View Full Version : Is FN preparing to release their own AR?
justin_247
12-01-13, 17:14
I saw this ad in RECOIL magazine yesterday. It mentions a "sneak peak" of the "FN15."
Does anybody else have more info on this?
21779
There was some buzz about this a couple of months ago and most believe that yes, FN is going to produce commercial AR-15s in some form or fashion.
Interesting. Don't they make M4s for Uncle Sam? I know their barrels are well thought of, what are the thoughts of those here who have handled FN M4s or M16s? Contender with Colt? Good entry to the marker giving us another good option? Or similar to my thoughts, interesting and too early to tell.
paramarine
12-01-13, 17:29
In the Corps I had both a Colt and an FN A2. Couldn't tell the difference between the two besides the roll mark.
That said, I wouldn't mind an FN AR15. Just because.
In the Corps I had both a Colt and an FN A2. Couldn't tell the difference between the two besides the roll mark.
That said, I wouldn't mind an FN AR15. Just because.
I'm with you, it is the one AR15 that I would probably buy stock instead of building right now. The FN M16A2 has loads of memories for me. M4s for some reason seem more generic, I'm really not sure why.
FN held a conference call a few months ago w/ a few FN owners that volunteered for an FN AR-15 focus group. And a few of us participated in an online survey regarding it, what price point, and what to name it. I forgot what 3 options I chose, but you can search for the thread on FNForum.net.
HackerF15E
12-01-13, 19:13
I hope they make a full-up A2 rifle.
I hope they make a full-up A2 rifle.
Exactly. I would buy this. ^^
FN held a conference call a few months ago w/ a few FN owners that volunteered for an FN AR-15 focus group. And a few of us participated in an online survey regarding it, what price point, and what to name it. I forgot what 3 options I chose, but you can search for the thread on FNForum.net.
This statement bothers me especially the comment about price point.
I predict we will hear about it sometime around SHOT. I think I mentioned it here in another thread about FN. I think the version I heard about was going to be an FN M4. That could have changed and with the market situation who knows how it will play out.
Agreed, I anticipate a SHOT timed announcement, with all the press package ready to roll then. What I really want to see is where they put theirs in the market. That attachment doesn't indicate a whole lot... yet.
Is it worth going heads up against Colt in the 6920 market space? Will they?
Are they going to position their FN15 lineup below the SCAR-16 in pricing and features?
My guess will be they roll out with some milspec clones, but seeing just how many outfits are churning out good CHF lighter contoured barrels from FN blanks, it's hard not to see them mirroring about half of the DD lineup as far as available configurations.
I'd love to see a $1500 FN-15 with a 16" CHF LW barrel, Centurion CMR Rail, and MOE upgraded furniture, among other offerings.
Voodoo_Man
12-01-13, 20:31
I love me some FN.
If they sell an AR15, I will have one in my closet.
I don't see why FN can't go right after the 6920 and undercut it as far as price point goes.
Also a M16 A5 variant would be tits.
TacticalMark
12-01-13, 21:08
I love me some FN.
If they sell an AR15, I will have one in my closet.
I agree
StevieJ309
12-01-13, 21:08
:dirol:
..
Spill the beans!
Grand58742
12-01-13, 21:10
Is it worth going heads up against Colt in the 6920 market space? Will they?
Why not? They have the TDP, so I wouldn't imagine they will be any worse than a 6920 overall. And if the price point is the same as or less than a 6920, I couldn't see why they wouldn't be competitive.
On the other hand there isn't a whole lot better they could do than Colt save one thing. Bring a midlength to market.
After active duty I went in the Guard. In the '96-'97 timeframe we got brand new FN M16A2s. Like others have said, no difference other than markings over a Colt. The upper and lower receivers had a different shade in the finish. I can't remember for sure, I think the upper was the lighter shade almost like a blueish grey. I'd be interested in a civilian FN, mostly an A2 though for nostalgia reasons.
They could do that and more.
An FN16A5 with VLTOR A5 would be a ridiculously nice rifle, and pretty much be the rifle the USMC should be using right now.
I suspect there's money to be made gunning for the 6920, but the fact that idiots are still buying Bushmasters and RRA's for more money tells me the size of that market isn't necessarily big enough to justify it. They'll succeed at anything they try most likely, the question is what their market data will point the to for volume models, and to see if they'll churn out a few really well thought out weapon systems that punch above their price tag (e.g. DD V5 functions as a poor man's SR-15).
I really want to see in a couple year's time if they decide an FN-10 is worth the thought and hassle. The CHF barrel tech out of the FN SPR's applied to an SR-25/AR-10 layout could be the final standardizing nail in the .308 AR frame, and FN could well and truly deliver $2000 .308 AR's that do everything out to half a mile.
That said, I wouldn't mind an FN AR15. Just because.
Here here. I really like FN products. Especially the FNS. Cant wait for the FNS Compact...
Yep. Built one exactly like this with an FNMI upper, A5 w/SOPMOD and KAC M5 RIS.
They could do that and more.
An FN16A5 with VLTOR A5 would be a ridiculously nice rifle, and pretty much be the rifle the USMC should be using right now.
I suspect there's money to be made gunning for the 6920, but the fact that idiots are still buying Bushmasters and RRA's for more money tells me the size of that market isn't necessarily big enough to justify it. They'll succeed at anything they try most likely, the question is what their market data will point the to for volume models, and to see if they'll churn out a few really well thought out weapon systems that punch above their price tag (e.g. DD V5 functions as a poor man's SR-15).
I really want to see in a couple year's time if they decide an FN-10 is worth the thought and hassle. The CHF barrel tech out of the FN SPR's applied to an SR-25/AR-10 layout could be the final standardizing nail in the .308 AR frame, and FN could well and truly deliver $2000 .308 AR's that do everything out to half a mile.
Interesting. Don't they make M4s for Uncle Sam? I know their barrels are well thought of, what are the thoughts of those here who have handled FN M4s or M16s? Contender with Colt? Good entry to the marker giving us another good option? Or similar to my thoughts, interesting and too early to tell.
We (Marines) were issued FN M16-A4s when we got rid of our A2s. I don't think FN has ever made an M4, course I could be wrong.
I've used FN uppers and lowers on A2's as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Interesting. Don't they make M4s for Uncle Sam? I know their barrels are well thought of, what are the thoughts of those here who have handled FN M4s or M16s? Contender with Colt? Good entry to the marker giving us another good option? Or similar to my thoughts, interesting and too early to tell.
I had an FN M16A4 in OSUT and never ran into any issues with it. Honestly, it didn't appear any different than the Colts some others carried other than the roll mark, if I recall. Worked just as well as any Colt I carried during my four years. I would have no problem owning an FN over a Colt, as long as the build quality stays where it has been.
We (Marines) were issued FN M16-A4s when we got rid of our A2s. I don't think FN has ever made an M4, course I could be wrong.
Like Jason said, I don't believe FN ever made M4's. I've never seen an M4/M4A1 that wasn't a Colt.
FN was awarded the contract to supply M4's to the U.S military about 5 months ago or so.
We (Marines) were issued FN M16-A4s when we got rid of our A2s. I don't think FN has ever made an M4, course I could be wrong.
The FN A4s all seem to have one issue; their stocks would come loose and rotate just slightly.
A few weeks ago when I was doing an Armory inspection about 20 percent of the battalion's A4s had loose stocks on them.
3ACR_Scout
12-02-13, 07:40
I might be able to talk myself into an FN A4 if they offer it. That was the rifle I carried initially during my first tour in Iraq, before I switched jobs and acquired an M4. I'd like to have one as an example of one of the weapons I used in the Army.
Not to go off on a tangent, but did / does Colt produce M16A4s for the military, or were all of them made by FN?
Dave
QuietShootr
12-02-13, 07:45
I saw this ad in RECOIL magazine yesterday. It mentions a "sneak peak" of the "FN15."
Does anybody else have more info on this?
21779
Yes, they are. I was in a focus group a few months back where they were looking for input on what to call it and what features it should have.
Grand58742
12-02-13, 07:47
Other than nostalgic value, would an M16A4 clone actually be a commercial success? Even with the A5 system?
I just don't see a lot of people picking one up as a dedicated weapon myself.
If they make an M16A5 clone, I will buy it.
Free float rail, A5 stock. I'd prefer a lightweight barrel too.
Why not? They have the TDP.
This is the problem. Where did FN get the TDP from??? That's right, Colt. It is also my understanding that when you get the TDP from Colt, you are FORBIDDEN from making a commercially available AR15. This is why so many companies backed out of the last competition (as they didn't want to give up commercial sales).
So the $10,000 dollar question is how? How are they getting around this. Kind of concerns me as they MAY be farming this out to another company and then just licensing their name. That would NOT make this an FN built product.
C4
Grand58742
12-02-13, 08:25
I thought that was the case with the TDP, but wasn't positive.
The other $10,000 question would be how was Remington going to produce government M4s and still have the Bushmaster and DPMS line available since it falls under the same company? Or is that a semantics in the name on the receiver game?
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 08:26
Like Jason said, I don't believe FN ever made M4's. I've never seen an M4/M4A1 that wasn't a Colt.
Well, if you count this ;)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/akim85/arFNm4rework.jpg
Other than nostalgic value, would an M16A4 clone actually be a commercial success? Even with the A5 system?
I just don't see a lot of people picking one up as a dedicated weapon myself.
Me either. M4C needs to remember we are the minority. An FN M16A4 will sell to those who have AR15 collections, those who carried one in the Corps, and those who think it looks neat. It will not be a big seller. I had a full M16A4 clone. BCM 20" with KAC M5, TA31 ACOG, and I sold it. It was nice to play with, but I just never shot it. And I had an intense nostalgia factor...
This is the problem. Where did FN get the TDP from??? That's right, Colt. It is also my understanding that when you get the TDP from Colt, you are FORBIDDEN from making a commercially available AR15. This is why so many companies backed out of the last competition (as they didn't want to give up commercial sales).
So the $10,000 dollar question is how? How are they getting around this. Kind of concerns me as they MAY be farming this out to another company and then just licensing their name. That would NOT make this an FN built product.
C4
Grant,
How does Colt sell commercial AR15s if it has the TDP? Is this strictly a Colt "We don't want any competition" ploy? Why would anyone even want the TDP from Colt if they weren't going to sell commercially? This isn't a trick question - I really don't know.
P.S. Sorry for bugging you and Roxanne so much last week :)
I thought that was the case with the TDP, but wasn't positive.
The other $10,000 question would be how was Remington going to produce government M4s and still have the Bushmaster and DPMS line available since it falls under the same company? Or is that a semantics in the name on the receiver game?
I think those companies are separate (own entities). Remington cannot produce an M4 for the commercial market.
C4
I hope FN does release their own rifles, both m4 and something in a rifle length.
This would put even more pressure on colt to just go belly up and die.
Grant,
How does Colt sell commercial AR15s if it has the TDP? Is this strictly a Colt "We don't want any competition" ploy? Why would anyone even want the TDP from Colt if they weren't going to sell commercially? This isn't a trick question - I really don't know.
P.S. Sorry for bugging you and Roxanne so much last week :)
Colt OWNS the TDP so they can do it. Any company that is given the OFFICIAL TDP (by the US GOVT) to build M16's or M4's for the US Govt is NOT allowed to use this document to produce commercial versions of said guns.
C4
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 08:33
Colt OWNS the TDP so they can do it. C4
You literally just made several year's worth of confusion go away in one sentence! I never thought of it as Colt owning the TDP. This makes it even more confusing how FN would sell commercial AR15s.
polymorpheous
12-02-13, 08:34
This is the problem. Where did FN get the TDP from??? That's right, Colt. It is also my understanding that when you get the TDP from Colt, you are FORBIDDEN from making a commercially available AR15. This is why so many companies backed out of the last competition (as they didn't want to give up commercial sales).
So the $10,000 dollar question is how? How are they getting around this. Kind of concerns me as they MAY be farming this out to another company and then just licensing their name. That would NOT make this an FN built product.
C4
How did BCM get a copy of the TDP?
Colt OWNS the TDP so they can do it. Any company that is given the OFFICIAL TDP (by the US GOVT) to build M16's or M4's for the US Govt is NOT allowed to use this document to produce commercial versions of said guns.
C4
What is stopping FN from changing something on the military rifles and offering a civilian version?
And what "exactly" does the tdp cover?
I would love to see FN get into the cilvian market. And I would love to see colt dead on the side of the road with all 4 legs up in the air.
Someone needs to step up and offer what consumers want. Besides rifles like the 6920 and 6970, colt is not getting the job done.
There are massive markets out there just waiting for someone like FN to fill.
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 08:35
How did BCM get a copy of the TDP?
As far as I know, they didn't.
I think they just hold themselves to a very high standard of quality, using materials, techniques, and production methods that are "public knowledge", for lack of a better phrase.
You literally just made several year's worth of confusion go away in one sentence! I never thought of it as Colt owning the TDP. This makes it even more confusing how FN would sell commercial AR15s.
LOL. That's what I am here for.
C4
Grand58742
12-02-13, 08:36
What is stopping FN from changing something on the military rifles and offering a civilian version?
And what "exactly" does the tdp cover?
Then it wouldn't be truly "mil spec" if they changed a tolerance or port size.
TDP covers everything from tolerances to materials used to testing. Think of a tech order from start to finish for any product in fine detail.
What is stopping FN from changing something on the military rifles and offering a civilian version?
And what "exactly" does the tdp cover?
I would love to see FN get into the cilvian market. And I would love to see colt dead on the side of the road with all 4 legs up in the air.
Someone needs to step up and offer what consumers want. Besides rifles like the 6920 and 6970, colt is not getting the job done.
I think it is a pretty blanket agreement that for forbids a company from making ANYTHING of the AR15 family commercially available. I will have to ask my friends at Colt and check though.
The TPD covers everything that is needed to take a bunch of Alum. and Steel and turn it into an M4 or M16(A2/A4).
Not sure why would want to see Colt go away. I am thankful Colt does what they do.
There are tons of companies that make AR's in all kinds of configurations. You have to remember though, not everyone wants a middy gassed AR.
C4
polymorpheous
12-02-13, 08:41
As far as I know, they didn't.
I think they just hold themselves to a very high standard of quality, using materials, techniques, and production methods that are "public knowledge", for lack of a better phrase.
Just an educated guess as to the correct heat treat on parts like barrel extensions?
I'd have to disagree.
Then it wouldn't be truly "mil spec" if they changed a tolerance or port size.
TDP covers everything from tolerances to materials used to testing. Think of a tech order from start to finish for any product in fine detail.
Maybe FN leased the tdp from colt and will be paying colt royalties on every rifle sold?
Not sure why would want to see Colt go away. I am thankful Colt does what they do.
C4
Because colt is not offering the public what they want.
There are people out here who would love to see something like a civilian m16a4, or even an m16a4 in 300 acc.
Colt is sitting there with its hands in its pockets and not offering anything new. That is the same thing car companies were doing in the 1970s. Then toyota came along and changed the car world.
Hopefully FN can be to colt what toyota was to gm, dodge and ford.
Maybe FN leased the tdp from colt and will be paying colt royalties on every rifle sold?
They have to do this now with every M16 made for the US Govt. Paying royalties is part of the deal when you get the TDP. This doesn't mean you can do on the commercial side though (FYI).
C4
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 08:47
Just an educated guess as to the correct heat treat on parts like barrel extensions?
I'd have to disagree.
Everyone has "friends". "Friends" can offer insight. I'm sure many on this forum can get exact info off the current TDP within 20 minutes if they wanted.
My point isn't that quality top tier rifle makers aren't following the TDP. Merely that they don't have the TDP. And even if they did, they'd never admit it. :)
Grand58742
12-02-13, 08:49
One final question along the TDP lines would be:
Does the agreement state you cannot use the TDP to produce commercial AR varients or just overall cannot produce commercial ARs? (with or without using the TDP)
If you know, understand if you don't know the nuts and bolts.
polymorpheous
12-02-13, 08:54
Everyone has "friends". "Friends" can offer insight. I'm sure many on this forum can get exact info off the current TDP within 20 minutes if they wanted.
My point isn't that quality top tier rifle makers aren't following the TDP. Merely that they don't have the TDP. And even if they did, they'd never admit it. :)
Agreed.
Companies like Noveske are a prime example of this.
However, John worked for Pac-Nor before venturing off on his own.
Paul Buffoni was a pharmaceutical salesman before starting up BCM.
They have to do this now with every M16 made for the US Govt. Paying royalties is part of the deal when you get the TDP. This doesn't mean you can do on the commercial side though (FYI).
C4
According to armytimes.com, the army has control of the m4 tdp, and not colt.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20090706/NEWS/907060307/Army-acquires-rights-to-M4
According to that article, colt no longer owns the tdp for the m4, and has not owned it in some time.
If the army owns the tdp for the m4 and not colt, what is stopping FN from sellign their own rifle to the public?
I asked a friend in the industry for his take on this. He is extremely knowledgeable on this stuff and here is what he said to me:
FN can make a commercial AR, but they can't use *ANY* knowledge, tooling, etc gained from the M4 or M16 TDP in the manufacturing of a commercial product. The parts can't be mixed and the tooling can't be the same. The machine programs can't be the same. The gauging can't be the same. They can't even use the scrap parts.
Frankly given the hoops they would have to jump through to make it happen I can't imagine they're really going to do it. Maybe they're either buying them from somebody (which would be an easy way to separate it) or making them in a different plant.
So what this means is that the parts used in a FN "built" AR15 wouldn't be built in house using their knowledge of the TDP. This is somewhat concerning and think that I would take a "wait and see" approach to buying one.
C4
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 09:11
I asked a friend in the industry for his take on this. He is extremely knowledgeable on this stuff and here is what he said to me:
C4
See what I mean? It didn't even take 20 minutes! ;)
According to armytimes.com, the army has control of the m4 tdp, and not colt.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20090706/NEWS/907060307/Army-acquires-rights-to-M4
According to that article, colt no longer owns the tdp for the m4, and has not owned it in some time.
If the army owns the tdp for the m4 and not colt, what is stopping FN from sellign their own rifle to the public?
Yes, but this simply means that they can give it to companies that are competing against Colt. Remington (for instance) has to pay Colt a royalty for each M4.
C4
polymorpheous
12-02-13, 09:15
See what I mean? It didn't even take 20 minutes! ;)
Yeah.
I also noticed that Grant won't touch my question.
Yeah.
I also noticed that Grant won't touch my question.
Unfortunately "Grant" knows to many things and sometimes it is best if he takes the 5th to protect friends. ;)
C4
polymorpheous
12-02-13, 09:19
Unfortunately "Grant" knows to many things and sometimes it is best if he takes the 5th to protect friends. ;)
C4
I guessed as much.
Fair enough.
Eurodriver
12-02-13, 09:29
So what this means is that the parts used in a FN "built" AR15 wouldn't be built in house using their knowledge of the TDP. This is somewhat concerning and think that I would take a "wait and see" approach to buying one.
