Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 176

Thread: Anderson Manufacturing AM-15M416 Review

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    Anderson Manufacturing AM-15M416 Review

    Hello all. Wanted to post a user review of a (relatively) new AR manufacturer so that anyone interested might have more to go on. There isn’t much out there on this manufacturer so hopefully this will help…

    Warning: Lengthy Review

    Background
    I am in the army (soft MOS) and used to be a police officer and have become very comfortable and familiar with the M16/AR15 platform. For my first personal AR I wanted a rifle of high quality, reliability and value. Somewhere along my research I came a cross the DI vs. Piston discussion. Drawing from personal experience with the Army -issued rifles I saw merit in the piston design and started leaning in that direction and was looking hard at a POF. Needless to say, the price was hurting my conscience but, I believe in the cry once philosophy.

    I then ran across the Fail Zero brand of components and I liked the argument: Piston-like reliability, greater “inherent” accuracy due to fewer inertial movements (piston), and easier maintenance because there would be no oil in the upper. The only problem was that I would have to home-build this rifle as the components don’t come in a complete rifle (to my knowledge). This would require a learning curve and an investment in some tools.

    Shortly after that, I came across Anderson Manufacturing and their offerings.

    Anderson Manufacturing is based in Hebron, KY. They have been in the machining business for over 40 years but, because of the downturn in the economy were going to have to shut down until they decided to enter the AR-15 market. At first they produced OEM parts for other manufacturers, but then decided that they could produce a better rifle under their own brand. The “better” part--in my opinion--came in the form of a proprietary treatment of the upper, BCG, and barrel called RF85. RF85 is the treatment produced by Better Than New for the racing industry. In a nutshell, the performance claims are almost exactly like those of Fail Zero. Also, they apparently will only sell matched uppers/lowers in order to assure tight fit. Lastly they only use 7075 aluminum for their upper and lower receivers. Their story and claims of quality assurance helped me decide to take a chance on a new manufacturer. (Plus I’m a sucker for a good underdog story)

    Anyway, SPECS HERE


    Arrival
    I purchased the rifle from Bud’s Gun Shop as they were a little less than retail: $1150 shipped. Here’s what came (minus the owners manual which is nothing more than photo copied pages bound in a clear report cover--no problem there since shiny booklets drive up costs)















    Initial Inspection
    Not horrible but, less than spectacular. The first thing I noticed was a strange divot (approx. 1mm deep) in the upper receiver’s left side.



    I had mixed feeling about this because while I new this was probably only cosmetic and would not affect performance I had high expectations for my little underdog rifle.

    Next, I noticed that the upper-receiver/hand-guard rail alignment was off.



    Again, detrimental? No. but easily caught by a final inspection process. I assumed the threads had been factory secured with some sort of thread glue (more on this later) and thought I might overcome the mis-alignment by adjusting the sights.

    Other than these two (actually three but, read on) issues the rifle felt solid. The upper and lower fit very well with virtually no wobble and only the slightest thread of observable light from the opposite side. Proprietary components such as the free float tube and rails are very solid and perfectly finished. The trigger is definitely better than the Army issued rifles I have had to use. I would estimate about 1-2 mm of travel before a clean break. The travel is a little creepy if I’m really taking my time but, under stressful conditions it’s a non-factor anyway. The flash hider is of the type which has a flatter side for prone shooting; it was timed correctly.

    The RF85 treatment is undetectable to the eye or to the touch. This was very surprising to me and a little underwhelming. I though there would be some super slick feeling or something but it honestly felt no different than any other BCG I have handled. The proof would have to be in the pudding.

    I wiped the rifle down and cleaned the BCG and bolt with dish-soap and water (you read that correctly--its in the owner’s manual) and dried it off, shot an email off about the issues I found and went to the range the next day.

    Range Report #1
    The good: 150 rounds from a bone-dry bolt with zero FTF/FTE
    The Bad: Hand guard “walked” until it was turing freely
    The ugly: The upper rail-screw closest to the upper receiver was actually hitting the gas tube under it.

    I started the day with the tried and true--if possibly unnecessary--barrel break in: shoot, clean, repeat. Incidentally, accuracy was horrible for the first ten rounds; don’t know what that was about. After the break in was complete however, it was shooting very “acceptable” 1 inch groups at 50 yrds. with open sights. (actually best group was 0.5 inch). Everything was going great and when I felt the sights were shooting well at 50 I moved back to 100.

