I have a lead on a nearly unfired DPMS A2 style 20" 1/9 complete upper with a WFA BCG and Magpull guards. Are these things still considering junk-tier? What's a "right price" for one?

I'd call nearly unfired as used and offer at most $250. I see you're in MA so that upper May could be priced higher because IIRC you still have a ban in effect, maybe higher?

DPMS AR's are one of those things where one guy says junk and the next will tell you he's had zero problems.

Only $250 with BCG and hardware? It's not in MA and I'd have to replace the flash hider.

It's an A2 and not flat top so he is limited to who would want it and it having a 1/9 barrel which kind of sucks unless you like shooting light rounds. Not to mention carbines are the thing now and many will turn their nose up at a DPMS product and it's used.

Do you consider 62 gr. M855 "light"?  The US Army tests indicated 1:9 had half the dispersion of 1:7.  Same thing in the American Rifleman tests of the new M855A1 ammo a couple of months back.

Well I heard back from the guy and it's actually a Del-Ton. Same specs. Hbar I think. He's asking $375.

It really comes down to how bad you want it. It looks like a new Del-Ton 20" A4 type upper is $415 before shipping, so I guess you'd be doing ok.

I have never had anything bad from DPMS, everything I have purchased has been true mil-spec.

I've been really satisfied with my DPMS products.

Right, and they go with 1/7 to better stabilize M856 tracer rounds as well as M855. 1/9 doesnt stabilize the heavier tracers as well

Well aware of the tracer being a much longer bullet requiring a faster twist to stabilize but I don't shoot tracers and few civilians do is the whole point.  I also don't plink with 75 gr. or even shoot paper targets off a bench with heavy bullet match ammunition. The most expensive ammo I buy is M855.

Even the Army doing tests at ranges like 600-800 meters where they determined a 1:7 was necessary was a bit crazy to me as the 5.56 isn't effective at those ranges anyway.  The whole thesis behind going from 7.62 to 5.56 was the Army's in-depth studies that showed enemy kills diminished hugely beyond 175 meters so why were all the A2 tests done at such long ranges? Defies their own logic.  I doubt the difference in the tracer impact from the two different twists was significant at 175 meters.  In a belt-fed SAW I could see the necessity for the impact of tracers being more critical and the 1:7 being used but in a rifle carried by an infantryman tracers aren't really an issue.  The Marine Corp wanted the 1:9 as it was significantly more accurate but since the Army was in charge of the A2 development program it fell on deaf ears.  I think the semi-auto manufacturers opt for the 1:7 for marketing reasons because people want what the military has.  

I prefer 1:9 in any AR I have because it is more accurate and versatile for generic mil-surplus ammo and for that reason have always leaned towards Bushmaster.  I just think anyone knocking 1:9 is not fully informed.

The standard unit basic load (UBL) for an infantryman is 210 rounds, 140 ball (M855/M855A1) and 40 tracer (M856), so an infantryman's weapon does need to be able to stabilize tracer consistently.  

Moreover, whatever happened in the 1980s, the choice to go with the 1/7 over the 1/9 was fortuitous, and along with the accessory railed upper receiver and the MIL-STD 1913 rail in general in allowing the M16 FOW to continue to evolve and remain effective outside its originally conceived operating envelope as designed.  

The ability to fire non-standard ammunition besides the SS109, much of which is longer than a 1/9 twist can stabilize (MK 262 MOD 0/1, R2LP, 70 gr. TSX, 75 gr. TAP) has increased both the range and effectiveness of the platform, while reducing the barrel length and weight of the system overall to get the same or better results.  

The whole 175m, why would they bother testing 600-800m, etc. is narrow thinking based on what you would use the M16A2 for - the standardization of the SS109 was not just for individual weapons, but automatic and/or suppressive weapons as well - nor is the concept of "area fire" as relevant in a civilian context, nor are most civilians concerned about directing fire, designating, adjusting fire, etc.  

Moreover - just because EKIAs diminish beyond 175m doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to kill them if you can, and at the time the SS109 and M856 were adopted, what was believed to be the most likely threat was Soviet infantry, and there was a perceived need to be able to penetrate their armor at range.

None of which is to say that if 1/9 fits your use better, and you prefer 1/9 that there's anything wrong with that.  If you don't ever shoot anything that requires a 1/7 twist and prefer 1/9 because you believe/perceive/it is more accurate with the loads you do shoot than 1/7, then it sounds like 1/9 is for you.  

75 gr.-ish ammunition is available in "plinking" form as well, though, you're correct, it's not as cheap as the 55 gr. stuff out there - but if you prefer/desire to use more modern defensive/duty rounds, it's sometimes worthwhile to practice with a round that's closer to the actual weight of the ammunition you use for a couple cents per round more.  

I prefer 1/7 because it literally allows me to shoot anything that will fit into the magwell of an AR15 and beyond.  Meanwhile, I've also shot 45 gr. HP without any problems from 1/7 barrels.  

~Augee