
Originally Posted by
ray1970
I agree. Sort of.
It's just difficult for the average Joe (myself included) to know what is or isn't as good or better than mil spec. Especially when it comes to some of the metals used. Keep in mind the materials that were specified to be used haven't changed since then 1960's or 70's. Does that mean there aren't materials today that would work equally as well or better than the originals? I doubt it. In fact, I would bet there are much better suited materials these days for items like bolts, barrels, etc. I even believe several very prominent manufacturers use some non spec materials in some of their parts as an improvement over the originals.
Also, if we were all honest about things, the majority of us aren't deployed in some sort of combat situation and likely never will be. And if we were, the government would see fit to issue us a genuine, mil-spec model. My guess is that any properly assembled rifle using decent materials and reasonable quality control will probably serve a person well.
Maybe that DPMS or whatever won't make it to 30,000 rounds without some sort of failure. I guess if you had $12,000 or so to spend on ammo you could see how that $500 rifle holds up. Of course, if you had that kind of money to spend on ammo you might just buy a nicer rifle to begin with.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk