Originally Posted by
3ACR_Scout
That’s where I was going in the OP - there have been tons of discussions about how no commercial rifles except Colt’s can be truly MILSPEC because they can’t legally use the TDP, but I’m not sure how that is implemented in actual practice. Do manufacturers like FN deliberately change the metal they use for the FCG, for example, do they intentially change the shape of the hammer, or do they simply use parts from the same vendors that perhaps aren’t tested in the same way to ensure that they meet the MILSPEC. Is this Military Collector M16A4 essentially the same rifle internally, but it hasn’t gone through the same testing?
This comparison video shows how the FN rifle is missing the markings on the BCG that are required by the government contract. Is that the only difference?
Making an M16A4 Clone Rifle
That’s what I was hoping to get more information about. Most of the original comments about this rifle centered around the writing on the lower receiver and the one comment I mentioned about the stock having a plastic buttplate. Is there really any difference in the material, design, and specs of the parts used in this commercial rifle vs. the military M16A4? I’m not sure we could tell without disassembling the two of them side by side and doing some thorough tests on the materials used to make the components.
Took some pics of my fn15’s bcg and barrel to give you some idea of the components being used, which I can only assume, would be the same between the two models.
Ugly roll marks and true clone-ness aside, the internal parts seem gtg although I have no way to test the materials used. I own a 6920 and 2 BCMs and my untrained eye can’t really discern a difference between BCG quality. I wanted a fun gun with irons to compliment the 16” rifles I already had with Aimpoints and 1-4 scopes on them. Time will tell if the FN holds up like my other rifles have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My 7 iron is more accurate than my capabilities. Same with my AR.
Bookmarks