Bushmaster M4 "Patrolmen's Carbine" Inspection

Skintop911 · #1 08-02-06, 11:55

Posted here by request:

////
Yesterday afternoon, I did an initial acceptance inspection of Bushmaster "Patrolmen's Carbine" for a LE agency adding this carbine to it's list of authorized units.

Control samples were used in the eval, a Colt LE6920 and AR6520, DOD Colt M-4, FN M-16A2. All are currently issued/authorized.

Highlights:

-Circumferentially larger and longer (3/4") receiver extenion, curiously so. End of stock cut at an angle. Buttstock of questionable material quality and durability.

-Castle nut is not staked.

-Standard rifle carbine extension and receiver. (No M4-type feedway cuts.) (Indifferent, if functional)

-Shrouded bolt carrier with SA rear tang. Bonus!

-Supplied with rifle extractor spring with blue insert.

-Properly staked bolt carrier key.

-30rd magazine was supplied with green follower of soft and easily damaged plastic material. A similar mag like this melted in an auto gun in another unrelated eval. Distinctly different from milspec magazines.

-Charging handle of thinner material than control samples. Bending is a concern if the handle receives lateral pressure.

-Pistol grip contains hex-head screw.

-Handguard of lightweight plastic, small prongs holding a single heat shield, prongs will likely melt.

-FSB appears TDC and uncanted.

Carbine has conditional approval by the agency pending demonstration of live-fire function and durability of components questioned, change of the grip screw, extractor spring, and staking of the castle nut. Magazine discarded.

////

rob_s · #2 08-02-06, 12:43

No pic of the staking?

**M4arc** · #3 08-02-06, 12:46

I love these post! Keep up the good work.

Aubrey · #4 08-02-06, 12:57

Skintop911,

Thanks for this. These side-by-side comparisons are very good illustration of how Shrubmaster is not "MIL-spec" despite their assertion otherwise (see their site). They may have won in court, but there are many differences (other than SA-v-FA) between their "M4" and the real thing. These differences may be inconsequential to the hobbyists, but they may not be for people who use them for real.

By the way, what ammo does your agency issue? I ask because I believe the BM to have a 1/9"-twist barrel (?).

DrMark · #5 08-02-06, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by M4arc

I love these post! Keep up the good work.

Ditto.

I'm looking forward to the live-fire report.

Pat_Rogers · #6 08-02-06, 15:58

Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....

Skintop911 · #7 08-02-06, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMark

Ditto.

I'm looking forward to the live-fire report.

That was written up some time ago, and reposted here by request.

I give credit where credit where credit is due: That carbine ran fine during an orientation and qual course by the officer it was issued to. Several hundred rounds (500-700+/-) of common drills over an afternoon on a dusty range. It's continued to run without failure since, a few hundred rounds per session.

Discarding the OEM mag, and installing Ken Elmore's excellent HD extractor spring assembly undoubtedly helped.

The troop to whom it's issued runs it well, and cares for it properly. I gave it a check-up a week or two ago and it needed no meds. No unusual or excessive wear, or observations of concern.

It will get lots of attention over it's service life.

HAMMERDROP · #8 08-02-06, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Rogers

Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....

That is painful, I can hear the BM M4 death knell now ...LOL

jmart · #9 08-02-06, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Rogers

Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....

Thanks Pat, seeing as how that's what I have maybe next time you can just kick me in the nuts. It probably won't hurt as bad.

BTW, I did get my Viton O-rings, HD ext springs and black inserts from Sully last week. Haven't tried them out yet but I expect good things. Next step might be a Sully stock. I like the idea of a simple, fixed stock and Sully has a pretty good rep for those. My A2 stock is A-OK, but it is long.

Pat_Rogers · #10 08-02-06, 21:37

The Sully stock is the choice for a fixed stock- very much good to go. Taking care of your extractor stuff is a definite step in the right direction, and will go along way to keeping things right.
I have a bad taste for most of the aftermarket guns. The bushhamsters are always perplexing, and my experience with a SWAT teams guns 2 years ago, as well as poor CS kinda' clinched it.
If yours is running good, don't sweat it. Just keep on keeping on.
And no, i do not desire to place my foot near your ball bag...

ArchAngel · #11 08-03-06, 17:08

I think it's fair to say that any company can have an issue from time to time.

It's what happens on the service end that can make or break a company in the long run.

A company shouldn't be condemmed for a few issues, as long as they resolve them properly.

As far as to condem someone's equipment soley by brand name - if the equipment runs and functions would be foolish.

Also, the end users often end up causing some of the problems for the brand.

No need to be "elitist" on brands if a weapon functions. If it's not your favorite then get what you like.

Pat_Rogers · #12 08-03-06, 17:34

I agree that any company is capable of making both good and bad guns.
However, when 20+ guns are delivered to a SWAT Team (they ordered M4's but the bean counters got something "just as good") and they had problems out of the box, something is wrong..
Then you find out that eight have loose bolt carrier gas keys. All of the rest have poor stakes. Several have canted front sights etc.
It goes downhill from there friend. The company stated that the rep was on vacation- nothing could be done. Eventually he called and promised to send 20 new bolts and carriers out next day. 2 weeks later the cops were still waiting for them.
Of course they are not the only company to send shoddy work out.
AR manufacturers are of two types. Those that build to a standard (generally because they have to meet that standard contractually) and those that don't.
Clearly it costs less to not meet a standard. Things like out of spec receiver extensions, non MPI bolts and barrels, parts acquired from a pool source and so forth.
In two incidents with SWAT teams, the guns were brand new. Sorry, but the end users did nothing but show up at the range.
Some companies that are not required to meet a standard will still meet that standard- Bravo Company for example.
While none of this will have a serious effect on a hobby shooter, it could be tragic for those who use the guns for a living.
I'll disagree with you about "as long as they resolve them properly", because if they turn out a problem for a cop, it may turn into something a lot worse then a customer service issue.
I have seen enough problems with lower tier guns to make me understand clearly that i only purchase/ use those guns who have a better track record, over the long run.
Sorry it that offends you, but i don't believe in mediocrity- especially when it is someones life in the balance.
YM of course MV.
I am not elitist on guns. I use what works. I recommend what works.

ArchAngel · #13 08-03-06, 18:06

I certainly wasn't calling you an elitist. No disrespect intended to you.

That's unfortunate for that team and that experience.

As an LEO I've been on the down side of the administrator's decisions several times - including a chief's choice of a Sigma pistol as the department weapon. Administrators can quickly kill morale with poor choices and put us in danger. Being an "armorer" for the department on that system was almost a disgrace. Luckily for those officers now - those are gone. I watched one not fire when one of my LEOs tried to put a wounded deer down - that certainly didn't do anything positive for the department, especially the gun shy LEOs.

I know there are reports out there with Bushmaster and I'm certainly not defending them on your experiences.

Hopefully those are issues of the past or under control.

I've had no problems with the Bushmaster I have. The one I've used has been reliable through training and on carry.

I've been on the problem side at training too with sub-standard equipment and gotten the "clear the jam again" practice.

One of the best aspects of training is finding what works and what fails. When it fails it's time to find the reliable replacement.

Pat_Rogers · #14 08-03-06, 18:10

No disrespect taken.
I've had several BM in the early 90's that ran real well, and i still see most that work well. My preference is toward other makers purely because of consistency in their guns.
PM headed your way.
Stay safe!

ArchAngel · #15 08-03-06, 18:40

Thanks Pat, you are truely a professional.

Pat_Rogers · #16 08-03-06, 18:55

I try- doesn't always work out that way sometimes...

rob_s · #17 08-03-06, 19:52

For me the issue isn't what kind of customer service a company has after the product fails. I would much prefer to purchase from a company who's customer service I never need to make use of. Very few take the steps to insure that the customer will never need to test their warranty or customer service.

ArchAngel · #18 08-03-06, 20:07

That's a good point - the best kind of customer service is the kind you never need. Like a warranty.

AZCOP · #19 08-05-06, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Rogers

Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....

OUCH !!!!!!

Jay

Texas_Soldier · #20 08-08-06, 22:26

I have the Bushy Patrolmans carbine with the A2 upper, in 1 year and several thousand rounds down the pipe I have had zero malfunctions, and have been pretty happy with it.

BTW- it is bone stock.

Eats any ammo I feed it- jsp, fmj, cheap russian stuff without a hiccup.
I maintain it well and it serves it function.

However I have seen some that just won't run right no matter what brand they are, luck of the draw?

I like the 6 pos stock vs 4 pos, I can get it to fit better than my .gov issue M4