I may well agree with you, too- the case of a ultra-precision bench-rest rifle comes to mind), but you cannot really say that a _________ rifle is better because ________ doesn't stake their BCGs.

Mike

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Sabre is better than DPMS.

 

[SHvar]

I would be interested in seeing where the HK 416 falls on that chart, its is by design the most durable M-4 type rifle, reliable and tough, but Im sure it would not have half of the milspec features put in the M-4 by colt.
That chart only applies to the M-4 model, period. There are colts without M-16 bolt carriers, and without alot of other milspec features, and of course 20 inch and longer barrels dont have the M-4 feedramps. This is but a few of the features you wont find in all colts.
There are too many people who dont understand what the chart means, or what it applies to. They should be informed before they fall into the blind belief that all AR models from all companies should be equipped that way.
The best way to think of it is this, if you are not going to war and needing an M-4 specifically, then you dont need some of those features required by the DOD and desk jockey military officers who came up with the milspec features.
How many of us are buying fully automatic ARs, very very few. How many of us are buying our ARs to go overseas to war, none of us. Ive been there and done it, and dont plan on going back ever again.
What model the original poster chosses will be their choice, and regardless it will be a great rifle either way.

 

[Trebor]

Ok, forget the chart. Just pretend it doesn't exist.

Instead, talk to guys like Pat Rogers who run rifle classes and see hundreds of students, and student rifles, a year.

Guys like Pat see enough rifles to know what breaks and when and what is less likely to break.

There is a huge difference between a rifle that can't even make it through the first 100 rounds on Day 1 of a rifle class and a rifle that runs well for the whole class.

And, if certain brands tend to fall into the "broke on Day 1" category and other brands and models generally fall into the "ran well all week" category, doesn't that tell you something?

The ability to learn from experience is valuable. The ability to learn from someone else's experience is even better.

So, if the chart bothers you, then to heck with the chart. Talk to guys who see a lot of rifles and see what they say about what works and what breaks. The info is out there and isn't even hard to find.

 

[proven]

I would be interested in seeing where the HK 416 falls on that chart, its is by design the most durable M-4 type rifle, reliable and tough, but Im sure it would not have half of the milspec features put in the M-4 by colt.

this is simply not true.
the HK416 is not a DI, it's a piston gun. the parts aren't the same, so how can you even try to compare them? why don't we try and see if a G3 meets the same milspec requirements of the M14?

the chart clearly states that it's about M4 type rifles. anyone reading can see this. so why the need to go around bad mouthing it?

 

[SHvar]

Exactly, what Ive been trying to get across, the chart was purely made to campare M-4 rifles to established US milspec only, nothing else. Nothing in it covers stainless steel barreled (much tougher than milspec steel), heavy barreled, precision target models, target models, models with barrels over 14.5 inches (all M-4 have this with a fixed flash suppressor of 1.5 inches or more), flat top models, fixed stock models, and many others in between.

The point is that it does not apply to 3/4 of what it is being compared to. I also found that some of the models listed in the chart have features they are not given credit for, some of the models are given credit for features they dont all have by manufacturer. So what use is the thing if its not accurate?
Some models are not on that chart at all to be compared to.

The reason I mentioned the H&K is simple, it does not come close to the milspec list on that chart. If it were DI Ill bet that it would still be a tougher, more reliable rifle.

Just because US milspecs say that a certain feature should be there or not, the milspec requirements dont make a rifle better, more durable, more accurate, tougher, more resistant to jamming, easier to clean, or more reliable.

I dont need to ask one person from one rifle course in one school about the reliability of certain AR rifles. I already know that if you take any rifle on that chart, and some that arent, with all of them being properly maintained, and all being examined for prior wear problems ahead of time, all rifles will make the course with no problems.

 

[tantrix]

Get it...even if it's used, it's worth what they're asking. Sabre Defence is one of the most overlooked manufacturers out there, and they make top-tier stuff.


Here's my newest Sabre...and I chose it over a Colt:

 

[proven]

I dont need to ask one person from one rifle course in one school about the reliability of certain AR rifles. I already know that if you take any rifle on that chart, and some that arent, with all of them being properly maintained, and all being examined for prior wear problems ahead of time, all rifles will make the course with no problems.

so i guess you've used every rifle in the chart in a carbine class then. if not, you can't claim to KNOW this.

Nothing in it covers stainless steel barreled (much tougher than milspec steel),

tougher in what respect?

The point is that it does not apply to 3/4 of what it is being compared to.

the point is, that you don't get the point. if i put up a chart stating the mil-specs for a rifle and you compare a different rifle against that chart, that's your problem. it doesn't make the chart inaccurate because people choose to use it to compare rifles it wasn't compiled for. i don't look at a wiring diagram for a 4-runner to fix my tacoma. different models, similar in some respects, not the same. same goes for the chart.

for what it was designed for it serves a very good purpose.

 

[Javelin]

Sigh. The chart again.

People. The Chart was designed to identify features present or lacking on certain rifles, with an eye towards showing what is (more or less) important on a "fighting rifle".

I can make two observations about this:

1. It is a statement of facts. Unless you dispute the facts, getting all bent out of shape about The Chart is just silly. "OMG, the chart says my rifle doesn't have parkerization under the front sight base! HOW DARE THEY!"

2. It is a set of standards created for a fighting rifle. If you ain't fighting with your rifle, you probably don't need to worry about what the chart says.

Rifles are tools, and tools have purposes. I would not take a box stock DPMS carbine to Fallujah. I would not spring for a Colt or a LMT if I was just using the rifle recreationally. In the same sense, I would not use a Formula One car as my grocery getter, and I also would not enter my Dodge Charger in the Indy 500.

Mike

The chart is a good reference tool... but for those that want more or demand perfection the chart is really worthless. For instance I want a rifle that is 100% with a suppressor and does not crap out on me at the 200th bullet down range due to fouling. I want a rifle with a solid monolithic railed upper so that it will be sturdy and not get the side-to-side wobble after a few years. I want a combat rifle that is not just chrome lined but posses a double chrome lined barrel made of M249 machine gun steel in addition to being cold hammer forged.

Oh yeah... those are not on the chart. But everything that is important to the internet commandos and a mass produced .gov carbine lover it is. Lets be real and understand what we are looking at and take it for what the Colt is....A durable carbine that is produced by a company with the lowest manufacturing bid for a barebones government contract. And the NSN for one runs a tad over $800.

If you want all the aforementioned then you will need to pony up (no pun intended) and buy a Noveske.
----Rant off---

But back on topic. DPMS is not going to give you mil-spec barrel. But it will give you a great fit and finish. The barrel is not chrome lined but chromoly. But since it is not on "the chart" I will go ahead and tell you that the bolt is properly staked and the feed ramps are of proper M4 specification.

The fit and finish are great and the lower & upper are tight (at least on the AP4 that I reviewed).

But that said I would get the Sabre because it will come with the chrome lined barrel which is worth $150 more in my humble opinion.

 

[rob_s]

All the chart contains is a list of Colt features that may or may not be shared by other manufacturers, and as such, is inherently flawed. The chart supposes that Colt is the only company to build a proper rifle, and disregards any other design as flawed. The chart DOES NOT provide you with any clue about the usability, weight, or accuracy of any of these rifles.

This is not a true statement.

 

[rob_s]

The level of emotion and ignorance that the Chart stirs up, especially on this particular site, has reached comical proportions.

As has been said repeatedly, the Chart is a collection of facts. Either use those facts to inform your purchase or don't. It matters not to me. If you know of something that is incorrect in the Chart the methods for getting the corrections incorporated are well documented.

It really is that simple.

:banghead:

 

[rob_s]

I already know that if you take any rifle on that chart, and some that arent, with all of them being properly maintained, and all being examined for prior wear problems ahead of time, all rifles will make the course with no problems.

How do you "know" this? What experiences do you have that lead you this conclusion?

 

[kcmarine]

How many of these damned threads have we had, anyways?

 

[rob_s]

way too many kcmarine, way too many.

Here's the typical progression...

1) Someone posts asking "I am trying to decide between an ABC rifle and an XYZ rifle, which should I get"
2) Someone else replies and says "you should get an ABC."
3) OP replies "Why?"
4) Someone posts a link to the Chart as an explanation of why one rifle is "better" than another because it has more of the military specification features than the other.
5) Hysteria, mayhem, misinformation, ignorance, namecalling, etc. ensue.

I generally *try* to stay out of them until either my motives for creating the Chart, my integrity with regards to maintaining the Chart, or the accuracy of the information in the Chart is questioned. Otherwise there's little point in discussing things with people who's minds were already made up.