Printable View
From the amount of posts I've read here, I'm starting to get the impression that "ABC" may not be the correct abbreviation for tier one manufacturers (eg. Armalite, Bushmaster and Colt). Characteristics of tier one manufacturers would include such things as proper staking of the key in the bolt carrier, Mil Spec components and forged uppers and lowers to name a few. Am I correct about this?
More or less you are correct.
First of all, ANYONE can produce a lemon, so any firearm you purchase that might ever be used in a defensive situation must be thoroughly tested and broken in, even if there is a prancing pony on the side of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo58
From what I understand, makers like Colt, LMT and a couple of others have more rigorous testing procedures than Bushmaster is reputed to, such as magnetic particle inspection of ALL bolts and barrel extensions that are sold, whereas Bushmaster MPI tests random samples. (Random sample QC, by the way, is used in lots and lots of industries for lots and lots of products, and lots and lots of people would argue that it is just fine for QC purposes. YMMV.)
MPI testing is not a guarantee that something like a bolt won't break, but it does mean that the part is less likely to fail on you because there is a higher chance of the MPI tests catching a defect in the part.
I think Colt also shot peens their bolts, but I don't know if anyone else does. I know some makers like Les Baer offer shot peened extractors...
"mil spec" is sometimes used deceptively so you need to do a lot of research before buying something "milspec". Bushmaster barrels, for instance, are chrome lined which is commonly referred to as a "mil spec" feature, but they use a 1/9 rifling and yet some well meaning but uninformed people may still refer to the barrels as being "mil spec". (Personally I don't get worked up about twist rates...)
Anyone can produce a lemon, but the idea of a "Tier 1" maker is that they take extra steps to make sure you get a nuts reliable rifle right out of the box, and that it will stay reliable for quite some time. My personal Bushmaster has been a very reliable rifle even under the demanding conditions of multiple carbine courses, so it worked out well for me. Others have reported less than satisfactory experiences with Bushmaster.
Here's a graphic representation that might help you to understand.
Colt
http://www.homedepot.com/cmc_upload/...77475233_3.jpg
Others
http://www.homedepot.com/cmc_upload/...77533407_3.jpg
Ok. I know about lemons. We have them in every industry. However we do have manufacturers that are generally considered "tier one". I've read alot about "Mil Spec" and what it means to me as a consumer. No concerns there. When someone purchases a mil spec rifle they are more likely to have better interchangeability with other components (correct?). And if they claim "mil spec", which specification are they claiming?
Then would anyone care to list who are the top 4 AR-15 tier one manufacturers and who are four tier two manufacturers?
Generally, yes. Bushmaster, for instance, has a bad habit of using non-milspec buffer tubes and the like making putting an aftermarket collapsible stock on them a pain in the neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo58
1. ColtQuote:
Originally Posted by Mojo58
2. Colt
3. Colt
4. Colt
It depends. I would put LMT, Bravo Company, Noveske, and CMT/Stag at the top of the heap followed (distantly) by Rock River, Bushmaster, and Armalite.Quote:
and who are four tier two manufacturers?
:p LOL:pQuote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
I do remember a posting from one civilian contractor working in Iraq that was very pleased with his Bushmaster in those conditions. Can't remember the site where I read it. My first AR-15 was a new Colt AR-15 A2. Unfortunately for us Canadians, civilians can't purchase new Colts.
In my experience, just because Colt did it doesn't make it the be all to end all. Not to say that Colt makes a bad product because they don't. A lot of the procedures they use have been updated over the years and the "mil spec" has remained the same. Does that mean the "mil spec" is wrong? No. Just an older version. My best advice is to research and find the best product for a reasonable amount of money. Mercedes makes great cars, but everyone doesn't drive one and they can still get to work and home in their Fords and Chevys.
The ABC's is/was a good start for civilian shooters. It's not meant to be a comprehensive listing of good carbines and rifles.
FWIW, I have an ArmaLite lower that has worked well by me.
I also have two Colt registered receivers. One is a converted SP1 and one is a factory M16A1.
I've successfully used RRA and LMT lowers in classes at Blackwater, 10-8 Consulting and EAG Tactical.
Once you know what you are doing, you can make a "Tier 1" package for less by using quality parts and your know-how.
It really comes down to this simple fact; does the manufacturer have the US Govt. issued TDP? If they do then they would be classified as a tier 1. Lot's of companies have copies of the TDP, but that is about it.
To the best of my knowledge, only Colt and FN have been given the TDP by the Govt. I would like to believe that LMT has been given it as well (as they have contracts with CRANE), but have not seen proof. Everyone else that doesn't have the official copy of the TDP is a tier 2 or 3 manufacturer.
With that said, will a Stag, BM, Oly, RRA work for you? Most likely so. Are you going to see higher failure rates with bolts, poor accuracy and parts that don't quite fit together? Yes you are.
Two of the most critical areas in the weapon are the bolt and the barrel. If you can get quality made bolts/barrels that are shot peened and HPT/MPI tested then you are more than half way there IMHO.
The best values for assembled uppers that follow the mil-standard are LMT and BCM. They closely follow the reqs and are a reasonable price. CMT (stag) and LMT lowers are first rate as well.
Building your own AR from the ground up, will enable you to choose companies that make high quality products and actually improve upon the Mil-Standard (by using better springs, buffers and triggers).
Here is a list of my favorite components when building an AR:
VLTOR VIS or MUR
LT or DD FF rails
CMT MP tested M16 BCG with black insert and Crane O-ring
PRI GB CH
Noveske SS barrel or BCM 16" Govt Profiled middy
Vortex
LT or VLTOR GB
LMT lower
LMT SOPMOD or Magpul UBR/CTR or VLTOR stock
VLTOR Receiver Extension
ISMI buffer spring
CMT H2 or H3 buffer
CProducts SS mags with Ranger plate from Magpul
Magpul MIAD or TD BG
CMT lower parts kit for the receiver
Geissele Trigger
C4
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIVAN
Yup. And you get exactly the configuration you want up front.