    At that point I had to push the windage all the way to the left to stay on paper. This was due to the rail misalignment. It was clear I would have to make alignment adjustments my self. Then, on the last ten rounds of the day I was missing every shot. Puzzled, I gave the rifle a good once over and discovered that the hand guard had loosened and was spinning freely. Additionally, when I turned the hand guard I noticed that it was hitting something at the “top” of the revolution. Some additional tinkering revealed that the rear-most rail screw was the culprit. So now I had to back the screw out in order to align the rail properly. Again, not catastrophic but definitely not spectacular.



    On the upside, the rifle cycled 150 times without any oil at all with no hiccups. While I concede that this is not conclusive assurance of utmost reliability I felt that the treatment was doing what it claims to do. I will run it harder next time and continue to asses the treatment’s effectiveness.

    The Call
    That same day I received a call from Tom Steffner, V.P. of sales at Anderson Manufacturing. Mind you, it’s Saturday. The conversation ended with him stating that he wanted me to send the complete upper back and he would send me a new one via FedEx. Hmm! That was cool! A personal call, on a Saturday from the V.P. of sales and a commitment to send a new part. Ok, now I wasn’t feeling so bad about going with a newcomer company. Maybe the QA issue wasn’t systemic and I just got the rifle that slipped through the cracks. To boot, in a subsequent email he stated that I would receive my new upper with an extended charging handle and some extra railing for my trouble.

    The New Upper (that wasn’t)
    Well, I sent it via USPS 2-3 day mail and received it via UPS ground. Total turn around was eight days. Not bad but, not what was stated. What I pulled out of the box was my original upper parts attached to a new upper receiver. Again, not bad but, not what was stated. Well, at least there were the little bonus pieces for my trouble right? Nope, nowhere to be found. There must have been a disconnect between sales and the floor or something. The hand guard was tight with the rails well aligned and the new upper receiver is flawless but, now I wondering if they just torked the rail screw down into the gas tube or something and what about their commitment to make sure the upper and lower receivers are “matched”? Well, can’t have it all, I guess.

    In Tom’s defense, later emails concluded with a recommitment to send the extra goodies. These parts arrived today as promised; fit and finish are superb. Conclusion up to this point: good intentions do not a great company make. I don’t feel that I’ve been wronged but I gotta wonder if going with a top tier manufacturer, or building my own would have made me a happier AR owner from the beginning. I told Tom that I would be reviewing the rifle and my experience with A.M. With very few reviews out there, I would think every bit of good publicity would be carefully guarded, especially since most consumers place high value on end-user reviews.

    Range Report #2
    Not much to report here. Another 150 rounds through a bone-dry bolt with zero failures. Best accuracy form MBUS sights is 3-inch 10-round groups at 100 yds. with four rounds within 1 inch of each other. When I get glass on this rifle and it breaks in all the way I suspect 1 inch groups will be easy. I’m very happy with accuracy. The rifle is now what it is supposed to be and overall I’m satisfied.



    Conclusion
    If you don’t care to “troubleshoot” your purchases this isn’t the manufacturer for you. While they obviously have the ability to put out a very good product, I think they are suffering from “mom and pop” syndrome. I’m sure they are used to dealing with industry but, if they are going to earn their place among the top tier AR manufacturers they are going to have to shift their thinking to meet the high demands of the consumer market. They have a great philosophy, high quality potential and good intentions. IMHO they need a serious revising of their QA program and better communication between departments. At this point I will wait to see what others’ experiences are before making a decision to purchase from them again.

    Hope this helps someone.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Niantic CT
    Posts
    1,964
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    This is what happens when a machine shop thinks it knows how to make a rifle. Instead of concentrating on some wonder finish, they should have hired someone that knows how to make an AR and trained there employees.
    Certified Glock Armorer

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    426
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Well at least they made it right somewhat.

    Seems like they just threw parts together though.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    511
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by texascoqui View Post
    Hello all. Wanted to post a user review of a (relatively) new AR manufacturer so that anyone interested might have more to go on. There isn’t much out there on this manufacturer so hopefully this will help…





    If you don’t care to “troubleshoot” your purchases this isn’t the manufacturer for you. While they obviously have the ability to put out a very good product, I think they are suffering from “mom and pop” syndrome. I’m sure they are used to dealing with industry but, if they are going to earn their place among the top tier AR manufacturers they are going to have to shift their thinking to meet the high demands of the consumer market. They have a great philosophy, high quality potential and good intentions. IMHO they need a serious revising of their QA program and better communication between departments. At this point I will wait to see what others’ experiences are before making a decision to purchase from them again.

    Hope this helps someone.
    Looks like M4 ramps on the barrel extension and not on the receiver. Not a great start for a company with "high quality potential."
    Last edited by fdxpilot; 05-17-11 at 21:00.
    Colt SP6920, LE6920, 6720
    BCM Lower/ARP 6.8SPC upper for hog hunting
    DD M4V5 clone, Troy 5.56 Carbine, S&W M&P10
    PSA Lower/BCM LW 16" middie CHF upper
    PSA Lower/BCM LW 14.5" middie upper
    2 PSA 18"6.8 rifles, PSA 20" M16A4 clone
    Remington 870, Remington 700VTR
    SA XDm9, XDm9C, , XD9SC S&W 1911
    Ruger GP100, Hawkeye77 Compact 6.8SPC
    Kel-Tec KSG, Marlin 336 30-30
    Sig 1911 Tacops, Scorpion 1911, M11A1, P226 Mk25

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    180
    Feedback Score
    0
    A couple of questions:

    What ammo did you use, and why were you running it bone-dry?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,163
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    LOL, thanks for letting me know (like I didn't already) to never even give these guys a second look. What a joke. This is the absolute worst review of a new product I have ever seen.

    At first I thought you were advertising, but if you work for the company you'd be fired immediately.

    Edit: Thats not to say your review itself was of bad quality. Just the product.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
    A couple of questions:

    What ammo did you use, and why were you running it bone-dry?
    Didn't you see the big green tag that says DO NOT OIL?
    Last edited by Eurodriver; 05-17-11 at 22:41.
    Quote Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR View Post
    Ah ok. I thought there was some kind of maple syrup conspiracy afoot or something

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    405
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Before anyone else gets to it, a few questions:

    1. Is the barrel chrome lined?

    2. FA or SA bolt carrier?

    3. Buffer weight?

    4. Barrel steel? Nvm, it's 4140.

    5. Receiver extension mil-spec or commercial diameter?

    6. HPT/MPI?
    Certified Smith & Wesson M&P Armorer

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    762
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    The only time I will ever listen to any of the magic, "no oil" finish and treatment sales pitches is when the owner of the company in question assures me that his personal automobile's engine has said finish/treatment etc on the internals, and he's been driving without oil for a year without any problems.

    Until then, all these finishes NEED oil, it's just a matter of when. And that is, in my experience, FAR sooner than any of the salesmen are willing to admit.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    180
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    Didn't you see the big green tag that says DO NOT OIL?
    Yes. Skimmed over the part of the text pertaining to the finish on the bolt carrier, and didn't catch it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    462
    Feedback Score
    0
    Great, ANOTHER company from my state spilling shit into the market... Only this time it's about twenty minutes away from my door! We already have Double Star, we don't need these guys.

    At least Accurate Armory is on better track, so there might be hope for a quality KY rifle yet.
    Check out my photography on Flickr.

    Real World Impact - For the best Kentucky firearms training.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    342
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    sounds like a bad way to spend $1150.
    Live Ever, Die Never...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,163
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Link to Oak Ridge Testing Results

    http://www.atdmachineshop.com/Letter-steffner.pdf

    http://www.atdmachineshop.com/rf85.htm


    I'm interested in this coating, and your test of 150 rounds.

    Mike Pannone fired over 2,400 rounds in a standard BCM 14.5" upper with no lubricant and no malfunctions.

    Why is this RF85 necessary?
    Quote Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR View Post
    Ah ok. I thought there was some kind of maple syrup conspiracy afoot or something

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Niantic CT
    Posts
    1,964
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by fdxpilot View Post
    Looks like M4 ramps on the barrel extension and not on the receiver. Not a great start for a company with "high quality potential."
    Good catch I didn’t notice that! This company clearly knows nothing about making a rifle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonidas24 View Post
    Before anyone else gets to it, a few questions:

    1. Is the barrel chrome lined?

    2. FA or SA bolt carrier?

    3. Buffer weight?

    4. Barrel steel? Nvm, it's 4140.

    5. Receiver extension mil-spec or commercial diameter?

    6. HPT/MPI?
    My guess would be no on all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post

    Why is this RF85 necessary?
    It’s not.
    Certified Glock Armorer

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    I considered getting one of these as my first AR but after researching I have settled on DD M4 V5. Picking it up today. Hope I made the right choice on my first AR.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Niantic CT
    Posts
    1,964
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BozAv8 View Post
    I considered getting one of these as my first AR but after researching I have settled on DD M4 V5. Picking it up today. Hope I made the right choice on my first AR.
    You Did.
    Certified Glock Armorer

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    27,018
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by fdxpilot View Post
    Looks like M4 ramps on the barrel extension and not on the receiver. Not a great start for a company with "high quality potential."
    Correct. M4 barrel extension with an A3 receiver.


    Pass.



    C4

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    930
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Whootsinator View Post
    Great, ANOTHER company from my state spilling shit into the market... Only this time it's about twenty minutes away from my door! We already have Double Star, we don't need these guys.

    At least Accurate Armory is on better track, so there might be hope for a quality KY rifle yet.
    Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Since they are so close why don't you go see if you can smack some sense into them

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,465
    Feedback Score
    37 (100%)
    Holy crap, this might be the best first post I've ever seen. This carbine looks like a pretty decent example of the fact that all ARs are not created equally.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    Hello again all and thanks for responding to my review...

    Quote Originally Posted by 5pins View Post
    This is what happens when a machine shop thinks it knows how to make a rifle. Instead of concentrating on some wonder finish, they should have hired someone that knows how to make an AR and trained there employees.
    I honestly didn't think the review was as bad as all that. I hope you all don't miss the positives I mention about the rifle. Like I concluded originally, overall I'm satisfied with the "Final" quality of the parts. IMHO Anderson Manufacturing's problem is not one of quality, but quality assurance. I imagine that even the top tier manufacturers have products that wouldn't pass a close final inspection; it's having that process in place which would have saved A.M. the embarrassment in this case.

    I really believe they are committed to producing an excellent rifle, they just need to up their game a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by fdxpilot View Post
    Looks like M4 ramps on the barrel extension and not on the receiver. Not a great start for a company with "high quality potential."
    I too noticed this upon first inspection and felt a little let down ( my fault for going with an unknown manufacturer). It would be nice to have the cuts in the receiver however, from what I read, they are not necessarily essential to a well-running rifle.

    Also, I reassembled the rifle without the BCG and placed a loaded magazine in it just to see if the bullets' path necessarily struck that part of the upper receiver before being pushed into the chamber. To my surprise, it does not. The tip of the bullet is always "caught" by the barrel's feed ramps. So, while i'm sure they can't hurt, at least in a semi-auto it doesn't seem essential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonidas24 View Post
    Before anyone else gets to it, a few questions:

    1. Is the barrel chrome lined?

    2. FA or SA bolt carrier?

    3. Buffer weight?

    4. Barrel steel? Nvm, it's 4140.

    5. Receiver extension mil-spec or commercial diameter?

    6. HPT/MPI?
    1. Barrel is not chrome lined but, treated with the RF85. If independent tests are to be believed this will effectively extend the life of the barrel by 1.5 times.
    2. Bolt is SA
    3. Don't have a scale and the buffer is not marked so, I'll assume H
    4. **
    5. Receiver extension is not slanted in the rear and has thicker threads toward the rear so I'm gonna say Mil-Spec


    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    Link to Oak Ridge Testing Results

    http://www.atdmachineshop.com/Letter-steffner.pdf

    http://www.atdmachineshop.com/rf85.htm


    I'm interested in this coating, and your test of 150 rounds.

    Mike Pannone fired over 2,400 rounds in a standard BCM 14.5" upper with no lubricant and no malfunctions.

    Why is this RF85 necessary?
    Read this article and by far this was the most surprising read about the AR platform I've ever come across. Thought I did a lot of research but somehow I missed this one. Thanks for the reference.

    In light of it, my 300 round "test" does seem to fall very short of conclusive and I'll continue to reserve my opinion on the RF85 treatment until I have a MUCH higher round count.

    I will be making the modifications recommended in the study.

    Thanks again for everyone's input.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    180
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think H buffers are usually marked 'H'. Unmarked ones are generally CAR buffers. Safe to assume that that's a CAR buffer, assuming they didn't swap one of the steel weights for a tungsten.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •