Understand that the Autopsy series is just starting, and it's meant to give an overall basic armorer view of new manufacture rifles out of the box and tested for functioning. It's by no means an in-depth test of long-term durability.
The first assertion that PSA is "just as good as" is somewhat misleading. PSA does a very good job at convincing people of this, but they fail to mention certain specifics about where they cut costs and why. To make things clear, PSA does source numerous components from FN, but they're not the same components that FN is using to fill military contracts. FN is required by the TDP to use Grade 1 components for their MIL/GOV contract rifles. All components that do not meet that grading are then pushed down the line to contract buyers (like PSA). Companies can obtain the Grade 1 components, but only when available. PSA does not use the same components that BCM or Noveske do, despite those companies obtaining components from FN. The barrels are not the same, as they are built to separate specifications. For instance, PSA specs their barrels to run a wider range of ammunition, all the way down to underpowered Comm-bloc steel FMJ. BCM specs theirs to regulate and cycle milspec 5.56 loads. Noveske has a separate chamber spec that is slightly tighter than BCM. The rollmarks have nothing to do with the final product, as the machining and manufacturing that occurs to the components occurs in different locations.
The problem with saying that numerous companies are the same is very inaccurate for the same reason above. You don't need to be a professional door kicker or 3-gunner to buy a high quality rifle. The concept of buying a high-quality rifle should come down to the need to not want to have to deal with mechanical problems and chronic malfunctions.
Any rifle can fail, because a rifle is a mechanical device. The goal is to mitigate risk, not exacerbate it. We do this by using quality components to reduce the risk of failure. This is not exclusive to rifles. In car engines, forged pistons have far more strength than cast pistons. In those engines, synthetic oil far outperforms conventional oil. In optics, apochromatic glass is far superior to achromatic glass and produces far better optical quality, just as achromatic is far superior to chromatic glass. The name of the game is RISK, and how you reduce it.
Specific models do in fact reflect the quality of a company as a whole. If a company is willing to unreasonably cut corners to make one rifle, are they really worth investing in at a higher level? Case in point-
DPMS continues to sell all of their non-LE rifles with commercial receiver extensions, despite the industry standard for aftermarket buttstocks all being sized for milspec extensions. The corners that DPMS cuts on the Oracle are the same corners they cut on most of their other rifles. None of the railed gas blocks DPMS puts on their rifles are same-lane as the upper receiver. DPMS does not make a single rifle that can meet a US GOV/MIL solicitation. Further, their rifles do not meet quality requirements set by the 10 largest LE departments in their own state.
I have seen problems, or been told of problems directly by other LE armorers, in a wide array of DPMS rifles. The most common offender though is the AP4 carbine. The following are chronic problems:
-pins walking out due to poor tolerances
-tolerance stacking of components, particularly with upper and lower receivers (this is why some are really tight, and others rattle)
-extractors breaking
-springs breaking/snapping
-underpowered springs
-gas key bolts not Grade 8 fasteners
-gas key not properly staked (I've had to restake every DPMS gas key I've come across)
-chrome missing from inside of the bolt carrier
-micro fractures in bolt lugs (new bolts)
-.223rem spec chambers in more than 50% of barrels marked "5.56"
-every barrel has a gas port that is too large/over-gassed (done intentionally)
-surface annodizing flaking off
-no sign of annodizing penetrating the recommended 2mils into the metal
-improperly installed barrel nuts that push the gas tube to one side, rounding the edge of the gas tube bell creating a gas leak in the gas key over time
-chrome missing from barrels that were ordered with chrome lining
-loose castle nuts
-upper receiver picatinny rails out-of-spec and being too wide or too narrow
-poor machining/visible machining marks
-out-of-spec magwells that seat the magazine too high or too low
That doesn't include the numerous horrifying accounts of their atrocious and incompetent customer service. While the Oracle is the cheapest of the bunch, it's a sign of everything that's wrong with that company. BCM, LMT, Colt, DD, Sionics, JP, HK and other top-tier companies don't sell lower quality "bargain" models, because they don't want their names associated with that kind of activity.
Sorry to blow out the PSA bubble, but I've seen PSA components fail. I've seen junk components from them. While I think they are a decent mid-grade company, they are certainly not on par with companies who use similar components like BCM or Noveske. PSA has on several occasions become a victim of their own actions. In 2008 and 2012 most notably, they cut their QC to meet production numbers. As a result, they had numerous components put out that were out of spec. You can do a search and find internet posts of people complaining about bad components around those times. This included receivers and trigger groups. I personally saw one receiver where the trigger and hammer pin holes didn't line up from right to left. I've seen a crooked hammer and I've seen their line of MIM components that have burrs and knicks. A far cry from the quality control of the companies that they are being compared to. The best companies don't sacrifice QC.
I'm not saying that PSA doesn't care, because they do appear to want to put out a good product. It's just that if you understand where the costs add up in rifles, you will understand that a $600 PSA cannot match the quality of a $1000 BCM or $1500 DD. The profit margin on those rifles is no where near what people think they are.
I have been to numerous rifle training courses with national instructors and with LE agencies, and I've been in training with numerous agencies on local, state, federal and military level.
I have never seen a DD or BCM rifle malfunction as a result of mechanical issue. Magazine-yes. Ammo-yes. Unsifficient lube-yes. Mechanical-No. The same can be said for every HK, LaRue, Noveske, LWRC, Sionics, and other high level brands. The mechanical issues they do have are "freak occurrences" and rarely happen.
What it ultimately comes down to is percentages. What percent of rifles require repair or modification to function? When are those repairs needed in the life cycle of the rifle? Experience has taught me that the percentages drastically favor the expensive "professional face-shooter" rifles.
No, the average civilian shooter does not NEED a top tier rifle. However, should a shooter decide to stress that rifle someday in a multi-day shooting course (which many here have done), they are going to want a rifle that they can rely on. At a certain point, you have to plan ahead. It's like buying a gun safe that is 1 or 2 sizes larger than you need- it's just a good bet that someday you may want it and be upset you didn't do it.
Food for thought... Like HMAC I'm just going to be sitting back watching the butthurt roll in. I'm just throwing some gasoline on the fire.
