Comparison Chart of Major AR Brands

[rob_s]

I don't think anyone is using cast anymore for their "top of the line M4" models. Olympic may still use cast receivers for their "Oly plinker", but at that price it's to be expected.

I like the milspec receiver extension (RE) better because there are more stock options for it (I don't think the SOPMOD is even available for a commercial tube) and I believe that the design is slightly stronger. Basically though, it comes down to the fact that if I have a chance to pick (which I would in the scenario above) then I'll always take the milspec RE,

[rob_s]

As a bit of an update, I got an email response from Bushmaster re: changing some of the items in their column. I have asked for permission to post their response, and asked for clarification on a couple of items to make sure that the chart is accurate.

Will keep you all posted.

[rob_s]

Since I haven't heard back from Bushmaster re: clarification or permission, I'm going to go with "your silence indicates your acceptance" and post the last email I got from them. My response was basically to ask for pictures of the below, and to ask if these were new inclusions because the guns I saw at a gunshow two weeks prior didn't have any of these things. I received no reply.

I am actually inclined to believe them on the shot peen bolt, the option for the staked castle nut, and the option for the H-buffer. I need some help from our resident dealers on the M16 bolt carrier, properly staked key, and "M2" feedramp (since Bushmaster didn't respond).

Add/correct the following:

X- M4 feed Ramps (we call it M2 feed ramp)

X- Shot peen bolt

X- Properly staked key

X- M16 bolt carrier


As option or upgrade we offer

2- Staked castle nut

2- H buffer

[variablebinary]

Thread delievers

[jbfurr]

I am a FFL dealer and sell a good number of AR-15 platforms and parts from various manufacturers, so was interested in the "list." The following is an observation from an industry insider that you might find interesting.


"The sheet is flawed in so many ways that I don’t even want to go there. It has been floating around, and even been updated, for a couple years now…and the inaccuracies are at about the same level as the correct info. Amongst the failings are the inclusion of subjective criteria for what is “correct”…such as the M16 carrier.

We do what we can, when we can, to educate people about what “mil-spec” means versus what they think it means. Two companies, Colt Defense and FN, have access to and use of the Government Technical Drawing Package (TDP), and literally sign away the life of their company that they cannot and will not use that TDP for anything other than government contracted builds. They have to segregate parts from those used for commercial builds (probably why FN doesn’t have a civilian side of their line-up), have to have certifications from vendors on every part, have to open their facilities to GSA and AG/IG inspections, etc….Too many people assume that “mil-spec” just means that parts from vendors A, B, and C will fit with components from Vendors D, E, and F. We (and every other manufacturer not working off the TDP) can get close…up to and including buying the same parts from the same vendors...but the complete rifle will not be “mil-spec” by its real definition. Let’s face reality…there is no”mil-spec” for semi-auto rifles, varmint barrels, match chambers, performance triggers, current stocks other than the A2 and both CAR models, etc….Even an NSN number doesn’t equate to a spec...it is just a number assigned to a commercial part that can be bought, as is and “off the shelf", using that number."

[C4IGrant]

I am a FFL dealer and sell a good number of AR-15 platforms and parts from various manufacturers, so was interested in the "list." The following is an observation from an industry insider that you might find interesting.


"The sheet is flawed in so many ways that I don’t even want to go there. It has been floating around, and even been updated, for a couple years now…and the inaccuracies are at about the same level as the correct info. Amongst the failings are the inclusion of subjective criteria for what is “correct”…such as the M16 carrier.

