Reputable (Mil-Spec Or Better) Manufacturer vs. Home Build AR-15

[Jared]

A few years ago I went DEEP down this rabbit hole and built several ARs, all for my own use. Every single one of the functioned just fine, and I never had a stoppages with any of them. I did use DD and BCM BCG's and the like. So j used good parts and took the time to build them right.

Then I got to looking at all these rifles that were barely getting shot at all and slowly I started selling them off. Again, good rifles, but I just wasn't getting a lot of use out of them. I had fun and learned a lot and all that, but now my 2 ARs are a 6920 and a 6520 that I put a flat top upper on (this was pre 6720 days).

If I wanted to "build" again, I'd likely just find a lower I liked, order it, and an upper I liked, order it and push the two pins together. As much fun as I had, I was never able to build anything that really did anything better than a factory rifle, and the home brews had a good bit less re-sale value.

[schüler]

Really? There's a whole thread on building home defense shotguns on this board, does the same rule apply there?

Should we expand this to cover other aspects of "home build"? I also build my own bikes from bare frames, do I need to be able to articulate and demonstrate the dimensional conformity of the bearings in the sealed bearing headset or just accept when the manufacturer says it's a 1.125" internal headset and assume when the headset installs correctly and moves smoothly that it's GTG and I can move onto the other aspects of the build?

With ARs we have a well-defined standard. Beyond that we have a handful of manufacturers that stake a well-earned reputation - and in many cases end user's lives - on design and tolerances.

Everything else is as you alluded to with bikes, ARs and shotguns. A personal assembly for whatever reasons that risks only your application of life, limb and liability.

"Would you rather have a factory private planes flying over your home or your neighbors' homebuilt planes?" - loose paraphrase of comment by someone else

[rob_s]

Reliable/adjustable gas blocks, gas port sizing, barrel material and profile, accurizing procedures, bolt carriers, buffers/springs, etc. The legitimate optimization outside a standard 'mil spec' offering or TDP.

minutiae, bullshit, incremental improvement at best, all in the face of the real issues which are (a) the entire pursuit is an exercise in fantasy fulfillment and (b) even if you actually have a practical application of the carbine the items you list pale in terms of improvement when measured against training and practice.

[rob_s]

Mine have always been about doing it myself for the fun of it.

Then the fact that you can admit that puts you in the <1% of AR owners.

[schüler]

minutiae, bullshit, incremental improvement at best, all in the face of the real issues which are (a) the entire pursuit is an exercise in fantasy fulfillment and (b) even if you actually have a practical application of the carbine the items you list pale in terms of improvement when measured against training and practice.

Not when it has a critical effect on function and performance. Precision (especially AR10 size) or suppressed, for example.

Have a nice day.

[NH Shooter]

Considering I can buy a complete factory lower from BCM, and a complete BCM upper in just about any configuration, this to me seems a good way to roll: a complete rifle from a reputable manufacturer with the ability to configure it to my liking.

After decades of trying many different configurations, sights, optics, etc. my one and only AR is a "lightweight KISS" made up of a BCM carbine lower and a BCM 16" BFH ELW mid length upper. On the lower I changed the carbine buffer assembly to an A5 assembly (photos below show BCM stock fully collapsed), the standard safety for a BCM Ambidextrous and installed a Geissele SSA trigger. On the upper I experiment with different muzzle devices, currently a SF 3-prong flash suppressor and in keeping with the lightweight KISS theme, I run a set of DD fixed sights and no optics.

The only other accessories used are a VLTOR mount to hold a Malkoff M61T MD2 light (easily detachable for hand held use, or to swap for a different light), a Troy Industries sling adapter and a BFG Vickers sling. If I do my part the rifle will hold 1.5 MOA or better with Speer Gold Dot 75 LE ammo.

This was certainly not the least expensive route to a "quality name brand AR" but I ended up with one that is configured to my liking and has thus far fully met my quality/reliability expectations.

[BWT]

Considering I can buy a complete factory lower from BCM, and a complete BCM upper in just about any configuration, this to me seems a good way to roll: a complete rifle from a reputable manufacturer with the ability to configure it to my liking.

After decades of trying many different configurations, sights, optics, etc. my one and only AR is a "lightweight KISS" made up of a BCM carbine lower and a BCM 16" BFH ELW mid length upper. On the lower I changed the carbine buffer assembly to an A5 assembly (photos below show BCM stock fully collapsed), the standard safety for a BCM Ambidextrous and installed a Geissele SSA trigger. On the upper I experiment with different muzzle devices, currently a SF 3-prong flash suppressor and in keeping with the lightweight KISS theme, I run a set of DD fixed sights and no optics.

The only other accessories used are a VLTOR mount to hold a Malkoff M61T MD2 light (easily detachable for hand held use, or to swap for a different light), a Troy Industries sling adapter and a BFG Vickers sling. If I do my part the rifle will hold 1.5 MOA or better with Speer Gold Dot 75 LE ammo.

This was certainly not the least expensive route to a "quality name brand AR" but I ended up with one that is configured to my liking and has thus far fully met my quality/reliability expectations.

I'd agree with him and I've posted similar things like this.

I've "built" two AR's this way.

Bought complete lowers from BCM (and one from Sionics); I bought the appropriate complete upper and that was that.

In fact, I've only bought one factory rifle (three that are all BCM Uppers, Lowers, and parts) and that was an SBR.

Also, with buying tools; are you saving money?

Also, the only way you can find out if you assembled it right is to thoroughly test it. But then did you test it enough?

To me, Unobtanium's relationship with Jim Hodge probably means a lot of money spent. Either the military or taking classes that built relationships that led to buying the right parts.

So, all things considered unless you just want to build it; for fun which is legitimate. I'd buy; it really is cheaper.

God Bless,

Brandon

[mtnbkr]

I'd agree with him and I've posted similar things like this.
Also, the only way you can find out if you assembled it right is to thoroughly test it. But then did you test it enough?

Is there ever a satisfactory answer to this? Guns are wear items. They might work flawlessly up to round 4999 and start failing on round 5000. Round 5000 could be intended for a paper target or the bad guy coming through your window. At some point, we have to take it as a matter of faith that we or the manufacturer or both have fully vetted the weapon.

Years ago, I bought a Kahr K9 from a friend. This was one of the early "tight" ones that needed a lengthy break-in to be reliable (the ones that some people seek out today). He had broken the gun in, I had shot it many times myself. It was reliable. Before buying it, I took it to the range with several boxes of ammo (this was back when WWB was $10/100), ball and HP, and gave it a good work out. No issues. I bought the gun. Some time later, it started jamming hard on HP ammo. I couldn't diagnose the issue, so it went back to Kahr. The fiddled with the gun and sent it back. Ball ammo was fine, but HP would jam. All summer we did this with Kahr replacing various parts and even the barrel. Finally, they replaced the gun, which I sold unfired. Any reasonable testing metric would have deemed that gun reliable at the point I purchased it, not to mention the period post-purchase up to the point it started malfunctioning.

I'd agree with him and I've posted similar things like this.
Also, with buying tools; are you saving money?

Saving money isn't the only goal. If you're seeking knowledge, if you want to understand how the machine works, then the cost of the tools is largely irrelevant. I teach myself how to do a number of things that won't save me money, but will expand my knowledge. Not just guns, but a variety of realms.

Chris

[BWT]

Is there ever a satisfactory answer to this? Guns are wear items. They might work flawlessly up to round 4999 and start failing on round 5000. Round 5000 could be intended for a paper target or the bad guy coming through your window. At some point, we have to take it as a matter of faith that we or the manufacturer or both have fully vetted the weapon.

Years ago, I bought a Kahr K9 from a friend. This was one of the early "tight" ones that needed a lengthy break-in to be reliable (the ones that some people seek out today). He had broken the gun in, I had shot it many times myself. It was reliable. Before buying it, I took it to the range with several boxes of ammo (this was back when WWB was $10/100), ball and HP, and gave it a good work out. No issues. I bought the gun. Some time later, it started jamming hard on HP ammo. I couldn't diagnose the issue, so it went back to Kahr. The fiddled with the gun and sent it back. Ball ammo was fine, but HP would jam. All summer we did this with Kahr replacing various parts and even the barrel. Finally, they replaced the gun, which I sold unfired. Any reasonable testing metric would have deemed that gun reliable at the point I purchased it, not to mention the period post-purchase up to the point it started malfunctioning.


Saving money isn't the only goal. If you're seeking knowledge, if you want to understand how the machine works, then the cost of the tools is largely irrelevant. I teach myself how to do a number of things that won't save me money, but will expand my knowledge. Not just guns, but a variety of realms.

Chris

I understand and appreciate your desire to learn more about AR's but I guess my concern with average joe is that they may assemble a weapon like an AR-15 with a number of different motives. I think that AR's are awesome and I'd love to build my own or atleast know how to but, I'd say for 90-95% of the population assembling an AR15's. I don't think they will be as thoroughly made as a BCM, Colt, LMT, or DD. I say that with the OP in mind.

Now, I also get what you're saying about reliability and will a device always be durable? There's only one way to be fairly sure in my estimation and that's by looking at the products of a company and their track record. An individual doesn't have a QC department and they usually haven't gone through the hard fought and earned lessons associated with manufacturing a weapon on large scale.

When one of us has an issue with an AR-15; what do we do typically? We go to the internet, post a thread, whatever. However, when someone at (enter reputable brand) gets an issue; they usually have a good idea because it's what they assemble for a living.

We rely on the input of others for our education and experience. Basically, in that case your knowledge is as good as the peer group you surround yourself with and if they can interpret the data that you've given them (who knows if it's the right data to begin with).

So, to me the home build pretty much with a few exceptions; doesn't compare to a Mil-Spec or Better AR because they don't have the experience, training, financial liability, legal liability, etc. to compete with the top tier manufacturers.

I think there's value in having the skillset yourself, and I'd like to learn it. But if you're asking me if I'm going to trust a BCG, Upper and Lower I put together before I go walk into a shooting or need to depend on for the lifecycle of the weapon or buy a factory built BCM?

I guess I own several BCM's and I haven't built my own; that says it all really.

I'm not knocking you by stating this or anyone with interest but when the word "versus" comes into the matter; there's a clear winner.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Unobtanium]

Ultimately what things come down to is that I trust my qa and qc more than most manufacturers. Considering the amount of gear I have to send to companies like surefire, leupold, noveske , etc, for repair or replacement, given the very small amount I buy...I'm justified.


Noveske sbr failure to function, out of tolerance lower.
Surefire, multiple cans with clearance issues, potentially mounts as well, they wanted all of it.
Leupold, crap on the lenses
Kahles, undersized tube
Benelli, crooked front sight

Please consider, this is one customer, me, with a limited budget. I'd absolutely take a header off a bridge if I had to actually maintain 100+ tools for a department etc. and probably wish I could just build them myself. I know companies that source from places this thread espouses trust in....their reject rate is staggering. I will continue on my path until something I do has a problem. It hasnt so far. Can't say that about oem.