OST

Why hasn't this thread been made a "sticky?"  The information here is too valuable to let the thread archive IMHO.

And unless I missed it--did we ever get an idea of the round count for the guns where the mag wells cracked?

Not that I saw. Just details on configuration/the conversion.


ETA: Page 36

Bump for Ron

I think Ron has left the building.

I think Ron is busy running his business…

I’m quite happy that he’s shared what he has, when he’s been able to.

And when he comes back, I hope to hear about a lot of things.  Like how the heck do they clean all of those weapons every day?

For those who don’t know, they also have an awesome pistol topic in the handgun forum too.

Glock fans might want to pretend it doesn’t exist though.

I'm sure he is and it's a busy work schedule I am sure! I think he has some pictures in one of these threads of the armorers cleaning them, serious task and schedule.

Really? Hadn't looked at his Pistol thread in a while, but the last time I checked, I thought he said that aside from regularly replacing the RSA and other springs, the Glocks had held up the best?

EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see it because it was stickied. ()

Initially yes. As years went on he definitely posted worse and worse results with Glocks. He did say the Gen 5’s don’t break the same though.

@HendersonDefense

Your M134s, curious if your able to get parts from Dillon.

His learnings and feedback on reliability are interesting to see, but 99% of isn’t really applicable to most gun owners.  Sure, I’m sure a lot of guys shoot a ton but I really don’t care if a Glock breaks after 30,000 rounds or if an AR receiver cracks after 75,000 rounds.  The value equation doesn’t matter when a lifetime of ammo costs 25-50x the cost of a gun.

I agree for the most part.  But Ron’s experience can point folks to watching specific areas that have earlier or more extreme failures.  I value his reports for that, even if I never fire a tenth of the rounds that go through his guns.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the thread and value the info.  I was attempting to clarify that I didn’t believe it to be situational for saying the comments on glock above

I see, and concur.

However, on 12/20/2020, he also stated this:

I run one of your carbines for workup each time I deploy.  I have this one set up with a compm2.  Tha k you for making a great rifle as well.

Wut?

This thread made me a believer in cheap PSA ARs

Except that Ron was running the Premium line PSA kit, not apples/apples comparison.

And that was quite a number of years ago, I think PSA's quality has grown since then.

I would agree with that statement, along with their manufacturing capabilities.

Yea but when guns are gonna be handed down or possibly banned one day, nice to know they might last a lifetime or two.

The early PSA premium kits were FN weren't they?

I have an off-the-wall question: On your post 86 m16 lowers, do you have them manufactured with the 3rd hole and then anodize them, or do you take an existing lower and drill the 3rd hole, leaving that sear hole unanodized?  If left un-anodized, do you notice any extra wear?

As far as I can recall, Premium URGs/kits have always been FN sourced double thick CLd/broached bbls. For the longest time the included TC sourced carriers.

They still are

Considering I'm way past 30k on some Glocks, I'm still interested in that part.  

You know guys I just went back through this thread, which is more like a Fast rope, but it still blows me away that this raw data is available to us.  It sorta explodes lots of myths that have built up over the years, simply because some folks stated certain things, and in the absence of any other info, they just became accepted "facts".  Yes it's funny that this thread has never been stickied, but at least it was allowed to go on.  So take what you can get.  I realize lots of folks pay lots of bucks to be on this site, and if the "perceived value" of their products is threatened, they're gonna want to counter-act that.  Just that I'm here typing this is no small victory.

If you recall Pat's (may he RIP) "Book of Shame", this was really the first introduction to high round count use, and the affects it had on various mfg's.  And on the face of it, it would seem to contradict what Ron is laying down here.  However, if you take a look at those failed parts, and consider how they got there, I think you can reconcile both sources.  My theory is that because oftentimes the only difference in parts is the QC control, lots of parts, that should never have gone out, did, and that's a lot of the failure we saw documented.  If a part was going to fail, it was going to happen within the 1,000 rds (which was probably hit at a high-rd-count class), or it would hold up until the typical rd-ct failure point.  But the point being, these bad parts should have never been there in the first place.  So if you take these parts out of the equation (if we can), you would see the round-counts being documented here.

So yeah I think it's absolutely valid, the point Ron's been making here; based on his experience, with both Colt and PSA, you CAN build a budget rifle, that for 99.9% of the population will work just fine.  And yes, that turns a lot of the industry on it's ear, or more to the point, threatens the perceived value of many brands being touted as superior to others.  Which they may be, but as Ron has proven, so what?  The average bear is not going to get anywhere near the lower failure rates much less the high end.  

So to all those fanboys who made fun of all those Bubbas all these years, I say politely, with all due respect, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.  I think I'm gonna build some Mk-18 "clones", using PSA parts.   And enjoy shooting them the rest of my life.

While I don't disagree with what you've said, I think there's a difference between having a rifle that you can trust not to break down when you need to use it, and having a rifle that you're able to repair and keep using for years and years.  You touch on this issue when you mention excluding parts failures, but that won't matter if the parts failure happens when you need your rifle to work because somebody's life is on the line.

In other words, the different data sets that we've seen from the two sources you mention are viewed from vastly different perspectives, and we should consider those perspectives.  If you're plinking on a range and have time to repair rifles at your leisure, Ron's information is more relevant.  If you're looking for a rifle that your life depends on, Pat's information is key.  Both are extremely valuable, IMO.

You're right and I totally agree.  But this here is arfcom.  Somewhere between 90-99% of the guys here are into this as hobby, to one extent or another.  Ron's bidness is the epitome of LARPing; and there's nothing wrong with that.  So to your point, shit can fail whenever it wants, and it gets fixed, and everybody drives on.  Happy days.  

So for the vast majority of ho-dads on this here website, and dare I say the whole fucking industry, looking at the data from the perspective of: their likelihood of experiencing a break-down, and the lack of any real consequences for it, any reasonable choice of AR rifle/parts will probably work just fine for them.

Then we have that rare breed of cat that actually goes out and does serious training with these rifles.  I would say this is the top 1% of the community.  They look at the data as: not only the likelihood of a breakdown but also the consequences of it.  So for sure, they are keying on what happens in tactical training classes more so than high round count mag dump experiences.  And they demand an utterly reliable rifle.  

So I would argue you need to look at vendors with robust QC, that cull out all those parts you see breaking in classes.  But I would also argue that buying from "mid-tier" sources, being defined as those vendors without all the perceived value, and "cache" of the "top" brands, but still have robust QC, could be trusted for serious work.  Case in point, PSA.

And the way to proof this, is to go out yourself and put 1K+ rounds through a system and see what's what.  Or better yet, take it to class, where if it's gonna fail, it's all but guaranteed to do so.  In this manner all parts will be proofed, regardless of source.  It just seems to me, after shooting a few of these rifles, working in the industry, and going to a few classes, that if a part is gonna fail, it will oftentimes do it pretty much up-front.  And if not, then it will make it to the usual rd count.  That is a very broad generalization, but I suspect it's probably true.

Another point to consider.  With a lot of the tom-foolery you see goin on in classes, it comes down to the rifle/mags/ammo combination.   And the lack of proper lubrication.  When you stabilize all these factors, (as Ron has) you're left with parts failures.  So I would argue for serious use, you need to go beyond parts reliability and into parts compatibility, and the skill to get rounds on target.  But that's a discussion for another thread.  

So for sure different users are gonna view this here data in different ways; my point being the vast majority are going to be GTG with the info they get from Ron; but to your point, there is that one, who is not like all the others.  He may actually need that perceived extra value.  But for all the rest, it's just a big selling point.

Hahaha I have to agree.  If you want to really parse it finely, buy a “quality” upper for your HD gun, and PSA all the things from there out.

Yeah man, I just bought 4 PSA lowers and a bunch of other shit; gonna build (2) 10.5" and (2) 14.5" Mk-18 URGI type rifles.  And shoot the shit out of them.

But to the OP, I have owned or been issued an AR-15 type rifle since 1976.  I have personally built around 20 rifles.  Many configs down through the years; 20", 16", 14.5", 12.5" 10.5", and 10.3".  I shoot between 2-3K rds a year on average.  Many different brands, from Colt (Mil issue), to Bushmaster, PWS, LMT, BCM, Spikes, Delton, PSA.  Never had anything catastrophic break, like a bolt or anything in all that time.  Lots of mostly shooter-induced stuff, like bad mags n ammo.  

I think this is because I usually end up re-building to another config, WAY before anything could really wear out.  And I have a fairly aggressive maintenance sked, where I tear down, replace, and rebuild on an annual basis.  So I don't think I've ever put 5K on any one bbl, although some bolts may be approaching 10K.  

Of course this is a sample of one, but done over 40+ years, so perhaps a good representation of what might have been expected for the "average" guy.

Bottom line, what Ron is saying reflects my experience, which is to say, with reputable vendors, good QC, and a little luck, I think anyone can expect their AR-15 rifle to last a long damn time.  Perhaps longer than we had been led to believe.

Another point that Delta Tango Dave made me think of, is that because the stakes are so high, if a gun fails in combat, the .mil (and especially SOCOM) will re-build these things way before any fault is allowed to happen.  So you see bbls switched out at 10K, and bolts at 5K and so forth.  This has influenced my thinking very heavily over the years, and is why I will re-build annually; they do it to have fresh parts before each deployment; I do it to have the same thing for the new year.

So for sure, you need to make this distinction between cautionary or preventive maintenance, and what the actual rd count to failure MIGHT be.  If you can wait it out, lucky you; if not, then PERHAPS you can use this data to extend the service period of various parts, or continue to use the .mil minimum specs as a guide.  The point being we have taken these minimum specs and made them sort of gospel and then when someone comes along with actual raw data, we're all like WTF!?  I know that's true in my case.  

Also, I am cautiously extending my list of "certified vendors" for what parts I allow into my weapons.  Yes, this has some risk, but I also think you have to stay current on this stuff.  Quality parts is a moving target; companies will go through bad times and good.  Case again in point, PSA.  We all know they had some issues with QC, not to mention CS in the past.  I think you could make a strong case that they are on the re-bound to becoming an excellent re-supply choice.  

This might be foolish to extend this to other vendors, but again, judging from his comments, from his early years, he was just like me, buying gun-show parts, just to have his own AR.  And it sounds like they ran like sewing machines, until they wore out after high round counts. So I would SWAG it that there was more involved in Pat's (may he RIP) findings than just bad parts; I would bet ya there was also bad assembly, bad mags, bad ammo, and high stress as contributing factors.  So if Ron has no-shit armorers who go over these weapons on a regular basis, a lot of that gets removed from the equation.  

But I don't want to be a dumb-ass and just open the flood gates here.  I realize that there ARE bad parts out there.  And some vendors DO have better parts than others.  If someone could convince Ron to switch out brands on a regular basis and see what's what, we could get a true picture of the entire industry.  But I imagine he'd need a 24/7 close protection detail!  So until that happens, we have what we have here.  And I get it, these guys are jumping through their assholes to get all their work done; and good on 'em.  But man, what a missed opportunity in actual raw data that could be collected.  But yeah I also get why he hesitates; he would have to move into Wit-Sec for sure.  There would be much wailing and nashing of teeth.

Henderson Defense made AR’s.  I have One that was I bought after Obama won the first term and then I bought a LWRCi m6a1.  The only parts I changed on the Henderson defense was add a Troy ext fsb quad rail in place of the moe handguards.  I was Born in Las Vegas and it’s cool to see the Nevada on the lower.  Trigger is stock at about 6-6.5 pounds and it came with Magpul moe, miad, a young mfg ar-15 bcg anf a H buffer.  

Didn't know that.

I remember seeing the name, but now it's clear he's buying up everything he makes ha ha.  

There was a misunderstanding a copula of pages back about making "things" from broken parts, (which would probably sell well at Ron's gift shop).  One thing the gent mentioned was Ron's usage here was just a drop in the bucket for a .mil unit.  Especially if the Big One kicked off and rounds really started flying.  Which is true, but I would argue that's a lot of ammo, spread-loaded over many more rifles, as opposed to just a few dozen on the firing line here.  So to be a complete analogy, you would have to dump say a company off somewhere, with orders to hold or die, and then re-supply them for days on end, sorta like a Khe Sanh event. Then you'd get the high round counts, through the same rifles, as we are seeing here.  I don't know of many .mil units, outside of SOCOM, that are doing FA mag dumps, on a regular basis, to this extent.

And to the point, nobody in the .mil is bothering to make this kind of data available to me; I am learning more at arfcom about the AR weapons system than any .gov source.  So even though Ron probably uses more than a lot of small country's total ammo allotments, he still doesn't use as much as uncle sugar.  Yeah, OK, but he uses enough to provide us some pretty fucking cool data.

The larger question is: who is down with the TDP, and who isn't.  I wish somebody would make a Kuhnhausen-like book on the AR, where every part is shown in ordnance style drawings with complete dim's.  So if we take on faith that the TDP is legit, then you could mic all in-coming parts, regardless, race, creed, or national origin, and build a reliable rifle.  There are folks starting to do this (for example: School of the American Rifle), and the results are sometimes surprising.  Yes, that's a lot of work.  Yes, just buy a Colt, got that chief.  And yes, just go look up the TDP yourself, and do it already.  On that right now.

The difference is Pat Rogers, may he RIP,  had some biases working with/for certain companies. Who knows the history of guns brought to his class that broke.

Ron is looking for what works and saves him money, period.  I put more stock in his experience considering the round count.

You're overlooking a couple of decades of ridiculous "just-as-goodism";  inexpensive AR's have come leaps and bounds from 20 years ago, and even PSA had a rough start at times despite now being the first outfit to nail their current combination of volume, functional quality, and price point.

I'll take a PSA without complaints, but I will also be the first person to call out the garbage that used to be on the market with civilian spec receiver extensions, mis-matched feedramps, too-tight mystery chamber specs, wildly overpriced 4140 unlined barrels, wrong height FSB's, un-staked everything, red-loctite on the castle nut, pot metal cast receivers, black paint instead of black type III hardcoat, etc.

PSA worked very hard to get where they are, just as several other companies in the 2005+ time frame worked hard to start actually shipping properly dimensions and materials to compete with Colt at higher price points.

I apologize that I haven't posted some of the latest results but we are putting more lead down range than before. This happened about 5-6 weeks ago and this was another first for our range. I had NO CLUE that you could break the barrel extension from inside the chamber LOL!!!

I apologize about the size of the pic but just wanted folks to see exactly what happened.

V/R
Ron

There was a thread here recently where someone posted his concerns about a deep groove machined inside the extension about where yours broke. IIRC, the manufacturer said it was a defect and replaced the barrel/extension.

Damn

How many rounds does it take to do that? PSA or DD barrel?

I've only read of 1 other instance of this type personally...


HERE

@HendersonDefense
Make/Model info? Clearly an AR but I'd be curious to know who manufactured the barrel assembly.

And specifically who made the barrel extension…

Some “barrel makers” start with barrel blanks (i.e. from Green Mountain), then contour/trim, chamber etc.

Any feedback on the Sig MCX/Virtus on the line?  Curious how they hold up.

A couple of decades ago when AR were hard to import in Europe, Oberland Arms started manufacturing AR using mostly US components except for barrels & barrel extensions…

BE failure was common on early production model due to improper heat treatment…