LWRC IAR Drop Test
I've been told that the following information is OK to release. It's pretty self explanatory. I removed the names of certain individuals, but the information is otherwise unedited.
The 1% Solution for Customer Service Issues
1% of the cost of a rifle or upper receiver assembly.
Maybe that's too much to ask. I do know that margins are pretty low in this business.
What am I talking about? I'm asking manufacturers to spend 1% of the money they make from the sale of a rifle or upper receiver assembly on ammunition with which to test fire the weapon in question. Maybe spend .5% on ammunition and .5% on an extra employee to just look at stuff before it goes out the door. Poke it. Prod it. See if stuff falls off. Make sure that the right parts were used.
Evidence of sufficient test firing on a new production Spike's Tactical upper receiver assembly.
I've seen way too many issues recently that resulted from poor or nonexistent quality control at various manufacturers. It almost seems to be escalating. Take, for example, the DSA uppers that are still shipping out with rifle barrel extensions and M4 upper receivers, six months after they were initially made aware of the issue. For those that don't know, this combination creates a large divot underneath the left and the right feed ramps in an AR-15 upper, and can cause the weapon to stop functioning. I'd post a link, but DSA deleted the thread in their industry forum. It's too bad that they didn't decide to spend more time on quality control and less time on hiding their mistakes.
It's not just cheap, low end manufacturers, though - the new LWRC REPR has a problem with magazines. Not just one or two, but all of them. A significant number of new REPRs simply will not function with the supplied magazines, Magpul mags, DPMS mags, or Knight's Armament mags. Certain magazines fall out of the rifle after a few shots are fired. Now, LWRC decided to ship the REPR with CProducts magazines, but wouldn't it also make sense to test their rifle with the other magazines on the market? By the way, this rifle lists for over $3,000.
The Bushmaster ACR is currently selling for anywhere between $2,200 and $2,500. 1% of that would be a full magazine or two (at retail prices for brass cased ammunition). However, Bushmaster apparently sees fit to fire only three to five rounds through their rifles, according to a dealer which saw a fair sample size of ACRs. This extensive test program didn't stop at least one ACR from shipping with a loose barrel.
Colt fires a full 30 round magazine through every rifle that leaves their factory. Ruger also fires 30 rounds through every SR-556 they sell, after which the rifles are inspected thoroughly before shipping. Many other manufacturers have similar test programs, and the silence is deafening - that is, we don't hear about too many problems with Bravo Company or Spike's Tactical upper receiver assemblies. In fact, I'm told that so far, only one Spike's Tactical M4 LE upper has been returned for functional issues, and those were entirely ammo related: the owner was trying to shoot gun show reloads through the rifle. It should go without saying that such ammunition is low quality, and in this case, powder charges varied wildly, preventing the weapon from functioning properly.
So, is 1% too much? That'd be 15-20 rounds or so for the average upper receiver assembly, assuming that the manufacturers got a deal on the ammunition. It's climb pretty rapidly for a $3000 rifle. Maybe it should be limited to one full magazine. So, 1% of the cost of the weapon or upper, or one full magazine, whichever costs less. I don't think it's too much to ask. It's cheaper than shipping items back and forth, paying a guy to fix all the broken/nonfunctional stuff returned for repair, and lost sales due to bad publicity.
You're welcome to spend your money where you want, but I'll keep buying items from companies that care enough to carve a portion of their profit away in order to make sure that the customer receives a working product.
Update 4/14: I examined an ACR today and it appeared to have been test fired at least 20 times. That's a definite improvement. However, it doesn't explain the loose barrel as seen above.
AR-15 Gas Block Placement
Assembling an AR-15 is a fairly easy task. Even if one starts with everything disassembled, and has never done it before, the process should take no more than an hour or two, and requires only a few basic tools, a few specialized tools that are readily available, and a vise. However, it's also fairly easy to mess up.
One of the more common modifications to an already assembled rifle is the installation of a free float tube or free floating handguard that covers the gas block area. This is also a common task when assembling a rifle from parts. However, a very important step during installation is skipped over in many of the installation instructions I've seen: gas block placement.
The AR-15 rifle was originally designed with a fixed front sight base that held a metal handguard cap against a machined "shoulder" in the barrel. Standard handguards reside behind/inside this cap. A majority of AR-15s are sold with standard handguards...however, standard handguards are not normally used with low-profile gas blocks designed to be placed under a tube or rail. Therefore, when Joe Rifleowner removes the standard front sight base, handguard cap, etc to install his new free floating handguard, he tends to forget about that handguard cap, and slides the gas block along the barrel until it's against the shoulder in the barrel.
The only problem is, the majority of low profile gas blocks are manufactured in a way that allows them to be used with handguard caps, and sliding the gas block against the shoulder means that the gas port isn't properly lined up with the gas block, which holes the gas tube, which allows the weapon to function properly.
As a result, it's important to place the gas block about 1/16" from the shoulder on the barrel - give or take. The port in the gas block is oversized, leaving some room for error, but I can't count the number of rifles I've encountered that didn't function as a result of improper gas block placement. See the photos below for shots of proper gas block placement...
It's difficult to see due to the angle, but note that the gas block is not sitting against the shoulder on the barrel.
This gas block may actually be placed a little too far forward, but the gas port in the barrel is still "inside" the port in the gas block.
If you've been having "short stroking" issues after assembly of a rifle with a new gas block, you should definitely check gas block placement as a potential culprit.
Bravo Company 14.5" Midlength Accuracy Report
Just a brief note... I don't have a large number of groups shot through it yet, but from the bench using handloads, I was able to fire a number of 1.5-2MOA groups with the BCM 14.5" Midlength. Those groups were 10 shots at 100 yards.
The smallest was 1.46" (that was actually 12 shots because I apparently can't count) and the largest was 1.88". The load consisted of 73gr Berger HPBTs over Hodgdon Varget. I used a 10x Bushnell scope for those groups. For a more practical accuracy test, I was able to keep everything on a 6" plate at 100 yards, standing unsupported, using a Burris XTR-14. If you're more of a 3 shot group type of person, I don't think there was a single 3 shot group over 1". And most of the 5 shot groups were under or around 1", if that's your bag.
I'm now at just over 650 rounds through this upper - mostly cheap Brown Bear - and have yet to encounter any malfunctions.
PSA: Don’t Be an Idiot!
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words...
Here are two cases I found at the range last week.
On the left is a properly fired 7.62x54R case. On the right is a 7.62x54R case that was fired in a rifle which was decidedly NOT chambered in 7.62x54R! It should go without saying that this is dangerous and can end badly. If you feel resistance when chambering a cartridge, do yourself a favor and check out the round before you try to fire it. If you don't believe me, watch as this guy - who clearly had ZERO experience with the AR-15 platform - manages to blow up his rifle due largely to his own incompetence. Now, that case didn't involve an improper caliber, to my knowledge, but it still serves to drive home the point that forcing a round into the chamber is likely to have negative results.
Update with another photo. I was thinking that it was .303 due to the new fireformed rounded shoulder, but I had to dig out some brass to check.
