Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/3/2004 7:05:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 7:15:35 AM EDT by M11293]
DPMS better quality then a Bushy?

Some review I found on DPMS rifles, http://groups.msn.com/ThePennsylvaniaAR15ShootersSite/dpmsreview.msnw


What do you think?
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 7:51:50 AM EDT
Pecking order for AR15 rifles generally runs like this:

Armalite, Bushmaster and Colt are top tier rifles (they have/do produce mil-spec quality rifles)

DPMS, Eagle Arms, Olympic Arms, Rock River Arms are second tier rifles (not always mil-spec)

Model 1 Sales, J&T Distributing, ASA are lower tier rifles

Hesse IS JUNK, (run don't walk from anything labeled Hesse)

While some will say they get quality products from the third tier, your best bets are always in the first two tiers.

Mike
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 7:53:47 AM EDT
I dunno about that... I'm a BIG DPMS fan (I have 10 DPMS uppers), and have owned RRA, BM, and Eagle Arms/ArmaLite. The DPMS uppers are notorious for being "tight" in the break in period. Some people who have bought DPMS uppers sell them before getting past that point. I will say that the DPMS uppers I have are more accurate than the others. If you can get past the break in period, and some occasional FTE's during it (don't use the lacquered Wolf!), I think they are one of the best out there. The DPMS uppers are chromoly barrels, so they're a tad more accurate than the chrome lined uppers from BM, RRA, etc, but more difficult to clean.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 7:55:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
Pecking order for AR15 rifles generally runs like this:

Armalite, Bushmaster and Colt are top tier rifles (they have/do produce mil-spec quality rifles)

DPMS, Eagle Arms, Olympic Arms, Rock River Arms are second tier rifles (not always mil-spec)

Model 1 Sales, J&T Distributing, ASA are lower tier rifles

Hesse IS JUNK, (run don't walk from anything labeled Hesse)

While some will say they get quality products from the third tier, your best bets are always in the first two tiers.

Mike



Aren't "ArmaLite" and "Eagle Arms" the same thing?
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:24:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Aren't "ArmaLite" and "Eagle Arms" the same thing?



Listed as 2 different manufacturers on Troy's AR15 Comparision Chart. (which is tacked at the top of this forum, but unavailable until the "photo-server" gets up)

Mike
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:27:55 AM EDT
I dunno, I think I would put RRA up in the top tier, My colt is good, but the RRA reciever is actually better. My colt lower especially, has some slight pitting or something liek that before it was coated, the 2 RRA's I have owned have not. My Factory Colt gun came with Accuwedge, my RRA didnt and have been used alot and still is very very tight. So it boils down to what kinda pretty picture you want on your gun, and what name you want pretty much. DPMS are pretty good to, no cool logo on those though so thats out.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:44:09 AM EDT
I think RRA should be in the top as well. When I compair mine to my Bushmaster it is easy to tell it is a better gun finish wise and it shoots as good and has never jamed and the Bushmaster has.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:57:38 AM EDT
Eagle is an Armalite that doesn't quite meet Armalite's standards the way I understand it... doesn't make much sense to me. The way I sees it, it's just Eagle's way of associating itself with a tier 1 name, and therefore boosting sales.

Hesse is now Vulcan, isn't it?

What about:
Wilson Combat
ZM Weapons
Les Baer
ASA
DSA
Fulton Armory
Knights
White Oak Precision
JP
Cav Arms
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:00:31 AM EDT
I own Bushy, Eagle Arms and RRA ARs. I also agree the RA stuff is top notch. However, the RRA lower have the shelf blocked, which is not good if you plan on a RDIAS or LL.

I wonder when we'll see LMT added to Troy's chart.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:01:52 AM EDT
FWIW, Rock River Arms will never make the top tier, why???

1. Well there was that "New Mil-SPEC" picatinny rail dimension issue, (which means some products won't fit those new-spec early uppers.

