Just like the bolt issue, it was simply a formatting problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by badness
Printable View
Just like the bolt issue, it was simply a formatting problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by badness
Not for commercial sales. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
Great job on the new chart Rob. There will of course be no shortage of naysayers and criticism, but such is life on the internet!
An M4 doesn't have a 16" barrel. :jester:Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
Useful specifications to have nonetheless for those purchasing 14.5" and 16" midlengths. Thanks for taking time to put this together.
ok. Thanks for the time consuming work involved with putting this together....Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
Again.
Is this going to be published in Google Docs rather than just public?
Excellent work Rob! Thanks again for sharing all your hard work.
Thanks for all of your hard work Rob.
lol already people bitching about it on Glock Talk (no surprise though).
Rob, thank you for all of your diligence and hard work put into this new chart. Having used the old one as a noob, I know that this will be a very valuable resource for those in the future that are looking at becoming a part of our community. I also copy and pasted the chart and e of f together into one rather large jpeg if anyone needs it while they are offline. You can message me and I will email it to you if anyone wants it.
Thanks again Rob!
Did Stag step up their game?...
Everyone did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Salad0892
The chart might as well remove Sionics and say "Here is a list of all manufacturers that produce mil-spec AR15s."
It would be easier than listing all the materials, production methods, inspection processes etc. The chart and its subsequent aftermath on forums like this has made producing a 1/9 twist bbl, non-HP/MPI tested bolt AR15 bad business sense.
So now, in essence, we just have a chart where everything is 95%+ the same.
Rob, thanks for your efforts in compiling this invaluable reference source. Amazing that a compilation of facts can create controversy in some circles. Its really simple, you either feel the info is useful to you or not. If not, then ignore and move on. If it is useful, then you have facts at your fingerprints that would be almost impossible to reproduce on your on.
I hate to even ask this, but are we going to start recommending Stag's newer rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurodriver
Can we get a member here to examine one or something?
I'm more interested in seeing crappy companies like Stag get better than seeing reputable companies like LMT, and Colt get placed at the top of the chart.
I mean... we already knew they'd be some of the best, I want to see the shit-peddlers get their game together. I had more faith in Stag than the others though. I guess we know why now.
To an extent, they have. Armalite maintains a Tech Library they post on their website and several of the fetaures on the chart are explained in their Tech Library posts. That's official-enough for me, although it would be nice if they could just provide the same info to Rob so he could more easily incorporate it. I'm not sure if every aspect of Rob's chart is covered, but several are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Yuma
Rob, I appreciate your unbiased approach. It is nice to have an objective eye on the multitudes of options and you have saved me a TON of time. Thank you! :)
There is so much butthurt on that website it's laughable. It's unreadable most of the time. Guys don't understand why you dont swoon every time they post pics of their new DPMS zombie killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MistoGators
Rob, thanks for the work on the chart. Looking forward to the final additions. Since some companies are refusing to send documents back, is there any thought of including info from the old chart with an asterisk or something saying that it may not be he most current or up to date info (due to company compliance of course)
Another "Thank you" from me to add on.
I've only one request about the chart. It runs quite long from left to right and discerning which line is what manufacturer gets confusing for the long-term memory challenged. Maybe insert the "Company Name" column between the major columns, such as between "Bolt & Bolt Carrier" and "Barrel and Upper Receiver".
Nice work!
Their post on TOS covers the specs pretty well ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jmart
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=27&t=197755
No reason for them NOT to join the Information Chart with their LEC15A4CBK ..
Come on Armalite , the water is warm :)
I have lurked and learned. Members such as Rob are why I am here. Thanks for your hard work and willingness to share with all who will listen and learn. Once again, thanks.
Thank you Rob. Your detailed research and responses on this forum have done much to educate me, and have allowed me to make informed decisions involving this platform. I've lurked on here for a while, and prior to the introduction of the new chart the "Explanation of Features" has given me a greater understanding of why certain features are desired and downright necessary.
That being said, I hold you responsible for my purchase of a LE6920 and future BCM LW Middy build...
thx for the work rob. great chart!
2 comments/observations...
1 - the old chart for Noveske, under HPT bolt, had it listed as "Batch" tested. this new chart has it as "None". is noveske not batch testing any longer?
2 - For Noveske, the feedramps are not true M4 sized feedramps. they are much shorter as compared to longer cut colt, bcm, lmt feedramps. should this difference be listed? they are actually noted as "extended feed ramps", not M4 feedramps on the Noveske website.
http://noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin...since=&status=