Your budget AR is not "just as good"

[DAVE_M]

I think we agree pay for lower tier and expect it. Pay for higher tier and require it.

I do believe you could take a gun with good parts (meets or exceeds spec) and take the time to QC the assembly yourself before you fire a bullet and you will have something. But that’s the thing most users don’t do that, and if it’s a more expensive rifle all you should have to do is clean, lube, shoot, repeat.

You absolutely can, to an extent. Some parts require total replacement when they are out of spec or manufactured improperly.

I'd be surprised how many "builders" have a torque wrench, let alone proper gauges and fixtures.

 

[Bangswitch]

I don't disagree with anything above. My big point is that something can be mil-spec, but still be shitty quality and fail on you (or have a higher probability of failure than something of higher quality).

Mil-spec has become a buzzword, I'll give you that, but it doesn't mean it's invalid.

The issue with the term comes from the consumer market where you have companies claiming they built their rifles to the correct specification and indeed are not. I'm not going to attack a specific brand, but would rather have people understand that companies are there to sell you a product. It's up to you to ensure that product is what you think it is. Making the assumption that the $400 rifle advertised at the big box store is "just as good" as what you're going to find in the rack of a patrol car is foolish.

Yep

and

Yep

and Yep to the tolerance stacking problem. It’s always a problem though it just becomes more of one pronounced when things become more complex. The only way to fix that is tighten the tolerances.

 

[Bangswitch]

You absolutely can, to an extent. Some parts require total replacement when they are out of spec or manufactured improperly.

I'd be surprised how many "builders" have a torque wrench, let alone proper gauges and fixtures.

Yeah. How does one torque to spec without a torque wrench and a block to hold the part secure? One counter intuitive thing about barrel nuts is you want to be on the low end of the torque range and your average guy with a tool box and a 6pack will inevitably go higher rather than lower. And without a wrench you’re just throwing spaghetti on a wall. Also another problem might occur when they use grandpa’s rusty old torque wrench. Torque wrenches are supposed to be certified. I don’t remember the interval but annually sounds right. Chalk that to tolerance stacking as well.

I will cop to having never headspaced an AR.

 

[DAVE_M]

I will cop to having never headspaced an AR.

This link is time stamped.

 

[Troedoff]

Aeroshell 64 to be specific. It's use to prevent galvanic corrosion and ensure proper torque is met.

Mil-spec is mil-spec. Tolerance stacking is the issue. Watch the video posted in the original post.

Mil-spec advertised, is no where near mil-spec tested, and certified. I fly airplanes, and do a ton of work on them, and every part that goes onto a certified plane, every coating, lubricant, sealant, weld, circuit breaker, etc. Has to meet a mil-spec certification number, and have batch numbers, testing information etc. I am not talking about experimental type certification which has way more leniency than stc's for certified airplanes.

the Aeroshell 33ms/64 you are talking about has been tested and approved MIL-G-21164D. When I buy it I get a MSDS, with batch numbers, a testing report, manufacture dates etc.

Companies that produce mass product for military have their product tested, approved, then the production process is inspected for repeatability, and certified, and inspected on a schedule. So no advertised mil-spec is not tested mil-spec by a long shot.

 

[DAVE_M]

Mil-spec advertised, is no where near mil-spec tested, and certified. I fly airplanes, and do a ton of work on them, and every part that goes onto a certified plane, every coating, lubricant, sealant, weld, circuit breaker, etc. Has to meet a mil-spec certification number, and have batch numbers, testing information etc. I am not talking about experimental type certification which has way more leniency than stc's for certified airplanes.

the Aeroshell 33ms/64 you are talking about has been tested and approved MIL-G-21164D. When I buy it I get a MSDS, with batch numbers, a testing report, manufacture dates etc.

Companies that produce mass product for military have their product tested, approved, then the production process is inspected for repeatability, and certified, and inspected on a schedule. So no advertised mil-spec is not tested mil-spec by a long shot.

I'm aware. You've agreed with what I've stated thus far.

Companies can advertise "mil-spec" all day long, but unless they are contractually obligated to meet a specific set of standards, you are going to get what they see fit. Some companies choose to adhere to those standards and some don't.

That's how we ended up with commercial receiver extensions in the first place.

 

[Bangswitch]

This link is time stamped.

A specific time you want me to see? That’s long and I got to pretend to work some today.

 

[DAVE_M]

It's timestamped, which means when you click it, it will go directly to the time I chose.

If it's not working, fast forward to 1:23:40.

