NEW Comparison Chart of Commercial M4 Pattern Carbines

[kartoffel]

Looking good. It's pretty encouraging to see so many companies Doing It Right now.

EDIT: wanted to add this comment -- It seems a little funny that LMT of all manufacturers is the only one on the chart using straight pins instead of taper pins for the front sight block. Should this be considered a Bad Thing(tm) or just a kind-of-less-than-perfect-thing? People used to give LMT shit for changing to MIM gas keys, until that myth got put to bed. Would be curious to hear from SME's on the virtues of straight pins vs taper pins.

[Jellybean]

Huzzah! Finally done!

As was mentioned previously regarding manufacturers improving I too wonder if, given that there was widespread knowledge of the original chart, they are really doing better, or just saying they are to get a better rating?
If they really are then great, but.....

Also, the alphabetical order is nice, but I almost like the old chart style better, as it was more like in order of quality- you could look at the chart and immediately see which were at the top, and which were the bottom feeders. I'm all for doing my own research, and maybe the original was a little to easy to cheat with, but this new way I think might (for some people like me with slightly less mental RAM capacity) possibly confuse things a little bit with the different brands all mixed together....

[rob_s]

Looking good. It's pretty encouraging to see so many companies Doing It Right now.

EDIT: wanted to add this comment -- It seems a little funny that LMT of all manufacturers is the only one on the chart using straight pins instead of taper pins for the front sight block. Should this be considered a Bad Thing(tm) or just a kind-of-less-than-perfect-thing? People used to give LMT shit for changing to MIM gas keys, until that myth got put to bed. Would be curious to hear from SME's on the virtues of straight pins vs taper pins.

I'm trying to avoid offering any opinions in this thread. I wanted to just comment and say that the strengths/weaknesses of every option will be explored in the E of F. It is just a monumental undertaking and it requires more than the 10 minutes of ADD that forum posting takes.

IIRC LMT did use MIM carrier keys. Not sure if that's whaty ou mean about the "myth", or of you mean that MIM being a bad choice for a carrier key is a "myth". I have one of their BCGs from that time period.

[rob_s]

Huzzah! Finally done!

As was mentioned previously regarding manufacturers improving I too wonder if, given that there was widespread knowledge of the original chart, they are really doing better, or just saying they are to get a better rating?
If they really are then great, but.....

It may be seen as arrogant by some, but I absolutely believe that many manufacturers modified their models simply to get more checks in the boxes on the old Chart. While it's true that many of them then missed the point and skipped out on certain aspects that weren't recorded in the Chart, better is still better, and if it means the consumer gets a key that's staked correctly instead of held on with Locktite, then I think it's a good thing.

Also, the alphabetical order is nice, but I almost like the old chart style better, as it was more like in order of quality- you could look at the chart and immediately see which were at the top, and which were the bottom feeders. I'm all for doing my own research, and maybe the original was a little to easy to cheat with, but this new way I think might (for some people like me with slightly less mental RAM capacity) possibly confuse things a little bit with the different brands all mixed together....

I knew going in to this version that there would be trade-offs. The criticisms of the old version revolved around the fact that I was the one doing all the data entry and had to make certain interpretive judgements about who did what "correctly", and that I was giving the brands a "ranking" based on same. So in this go-around we removed the ability for anyone to complain about those two things. The problem with that, as you rightfully point out, is that it makes it harder for the consumer to parse the data. I have some ideas about how to address that but I need to try them out on my end and see how it works out.

[ffhounddog]

What is 9310 steel compared to Carpenter 158 that we have come to know and love?

Also anyway to ask Mr. Larue about his bolt carrier's? They are Texas Spec and that means much to this Texan.

[rob_s]

Ask? Sure. Likely to get an answer? Ummmmm...

The new E of F has a detailed explanation of the different steels, both in barrels and bolts. I'm reluctant to release those things piecemeal. I'm already less than happy about being forced into releasing the Chart at all but felt compelled to do so before others started putting out their sponsored version.

If it means anything to you, Carpenter 158 does not contain Moybdenum, Phosphorus, or Sulpher. All of the others do. It also contains more chromium than any of the others.

I can say that what you want in a bolt, and therefore bolt steel, is something that gives you a hard outer surface with a flexible inner core. Steel choice plus shot-peening is how you get there. Steel choice affects how the part reacts to shot-peening.

[Jellybean]

It may be seen as arrogant by some, but I absolutely believe that many manufacturers modified their models simply to get more checks in the boxes on the old Chart. While it's true that many of them then missed the point and skipped out on certain aspects that weren't recorded in the Chart, better is still better, and if it means the consumer gets a key that's staked correctly instead of held on with Locktite, then I think it's a good thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I knew going in to this version that there would be trade-offs. The criticisms of the old version revolved around the fact that I was the one doing all the data entry and had to make certain interpretive judgements about who did what "correctly", and that I was giving the brands a "ranking" based on same. So in this go-around we removed the ability for anyone to complain about those two things. The problem with that, as you rightfully point out, is that it makes it harder for the consumer to parse the data. I have some ideas about how to address that but I need to try them out on my end and see how it works out.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[01tundra]

Rob, can you shed any light on the "other" responses from DD?

I was kind of curious about that as well .

[kartoffel]

I'm trying to avoid offering any opinions in this thread.

No worries, Rob. I appreciate your efforts to remain as objective as possible.

IIRC LMT did use MIM carrier keys. Not sure if that's whaty ou mean about the "myth", or of you mean that MIM being a bad choice for a carrier key is a "myth". I have one of their BCGs from that time period.

Yep, I have one too (full disclosure ). By "myth" I meant people poo-pooing the choice of MIM for gas keys. I've not yet heard of one failing, and SME's on M4Carbine have claimed that LMT did a bunch of testing before shipping guns with MIM keys.

Any chances of adding a column for gas port diameter, or whether anti-seize was used on the barrel nut?

[rob_s]

I might have included gas port diameter (even though personally I think most people haven't a clue about what it really means, the ramifications of same, or what do to about it if they think it's too big or too small, and that most manufacturers seem reluctant to disclose it) but it's not going to get changed now.