Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 177

Thread: Anderson Manufacturing AM-15M416 Review

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    371
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    sounds like a bad way to spend $1150.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12,145
    Feedback Score
    43 (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?
    Why do the loudest do the least?

  3. #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

  4. #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.

  5. #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

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    961
    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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sopines, NC
    Posts
    1,759
    Feedback Score
    52 (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.

  9. #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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    250
    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 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •