From the previous 'AR-15 Differance' thread
From the previous 'AR-15 Differance' thread
https://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=466966
quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
Most any mil-spec rifle you get "off the shelf" in an AR is going to work well for you, if you choose the right configuration. I noted you want one built like an M4. First, to get the short of a barrel you to have a short barrel rifle stamp, $200. So go the extra 1 1/2" and get a barrel that is 16". Why do you want such a short rifle? Do you want, as quickmajik asked, an A-frame front sight? Do you want a low profile gas block instead? Maybe one with a picatinny on it so you can put a flip-up front sight? or a tri/quad rail where you can mount a flashlight or laser. In short there are a load of options including some good new calibers in the AR. You need to ask yourself what you want it to do for you.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
You're feeding a common misconception that there are numerous makers of milspec AR's. The term 'milspec' refers to any US military issue item that's been manufactured in accordance with an extensive, detailed technical data package that's developed by the manufacturer as part of the approval process for US military acceptance. This TDP covers every aspect of manufacturing each component of the weapon to insure every unit which is received into our military's inventory is of the exact same quality. Every part, pin and spring of a true milspec firearm has been manufactured in accordance with stringent standards which are insured by DoD inspectors assigned to monitor production.
Pfft, 'misconception', what misconception, the one that Colt thinks that they are the only ones that can build an AR15, hmm, what about the 'MilSpec' Colt AR15 failures abroad that they don't want the public to know about.
'approval process for US military acceptance',
Yeah okay I am not too awfully impressed especially since the AKM can run rings around the Colt in terms of reliability and that is what is primarily shooting at the guys carrying the Colt.
'manufactured in accordance with stringent standards which are insured by DoD inspectors assigned to monitor production'
OMG that is just NOT assuring at all especially when joined with the 'hammer head' lowest bidder types and the gov contracts that are awarded to some of these morons, amazing that we are supposed to just trust the gov to do the right thing and award contracts, yeah right.
Hate to burst the 'MilSpec' bs bubble (kind of like the invisible AK47 300 meter invisible barrier) but it is one of the most overrated words used concerning AR15 type rifles ever seen and today its more of a 'marketing hype bull' word than anything else and wielded by Colt and other gov contract holders to fend off any other manufacturers that might undermine what Colt believes is their own personal exclusive right to the gov contracts to produce something that they didn't even design. MilSpec also includes `full auto/tri burst' and since there isn't too much use for a lot of these features as well as several other specifications for their `MilSpec' standard and since Colt holds the gov contracts there is no need to implement those specifications which doesn't make a `battle field ready weapon' anyway just ask the Russians, Chinese, Yugoslavs, Iranians, North Koreans, Vietnamese etc about the invisible 'MilSpec' standard from Colt being that they don't follow the `MilSpec' standard and yet their weapons are reliable, accurate and durable and definitely battle worthy and proven to say the very least.
As a matter of fact for the most part several AR15 type rifles actually meet or exceed the DOD `MilSpec' standard contrary to popular belief and can keep up with and perhaps out gun Colt and which is why Colt and other gov contract holders have such an aggressive stance against the other manufacturers. Smith & Wesson is one manufacturer that actually can outgun them and with a superior product and if they could get the gov contract would produce a fine 'fight to the death' military weapon, period. However there is a myriad of evidence available attesting to the quality, accuracy and durability of the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and apparently the Colt brown nosers know this as well and is why they bad mouth anything that is non-Colt.
What you don't get to hear enough about are why the lucrative gov contracts are being awarded to the certain literal 'lowest bidders' some of which are not competent or qualified to make a sandwich much less our military's armaments kind of like some of the idiots that they hire for exec protection. You think Colt is perfect no product problems, jams, ftf, fte, blow ups, think again, you think Colt is without corruption okay sure they are and that is why they have held the gov contract for sooo long...think about it...
Why do you think that their so called 'MilSpec' directives are not available to anyone else to examine besides the gov or that Colt believes that anyone else that makes an AR15 has reverse engineered their product from Colt, sounds to me like another MaBell or Microsoft just trying to corner the market and eliminate any competition. Colt is simply just another AR15 type manufacturer from a design that's not even theirs, but from Eugene Stoners design, along with the scandals involved with that and who now charges the public an exorbitant rate for the their little pony product, that's all. Other than that I agree that Colt does make a decent AR15 and so does S&W, DPMS, RRA as well as a few others.
https://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=466966
quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
Most any mil-spec rifle you get "off the shelf" in an AR is going to work well for you, if you choose the right configuration. I noted you want one built like an M4. First, to get the short of a barrel you to have a short barrel rifle stamp, $200. So go the extra 1 1/2" and get a barrel that is 16". Why do you want such a short rifle? Do you want, as quickmajik asked, an A-frame front sight? Do you want a low profile gas block instead? Maybe one with a picatinny on it so you can put a flip-up front sight? or a tri/quad rail where you can mount a flashlight or laser. In short there are a load of options including some good new calibers in the AR. You need to ask yourself what you want it to do for you.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
You're feeding a common misconception that there are numerous makers of milspec AR's. The term 'milspec' refers to any US military issue item that's been manufactured in accordance with an extensive, detailed technical data package that's developed by the manufacturer as part of the approval process for US military acceptance. This TDP covers every aspect of manufacturing each component of the weapon to insure every unit which is received into our military's inventory is of the exact same quality. Every part, pin and spring of a true milspec firearm has been manufactured in accordance with stringent standards which are insured by DoD inspectors assigned to monitor production.
Pfft, 'misconception', what misconception, the one that Colt thinks that they are the only ones that can build an AR15, hmm, what about the 'MilSpec' Colt AR15 failures abroad that they don't want the public to know about.
'approval process for US military acceptance',
Yeah okay I am not too awfully impressed especially since the AKM can run rings around the Colt in terms of reliability and that is what is primarily shooting at the guys carrying the Colt.
'manufactured in accordance with stringent standards which are insured by DoD inspectors assigned to monitor production'
OMG that is just NOT assuring at all especially when joined with the 'hammer head' lowest bidder types and the gov contracts that are awarded to some of these morons, amazing that we are supposed to just trust the gov to do the right thing and award contracts, yeah right.
Hate to burst the 'MilSpec' bs bubble (kind of like the invisible AK47 300 meter invisible barrier) but it is one of the most overrated words used concerning AR15 type rifles ever seen and today its more of a 'marketing hype bull' word than anything else and wielded by Colt and other gov contract holders to fend off any other manufacturers that might undermine what Colt believes is their own personal exclusive right to the gov contracts to produce something that they didn't even design. MilSpec also includes `full auto/tri burst' and since there isn't too much use for a lot of these features as well as several other specifications for their `MilSpec' standard and since Colt holds the gov contracts there is no need to implement those specifications which doesn't make a `battle field ready weapon' anyway just ask the Russians, Chinese, Yugoslavs, Iranians, North Koreans, Vietnamese etc about the invisible 'MilSpec' standard from Colt being that they don't follow the `MilSpec' standard and yet their weapons are reliable, accurate and durable and definitely battle worthy and proven to say the very least.
As a matter of fact for the most part several AR15 type rifles actually meet or exceed the DOD `MilSpec' standard contrary to popular belief and can keep up with and perhaps out gun Colt and which is why Colt and other gov contract holders have such an aggressive stance against the other manufacturers. Smith & Wesson is one manufacturer that actually can outgun them and with a superior product and if they could get the gov contract would produce a fine 'fight to the death' military weapon, period. However there is a myriad of evidence available attesting to the quality, accuracy and durability of the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and apparently the Colt brown nosers know this as well and is why they bad mouth anything that is non-Colt.
What you don't get to hear enough about are why the lucrative gov contracts are being awarded to the certain literal 'lowest bidders' some of which are not competent or qualified to make a sandwich much less our military's armaments kind of like some of the idiots that they hire for exec protection. You think Colt is perfect no product problems, jams, ftf, fte, blow ups, think again, you think Colt is without corruption okay sure they are and that is why they have held the gov contract for sooo long...think about it...
Why do you think that their so called 'MilSpec' directives are not available to anyone else to examine besides the gov or that Colt believes that anyone else that makes an AR15 has reverse engineered their product from Colt, sounds to me like another MaBell or Microsoft just trying to corner the market and eliminate any competition. Colt is simply just another AR15 type manufacturer from a design that's not even theirs, but from Eugene Stoners design, along with the scandals involved with that and who now charges the public an exorbitant rate for the their little pony product, that's all. Other than that I agree that Colt does make a decent AR15 and so does S&W, DPMS, RRA as well as a few others.
0
-
You should read this thread [:D]
{Elsewhere}0 -
What about it, looks like the same old only Colt rhetoric simply because they have had the gov contracts for decades, nothing new there.
If the quality non-Colt AR15 type manufacturers were really bad with failures and 'sub-Colt' than they would have gone out of business long ago.
I stand beside those that don't buy into the 'one brand fits all' and 'no one else can make our stolen AR15 design but Colt' nonsense, while they are good as I own both Smith & Wesson and Colt they are no better than some of the quality non-Colt AR15 types, period.
All of the non-Colt AR15 propaganda is just that nothing more, just like anything else and sooo many people buy into it.0 -
Txs,
As you may have guessed I'm not all that impressed with Colt. They didn't develop the rifle, they stole it through political wrangling. I can't believe you just took Armalites work and gave credit to Colt.
Colt hasn't really done anything for the rifle except use it as a milk cow. What a good one it's been for them.
As far as Mil-spec goes, the standards are now available to many and they can build them if they want. I can't say how many royalties, and from whom, Colt gets, but it's obviously a bunch.
FWIW, I'd take a number of "other" makers and their options over Colt if I wanted an AR. That is, unless I wanted a "collector" piece. Then Colts only advantage comes in and that is name recognition for marketability purposes.0 -
MILSPEC is more than the auto FCG on the M-16's. I had a General Motors M-16, and the parts were to the exacting specification set by the TDP.
Really don't matter who the low bidder is. If they want to keep the contract, they have to abide by the TDP. Down to every last screw, and spring. Every single part is covered by the TDP. If it doesn't meet 'Spec', they have to file for a departure from the contract. Sometimes the departure is granted, moreso not.
Ever notice military parts in original packaging? Yep. You guessed it. Even the packaging has to meet TDP (called by us no-nothings as 'MILSPEC'.) The number on the package is the package's type parameters. Best, Joe0 -
It isn't about whether the lower is stamped Colt, but more about whether the manufacturer adheres strictly to the TDP.
saying that a DPMS is even in the same league as a Colt, BCM, LMT, Noveske, or DD shows that one has NO idea what makes an AR "mil-spec"
DPMS especially, but most low end AR's (DPMS Bushmaster Rock River Stag Olympic and even Smith and Wesson to a lesser degree) cut corners with their rifles, resulting in a lower price, but also resulting in a lower quality weapon...
DPMS does not use the correct barrel steel, they do not HPT/MPI test their barrels or bolts, they use an "AR" style BCG, they put the wrong extractor spring and insert in their carbines, they do not stake their carrier keys appropriately, they do not stake their castle nuts appropriately, they use a 1/9 twist, they do not parkerize under the FSB, they have been known to put a non "F" marked FSB on flattop uppers, they use a 1.17 receiver extension
Most of these shortcuts will not make a difference to the casual, recreational shooter of the AR15, but to a professional, they could mean a broken bolt at the wrong time, prematurely worn barrels, faulty extraction, broken gas keys, etc, etc...0 -
As has been mentioned, most any that meet mil-spec are good. The only ones to stay away from are the Vulcan, Hesse, Blackthorne, and not Century Arms.
Best0 -
Really so all the only-Colt/tdp nonsense you guys really believe in because its in a book by the gov/dod and Colt and apparently its like your very own bible or something because they say so. You might care to look closer at Colt and the gov/dod, setting your standards at the low gov/dod level isn't a very high standard and if you don't think that the 'low bidder' is for real than you are mistaken.
Smith & Wesson, DPMS, RRA and some other quality manufacturers have every reason to make a product that meets or exceeds the 'little pony' gun' and their 'super duper gov/dod tdp 'MilSpec' standard'; as for the 'if its not a Colt it will fail' nonsense that is sheer bs, plain and simple.
Like I said if Colt is sooo good then why so many failures, broken parts etc thought that they followed the 'super duper gov/dod tdp 'MilSpec' standard'; yeah that's a laugh some standard. Why is it that we don't get to hear about that in the news along with alot of the other corruption involved.
No, saying that a quality non-Colt AR15 manufacturer cant make an AR15 as good as or better than Colt is just plain stupid, Smith & Wesson (to a lessor degree) Pfft.
Smith & Wesson is every bit as good as the Colt and perhaps outguns the Colt and apparently Smith & Wesson thinks so as well otherwise why offer a lifetime warranty even if the weapon is sold, although I have yet to hear of any as I said I was unable to get a Smith & Wesson to fail although neither would the Colt.
Well then apparently either Colt isn't adhering to the 'super duper gov/dod tdp 'MilSpec' standard' or the gov/dod is crap and couldn't manage their way out of an exit much less oversee our military weapons production. Since all you non-Colt anti's out there are such experts in the field and the non-Colt companies go through you first before making any decisions then you should should really contact Smith & Wesson, DPMS and RRA as well as the other quality non-Colt manufacturers and explain it to them, being the pro-U.S. Government/Colt people that you are.
If Colt's standards from the 'super duper gov/dod tdp 'MilSpec' standard' was actually sooo high then why sooo many failures and problems and if they are supposedly that good why is that the AKM carried by what we are told are our enemies runs rings around the Colt in reliability. And to the 'low bidder doesn't matter', well if Colt is supposed to adhere to the 'super duper gov/dod tdp 'MilSpec' standard' and that the so called 'standard' is supposed to be all that then why have the 'lowest bid' do the job, why not base it on the most qualified manufacturer, they should have all the quality manufacturers be involved, that's not going to happen though being that its all about greed and corruption and not making an excellent weapon for our defense.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
As you may have guessed I'm not all that impressed with Colt. They didn't develop the rifle, they stole it through political wrangling. I can't believe you just took Armalites work and gave credit to Colt.
As far as Mil-spec goes, the standards are now available to many and they can build them if they want. I can't say how many royalties, and from whom, Colt gets, but it's obviously a bunch.
Smith & Wesson is one manufacturer that actually can outgun them and with a superior product and if they could get the gov contract would produce a fine 'fight to the death' military weapon, period.
It's true that the basic design was purchased from Armalite, but they had nothing to do with the development of detailed steps and setting standards for the manufacturing of each component of that final military adopted product and the writing of the TDP. This is a purely Colt item.
As for this information being available to other manufacturers, you're incorrect. You're apparently unaware of Colt's multi-million dollar settlement deal with DoD due to them releasing portions of their TDP to Bushmaster during the M4 development period several years ago. Colt owns the TDP and does not offer it out for royalty payments.
You'll undoubtedly see quality products produced by other AR manufacturers, but there are only three who are subjected to outside monitoring and inspection each step of the way. That's important in these days of corner cutting by gun manufacturers operating in the crowded AR market. IMO the guaranteed quality consistency you get from that 100% TDP level manufacturer is worth the extra funds for a rifle that's to be used for serious purposes. Speaking for myself, this is not the time for an 'it'll probably do' standard.
As for the S&W rifles, those that I've seen are good stuff but you're apparently unaware that most of their components are purchased from other sources. When you strip down that now S&W manufactured receiver (even these used to be contracted out) you might find that it actually contains Colt parts, however, you may find that the next one you strip down contains parts manufactured by some non-TDP level aftermarket maker. Again, it's guaranteed consistency of manufacture of even the little things that I consider important.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bingeebob
saying that a DPMS is even in the same league as a Colt, BCM, LMT, Noveske, or DD shows that one has NO idea what makes an AR "mil-spec"
Bingo! In my opinion, milsurplus is lacking of manufacturing and engineer knowledge that would lend him to believe otherwise.
Any gun can fail, fact of life. How long it last till failure is a different story. Do I trust my RRA to save my life? Yeah, probably, Do I trust my BCM to save my life? You bet.0 -
What sandwarrior and tsr1965 stated was correct.
Originally posted by sandwarrior
As you may have guessed I'm not all that impressed with Colt. They didn't develop the rifle, they stole it through political wrangling. I can't believe you just took Armalites work and gave credit to Colt.
As far as Mil-spec goes, the standards are now available to many and they can build them if they want. I can't say how many royalties, and from whom, Colt gets, but it's obviously a bunch.
Originally posted by tsr1965
As has been mentioned, most any that meet mil-spec are good. The only ones to stay away from are the Vulcan, Hesse, Blackthorne, and not Century Arms.
However I would only add that as long as Century doesn't do the build of a firearm and just imports it (which they do for many) then its okay as there are several weapons that have Century stamped on the receiver for importation but were built elsewhere.
However the Quote-
"Smith & Wesson is one manufacturer that actually can outgun them and with a superior product and if they could get the gov contract would produce a fine 'fight to the death' military weapon, period." was stated by me and I stand by it and I am sure that Smith & Wesson would as well and could prove it and again is why they life time guarantee it consistency and all no matter who owns it, not that they will need it and don't see anyone else doing that.
Colt is NOT the only quality AR15 manufacturer that can produce a MilSpec standard battlefield ready weapon, but apparently by Colt's limited and ignorant perspective they are, along with their 'only-Colt nobody else' brown noser followers as well.
And as for the tdp, it is way overrated as it also applies to the wonderful world of the Beretta M9, complete with plenty of failures to add to Colt's failures and their magic tdp that they are so proud of and that no one seems to believe occurs.
Why are troops then given strict orders not to disclose the problems with the Colt AR15's as well as the Beretta M9 in the sandbox, the American public should get to see exactly what their hard earned tax dollars are paying for.
Colt uses a myriad of outside sources for parts, receivers, barrels, stocks etc and is again nothing new just because its under contract means nothing, if you think that Colt produces everything in house you are greatly misinformed to say the least.0 -
quote:Originally posted by shoff14
quote:Originally posted by bingeebob
saying that a DPMS is even in the same league as a Colt, BCM, LMT, Noveske, or DD shows that one has NO idea what makes an AR "mil-spec"
Bingo! In my opinion, milsurplus is lacking of manufacturing and engineer knowledge that would lend him to believe otherwise.
Any gun can fail, fact of life. How long it last till failure is a different story. Do I trust my RRA to save my life? Yeah, probably, Do I trust my BCM to save my life? You bet.
No you both are lacking knowledge and are very misinformed and are buying into the non-Colt bs like so many others.0 -
quote:Originally posted by milsurplus
quote:Originally posted by shoff14
quote:Originally posted by bingeebob
saying that a DPMS is even in the same league as a Colt, BCM, LMT, Noveske, or DD shows that one has NO idea what makes an AR "mil-spec"
Bingo! In my opinion, milsurplus is lacking of manufacturing and engineer knowledge that would lend him to believe otherwise.
Any gun can fail, fact of life. How long it last till failure is a different story. Do I trust my RRA to save my life? Yeah, probably, Do I trust my BCM to save my life? You bet.
No you both are lacking knowledge and are very misinformed and are buying into the non-Colt bs like so many others.
No, I have a through knowledge of manufacturing, materials, and engineering standards. I know how and what it takes to make high quality parts and the quality assurance that needs to go into them. It is simply science and engineering, you understand or you don't.0 -
I understand engineering and science just fine and in several languages, so don't you worry about that.
Do you really believe that Colt is the only manufacturer capable of manufacturing a battle field ready weapon.
I and several others just don't buy into the 'only-Colt all others will fail' bs nonsense is all and it doesn't take a scientist to figure it out, just ask the veterans they will tell you, even though the gov/dod, Beretta and Colt prohibit them from doing so.0 -
quote:Originally posted by milsurplus
do you really believe that Colt is the only manufacturer capable of manufacturing a battle field ready weapon,
No, there are a few others. But the fact remains that companies based on using TDP, such as BCM, DD, LMT, Sabre (for the most part) are making better quality weapons then others.0 -
This thread is about to hit the automatic lock.
Feel free to take it over to General Discussion to allow people to explain their position.0 -
Defense budget allocation. Not as many replacements being integrated into the 'system'. That's the reason for the equipment failure mentioned earlier. It will happen to anything if left in the hands of the end-user beyond normal useage life.
"No you both are lacking knowledge and are very misinformed and are buying into the non-Colt bs like so many others".
I, for one, don't have the Colt fixation. It's simply that Colt is supplying the type of equipment to the purchaser that requires the TDP. Colt is doing its best to keep its premier money maker viable (politics, yes). I can't fault Colt for that. Business.
No matter the supplier to the US Gov't, they can't get away from that darn, little, pesky TDP. Best, Joe0 -
Because Colt says so, yeah right, I am not buying into that and I am sure that there is alot of money changing hands there.
Smith & Wesson, DPMS and RRA make fine weapons capable of the battlefield if need be, just ask the Russians, Chinese, Yugoslavs, Iranians, North Koreans, Vietnamese etc about their AKM's that don't follow the 'MilSpec' standard tdp from Colt and their weapons run circles around Colt in terms of reliability.0 -
quote:Originally posted by milsurplus
...just because its under contract means nothing, if you think that Colt produces everything in house you are greatly misinformed to say the least.You're correct in one aspect, but totally off base with the important part.
Colt of course receives components from outside sources, but each of these sub-contractors is also required to manufacture their particular piece in accordance with the the established standards and quality of the TDP and operate under monitoring from the end-user/customer's inspectors. No other AR manufacturers operate under such quality controls with 100% of their components.
Despite how you're portraying people's attitudes, no one is implying that the TDP contains any sort of magic. Instead we're trying to make the point that it's a carved-in-stone rule book stating precisely how each and everything must be done by every party involved in the manufacturing process.
You sound as if you have little experience with closely examining all the various parts from multiple samples of an aftermarket manufacturer's rifles. That brand X rifle bought a year ago you're basing your opinions upon isn't guaranteed to be exactly the same as the exact brand/model bought today. That TDP is the assurance that a Colt, FN or Sabre is.
Each and every rifle of their's is the exact same. No slight modifications of design along the way, no corners cut, no 'bad batch of springs from a subcontrator' BS, no exceptions - period.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by milsurplus
...just because its under contract means nothing, if you think that Colt produces everything in house you are greatly misinformed to say the least.You're correct in one aspect, but totally off base with the important part.
Colt of course receives components from outside sources, but each of these sub-contractors is also required to manufacture their particular piece in accordance with the the established standards and quality of the TDP and operate under monitoring from the end-user/customer's inspectors. No other AR manufacturers operate under such quality controls with 100% of their components.
The TDP doesn't contain any magic, but is a carved-in-stone rule book stating precisely how each and everything must be done by every party involved in the manufacturing process.
You sound as if you have little experience with closely examining all the various parts from multiple samples of an aftermarket manufacturer's rifles. That brand X rifle bought a year ago you're basing your opinions upon isn't guaranteed to be exactly the same as the exact brand/model bought today. That TDP is the assurance that a Colt, FN or Sabre is.
Each and every rifle of their's is the exact same. No slight modifications of design along the way, no corners cut, no 'bad batch of springs from a subcontrator' BS, no exceptions - period.
No I am better informed than you could know or that I can discuss here and still disagree as I am not one of you 'only-Colt pro government types'.0 -
This thread is better suited for General Discussion. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments