re: Bravo Company Vs. building my own

Boatless,

I finished my first build of an AR platform about a month ago or so, have been familiar with shooting it for years but this was the first time building one. I ended up spending $150-200 more on my budget than what I had originally wanted, but I ended up getting some nice tools and additional gunsmithing parts that I could use on other things in the future (so I consider the overbudget worth it)

I took it to the range for the first time yesterday to sight in my red dot and backup sights. I only put about 80 rounds through it in an hour but I must admit it's the most fun I've had shooting a rifle in a long time. It was extremely satisfying to be able to put the time/effort/work/money that I spent into action and see it function like a well oiled machine.

I am 100% satisfied with the choice to build my own, I got all the things in it that I wanted exactly. That feeling I had at the range yesterday wouldn't have been the same had I purchased one fully assembled. Either way, enjoy the new rifle!

The main purpose of a brake is to mitigate recoil. On a 5.56 carbine, since the recoil is mild at best, I think you are better served with a compensator to combat muzzle rise or flash hider to reduce the flash in low light settings to allow for better follow up shots. In CQB settings, home to the carbine and SBRs, a brake could be more disorienting to you or your "squad" than an alternative muzzle device. Honestly, the plain Jane A2 birdcage muzzle device is a pretty darn good flash hider and compensator combo, and its cheap.

These are pretty good too :

BCM.




ETA: Or go with Prop. His stuff is quality. He handled the transfer on the BCM above.

Also, whats yall's opinion on forward assist? thought about getting the upper without it, seems unnecessary.

quote:

---

Quick and cheap are irrelevant talking points that are irrelevant to metallurgy.

---

I was just describing the process not discounting it.

quote:

---

Nothing is ever really equal, is it? There are far less sources for CHF barrels and the process is largely fool proof, so one could say that if you aren't sure about a barrel manuf, you're less likely to get a poorly made chf barrel than cut rifling since you can narrow the source of the chf barrel to a few sources (in that case, most likely FN which makes great barrels).

---

I would bet there are fewer people single point cutting rifling than using the CHF process. Maybe you meant button rifled. No manufacturing process is fool proof. Also, not all CHF barrels are created the same way. For instance, some use CHF tubes and cut the chambers on lathes while others CHF with the chamber. But again, I am no necessarily dogging CHF barrels, I just have not seen any actual evidence to back up the claims it is worth it over a button barrel. You claim they are more accurate over time with temperature increases because they are more dense?? Can you even provide evidence of this or at the bare minimum quantify what "more accurate" translates to. Are we talking .001", 1", 3"? At what distance? What ammo? Did you just regurgitate what you read somewhere?

quote:

---

Those are tests, which are designed to catch defects, not make anything better.

We're clearly not speaking the same language, so I'm no doubt wasting my time. Have a good one.

---

Those are legacy test Colt got contractually stuck with when modern metallurgy was in its infancy, which were then transferred over to the M4. The biggest problem in bolt production that leads to premature failures, because all bolts will fail over time, is improper heat treatment. Poorly heat treated bolts are often over hardened at the cam pin hole and lugs due to the thinness of the material here. The bolt needs to retain a certain amount of "core softness", for lack of a better term, to it after the hardening process. The MPI test is not going to show you a poorly heat treated bolt or barrel. Furthermore, from what I understand talking to manufacturers, when quality certified materials are used bolts do not fail MPI test. HPT is even more asinine because it literally tells you nothing. You fire one 70,000 PSI round through the barrel and it survives. What did you learn?? That it was capable of surviving one 70,000 PSI round. The barrel can only survive a finite amount of proof test before it fails. So, what if the number of proof test it can survive is only 1. Well you just wasted it. Or it could be 1,000, but there's no test that will show you that without destroying it. Once upon a time the test did have a place, but once the concept was proven and metallurgy reached it's present state the need for continual testing of each one becomes a waste of resources. That's almost the equivalent of asking a car manufacturer to crash every car it makes to make sure its safe. Once you've proven the concept move on to more important things. For instance, I guarantee exponentially more bolts fail dimensional testing than fail MPI assuming they are machined from certified materials C158 or 9310 steel from a reputable source. But if you are wasting all of your money on MPI/HPT that leave less QC budget to dimensionally test each one. Most importantly of all, where is the epidemic of barrel failures since the vast majority are not HPT/MPI? The lack of failures in the field from barrels both tested and not seriously begs the question, why is it done?

Does HK, KAC, Glock, Beretta, Remington, etc. HPT/MPI their military arms? I'm honestly asking because I do not know and have never heard anyone mention it like they do around the AR15/M16 platform. If the military requires it of the M4 for reason they believe to be essential, then could the logic be applied if it was important enough for the M4 it should be applied to all? Or is it a legacy test that is pretty much a waste of time at this point?

However, having said that all of my bolts are MPI because the consumers demand it.