Very good point. Thanks for taking the time to list those choices. Every time I come here, I learn more. Your opinions are much appreciated:cool: .Quote:
Originally Posted by C4IGrant
Not bad, except B&D and DeWalt are familial. Perhaps Porter Cable or Milwaukee and B&D would have been better...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
What does BCM stands for? May you post some info on this bbl? Weight? Price? Chrome lined?Quote:
Originally Posted by C4IGrant
Souds interesting.
Black n Decker makes DeWalt btw :)
Bravo Company USAQuote:
Originally Posted by TacDoc
This all coming from Rob who uses a Home Depot tool bag as his range bag...
:D
Grant,
Thanks for your post. It's a list of vendors and components that's hard to argue with.
Mojo58,
That contractor's BM (bowel movement) rifle was a lucky catch for him. Many of those guns, and I include the one I'm stuck with, are pure crap. The reason most of these guys like them are: 1) It's the first M4gery they've had, 2) It's full auto!!!, 3) They don't know shit about what's good and what's bad quality control, 4) They don't shoot them very much, if at all.
Having a firearms trainer job here gives me a chance to shoot the hell out of issued pistols and rifles. I'm not impressed with most of what I see. The bolt carrier keys are almost NEVER staked or if they are, they aren't staked sufficiently. FSBs look like the Leaning Tower of Pizza (sp?) and windage adjustments are way too far to one side, usually the left. Triggers are horrible and as has been stated, standard aftermarket stocks won't work because of the non standard buffer tubes.
Somebody in the acquisition process between the Dept of State (who bought most of the contractor guns in country) and BM made a pile of money at the taxpayers' expense that they didn't earn. I would not buy or recommend a BM to anybody who was purchasing for a life saving weapon. There's too many other viable and dependable choices out there to waste your time, money and potentially, your life on a "shitter shooter".
Not to mention that both those drills are made in China, probably in the same factory.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9DivDoc
Hey! Right tool for the job. If somebody can show me a HSLD bag that works half as well as my Husky I'm all for it.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by SuicideHz
High end is the Arms Tech Compak16 or USR, but you have to be military or police to get one. The King of Jordan ordered 400 Compak16's at 2800 bucks apiece and the snap on silencer is more.
We are trying to get Dr. Joe to sell to civilians but so far no luck.
I have three Colts and my son competes with a RRiver N Match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo58
Your welcome and glad I could help.
C4
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacDoc
Bravo Company Manufacturing. They make one of my absolute favorite barrels (at a fair price)!
It is 4150, chrome lined, 1/7 twist with a TRUE M4 Barrel Extension. Price for the barrels alone is like $234, but I have seen people getting much more than that as they are a rare animal.
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/...dy%20upper.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/...%20DD%2012.JPG
thread resurrection...Quote:
Originally Posted by C4IGrant
Hello Grant,
Can you explain your comment on BCM's bbl description: "TRUE M4 Barrel Extension"?
Take care,
Don
\/
\/
\/
eta: Thanks Grant
Quote:
Originally Posted by f.2
Yes, Colt was the originator of the M4 barrel extension and their's are marked with an "M4" on the front of the extension. BCM uses the same ones.
C4
Nothing to see here
I think it all depends on what a person wants to define as "Tier 1".
If "Tier 1" means that the units are supplied to the government for the military for general issue, then that, by default, places Colt and FN as the obvious choices. Because they meet the requirements set forth by the TDP, as defined in their contract.
Now, as Grant pointed out earlier, there might be some things available that provide different things on the gun that the TDP does not include. And these things might even be improvements over the standard issue "Tier 1" guns.
Maybe you feel that way, and maybe you don't.
However, the definition that you use as your benchmark, will set the determination of who is "Tier 1".
If the TDP was used exclusively as the benchmark, then nothing would ever improve. Everybody would just become a production shop, following the TDP exactly, and all R&D would cease, except for gov't testing. The gun would essentially become "static", or "set in stone" at that point, virtually ensuring its obsolescence.
IMO, there are things "better than TDP", and I'm glad that there are.
Oh, I don't know about that, I think ABC, CBS, and NBC are just as good as CMT and LMT, or wait is that XYZ or PDQ?...... stay with the A,B,C,D, and R of ar's, you can't go wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by twl
Yes, your T1 companies are going to be holding a .Mil contract and the official TDP.
I do believe that the TDP is not perfect and that there are things that can be improved upon. It is the base standard to follow though and then improve upon from there.
C4
Quote:
Originally Posted by twl
AMEN!
The tier system is not an official rating system, as much as many people would like it to be. It was pulled out of somebody’s forth point of contact and thrown out there for all that have a taste for koolaid. Most that use the tier system agree that Colt and FN are at the top due to the TDP and that is an easy agreement to make. The rest of the tier system is categorized with the caveats of “if think", "so and so says" or "it is my experience" thrown in for easier digestion. Get what you want and get good with it. Then take a class with Pat Rogers or the like and see if your tools are built for the job. No matter where they fall on the tier, the list of products and manufacturers that Grant listed above would be the best place to do your shopping.
Dave
Agree Dave. Once we get past Colt and FN, it is really subjective. I try and look at companies that follow the TDP as close as possible and hold them as a cut above the companies that use the cheapest parts they can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by davemcdonald
C4
Quote:
Originally Posted by ex_soldier1911
Dont worry though, the batteries are made in Mexico. There, now dont you feel better :p