We do what we can, when we can, to educate people about what “mil-spec” means versus what they think it means. Two companies, Colt Defense and FN, have access to and use of the Government Technical Drawing Package (TDP), and literally sign away the life of their company that they cannot and will not use that TDP for anything other than government contracted builds. They have to segregate parts from those used for commercial builds (probably why FN doesn’t have a civilian side of their line-up), have to have certifications from vendors on every part, have to open their facilities to GSA and AG/IG inspections, etc….Too many people assume that “mil-spec” just means that parts from vendors A, B, and C will fit with components from Vendors D, E, and F. We (and every other manufacturer not working off the TDP) can get close…up to and including buying the same parts from the same vendors...but the complete rifle will not be “mil-spec” by its real definition. Let’s face reality…there is no”mil-spec” for semi-auto rifles, varmint barrels, match chambers, performance triggers, current stocks other than the A2 and both CAR models, etc….Even an NSN number doesn’t equate to a spec...it is just a number assigned to a commercial part that can be bought, as is and “off the shelf", using that number."

First, let me warn you that we generally like first hand information on M4C. Second hand information is fine, but you must name the source.


With that said, their is one flaw in the "industry insiders." This chart is new and has NOT been around for years. They may have seen another chart at one time, but it was not this one.

The "industry insider" is correct in that the ONLY way to get a mil-spec weapon is to be issued it. What this chart tells you is which companies try to follow the TDP as closely as possible. Currently, it is the best thing we have for showing how manufacturers build weapons, what testing is done and how the weapon is assembled.


C4

[rob_s]

I am a FFL dealer and sell a good number of AR-15 platforms and parts from various manufacturers, so was interested in the "list." The following is an observation from an industry insider that you might find interesting.

Can you define this term?

"The sheet is flawed in so many ways that I don’t even want to go there.

I have heard this before, and the people that have said it have never taken the Pepsi Challenge and taken even 10 minutes to discuss even one item on the list.

It has been floating around, and even been updated, for a couple years now…

This is somewhat telling as to the credibility of this so-called "insider". The chart has existed since just before the first post in this thread, so at most 4-6 months.

and the inaccuracies are at about the same level as the correct info.

Again, anyone that can't take the time to provide what they think is "accurate" information and defend it suffers from a total lack of credibility.

Amongst the failings are the inclusion of subjective criteria for what is “correct”…such as the M16 carrier.

Where does the chart say anything about "correct" or "incorrect"? It is simply a list of features and a way of telling which makers include those features. There has been discussion in the body of the thread regarding the "TDP", but it doesn't appear anywhere in the chart.

We do what we can, when we can, to educate people about what “mil-spec” means versus what they think it means. Two companies, Colt Defense and FN, have access to and use of the Government Technical Drawing Package (TDP), and literally sign away the life of their company that they cannot and will not use that TDP for anything other than government contracted builds. They have to segregate parts from those used for commercial builds (probably why FN doesn’t have a civilian side of their line-up), have to have certifications from vendors on every part, have to open their facilities to GSA and AG/IG inspections, etc….Too many people assume that “mil-spec” just means that parts from vendors A, B, and C will fit with components from Vendors D, E, and F. We (and every other manufacturer not working off the TDP) can get close…up to and including buying the same parts from the same vendors...but the complete rifle will not be “mil-spec” by its real definition. Let’s face reality…there is no”mil-spec” for semi-auto rifles, varmint barrels, match chambers, performance triggers, current stocks other than the A2 and both CAR models, etc….Even an NSN number doesn’t equate to a spec...it is just a number assigned to a commercial part that can be bought, as is and “off the shelf", using that number."

All of this information can be found in this thread, but ultimately has nothing to do with the chart. The chart lists features that some people find to be of value, and an "X" in the box corresponding to which manufacturers include that feature. Nothing more, nothing less.

[KevinB]

I am thinking he beleives himself to be an "industry insider"

[Shihan]

I am thinking he beleives himself to be an "industry insider"

I think so.

[Renegade]

First, let me warn you that we generally like first hand information on M4C. Second hand information is fine, but you must name the source.

...

What this chart tells you is which companies try to follow the TDP as closely as possible.

Who has the TDP on this site and is thus able to verify that what is claimed to be TDP, is really TDP? Without this, it becomes "Second hand information WITHOUT a source." No?