AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sionics (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/10/2011 8:24:34 PM EDT
|
Got to shoot a SAR-15 at the range the other day with a buddy, very impressive rifle, compared it to my Sabre Defense and a Colt Defense SBR, and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/blackmagic94/a813beb8.jpg |
|
Never heard of it, but I'm skeptical that your second post is purely an attention grabber to build interest in the brand.
Vuurwapenblog on Sionic |
|
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. I think it says a lot that they want to be included in the new Chart when many other manufacturers are asking to be removed. |
|
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? I read the vuurwapen review and I came away with the conclusion that he was neither impressed or disappointed with the fit and finish.
...and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
So how does fit and finish affect the weapons performance? Is it that much better then your Saber or the Colt that you would buy it? |
|
Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? I read the vuurwapen review and I came away with the conclusion that he was neither impressed or disappointed with the fit and finish. ...and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
So how does fit and finish affect the weapons performance? Is it that much better then your Saber or the Colt that you would buy it? If you had a choice to between two rifles made to the same standards materials wise and priced equally, would you choose the one with the lesser fit and finish????? |
|
I know that cheesy video will only hurt them when it comes to serious buyers, but then again, most serious buyers are going to buy something else anyways. Looks like it might be a good product, but it is just more of the same. It isn't like all that was available before was shit and here they come with a quality AR. I think they are late to the party.
The testimonials were kind of a bad idea since most, if not all, of the guys in it are obviously trainers there. As if they are going to say "Well, it's OK, but I like BCM better" or "It shot fine, but I'd rather just buy a DD and be done with it." . Nope, it's "I'm so and so and I have marlbes in my mouth and this is the best thing since sliced bread, right out of the box, and nothing compares to it, get on a plane, blah, blah, blah". They would have been better served focusing on the specifications of the rifle and what comes standard with them. CHF, CL, 1/7, MPI, 7075, Magpul, etc.. Epic fail on the advertisement video. A prime example of when good ideas go bad. If I were to hazard a guess on where the OP's pic was taken.... I'd say 5118 East Pima St. Tucson, AZ 85712 Maybe Sionics should become a business member here and advertise all they want. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. I think it says a lot that they want to be included in the new Chart when many other manufacturers are asking to be removed. 
the infamous chart is a comparison of rack grade carbines AKA working guns to the Colt LE6920 (the assumed TDP for the M4). if you're worried about fit and finish, you really shouldn't care what the chart says Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? this. all of my AR's use parts from the left side of the chart - Colt, BCM, LMT, Sabre, etc... should I ask them to add "hellbound's AR" to the chart as well? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? I read the vuurwapen review and I came away with the conclusion that he was neither impressed or disappointed with the fit and finish. ...and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
So how does fit and finish affect the weapons performance? Is it that much better then your Saber or the Colt that you would buy it? If you had a choice to between two rifles made to the same standards materials wise and priced equally, would you choose the one with the lesser fit and finish????? I would choose the rifle that had a long standing reputation for quality and would have the best resale value. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? I read the vuurwapen review and I came away with the conclusion that he was neither impressed or disappointed with the fit and finish. ...and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
So how does fit and finish affect the weapons performance? Is it that much better then your Saber or the Colt that you would buy it? If you had a choice to between two rifles made to the same standards materials wise and priced equally, would you choose the one with the lesser fit and finish????? I wouldn't pay extra for a no-name company's cobbled together parts just because it's prettier. I'd rather buy from a reputable company like Colt, BCM, LMT, etc that have collectively hundreds of billions of rounds through them despite the finish. a "tight" upper to lower fit typically means extreme spread of tolerance stacking with basic forged components. if I can't disassemble a "working gun" (aka a gun that aspires to be on the chart) without the use of punches, a bullet tip, or any other crude implement, it's worthless to me. |
|
What does fit and finish have to do with anything? That is the dumbest metric ever to determine quality. If that's the only good thing you have to say about it, please don't even post. I'd much rather hear about technical specs and what this carbine will do for me that its competitors will not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. I think it says a lot that they want to be included in the new Chart when many other manufacturers are asking to be removed.
