Hobby gun to work gun.

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
1

At what point does an AR manufacture/parts assembler go from hobby guns to a work gun? I have seen many experts from Pat Rodgers to Larry Vickers talk about the quality of the leaders, Colt and KAC. Is it the amount of money and time spent on R&D or making all the major parts in-house? How did Larue, Daniel Defense and BCM go from nowhere to being recognized as one of the good ones? Did the above three listed have growing pains and were they known as hobby guns to begin with? What does it take for a company that is considered by the experts a hobby gun to go to work gun status? Is it the fact that they start making parts in-house compared to having and outside supplier cut uppers and lowers and add the company’s name at the end of the milling process.

Is it the fact that they are able to have a sponsored stallion in their stable pushing the product?

There seems to be so many experts here that someone should be able to give a valid point to what they mean and how a company changes the reputation

I know that there are many hobby gun companies (DPMS and Olympic) that for whatever reason have not improved from where they started and continue to send out the same stuff. I am looking for defined answers and not just they suck or I don’t like them.

Dan

2

The most simple explanation for the reason that Colt is higher quality than DPMS is the quality of the materials used. Colt uses a higher quality barrel steel than DPMS. Colt uses higher quality materials in the manufacture of their BCGs.

Companies like Colt also have a MUCH better concept of quality control. It’s certainly not the case that Colt’s never put out a turd, but you might see one defective Colt carbine for every 100 defective DPMS rifles.

3

Most definitely not. Plus, I don’t think you’d see professional endorsements from folks like LAV for a crap product.

Materials used, proper assembly, QC, good customer service are what makes the manufacturers you mentioned succeed.

Companies that continue to loc-tite castle nuts, improperly stake carrier keys, use out of spec receivers and use lower grade steel for barrel and bcg will always be “hobby gun” status. They cheap out on materials and cut corners during assembly; but you’ll see their ads in every gun rag there is.

4

Manufacturers will buy components from certain subcontractors, knowing that they produce a certain quality for the price.

Some manufacturers buy from the absolute most cut-rate sources.

The differences usually show up once an agency or a certain number of shooters buy a certain brand or model. Once they actually start shooting the damn things (as opposed to hobby shooters who may buy and shoot maybe 100-500 rounds per year) you start seeing trends – broken parts; failure to cycle/failure to function; poor accuracy or longevity (especially in high round count initial or basic training settings and courses).

Customer service to un-jack problem trends then becomes a priority (any manufacturer can turn out occasional or intermittent lemons or buy bum parts) – it’s how they address customer concerns that will determine whether or not they get return customers, follow-on business, and endorsements to other users.

You can goggle across the entire web to read of thumbs-up/above-and-beyond customer service and fulfillment/happy face endorsements, as well as “Hell no, don’t ever buy a jacked-up gun or parts from THESE folks!”

Look at what’s happening to Glock’s reputation following blaming the customer for Gen 4 problems.

How many police departments are making Olympic and DPMS fleet buys, or are still stuck with original weapons that don’t (and never have) worked?

The US Government has a MILSPEC for the M4 Carbine (http://biggerhammer.net/ar15/milspec/MIL-C-71186_(AR).pdf shows one, there may be newer amendments and versions out there).

A Carbine made by anyone can meet or exceed that standard without ever cracking open the Colt/USG Technical Data Plans, drawings, and prints – but most of the time if they do it’s strictly by accident.

5

In the 1980s I worked in a machine shop that manufactured a product that required each & every part made to be tested to assure quality. It was time consuming, but it had to be done, as the identical neighboring part–looked perfectly “acceptable” but electronic testing would reveal it’s flaws. Rather than shipping defective parts & hoping–or taking the " we’ll deal with it when it gets returned…" We refused to ship defective parts.

The top companies have requirements for QA/QC on their parts & test each part, so the chances of getting a defective part is reduced. It’s not zero–but it’s less than if a company “batch tests” or tests every 30th parts, which is why batch tested parts can & do fail more frequently. The better companies start at mil-spec, and meet or exceed it and confirm they did with testing, while other companies claim it–but don’t have the testing to confirm they meet mil-spec.

Customer Service at some companies is non-existent. While Colt generally makes a good product–a friend of mine jut had to wait 7 months for his new, but defective .308 AR to be repaired. Daniel Defense & Bravo Co have been 100% on top of the minor issues I had with my purchases–I wish all companies were like them!

Does this help?

6

This line right here practically deserves its own sticky - it should be entirely possible to build a rifle that meets and in places exceeds the requirements from the USG TDP - but they’re exceedingly rare, and all of them cost more than a Colt.

As far as work gun ready - go from the front of the rifle back. I’ll start with just the upper.
It needs to have a barrel made from proper steel (410 SS, 4150CMV usually) for the correct application, attached to an in-spec upper (concentric for the barrel nut threads, 1913 rail up top in line with bore and dimensionally correct, FA that doesn’t interfere with cycling, etc.) receiver with a correctly torqued quality barrel nut. It needs to have a usable handguard with backup sights attached such that they are ready when needed. The bolt carrier group needs to be the correct 168 Carpenter steel, with a shot peened bolt, correctly set up extractor and ejector spring, ran with working gas rings in a bolt carrier which has a properly staked carrier key attached with grade 8 bolts - preferably high pressure tested followed by magnetic particle inspection per TDP.
This is just one half of a bare bones AR-15 - and there is plenty to go wrong with a lower, but if an upper receiver doesn’t fit all of the above, it’s literally cheaper to just throw it on gunbroker and start again.

To establish any kind of decent reputation, a company needs to churn out rifles that 99% of them work right out of the box, and will go through the first 1000 rounds problem free (with decent ammunition and magazines). Then they need to be either quick, or very communicative when the need for customer service arrives. If the repair can’t be lightning fast (replacement parts from subcontractors unavailable, shipping turnaround time, etc.) then there needs to be accurate, timely communication and a genuine effort to make it right despite limitations.

None of these things are super hard, but the next issue is maintaining the above when business volume increases tenfold - because any company that does the above for more than a year will quickly get buried in people throwing them money if they don’t spike their prices through the roof.

7

Manufacturers who have made the leap from “hobby” to “professional” have the whole package, starting with being professional right from the start.

Folks act like 4150 CMV is the only steel worthy of being used to make barrels. 4140 has been used for decades to make good, even legendary barrels. It’s what Steyr used to make barrels for their StG58 which are known to be the best FAL barrels made. Even 4130 has been used with great success. While 4150 CMV is one of the top steels, it doesn’t make 4140 or even 4130 barrels garbage. Can anyone here say they can actually see a difference in accuracy, reliability or durability between 4150 CMV and 4130 CM?

One of the few places a manufacturer can actually exceed mil-spec is by developing a manufacturing process for bolts that eliminates the need for HPT. HPT tests bolts and barrels at pressures beyond what they are designed to take. Each barrel and bolt has a limited, but unknown, over-pressure events it can withstand before it fails. Each time a bolt or barrel is HPT tested, that finite number is reduced by one. HPT testing can also start a failure within the part that is still within allowable limits, or even below detectable limits, yet set the part on the path of failure.

Some will insist a bolt must be made of Carpenter steel and must be HPT tested, yet it’s interesting to note that KAC does neither

8

Somehow jumping back and forth between this as the chinese made AR thread, I got sidetracked with what the minimum specification I’d look for from an assumed ‘junk’ AR maker seeking to make higher end stuff would be. For a company looking to go from making low end, marginal AR’s to offering weapon systems for professionals and serious shooters, I’d still argue the above is preferable, or extensive justification provided for any deviation from TDP (KAC can do this because they put down the round counts to back up their claims. This is the exception, which if anything proves the rule). Same with the HPT requirement - it does reduce the lifetime of each bolt tested, but the only questionable BCG hardware I’ve owned are ones where the manufacturer didn’t want to spend the money on anything but batch MPI.

9

If it’s not High Pressure Tested (per the spec in black-and-white) it doesn’t meet United States M16/M4 military specification, period. Whether or not KAC (or anyone else) does either is irrelevant.

3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly and bolt shall withstand the firing of one Government standard M197, 5.56mm high pressure test cartridge conforming to MIL-C-46936. After proof firing, parts shall be free of cracks, seems and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection.

There is no MILSPEC for National Match M16 barrels, yet every one produced at the USAMU is proofed. They shoot tighter groups, but as they do not meet MILSPEC they also do not last as long as a GI barrel.

The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government. It doesn’t necessarily mean a rifle or carbine you build or buy off the rack/shelf won’t meet the rigors and punishment of duty use, but it’s an indicator of what you can expect for what you pay for.

A company’s ads and marketing might be able truly say their stuff meets or exceeds the spec if they’re using and meeting the same criteria (i.e., 1,000 weapon lots, pass/fail, and rejects).

Just buying components from the same sub-contractors doesn’t necessarily mean they do.

10

Larue, Daniel Defense, and BCM all started making parts that earned them reputations as quality manufacturers long before they made rifles. Larue and Daniel Defense got their starts with handguards. Larue also made some of the only really high-end quick-detach optic mounts, at the time (still do, though there are more options now). I don’t actually remember what BCM started with, but they, right off the bat, started making barrels and bolts to Colt/TDP specifics, and for significantly less than Colt prices, which caught everyone’s’ eye.

From there, these guys started making quality uppers using those parts that earned them the reputations they had, and evolved into complete firearms.

Hobby? They all started in the civilian market, and are still there. Since there’s no defining line between what someone can take along in their patrol car or… wherever else someone would get paid to take their personally-purchased AR… it’s tough to really directly answer the question. It’s subjective. It’s up to you to decide what meets your own personal minimum requirements for duty.

11

My point isn’t that bolts & barrels not HPT tested are mil-spec, but that is one of the few places a manufacturer can make an AR part that’s better than mil-spec. I was using KAC as an example to show it could be done

…The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government…

Mil-spec isn’t just a minimum, it’s a parameter. For example, specs for a rifle could include a max length, max weight, must go a minimum number of rounds without failure, hold a certain number of rounds and so on. An alloy isn’t spec’d just because it’s the minimum that will do the job, it’s chosen because it best meets the requirements of a variety of parameters.

That’s not to say the system is perfect, however. There are still things that slip through the crevasses- I mean cracks

12

Mil-spec isn’t just a minimum, it’s a parameter. For example, specs for a rifle could include a max length, max weight, must go a minimum number of rounds without failure, hold a certain number of rounds and so on. An alloy isn’t spec’d just because it’s the minimum that will do the job, it’s chosen because it best meets the requirements of a variety of parameters.

The MILSPECs are the objective metrics for acceptance at delivery, not the required and desired (objective and threshold) performance and/or manufacturing specifications (the drawings, blueprints, and materials to be used). Apples and oranges, (or pie v. cake).

The first are established by the users (weight/length, mean round between failures, rounds in the magazines, irons or optics, smooth or rails, etc); the second are specified by the government (in its drawings and specs, e.g., 4150 Chro-Moly-Vanadium barrel material, High Pressure tested – and here are the specs we’ll use to accept and test your submission) or by the original contract awardee’s (e.g., Colt’s, FN’s, or Beretta’s TDP, to include materials) First Article submission.

There are HUNDREDS of AR rifles out there that look generally similar and all go bang when you put in ammo. There are only so many that perform the same because they’re built of the same components.

There are even fewer that are tested and certified as such.

Obviously it can be done (look at how many Warsaw Pact and Asian outfits put out AKs).

MILSPEC parts will fit and function whether the M4/M16 was built in Connecticut, South Carolina, Canada, Singapore, the Philippines, or Korea (all on the same drawings and TDP).

You can build a damn fine and capable Frankengun you KNOW will work better than one of Uncle’s off-the-rack guns if you’re selective of its components. When people see some of my carbines and rifles they throw up in their mouth a little because of the name, logo, and address stamped on the lower – but they shoot better than anything delivered to Uncle’s dock. They never went through a government inspector’s hands.

13

You left out Noveske.

14

Two material misstatements in one thread…

MILSPEC isn’t a minimum and it can’t be exceeded. It’s a target. You either hit or you don’t. Period, Full Stop.

15

Two material misstatements in one thread…

MILSPEC isn’t a minimum and it can’t be exceeded. It’s a target. You either hit it or you don’t. Period, Full Stop.

16

Conceded. They ARE a set of pass/fail criteria. They can be broad (batch-testing) or they can be very narrow.

There are no bennies for surpassing the standard – except maybe down the road if the government has granted a value-added performance bonus.

They CAN be punitive – should the contractor fail to meet them the Government Contracting Officer can demand the awardee “Show Cause” as to why they shouldn’t be penalized or have their award cancelled or withdrawn.

17

Some of this stuff has to be internet-generated. Yesterday’s solid self-defense guns are today’s “hobby guns.” Opinion changes like Paris haute-couture. For a while Noveske was the only one to have, then it was BCM if you wanted to stay alive , then Daniel Defense was the only one in a pinch, now it’s KAC . . . . with Colt the perennial winner. All else are suitable only as movie props, or to give to criminals, safe in the knowledge that with the first round fired, they’ll instantly deconstruct into a little pile of metal powder.

18

At what point does an AR manufacture/parts assembler go from hobby guns to a work gun?

If you talked to every person on this website (or any other) you’ll never find one universally accepted standard. People can’t even agree on what Milspec should mean in relation to the civilian market. So as you read peoples responses try to remember that these are personal standards that people set and not some adherence to a written or unwritten rule about what should be what.

IMO shooting a bullet is work for a gun. The gun doesn’t know if it is shooting a bullet for someones hobby, self defense, competition, hunting, etc. The user decides what type of gun it is. If two identical BCM guns go to a gun shop and one is bought for a range toy and the other is bought for a duty weapon, one gun turns into one and the other likewise.

There seems to be so many experts here that someone should be able to give a valid point to what they mean and how a company changes the reputation

There are lots of ways for a company to change its reputation. They can improve the quality of their guns, they can give guns to gun rags and have them reviewed, they can become more active in social media, they can give free guns to respected people then publish pictures of those people using the guns, they can sponsor websites like this one, they can sponsor shooting events, they can have excellent customer service departments, they can have excellent shipping departments, etc.

If you are looking to buy a gun for actual duty then consider all sorts of things like department policy, how often and long you will have to carry it, what distances you will shoot, what ammo you will shoot in it, compatibility with other equipment you already use and of course your budget/reimbursement/tax write off. If you want to buy a hobby gun that other people consider a duty gun get a 16" carbine from any brand you mentioned in your first paragraph.

19

The milspec TDP is intended to be a floor, below which the DoD sees no reason to pay for weapons which will see fielding. In terms of quantities of civilian AR’s made, that floor is deemed astronomically high by companies with less than stellar QC/QA, therefore their marketing department steps in with stuff like ‘ours is better because it’s different’, instead of showing large sample size high round count testing set to low statistical P values of MRBF above a certain threshold and improved over the TDP specification.

You’re entirely misunderstanding this - Noveske are STILL the barrels and barreled uppers to have if you want the best of both worlds in precision rifles with high durability, not to mention the Gen2 lowers that are arguably the nicest out there; BCM still makes a lot of fantastic components (GF CH, Grips), as well as making very customizable uppers off solid CHF and standard barrels; DanielDefense still makes amazing rails, and have unbeatable deals on complete rifles with CHF barrels and solid rail systems, not to mention the de facto standard for rail affixed iron sights; KAC still have the SR-15, which is arguably the best complete base rifle in existence, with the Mod1 being another incremental improvement over the E3/IWS model; and Colt has always been ‘the’ standard by which the others are judged, and now that their DoD contract work isn’t taking the entire production capacity, the Sprawl-Mart sourced 6920’s are the best value in civilian AR’s out there.

It’s not that hobby guns are inadequate for firing off half a dozen mags a day on a trip to the range to have a good time - they’re perfect for that. If ran hard, then you’ll start to see the myriad of reasons why people here pay more for rifles.

20

There’s no doubt that a number of AR manufacturers use lower quality materials and do not have the quality control of others. I’m sure that there are others that are so out of spec that they barely fit anything not made by the same company. However, as it’s been pointed out, what is considered duty grade and what is considered hobby grade in a rifle, beyond what can be easily seen, seems to be open for debate. There are some who hold to milspec like the Bible: Let anyone who adds to or takes away from what is written be condemned. And there’s still another camp that sees milspec as the place to start, but looks for ways to improve upon the current designs.

I frankly don’t see anything wrong with the latter position. As long as the improvements don’t in any way compromise the rifle’s functioning and durability, and the gun is still compatible with just about every standard AR part on the market, I say why not?