 

[jdindadell]

I’m pretty sure if you bought the rifle in separate parts from DD it would cost you a lot more than one assembled. But if you took your time and assembled the rifle to spec, you’d have a DD rifle. And I’m sure we’d all feel happy for you. Would it potentially affect resale down the road? Most likely, unless the origin was not divulged. Would you have the same warranty available to you from DD on a rifle you assembled from their parts? I’m not certain, but I’m guessing no. Would you wind up with the same quality rifle? I don’t see why not. As mentioned earlier, the mechanized and people factors that come into play can make a difference. There may be little quirks to assembling DD parts that the techs there know very well but there’s no memo for the home builder regarding the process they’ve developed in-house and know to follow in assembly. Could that make a difference? Maybe. I’ve certainly developed a number of techniques and extra steps over the years that make a difference in my builds, even if just running in my detents so the safety and takedown pins don’t stick on the first range trip.
Food for thought.

I am sure it would cost me more to piece together a rifle with a DD parts. Cost is not the point of my post.

My main point for my post was how do people feel if I was to buy all quality parts and assemble them correctly? Would my "frankengun" be as good as one built at DD's 2 assembly stations? We are assuming that buying a completed rifle from a high end reputable mfg would be the best way to get something close to a guaranteed working quality gun, correct? The only thing different would be my assembly skills and QC of the finished product VS DD and their QC.

While a warranty may matter to some, I would rather buy a known quality product than buy something with a good warranty.

And lets not focus on resale or perceived value. Lets just look at whether a home build gun can compare to a reputable mfg gun...

 

[Cheesy Lasagna]

Okay, devil’s advocate here...
Has anyone here purchased a supposedly top-tier AR and personally checked all tolerance specifications?
I’m talking more than headspace gauges.
Torque values and dimension tolerance checking is what I’m asking.

Not saying that certain manufacturers are worth more or less, but where is the end point?

 

[jdindadell]

Indifferent. You can spend your money as you so chose.

Assuming you have the proper tools and knowledge to properly assemble the rifle, there is a potential you can assemble the rifle beyond what Daniel Defense does in house. The major differences between assembling your rifle from a brand's parts and buying a complete rifle is that you do not have the warranty that most companies offer with their complete rifles. Granted, that does not speak on the quality of the assembly, but touches on the assurance that you don't get when you're cobbling parts together. If you are capable of assembling the rifle properly, then that warranty may not be needed. Of course, this is assuming the rifle is for someone other than LE/Mil that is not governed by an authority.



Unfortunately, no. The tools required to build such things properly add to the overall cost. Without them, the rifle would be a mess.

Tools are tools, I would not factor them into the cost of a single build as they were bought for building/maintenance. I have used many of my ar and ak tools so much that I am down to cents per use. I am sure DD can and has put together a lot more rifles than i have, by a factor of 10000 at least.

Lack of warranty could be an issue, as even DD or another reputable mfg will experince varied tolerances and that can cause issues down the road. Same with material quality, bolts and carriers are often MPI checked and made of quality materials, but even then a problem part can slip through the cracks.

And you touch on the legal ramifications of building your own guns. I am sure a MIL or LE institution would like to hide behind the MFG for legal purposes, and this is understood.

I feel like many justify buying a completed gun from a reputable MFG as a way to "guarantee" all of the difficult to metric properties of the item that they are buying. Most people do not have the capability to measure, inspect, and test all of the components that go into an ar, so it is better to "buy quality" than roll the dice on questionable loose parts. I have no issue whatsoever with someone making that decision, as I do believe it is a good one.

 

[Bangswitch]

It's timestamped, which means when you click it, it will go directly to the time I chose.

If it's not working, fast forward to 1:23:40.

Yeah it didn’t cue up correctly in safari. I assumed that’s what you were trying to tell me but something was amiss. Guess I’ll add a go no-go to my kit next time I build. One of my builds had a matching barrel and bolt, the others did not. But seems likely tolerance stacking was like the culprit. I suppose the bolt could be out of spec all together also though.

I remember as a young man hand filing piston rings, and I remember asking my dad why if I ordered .030 overbore pistons for a .030 overbored motor why we had to hand fit the rings that came with the pistons. I remember him saying something about not having to if you didn’t care how long it ran.

 

[Cheesy Lasagna]

I feel like many justify buying a completed gun from a reputable MFG as a way to "guarantee" all of the difficult to metric properties of the item that they are buying. Most people do not have the capability to measure, inspect, and test all of the components that go into an ar, so it is better to "buy quality" than roll the dice on questionable loose parts. I have no issue whatsoever with someone making that decision, as I do believe it is a good one.

Exactly.

 

[DAVE_M]

Lets just look at whether a home build gun can compare to a reputable mfg gun...

It can potentially be better.

Okay, devil’s advocate here...
Has anyone here purchased a supposedly top-tier AR and personally checked all tolerance specifications?
I’m talking more than headspace gauges.
Torque values and dimension tolerance checking is what I’m asking.

Not saying that certain manufacturers are worth more or less, but where is the end point?

The easiest things to check would be the castle nut, gas block (if it's not pinned), barrel nut (which requires removing the handguard and can check for threadlocker), and then check the gas key.

Considering that DD installs the barrel nut dry, I would absolutely remove it, apply Aeroshell 64, and reinstall the nut at the required torque value. It's peace of mind to me and takes ten minutes at most to check it.

 

[jdindadell]

Another thing to consider...

The barrel with extension and the BCG are the only important large components on an ar. So what is the consensus on a home build with a reputable mfg barrel and BCG, correctly assembled, with the balance of the parts being serviceable?

I can tell with a few measurements if a lower is in spec. Visually inspecting the upper is enough then checking the barrel fit and gas tube fit. Putting a lower together properly is not difficult. I always use mil spec semi auto triggers (hahahaha). Putting a buffer tube on is easy, as is the rest of the small parts.

As long as the upper and lower are in spec, the barrel and bcg will determine how well and how long the gun will shoot.

Using obviously crappy parts is a bad idea, but it would be hard for me to justify spending 3 times the money on a takedown pin detent...

 

[DAVE_M]

Tools are tools, I would not factor them into the cost of a single build as they were bought for building/maintenance. I have used many of my ar and ak tools so much that I am down to cents per use. I am sure DD can and has put together a lot more rifles than i have, by a factor of 10000 at least.

Lack of warranty could be an issue, as even DD or another reputable mfg will experince varied tolerances and that can cause issues down the road. Same with material quality, bolts and carriers are often MPI checked and made of quality materials, but even then a problem part can slip through the cracks.

And you touch on the legal ramifications of building your own guns. I am sure a MIL or LE institution would like to hide behind the MFG for legal purposes, and this is understood.

I feel like many justify buying a completed gun from a reputable MFG as a way to "guarantee" all of the difficult to metric properties of the item that they are buying. Most people do not have the capability to measure, inspect, and test all of the components that go into an ar, so it is better to "buy quality" than roll the dice on questionable loose parts. I have no issue whatsoever with someone making that decision, as I do believe it is a good one.

Whether you factor tools into the original cost is up to you and how many rifles you intend on purchasing or building. Good armorer's tool are great to have, even if you don't plan on building anything.

I agree with everything else stated.

Buying from a reputable manufacturer is a great way to lessen the odds of ending up with a lemon, but it's always good to check everything if you can.

 

[DAVE_M]

Another thing to consider...

The barrel with extension and the BCG are the only important large components on an ar. So what is the consensus on a home build with a reputable mfg barrel and BCG, correctly assembled, with the balance of the parts being serviceable?

I can tell with a few measurements if a lower is in spec. Visually inspecting the upper is enough then checking the barrel fit and gas tube fit. Putting a lower together properly is not difficult. I always use mil spec semi auto triggers (hahahaha). Putting a buffer tube on is easy, as is the rest of the small parts.

As long as the upper and lower are in spec, the barrel and bcg will determine how well and how long the gun will shoot.

Using obviously crappy parts is a bad idea, but it would be hard for me to justify spending 3 times the money on a takedown pin detent...

The barrel, BCG, buffer assembly, and gas system are the most important parts of the rifle. Something as simple as a misaligned gas tube will ruin your day.

If anyone wants to assemble their own rifle, it's their money, and they can do what they please. This thread was started to cut down on the ideology of "just as good."

 

[Bangswitch]

I always use mil spec semi auto triggers (hahahaha).

Just couldn’t resist could you? This one always make me laugh.

 

[thperez1972]

Context is important. If you're buying a new car for the purpose of getting to and from work, a Geo Metro is just as good as a Ferrari.

 

[DAVE_M]

Context is important. If you're buying a new car for the purpose of getting to and from work, a Geo Metro is just as good as a Ferrari.

I feel like I've heard that before...

To add, I don't know of any Geo Metro owners claiming that it's "just as good" as a Ferrari.