Be an informed consumer!

[C4IGrant]

it sounds like someone is getting kickbacks from bcm. yeah there a great company but so is spikes

Please let me know who that someone is. I know it isn't us and to insinuate that Paul (owner of BCM) would do such a thing, tells me that your village is looking for you.



C4

[fivefivesix]

how do i give spikes a bad name. i own a spikes m4 and a bcm m16 clone. and if you call any manufacture that is worth a grain of salt they will produce so called tech documents. guess i pissed the fan boys off

[GermanSynergy]

Please let me know who that someone is. I know it isn't us and to insinuate that Paul (owner of BCM) would do such a thing, tells me that your village is looking for you.



C4

Grant, that made my night!

[C4IGrant]

how do i give spikes a bad name. i own a spikes m4 and a bcm m16 clone. and if you call any manufacture that is worth a grain of salt they will produce so called tech documents. guess i pissed the fan boys off

How? You made a technical thread (about educating the consumer) into a pissing match between two AR manufacturers!

The definition of a fan boy is one that goes into a thread (that is not a comparison thread) and attempts to push their favorite brand.

In case you did not realize it, that would be you.





C4

[fivefivesix]

guys i want to apologize for my comments. i was and am misinformed and the lack of me being able to put into words what im thinking makes me look and feel like an ass. i apologize to who i offended, and to grant for making ASSumptions. this is the qoute from grant that made me realize he wasnt about just bashing a product,

Originally Posted by SuppressingFire
I have to say that after the amount of pages this thread took up, I'm extremely disappointed there is no conclusive proof to support anyones point here. Grant, I appreciate your latest message but if the barrel did not do well during testing, I think you are obligated to let us know so nobody makes a mistake and purchases an inferior or dangerous product. At this point I don't care about the debate, I just want to know if the materials are quality and as claimed. I say this because obviously throughout this thread people have purchased products from this company regardless of not knowing what was what. I appologize for putting you on the spot, I just really want to know if I should look elsewhere to buy my next AR.

I understand your POV, but I ask that you understand where I am coming from. The MIL-B-11595E spec (for instance) has something like 40 different requirements. So if the barrel steel lines up with the compounds spec'd out, it might fail the other 39. The fight would never end and a winner would never be identified. It is a lose lose situation for all parties involved.

Let me state the following for you. Would I take a ST AR over 80% of what is on the market? Yep, sure would. Is buying a ST AR going to put you in danger? NO.

Buy a ST product because you like the company, their CS, their pricing or how they build their products. If you have questions about how they are building their AR's, call them and ask them for the certs, specs or whatever will satisfy you. I am responsible for me and my company. Not for Tom and his company. So no, I am not obligated to anyone for anything (sorry).
i really thought you were being unbiased but after reading 60 some pages i really think you are speking from experience

[Austin_Nichols]

Disregard; PM's inbound.


ETA: PMs traded. My issue was getting hung-up on Colt's M4 TDP, the many that erroneously claim to have it, and worse the ones who might call attention to the significance of M197 being the only option. We see and submit variance requests/approvals all the time at our shop but even when granted do not typically make a permanent change to the formal spec. My point was that for Colt's M4 data pack, you won't see such a variance. Just because a military contractor has been granted one for another platform doesn't change the as-specified requirement. Likewise, it doesn't mean the variance is somehow inferior or less significant, it's just another option. Besides, when it comes to proof rounds I'm partial to Black Hills any damn way.

As I mentioned to Paul, and hopefully he won't mind me repeating here, his professionalism, service, and reputation mean so much more than simple documents offered to pacify the naysayers. It's just that the tiny details, when not presented accurately, can cause credibility issues even when there's no need.

[Iraqgunz]

So out of curiousity how is it you know so much? I was looking at a previous post of yours concerning SBR's.

The information you posted was way off mark so my question would be what is the real purpose here?

It's been a while since I was on this site and I guess my latest kick is substantiation of claims made on behalf of others. I was content to let this this go but now I'd like to quantify your previous statement and my response:

As far as "Have you ever looked at the TDP? If you have not, then how could you disagree with anything (as you don't know what you don't know)?"; you clearly missed my point regarding Colt's TDP (please refer to my previous comments). I can easily disagree since I do know, and actually have the revisions/addendums as well. As a simple test, let's take your argument that M197 is not what BCM is using for a proof round and that the TDP allows for another option; please tell me where in the TDP another option is offered (without giving anything away, I'll take section number, sub-paragraph, or drawing call-out) without saying what that "option" might be and I'll subscribe to your claims.

I appreciate what Paul is trying to build but I'm not fond of hyperbole on his behalf even if it is well intentioned. It's not that I'm calling you out per se my friend, but it seemed upon re-evaluation that you were doing that very thing to me with your comments.

Oh, and before you answer Grant, you might remember me from when I lived in Smithfield. I'm down here at the Beach now, right up from Dam Neck since the long drive was getting old.

[Austin_Nichols]

So out of curiousity how is it you know so much? I was looking at a previous post of yours concerning SBR's.

The information you posted was way off mark so my question would be what is the real purpose here?

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning SBRs but I'd be happy to discuss theory anytime, just not in this thread. Send me a link via PM and we can discuss in the relevant place.


ETA: SBR Thread https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=3637 regarding legal comments from 4(!) years ago (well before ATF consolidated rulings/opinions on their website), along with my knowledge base explained via PM.

[C4IGrant]

To answer Austin_Nichols question, the answer is simple. One of the current .Mil Contract holders does NOT use the M197 load. There is variant that is allowed. This is why BCM does not use it either.





C4

[boltcatch]

The companies that are recommended are those that impose a higher standard on themselves, and it shows through performance.

The real issue here isn't technical. Some people simply refuse to believe that the time and effort people like Paul at Bravo Co. put into their product will ever manifest itself. We can talk about performance all day long and they'll just rationalize or stick fingers in their ears.