gods jon, if your going to quote him you could have at lease threw in some carriage returns to make some paragraphs for the rest of us.
One could also point out, that just because a company "can" make something to millspec, and has sold to the Gov't or other agencies under contract to meet millspec, does not mean that the same product is what they are releasing to the public. My faith in corporate, especially the big ones, is low and I question everything.
I will trust a small company that has built a reputation for top notch products and stand behind them 100% before the mega-corps that their first step in warranty is deny all claims.
Listen to everyone. Make your decisions based on the information you get, and your needs. If it weren't for people like jonconsiglio, I would have ended up with a sub par rifle, that realistically would have been just fine for all I am probably going to be able to shoot it for the next few years, but I know I wanted top notch, reliable, and quality. I blew my budget by $800 and counting (and I had a HUGE budget to begin with considering I wanted complete, no adding to it as I go along - damn accessories will kill ya). I will have what I hope a seasoned combat operator would gladly take into the field. That will be more than good enough for me.
In the guys defense, for some reason when I've been posting lately, all of my text ends up in one paragraph and I have to edit to separate them again. Maybe that's what happened to him.
Oh, as for Bushmaster supplying M4's during the Gulf War.... This is when they built better quality rifles and surely they built them to the military's spec.... All 65 of them and they were not issued to frontline troops. There was a lawsuit that followed by Colt.
What about my $20k 350whp Evo vs. a $70k 911? My Evo may not be quite as well made as far as fit and finish, but it'll out perform a 911 all day long :) that's the truth. Don't get me started with cars :)
Originally Posted by jonconsiglio
My lug nuts take more torque than your car makes. :biggrin:
Originally Posted by RKM
Radically different comparison. Besides, the Germans make more money in labor than the Asians - ergo, higher end cost.
Now, if you were to compare BCM to Colt, then you would have something. There is better QC in a small company than in a large assembly line manufacturing to start with.
When you (not you personally - a person in general) start talking about pulling a component from a batch/lot, and it passes, it does not mean that the entire batch is good to go. If you dip a 50 gallon drum into a lake and there are no fish in it, does that mean the entire lake has no fish?
Large manufacturers have production schedules that they have to meet. The QC just is not there regardless if it's 100 people assembling and entire rifle each, or just components and sending it down the line. It's all about production. Any flaws have to be blatantly obvious. And it would not surprise me in the least that a batch destined for a contract sale that failed, may be rejected for the contract, but will still get used and sent out to the private sector. They are banking on the fact that the average consumer is not going to use the product anywhere near what the contract buyer will.
The small companies can not afford to send junk out the door. PSA experienced that one already, and are still healing from that little boo boo, and they will be for a very, very long time. The problem was found, isolated, and the people responsible are working elsewhere. PSA stepped up and are doing everything they can to correct the problem with the ones that hit the consumer, but the word spread out like wildfire. Damage done.
IMO, Cummins diesels are one of the top engines in their field, yet there was an entire series of 5.9l blocks that were prone to cracking. Something happened in the casting mold that was obvious to anyone who looked at it (you could see the crankshaft centerline was not true with the block), yet thousands of them still went out the door. It's all about production, and the corp-rats sitting in their emerald offices are more concerned with the bottom line than what hits the street.
Well then, that would be more like BCM vs Knight's Armament. ;)
Originally Posted by RKM
EDIT - What the heck are you doing up Sticks?!
I am up because I am still dealing with the same sleep disorder for the last 8 years. 15mg of Diazepam every night at 7:45, in bed by 8:00 nets me a whopping 5 hours of sleep, then if I am lucky, a series of 45 minute naps after that until I give up and get up at 3:00. Sucks to be me.
That sucks man. I usually get about 5 to 6 hours a night. Last night I got about 2, then fell asleep on the couch downstairs for 2 more.
Originally Posted by Sticks
Have a great Christmas guys.
Let me preface this by stating I am fully aware of the fact that I do not have a fraction of the knowledge experience and know how of AR's that you do. But my understanding is that is not wholly accurate. The M16 and M4 are built using Coltís Technical Data Package (TDP) which is a complex combination of know-how, proprietary techniques, fixtures and proprietary information that Colt developed over decades of production. Even FN, their competitor, is required by contract to use Coltís TDP.
Originally Posted by OPFOR
There was a law suit awhile back when FN started making Mil Spec AR's for the military. As Colts proprietary patented processes (TDP) were inadvertently revealed to FN when FN was provided Mil Spec requirements. The result is that FN now builds its military spec AR's under license from Colt paying a fee for every military rifle it builds and may not use Colts TDP to build its civilian guns. Nor reveal what that the TDP is to anyone.
Nor do I think that the value of inspections should be minimized. MilSpec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials, even how those materials are made, to the treatment of those materials. The dimensions, wear and durability, accuracy, service life every minute detail is tested to assure that it meets military specifications.
testing is no small part of Mil Spec. Out of a lot or batch of a thousand or more if any one of those component fails to pass the standard. The entire lot is rejected, not just the single defective component. After passing inspection those components are assembled into parts. Again if any single part fails to meet the standard the entire lot and all the components used to make the parts are rejected. When the parts are assembled into complete rifles. If any one fails the entire lot and all the parts and components are rejected never to see the the inside of a Mil Spec gun. That is a pretty high standard. At any juncture thousands of components, parts or complete rifles are subject to rejection. That has to mean a huge overhead and I suspect that many of the parts and components that fail Mil Spec make it into civilian rifles.
That said I do not think that Mil Spec means that they are the finest most accurate or durable AR made. It simply means that every AR delivered to the military is exactly the same as the one next to it.
Military Standard for accuracy is a 5-inch group with iron sights at 100 yards
The Military Standard for endurance is only 6,000 rounds (200 30-round magazines).
Many of us shoot better than that and expect our rifles to perform at least as well as we do, if not better. With a 6,000 round count. Many of our ARs would be retiring after a couple of weekend classes that often require a 2,000 round count to complete the class. Now I am sure that there are more than a few of you who have used military issue rifles that shot better and lasted longer than that.
Just saying that is what the standard is. So that Mil Spec is not necessarily the be all, end all standard for civilian rifles. In my opinion a better way to compare the quality of an AR is to use an Objective testing Standard as used by
rob_s from TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET using his Explanation of Desirable Features in Commercial M4 Pattern Carbine Chart
and than compare that to his chart of manufactures that offer those features in their AR's Commercial M4 Manufacturer Comparison Chart
Originally Posted by LongRider
Right there. I would reeeeaaaallly like to know where those rejects end up. Sold to another Manf. Put out on the civilian market since they failed the contract requirements. I highly doubt that they melt down the failures or send to the scrap yard.
That would be my bet as well. I suppose the reasoning would be if a part turns up defective in a civilian rifle, as a rule, no one dies as a result. We just turn it in for a replacement. That SOP does not really make much sense to me, just because a test part is defective does not mean the whole lot is bad. But I have been told that military SOP is not required to make sense.
Originally Posted by Sticks
For all I know my sub standard POS Bushmaster that I paid way to much for is made up entirely of Mil Spec reject parts sub contracted from Colt. Which is OK by me. It has wasted every paper BG I have shot with it, without a malfunction, yet. If I needed it to defend against a home invasion my bet is that it will do its job just fine. Although honestly if the rifle's primary purpose was to stop bad people who were trying to harm me with weapons I'd prefer something that would put huge honkin holes in them to stop them dead in their tracks (pun intended) like a .308
the bushmaster issues can be easily fixed with money.....
change the buffer to an h buffer
change the entire BCG to a properly MPI'ed BCG with proper extractor springs and use the highly explosive stock one as a spare
change out the non f stamped front site base front site post to a higher one so it will properly cowitness with optics
properly torque the barrel nut
properly torque and stake the castle nut
buy Ned C's 5.56 chamber gauge and if it is out of spec, which 99% of the time it will be, buy his chamber reamer and fix it....
This is bushmaster: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=13532
Or just buy a Bravo Company or Colt for 200 dollars more...... and get it done right
After you spend the money getting the Bushmaster up to speed with other rifles, you've likely already surpassed the price of a basic BCM or Colt. BCG's are upto $150 (complete), H buffer is $20, Front "F" sight is $30, staking the receiver extension and torque the barrel nut is free, assuming you have the tools. Not sure what a reamer gauge costs. That's already $200, plus the added effort of installing those parts (though all that stuff is simple). If you already HAVE a Bushmaster, fine. But it'd be stupid to knowingly buy a Bushmaster knowing it needs that work to even be able to compare to better rifles.
Originally Posted by azchevy
I had to put an H buffer in my M&P. Well, I didn't HAVE to, the rifle functioned fine the way I shoot it, but I did notice it's smoother, along with a full-auto BCG. M&P's already have a "F" stamped front sight. Never measured myself, but I've researched about the chambers and they are true 5.56 chambers. I've shot plenty of 5.56 with no problems, so I'm not sure if that says anything or not.
If I could do it over again, I wouldn't buy an M&P15. I'm not saying I hate my rifle. I love it actually, I don't want to get rid of it, I probably never will. I DO NOT regret buying it, but I'll admit, I think I could have done better for the amount of money I spent. It's a great rifle, but knowing what I know now, it's not quite on par with the better brands, but with the little work I did, it's close. I don't run my rifle hard enough, and even if I did, I think it would do ok. For the record, I'm not trying to defend my purchase... ;)