the infamous chart is a comparison of rack grade carbines AKA working guns to the Colt LE6920 (the assumed TDP for the M4). if you're worried about fit and finish, you really shouldn't care what the chart says Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? this. all of my AR's use parts from the left side of the chart - Colt, BCM, LMT, Sabre, etc... should I ask them to add "hellbound's AR" to the chart as well? Your AR's sound like mine as I prefer to build from specific parts of my choice. you know it wasn't that long ago that BCM was a new player in teh market and they were producing "parts guns" which were made from high quality marterials sourced from high quality suppliers. Wait......thats still the case isn't 
I'm in no way saying that this new Sionics company is the best thing since sliced bread. Just pointing out that it appears they are entering this saturated market choosing to assembe AR's from higher end parts with some attention paid to QA/Fit/Finish.....much the same way BCM did when they hit the market a couple of years ago. So before discounting what they have to offer, at least check it out and do some testing to see what its about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. I think it says a lot that they want to be included in the new Chart when many other manufacturers are asking to be removed.
the infamous chart is a comparison of rack grade carbines AKA working guns to the Colt LE6920 (the assumed TDP for the M4). if you're worried about fit and finish, you really shouldn't care what the chart says Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? this. all of my AR's use parts from the left side of the chart - Colt, BCM, LMT, Sabre, etc... should I ask them to add "hellbound's AR" to the chart as well? Your AR's sound like mine as I prefer to build from specific parts of my choice. you know it wasn't that long ago that BCM was a new player in teh market and they were producing "parts guns" which were made from high quality marterials sourced from high quality suppliers. Wait......thats still the case isn't
I'm in no way saying that this new Sionics company is the best thing since sliced bread. Just pointing out that it appears they are entering this saturated market choosing to assembe AR's from higher end parts with some attention paid to QA/Fit/Finish.....much the same way BCM did when they hit the market a couple of years ago. So before discounting what they have to offer, at least check it out and do some testing to see what its about. apples and oranges... Paul put in a ton of R&D, sourced actual suppliers and had barrels, bolts, etc built to his specifications to create the BCM brand. He also offered models and features that either weren't already flooding the market or were typical of high end brands at a reasonable price (ie: 1/7 twist, CMV, HPT/MPI, correct gas key staking, upgraded extractor/ejector springs in BCM bolts, various midlength configurations, 11.5" SBR barrels, etc). Paul and BCM could have easily called up Ken@SAW and said "hey bro ship me a couple 100 Colt M4 barrels and bolts" but they didn't. SIONICS is doing the latter, calling up a company with a known "good" reputation (and really DD is relatively new to the complete AR game) and assembling AR's with "no logos". SIONICS is doing what a vast majority of us can already do at home. |
|
Quoted:
What does fit and finish have to do with anything? That is the dumbest metric ever to determine quality. If that's the only good thing you have to say about it, please don't even post. I'd much rather hear about technical specs and what this carbine will do for me that its competitors will not. While the Chart may not be teh end all be all in determining how AR's all stack up, it does provide a quick resource to gain an idea of what materials an AR is made of and to what specs. These guys are asking to participate in the updated Chart..which would answer your questions about their tech specs. As for fit and finish, you are correct in that it doesn't affect functionality so we're not in disagreement there. I'm just pointing out that quality and fit/finish go together. Trust is is you can't sell a high end product of any sort if your final fit and finish sucks. Final fit and finish says a lot about a company's QA standards and the attention to detail paid during assembly. Who would trust the assembly or quality of a product by any company that would send out shitty looking product? It's also been my experience that parts made of a higher quality tend to have a better fit/finish so would you trust that these guys were using whatever high quality parts/materials they claim if the end result looked like something from a Vulcan Hesse parts bin??? Quality and Fit/Finish are two things that tend to go together. |
|
Quoted:If you had a choice to between two rifles made to the same standards materials wise and priced equally, would you choose the one with the lesser fit and finish?????
I'd choose the one that best fit my budget, quality, needs and lastly wants. Since I'm just a casual shooter I have no need to put Quality (fit finish functionality) first. If both rifles are made to the same standards material wise (i.e. CHF Chrome Molly/Line MP HPI test ext.) then I see no reason why they wouldn't maintain a very similar fit finish quality. I'd bet that a DD M4 Carbine V2 is very close it finish wise to the Sionics SAR-15QR, sure the DD is $188 more, but you also get a case and vertical grip with the DD. Plus you know for a fact that the rail is a DD rail, Sionics doesn't list the manufacturer of the rail, I assume it's DD but don't really know. The cheapest DD is the M4 Carine XV EZ at $1,368 cheapest Sionics is $1,099. The XV EZ comes with a DD Rail system and a case, which in my mind makes up for and exceeds the $269 dollar price difference. So to answer your questions, yes I would buy the one with lesser fit finish. When comparing DD parts to DD parts I still think the "potentially lower" fit finish quality from a DD manufactured and assembled rifle is better then the "high quality" fit finish of the Sionics DD assembled rifle. I'm not saying DD does have a lower fit finish quality. I'm just saying that assuming Sionics is top of the game in DD parts assembly fit finish I'd still buy a DD from DD. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: What does fit and finish have to do with anything? That is the dumbest metric ever to determine quality. If that's the only good thing you have to say about it, please don't even post. I'd much rather hear about technical specs and what this carbine will do for me that its competitors will not. While the Chart may not be teh end all be all in determining how AR's all stack up, it does provide a quick resource to gain an idea of what materials an AR is made of and to what specs. These guys are asking to participate in the updated Chart..which would answer your questions about their tech specs. As for fit and finish, you are correct in that it doesn't affect functionality so we're not in disagreement there. I'm just pointing out that quality and fit/finish go together. Trust is is you can't sell a high end product of any sort if your final fit and finish sucks. Final fit and finish says a lot about a company's QA standards and the attention to detail paid during assembly. Who would trust the assembly or quality of a product by any company that would send out shitty looking product? It's also been my experience that parts made of a higher quality tend to have a better fit/finish so would you trust that these guys were using whatever high quality parts/materials they claim if the end result looked like something from a Vulcan Hesse parts bin??? Quality and Fit/Finish are two things that tend to go together. Except in AR15s, where the specifications of the product specifically say that the "Fit" between the upper and lower are supposed to be loose for ease of taking the weapon apart in the field. They aren't supposed to be tight. It's by design that they are a bit loose. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. I think it says a lot that they want to be included in the new Chart when many other manufacturers are asking to be removed.
the infamous chart is a comparison of rack grade carbines AKA working guns to the Colt LE6920 (the assumed TDP for the M4). if you're worried about fit and finish, you really shouldn't care what the chart says Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? this. all of my AR's use parts from the left side of the chart - Colt, BCM, LMT, Sabre, etc... should I ask them to add "hellbound's AR" to the chart as well? Your AR's sound like mine as I prefer to build from specific parts of my choice. you know it wasn't that long ago that BCM was a new player in teh market and they were producing "parts guns" which were made from high quality marterials sourced from high quality suppliers. Wait......thats still the case isn't
I'm in no way saying that this new Sionics company is the best thing since sliced bread. Just pointing out that it appears they are entering this saturated market choosing to assembe AR's from higher end parts with some attention paid to QA/Fit/Finish.....much the same way BCM did when they hit the market a couple of years ago. So before discounting what they have to offer, at least check it out and do some testing to see what its about. apples and oranges... Paul put in a ton of R&D, sourced actual suppliers and had barrels, bolts, etc built to his specifications to create the BCM brand. He also offered models and features that either weren't already flooding the market or were typical of high end brands at a reasonable price (ie: 1/7 twist, CMV, HPT/MPI, correct gas key staking, upgraded extractor/ejector springs in BCM bolts, various midlength configurations, 11.5" SBR barrels, etc). Paul and BCM could have easily called up Ken@SAW and said "hey bro ship me a couple 100 Colt M4 barrels and bolts" but they didn't. SIONICS is doing the latter, calling up a company with a known "good" reputation (and really DD is relatively new to the complete AR game) and assembling AR's with "no logos". SIONICS is doing what a vast majority of us can already do at home. I wouldn't consider sourcing suppliers to provide parts that meet the already established TDP to be a ton of R&D. As for offering configurations that nobody else was offering...I consider that smart marketing and attribute that to knowing what your targetd customer base wants. Understand I'm not knoocking BCM. DD or any of the others as I'm a big fan of their products and own several rifles made from their parts. The fact is a parts gun is a parts gun regardless to where the parts came from with the the big difference being high end parts or low end parts. I personally prefer to assemble my own AR's from parts I choose, but for someone who's new to this or doesn't want to go that route this could be another alternative to add to the mix if all checks out with them quality wise for the "off the shelf" buyer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does fit and finish have to do with anything? That is the dumbest metric ever to determine quality. If that's the only good thing you have to say about it, please don't even post. I'd much rather hear about technical specs and what this carbine will do for me that its competitors will not. While the Chart may not be teh end all be all in determining how AR's all stack up, it does provide a quick resource to gain an idea of what materials an AR is made of and to what specs. These guys are asking to participate in the updated Chart..which would answer your questions about their tech specs. As for fit and finish, you are correct in that it doesn't affect functionality so we're not in disagreement there. I'm just pointing out that quality and fit/finish go together. Trust is is you can't sell a high end product of any sort if your final fit and finish sucks. Final fit and finish says a lot about a company's QA standards and the attention to detail paid during assembly. Who would trust the assembly or quality of a product by any company that would send out shitty looking product? It's also been my experience that parts made of a higher quality tend to have a better fit/finish so would you trust that these guys were using whatever high quality parts/materials they claim if the end result looked like something from a Vulcan Hesse parts bin??? Quality and Fit/Finish are two things that tend to go together. Except in AR15s, where the specifications of the product specifically say that the "Fit" between the upper and lower are supposed to be loose for ease of taking the weapon apart in the field. They aren't supposed to be tight. It's by design that they are a bit loose. No arguments there as I'm not referring to the fit between the upper and lower. To clarify, fit/finish doesn't simply refer to upper/lower fit. Its includes everything from the machining and finish of parts to the way all the parts go together. People like high quality LPK's because they are made of good steel to the correct specs AND because they fit correctly where they're supposed to fit. People prefer high quality Lowers because of the attention paid to the machining and finish AND because the LPK should fit the way its supposed to. Pick up a low quality lower and you'll find its the fit and finish that make it differ so much from a high quality lower. There will be all sorts of rough machining marks, poor finish, uneven finish, etc. These are all things that tend to lead to lead to poor fit. To simply make a product of the highest quality materials and pay no attention to fit and finish would not make any sense.....hence the reason you rarely hear people complain about the fit/finish of an AR by BCM, LaRue, Noveske, DD, LMT, etc. |
|
Quoted: No arguments there as I'm not referring to the fit between the upper and lower. To clarify, fit/finish doesn't simply refer to upper/lower fit. Its includes everything from the machining and finish of parts to the way all the parts go together. People like high quality LPK's because they are made of good steel to the correct specs AND because they fit correctly where they're supposed to fit. People prefer high quality Lowers because of the attention paid to the machining and finish AND because the LPK should fit the way its supposed to. Pick up a low quality lower and you'll find its the fit and finish that make it differ so much from a high quality lower. There will be all sorts of rough machining marks, poor finish, uneven finish, etc. These are all things that tend to lead to lead to poor fit. To simply make a product of the highest quality materials and pay no attention to fit and finish would not make any sense.....hence the reason you rarely hear people complain about the fit/finish of an AR by BCM, LaRue, Noveske, DD, LMT, etc. Here's where the differentiation is made between you (someone who is actually intelligent about "fit and finish") and the normal fit and finish crowd is. Most people, at least on this forum, seem to be of the opinion that "fit and finish" simply refers to color matching between the anodizing of the lower and the upper as well as "no wobble" between the upper and the lower receiver when the pins are in. That is it. You actually care about how your LPK fits into your lower, anyone who is rational would care about that. It could have a FUNCTIONAL problem otherwise. But people seem to get so caught up in if their upper and lower is "tight" like it makes some huge difference in performance. Things like the accuwedge are arguably the least useful products ever created but a lot of people use them for some reason. That confuses me a lot. |
|
Quoted:I wouldn't consider sourcing suppliers to provide parts that meet the already established TDP to be a ton of R&D. As for offering configurations that nobody else was offering...I consider that smart marketing and attribute that to knowing what your targetd customer base wants. Understand I'm not knoocking BCM. DD or any of the others as I'm a big fan of their products and own several rifles made from their parts. The fact is a parts gun is a parts gun regardless to where the parts came from with the the big difference being high end parts or low end parts. I personally prefer to assemble my own AR's from parts I choose, but for someone who's new to this or doesn't want to go that route this could be another alternative to add to the mix if all checks out with them quality wise for the "off the shelf" buyer.
I guess I'm not seeing the advantage of a Sionics over that of a true DD. Sure the Sionics are a tiny bit cheaper, but you aren't getting a case, in some models you aren't getting a rail or a vertical grip or the FSP or other choices. Compare the DD V4 and the SAR-15 QR10 there is a $40 price difference (SWS being cheaper) the differences, DD come with a case, vertical grip, rail panels, QD swivel in the lower and is only a 9" rail vs the 10" of the SAR15 QR10 but the DD does not come with iron sights. Also I noticed that despite the SAR-15QR10 having a free floating rail it says it is a "two peice design" and they advertise it as being "203 ready" seems a bit gimmicky to me. |
|
Quoted:
So, it's a DD assembled by someone else? Am I the only one who doesn't really see the big deal here? I read the vuurwapen review and I came away with the conclusion that he was neither impressed or disappointed with the fit and finish. ...and the fit and finish of the Sionics was the best of the bunch.
So how does fit and finish affect the weapons performance? Is it that much better then your Saber or the Colt that you would buy it? Some kid in the store that this picture was taken told me they are ditching the DD barrels and going to a proprietary barrel system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:I wouldn't consider sourcing suppliers to provide parts that meet the already established TDP to be a ton of R&D. As for offering configurations that nobody else was offering...I consider that smart marketing and attribute that to knowing what your targetd customer base wants. Understand I'm not knoocking BCM. DD or any of the others as I'm a big fan of their products and own several rifles made from their parts. The fact is a parts gun is a parts gun regardless to where the parts came from with the the big difference being high end parts or low end parts. I personally prefer to assemble my own AR's from parts I choose, but for someone who's new to this or doesn't want to go that route this could be another alternative to add to the mix if all checks out with them quality wise for the "off the shelf" buyer.
I guess I'm not seeing the advantage of a Sionics over that of a true DD. Sure the Sionics are a tiny bit cheaper, but you aren't getting a case, in some models you aren't getting a rail or a vertical grip or the FSP or other choices. Compare the DD V4 and the SAR-15 QR10 there is a $40 price difference (SWS being cheaper) the differences, DD come with a case, vertical grip, rail panels, QD swivel in the lower and is only a 9" rail vs the 10" of the SAR15 QR10 but the DD does not come with iron sights. Also I noticed that despite the SAR-15QR10 having a free floating rail it says it is a "two peice design" and they advertise it as being "203 ready" seems a bit gimmicky to me. I'm not sayiing there's an advantage over buying a DD. Just pointing out that if the core parts are equal then feel free to save a few bucks if you choose. I personally don't like the DD vertical grip as its too big an doesn't fit my style of shooting. They come off immedietly so including it is no bonus to me. I also don't care for factory cases so they typically get scrappe since they can be hard to sell and take up too much space. Again, I'm not saying the SWS is better, just saying that based on the specs they're giving it willl be a viable option for those who may want a rifle if all the specs check out. |
|
I know most of you guys in this thread are smarter than this! Are you not reading between the lines?
Sionics is a new company. Arfcom is arguably the best place to market anything AR related. Sniper_B is from AZ. Sionics is from Tuscon, AZ. His 2nd post here is one obviously meant to drum up interest in Sionics since he gave no info on the product. The picture of the rifle is from in a gun shop. I'm willing to bet it's the OP's shop. Josh Ellis, owner of Sionics, asked Rob_S to add Sionics to "the chart". Obviously he's trying to get the name out there. I'm betting Sniper_B = Josh Ellis = owner of Sionics = non-paying dealer You guys are doing exactly what he wants you to. I see nothing impressive about these rifles. They're yet another new AR mfg that uses DD and magpul parts and wants $1050 for a relatively basic carbine. I also like how Sniper_B tries to act like he's unsure about the rail; Good try, pal. |
|
Quoted:You guys are doing exactly what he wants you to. I see nothing impressive about these rifles. They're yet another new AR mfg that uses DD and magpul parts and wants $1050 for a relatively basic carbine. I also like how Sniper_B tries to act like he's unsure about the rail; Good try, pal.
Regardless of this guys involvement or lack thereof with Sionics I think it is still necessary to make sure that all sides of the coin are present in this thread. Seeing as how when someone googles Sionics Weapons Systems they will probably stumble upon this thread (assuming they are looking for reviews or info) and I feel they deserve as much information as possible. |
|
There is one thing that is really confusing me about the Sionics AR, and perhaps the company rep could explain. In 87GN's review, the owner went out of his way to talk about his subdued logo that is meant not to offend anyone or cause problems. If that were truly a concern, then why the hell does the Sionics lower have a full-auto pictogram?
Whenever I see fake full-auto pictograms, garish logos, and other nonsense this is the mental image that comes to mind: 
To me, they are the ricers of the gun world. Now if you would excuse me, I have to go dyno test the decal kit I just installed on my Civic 
|
!
|
Support your locals. Buy sionics.
Sionics of Tucson
source I think rifles with 1/9 twist and a2 front sight posts on carbines are built for cost and not performance which is what they do
But RRA sells 1:7's. True DPMS doesn't but you're basing that opinion on what? Experience with 1:9, 1:8, 1:7 barrels, experience with DPMS or RRA? |
|
Great shot Ryan, the following is from one of my earlier posts.... If I were to hazard a guess on where the OP's pic was taken.... I'd say 5118 East Pima St. Tucson, AZ 85712 (Sionics' address) Great guess, huh? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does fit and finish contribute functionally to AR15s again? Not functional but it is important......nobody wants to pay top dollar for something with crappy fit and finish. You sure about that? I'm willing to bet there are a few members on this forum who will pay top dollar for a crappy fit and finish, but will also ridicule anybody who finds fault with aformentioned crappy fit and finish. |
|
Quoted:Great guess, huh?
Sure was spot on I believe. Anyways what really bothers me is this guy is preaching "buy local support local" but he doesn't own a Sionics. Just seems like people should put there money where their mouth is, or mouth where their money is...wait...eah you get the point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Considering how difficult some of the most popular brands (BCM, DD, Spike's) are to get, I believe having another brand doesn't hurt. this is my thinking,also. competition is a good thing for us consumers. clown +1 Competition lowers prices for consumers while weeding out the weak producers. |
|
Quoted:
Where is this "Chart" that I keep hearing about? This is the second time today I've ready something referring to it. rob_s is working on a new version of it. Hard to say when it will be finished. Just keep Googling I guess. By the way, he says in the thread I referenced earlier that apparently Sionics is no longer using Daniel Defense parts as quoted on that blog. |
| Fit and finish mean nothing and contribute nothing to reliability.How about running them hard in a carbine class and then posting those results.Ill take ugly,scratched finish and 100% reliability and quality in materials,tested parts and competent construction any day over pretty.Im not a fan of uppers and lowers that need tools to seperate because they are too tight competiton is good and I see they use good parts from DD but spikes is still the best quality on par with others but the best price. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does fit and finish have to do with anything? That is the dumbest metric ever to determine quality. If that's the only good thing you have to say about it, please don't even post. I'd much rather hear about technical specs and what this carbine will do for me that its competitors will not. While the Chart may not be teh end all be all in determining how AR's all stack up, it does provide a quick resource to gain an idea of what materials an AR is made of and to what specs. These guys are asking to participate in the updated Chart..which would answer your questions about their tech specs. As for fit and finish, you are correct in that it doesn't affect functionality so we're not in disagreement there. I'm just pointing out that quality and fit/finish go together. Trust is is you can't sell a high end product of any sort if your final fit and finish sucks. Final fit and finish says a lot about a company's QA standards and the attention to detail paid during assembly. Who would trust the assembly or quality of a product by any company that would send out shitty looking product? It's also been my experience that parts made of a higher quality tend to have a better fit/finish so would you trust that these guys were using whatever high quality parts/materials they claim if the end result looked like something from a Vulcan Hesse parts bin??? Quality and Fit/Finish are two things that tend to go together. Except in AR15s, where the specifications of the product specifically say that the "Fit" between the upper and lower are supposed to be loose for ease of taking the weapon apart in the field. They aren't supposed to be tight. It's by design that they are a bit loose. thats true but at least twice a week we get a topic asking about the slop in the fit and how to fix it, you know its true and you know that ppl care about fit and finish more than they should |
|
Quoted:
There is one thing that is really confusing me about the Sionics AR, and perhaps the company rep could explain. In 87GN's review, the owner went out of his way to talk about his subdued logo that is meant not to offend anyone or cause problems. If that were truly a concern, then why the hell does the Sionics lower have a full-auto pictogram? Whenever I see fake full-auto pictograms, garish logos, and other nonsense this is the mental image that comes to mind: http://home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/6400C_Current_copy_typeR.JPG To me, they are the ricers of the gun world. Now if you would excuse me, I have to go dyno test the decal kit I just installed on my Civic What is a fake full auto pictogram? |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sionics (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor