Page 28 of 140 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878128 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 1393

Thread: Comparison Chart of Major AR Brands

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbfurr
    "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.
    Do us a favor and tell us what is flawed or incorrect so that i may be corrected.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    837
    Feedback Score
    0
    The errornet at its best.

    The AR comparison chart has been around for a few years.

    Where is my tinfoil hat.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,833
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Please don't get too far into the discussion until my popcorn is done

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulinski View Post
    The errornet at its best.

    The AR comparison chart has been around for a few years.
    More like a decade or more. First one I saw was in early 90s, and was in ASCII. The one Troy mantains was last updated January 2003. The rob_s one, is the newest and most up-to-date version I know if.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    No. Virginia
    Posts
    2
    Feedback Score
    0

    Comparison Chart observations

    If I may, let me claify a few things about my earlier post.

    1. I am not "the" or "a" industry insider. My definition of an insider in this context would be someone who works for a manufacturer vs. someone who distributes or retails their products.

    2. I am new to this forum and apologize for posting a "secondhand" item without identifying the author. I wasn't aware that is a no-no. The author gave me permission to post the information provided I did not reveal the author or the company for which he works.

    3. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone or cause a fuss, so don't be too hard on me. I found the chart interesting and applaud the fellows that obviously went to a lot of trouble to gather the informaton.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,626
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jbfurr View Post
    If I may, let me claify a few things about my earlier post.


    2. I am new to this forum and apologize for posting a "secondhand" item without identifying the author. I wasn't aware that is a no-no. The author gave me permission to post the information provided I did not reveal the author or the company for which he works.
    Welcome to the board.

    It seems the author isnt very sure of his words.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,833
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbfurr View Post
    The author gave me permission to post the information provided I did not reveal the author or the company for which he works.

    3. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone or cause a fuss, so don't be too hard on me. I found the chart interesting and applaud the fellows that obviously went to a lot of trouble to gather the informaton.

    I'd be leery of a "professional" who is afraid to reveal his identity or take credit for his words.

    Welcome to the forum regardless.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    10,781
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbfurr View Post
    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."
    I call shenanigans since you don't even know what TDP really stands for which is Technical DATA package. Accuracy in this Dept is PARAMOUNT.............anything else you post is utterly inaccurate.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,626
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    I call shenanigans since you don't even know what TDP really stands for which is Technical DATA package. Accuracy in this Dept is PARAMOUNT.............anything else you post is utterly inaccurate.
    I saw it written in a magazine article as Technical DRAWING Package not too long ago and thought it was strange as I always heard it refered to as Technical DATA Package and that was the first time I heard it called the Technical Drawing Package. The guy must of read that article a few weeks ago and regurgitated it back up.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,147
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbfurr View Post
    If I may, let me claify a few things about my earlier post.

    1. I am not "the" or "a" industry insider. My definition of an insider in this context would be someone who works for a manufacturer vs. someone who distributes or retails their products.
    If you read through the thread you'll find that we have received input from Armalite, Noveske, Rock River Arms, Noveske, and Bushmaster via direct correspondence with either myself or other forum members.

    I suspect that what you have found is an "industry insider" that works for one of the brands that find themselves maligned by The Chart and feel the need to defend themselves.

    And again, others bring up the TDP, not me. I specifically avoid even discussing it, and the "mil-spec" loaded word, as I do not believe that it is germane to the discussion. I frankly don't care where the list of requirements came from, I only care to list features that are offered and who offers them.

    In a way, it sounds like your "industry insider" is even throwing in a red herring by discussing the TDP. By avoiding talking about whether or not their brand in question is accurately represented in The Chart they instead say "well the list is stupid". Quite the dodge.

Page 28 of 140 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878128 ... 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
  •