2. There is the "raised" rear shelf in the lower. (still present today on all RRA lowers)

3. The recess hole in the end of the lower receiver has been known to NOT FIT some collapsable stock backplates, this has also caused problems w/ DPMS 1" butt-stock extensions and sling backplates too.

4.They never made or sold any of their products to the US Miltary, meaning their rifles are not built to mil-spec specs.


Don't get me wrong I own a post-ban 16" RRA M4 w/ faux A2 FS and Nat'l Match 2-stage trigger lower. It's a great shooter and likes a wide variety of rounds. I Like the rifle the fit and finish while decent new seems less thick (the parkerizing in particular) than that on Colts and Bushmasters, so I'm not knocking them, just stating things that have been mentioned previously onsite. They are fine rifles sold at great prices, but they'll NEVR make the top pick, as long as Armalite Bushmaster and Colts are around.

Mike
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:28:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
FWIW, Rock River Arms will never make the top tier, why???
1. Well there was that "New Mil-SPEC" picatinny rail dimension issue, (which means some products won't fit those new-spec early uppers.



Details? I haven't read much about changes in the rail dimanesions so I don't know much about this.


2. There is the "raised" rear shelf in the lower. (still present today on all RRA lowers)


Details? Pictures would help... not sure I know where the rear shelf even is.


4.They never made or sold any of their products to the US Miltary, meaning their rifles are not built to mil-spec specs.


Doesn't that just mean that they didn't bid or bid low enough for a .mil/.gov contract? I don't really understand what makes something milspec, aside from a stamp of approval from DoD, which to me isn't exactly the Gold Standard in my book. Or, say in the case of the Leupld CQ/T... is there really a difference between the $700 .civ model and the $800 .mil model aside from different serial numbers (and something to do with sticking it under water)? They don't use some classified space alien metal to build them... they probably roll of the exact same assmebly line as the .civ models... just a guess.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:29:36 AM EDT
I owned 3 RRA rifles in the past. My first had a tight magwell, very picky about mags( I only use USGI). Second rifle had out of spec upper, had to use Armalite scope mount. It was good but not my first choice. Third I sold because I just couldn't didn't have a good feeling after the first two. All went bang every time. I own Bushmasters now. Oh crap, this was a DPMS thread
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:30:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 9:42:51 AM EDT by M11293]
To tell you the truth, I think that Armalite, Bushy, Colts, DPMS, and RRA are all top rifles. Really top rifles would be like Wilson ect. But with those, ABCDR rifles I think will all do a fine job fir shooing. I think it boils down to PREFERENCE and some people like one company over another because that is their rifle maker.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 9:36:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
FWIW, Rock River Arms will never make the top tier, why???
-<SNIP>-
2. There is the "raised" rear shelf in the lower. (still present today on all RRA lowers)
-<SNIP>-

Will someone please stick a fork in this business about "you can't make RRA a machine gun." I can say with reasonable assurance that 99.99% of AR-owners will never buy a machine gun. And anybody willing to drop the big bucks into making a semi-auto into a machine gun is going to research it to death, and dropping a couple of bucks on a Colt or whatever to put a DIAS in it will be chicken feed.

I'm not slamming ya, mr_wilson, I just think it's a point that is of almost nil importance to 99.99% of us "regular folks."

RRA makes top quality parts. The fit and finish of the lower and upper I have is very high quality.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 10:37:13 AM EDT
Barret also has to be top teir since they're gonna be the lot making the 6.8 uppers for the military.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 10:39:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 10:40:51 AM EDT by mr_wilson]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
FWIW, Rock River Arms will never make the top tier, why???
1. Well there was that "New Mil-SPEC" picatinny rail dimension issue, (which means some products won't fit those new-spec early uppers.



Details? I haven't read much about changes in the rail dimanesions so I don't know much about this.[



Early in production of RRA products there were complaints about scopes, sights and ARMS S.I.R.s and KAC RAS items "not fitting" on the RRA flat-top. When these issues began popping up, RRA thru their dealers floated a story that their rails were the "NEW PICATINNY RAIL SPECIFICATIONS" something that indicated a change. This turned out to be totally false, the military has/had never intended on changing the spec for AR15/M16 flat-tops, whihc was de-bunked here almost immediately.


2. There is the "raised" rear shelf in the lower. (still present today on all RRA lowers)Details?

Pictures would help... not sure I know where the rear shelf even is.



With all my pics being on the AR15.com photo-server and it being down at this time, sorry I can't dig one for ya, but the rear shelf is the area below the rear takedown pin on your lower. While Carbine Man mentions "not being able to make a FA rifle outta a RRA lower" this is correct, not without machining the lower to the original shelf mil-spec dimensions (which could be done, btw). Most commonly this is noticed by us that use "accuwedges" in our lowers, as you'll have to shave an accuwedge severly in order to fit it in and in most cases they aren't needed in RRA rifles (atleast w/ my rifle, it's "tight", no wobble between upper and lower) This is not unlike Colt rifles which have the sear-block installed in them and something that "purists" consider verbotten, as they like mil-spec rifles.


4.They never made or sold any of their products to the US Miltary, meaning their rifles are not built to mil-specifications,

Doesn't that just mean that they didn't bid or bid low enough for a .mil/.gov contract? I don't really understand what makes something milspec, aside from a stamp of approval from DoD, which to me isn't exactly the Gold Standard in my book. Or, say in the case of the Leupld CQ/T... is there really a difference between the $700 .civ model and the $800 .mil model aside from different serial numbers (and something to do with sticking it under water)? They don't use some classified space alien metal to build them... they probably roll of the exact same assmebly line as the .civ models... just a guess.



No, it means that even if they wanted to sell products to the military they couldn't! They would have to change the steel used in barrels to the 4150 used by FN and Bushmaster as well as the other noted items which do not meet the military specifications. So yes there are differences between the way AR15s are made in relation to M16s, something a maker of civilian rifles doesn't have to consider when producing or buying off the shelf uppers/barrels/lowers or parts kits from suppliers. That said in some cases you are correct, some suppliers that build uppers for FN (a current military M16 contractor) do sell to others makers the very same product, but when talking whole rifles the items mentioned make a whopping difference to military orders which have very rigid specifications for rifles to be used by our soldiers.

Hope this helps explain why some makers will always be considered by some to be second tier.

I own Colt, Bushmaster, RRA, DPMS and J&T barreled uppers and Colt, Bushmaster, RRA and homemade lowers, all which I am very satisfied with (although they are each set-up differently, for differing purposes), just some are closer to mil-spec than others, which makes them more desirable to those considered purists. No flames intended toward any maker or poster!

Mike
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 10:39:17 AM EDT
I heard that the marines aren't interested in the 6.8.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 11:05:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M11293:

Some review I found on DPMS rifles, http://groups.msn.com/ThePennsylvaniaAR15ShootersSite/dpmsreview.msnw
quote]

No DPMS is not 'better' than Bushmaster. Fight4YourRights commented on 'cosmetically' the DPMS looked nicer.

The most important thing is reliablity, then accuraccy. DMPS makes some accurate rifles, no doubt about that. But in the reliablity department they don't measure up.

Now if all you're looking for is a wall hanger then yes the DPMS would be the better choice.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 11:24:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 11:32:05 AM EDT by M11293]
Why aren't DPMS rifles reliable?

"In 2002 the AR15.com website put together a Group Purchase for rifles. They came up with a configuration, got bids & samples from a number of vendors, and selected Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services - DPMS - as the winning company."

-Paul Britton
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 11:46:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 11:46:51 AM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By M11293:
Why aren't DPMS rifles reliable?


Wrong sized chamber, lack of chrome lining, poor sizing of gas ports.

If all you do is go to the range and shoot from the bench they are fine. But even then I've seen them choke on ammo that fed perfectly through my Bushmaster.



"In 2002 the AR15.com website put together a Group Purchase for rifles. They came up with a configuration, got bids & samples from a number of vendors, and selected Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services - DPMS - as the winning company."



And what does this have to do with anything?

Do you know what the criteria was for winning the 'privledge' of being the LEGP? (hint it wasn't the best reliablity).

BTW I've shot that rifle in the review. Not one like it - but that very rifle. The ammo it was having problems with worked perfectly in Paul's other AR-15s (all Bushy's) and my Bushmasters. The rifle was meant for precision target shooting (which it did very well) but it would win no reliablity contests.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 11:48:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M11293:
Why aren't DPMS rifles reliable?

"In 2002 the AR15.com website put together a Group Purchase for rifles. They came up with a configuration, got bids & samples from a number of vendors, and selected Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services - DPMS - as the winning company."

-Paul Britton



I have to say that DPMS are in the top tier and are reliable, IMO of course. Especially with the CMMG version upper you can have all the features of a Mil-spec weapon. I've owned BUSHY, COLT, and DPMS and I would by either of them again. Arguing the differences between these rifles is splitting hairs (which I know we love to do in our spare time). But in reality, all guns are excellent. That's not to say that someone can have a bad experience with one, but by-and-large they're all dependable.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 11:54:13 AM EDT
I have fed all sorts of 5.56 and .223 through my DPMS, not a single problem.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 12:07:23 PM EDT
Is DPMS the company that gives you a list of "acceptable" ammo to shoot w/ their rifle? I know one manufacturer was trying that crap. I have heard DPMS are very accurate rifles.? -Justin
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 12:26:17 PM EDT
Yea they have a list of "unacceptable ammo" well, I shot some of that "unacceptable" ammo and didn't have any problems. DONT SHOOT THE CHEAP WOLF SHIT IN ANY RIFLE PLEASE, just a warning to all of you people who don't know.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 12:26:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 1:27:45 PM EDT
DPMS offers chrome-lined barrels, just request it when you purchase your barrel, upper-assembly, or rifle. Only 20 extra bucks.

I've heard that DPMS is mil-spec.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 7:14:58 PM EDT
Thanks mr_wilson... that helps a lot... very informative.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:20:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2004 8:23:58 PM EDT by scottryan]

Originally Posted By Carbine_Man:

Will someone please stick a fork in this business about "you can't make RRA a machine gun." I can say with reasonable assurance that 99.99% of AR-owners will never buy a machine gun. And anybody willing to drop the big bucks into making a semi-auto into a machine gun is going to research it to death, and dropping a couple of bucks on a Colt or whatever to put a DIAS in it will be chicken feed.

I'm not slamming ya, mr_wilson, I just think it's a point that is of almost nil importance to 99.99% of us "regular folks."

RRA makes top quality parts. The fit and finish of the lower and upper I have is very high quality.



Wrong,

-What if you were out at the range and wanted to use someone else's RDIAS in your gun to try it out?

-What if you wanted to use your own RDIAS and didn't want to go through the hassle of finding someone to take the high self out and refinish the lower?

-What if you don't like a politically correct gun manufacturer who puts sear blocks in their receivers?
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 8:58:26 PM EDT
Just my two cents.... First, Armalite IS Eagle Arms! To the best of my knowledge Eagle Arms purchased the Armalite name. Second, Last time I looked my Colt has a lifetime warranty. That chart shows 1 year?

Hey M11293, in my opinion most all the major players make a quality product. I recomend you go to a few shops and handle some different rifles. The net is full of "experts", make your own decision and have fun
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:00:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 4:59:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jtb33:

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
Pecking order for AR15 rifles generally runs like this:

Armalite, Bushmaster and Colt are top tier rifles (they have/do produce mil-spec quality rifles)

DPMS, Eagle Arms, Olympic Arms, Rock River Arms are second tier rifles (not always mil-spec)

Model 1 Sales, J&T Distributing, ASA are lower tier rifles

Hesse IS JUNK, (run don't walk from anything labeled Hesse)

While some will say they get quality products from the third tier, your best bets are always in the first two tiers.

Mike



Aren't "ArmaLite" and "Eagle Arms" the same thing?



If they were they would be the same price !!!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 7:12:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By basko152:
But in reality, all guns are excellent. That's not to say that someone can have a bad experience with one, but by-and-large they're all dependable.



Don't we wish that were true. That we could spend $400 on a rifle kit and get a rifle 'just as good as a Bushmaster' or buy a $600 AR and get one that is 'just as dependable as a Colt'. The fact is there are legitimate engineering & manufacturing reasons for the cost difference. And there is a difference in the reliablity between the brands. Just ask any of the 'in demand' rifle trainers what they see every year with 1000's of students and their rifles. Heck just organize your own AR shoots. If you get enough people you start to see patterns.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 11:11:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M11293:
DONT SHOOT THE CHEAP WOLF SHIT IN ANY RIFLE PLEASE, just a warning to all of you people who don't know.




The first 350 rounds through my first AR15 was

CHEAP WOLF SHIT

Guess what kind of rifle it was.
BUSHMASTER.
Guess how many faliures (of any kind) I had?
ZERO.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:33:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 12:42:00 PM EDT by M11293]
CHEAP WOLF AMMO IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE USED IN AR15 TYPE RIFLES. IF YOU REACH A VERY HOT BARREL/OVERALL GUN THE LAQUER WILL MELT OFF AND CLOG UP THE WORKS. Zero failures? because the rifles is new, keep using it and you will have a hell of a time trying to get that stuff off yet feed.

Just something that I have heard through these forums.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 12:37:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
No, it means that even if they wanted to sell products to the military they couldn't! They would have to change the steel used in barrels to the 4150 used by FN and Bushmaster as well as the other noted items which do not meet the military specifications. So yes there are differences between the way AR15s are made in relation to M16s, something a maker of civilian rifles doesn't have to consider when producing or buying off the shelf uppers/barrels/lowers or parts kits from suppliers. That said in some cases you are correct, some suppliers that build uppers for FN (a current military M16 contractor) do sell to others makers the very same product, but when talking whole rifles the items mentioned make a whopping difference to military orders which have very rigid specifications for rifles to be used by our soldiers.

Hope this helps explain why some makers will always be considered by some to be second tier.

I own Colt, Bushmaster, RRA, DPMS and J&T barreled uppers and Colt, Bushmaster, RRA and homemade lowers, all which I am very satisfied with (although they are each set-up differently, for differing purposes), just some are closer to mil-spec than others, which makes them more desirable to those considered purists. No flames intended toward any maker or poster!
Mike



I'm pretty much hijacking this thread so apologies on that...

Mike,

Read in some gun mag today that RRA won the contract for DEA AR's. What are the .gov agency specs, or does it depend on the 3-letter agency who is procuring them as to what the specifications are that need to be met by the manufacturer. I would think that in some agencies they would want their specs to be equal to .mil given the inherent occupational risks, and I would think DEA would definitely fit into that category. Any comments on this? Just curious, not -ing.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 1:17:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M11293:
CHEAP WOLF AMMO IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE USED IN AR15 TYPE RIFLES. IF YOU REACH A VERY HOT BARREL/OVERALL GUN THE LAQUER WILL MELT OFF AND CLOG UP THE WORKS. Zero failures? because the rifles is new, keep using it and you will have a hell of a time trying to get that stuff off yet feed.

Just something that I have heard through these forums.



Hate to tell you, but the current Wolf ammo has no lacquer coating. It's a polymer coating and has been that way for some time now.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 2:08:45 PM EDT
Yes I have known for quite some time now that Wolf now makes the non-laquer coated ammo but there is alot of that laquer coated stuff out there. I have also heard that the non-laquer coated ammo is great for plinking and doesn't cause any problems. Laquer is bad, new polymer is good. Just a word of warning.

http://www.olyarms.com/ammowarning.html
Top Top