C4
In order to steer the S.S. TDP Hijacked thread back on course with FN releasing a rifle -
What are the odds an FN produced AR15 won't meet the quality standard we expect? Isn't it true that even Bushmaster and Olympic have the tools and knowledge necessary to produce at the level of BCM and Noveske, but they just choose not to because they are only catering to the soda can shooters?
Seems to me FN could go either way, but if they are producing commercial ARs without using *any* of their current machinery then the likelihood of cutting corners exists.
3ACR_Scout
12-02-13, 09:48
Me either. M4C needs to remember we are the minority. An FN M16A4 will sell to those who have AR15 collections, those who carried one in the Corps, and those who think it looks neat. It will not be a big seller. I had a full M16A4 clone. BCM 20" with KAC M5, TA31 ACOG, and I sold it. It was nice to play with, but I just never shot it. And I had an intense nostalgia factor...
I agree with your point about M4C being in the minority, but I was surprised how much interest there was here in the Colt AR15A4:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?121967-Colt-20-quot-AR15A4-coming
I'm guessing half of that interest is because it's a Colt. I'll also admit that I probably wouldn't shoot an A4 very often, but I'd still like to have one (like my commemorative M9 - rarely shoot it, don't really care for it compared to other pistols, but I love having it as a momento of my Army experiences).
Dave
Seems to me FN could go either way, but if they are producing commercial ARs without using *any* of their current machinery then the likelihood of cutting corners exists.
If FN cut corners they would be just another name.
How more M4 rifles can the market support? Here in southeast Texas, at walmart and academy sports and outdoors, ar sales have stagnated. the sales people I spoke with at academy and walmart told me they sale around 1 ar every couple of weeks.
With rifles on the racks collecting dust, is there room for yet another brandname?
Lets be honest, the market is already saturated. People do not know the difference between a m&p, bushmaster, rock river, colt, dpms,,,. To the average buyer FN is just another brandname.
For the sake of discussion lets say FN offers a $1,200 AR. Why would the average consumer buy a $1,200 FN over a $800 dpms.
As far as I know, they didn't.
I think they just hold themselves to a very high standard of quality, using materials, techniques, and production methods that are "public knowledge", for lack of a better phrase.
Well I remember someone here stating that Paul/BCM has/had access to the TDP.
I would consider purchasing an FN made AR15... if it was piston operated.
In order to steer the S.S. TDP Hijacked thread back on course with FN releasing a rifle -
What are the odds an FN produced AR15 won't meet the quality standard we expect? Isn't it true that even Bushmaster and Olympic have the tools and knowledge necessary to produce at the level of BCM and Noveske, but they just choose not to because they are only catering to the soda can shooters?
Seems to me FN could go either way, but if they are producing commercial ARs without using *any* of their current machinery then the likelihood of cutting corners exists.
Well, that is possible. It really depends on how good their QC/QA is on the incoming parts. If they don't do a good job of this, then the FN AR won't be worth anything IMHO.
For me (as an AR15 fanboy/collector), my interest in an FN AR (that isn't actually made by FN) is about zero.
YMMV.
C4
I would consider purchasing an FN made AR15... if it was piston operated.
Why in the world would you want one with a Piston???
C4
What a lot of us seem to be forgetting is that the TDP itself isn't the exclusive standard, but it's obviously a good direction to start from. The SR-15 and derivatives aren't TDP spec rifles, but obviously leverage things like barrels, bolts, carriers, receivers, and fasteners that can be sourced at equivalent quality. It's not a stretch that FN will make only parts of these rifles in house (receivers, barrels, etc.) and source known quality components from elsewhere. Some of the simpler rifle arrangements wouldn't even require FN making a ton of the parts right away.
I would consider purchasing an FN made AR15... if it was piston operated.
Oh, the irony. The FN is piston operated
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0013.jpg
What the AR15 lacks, in comparison to other competing FN designs is an op-rod
What a lot of us seem to be forgetting is that the TDP itself isn't the exclusive standard, but it's obviously a good direction to start from. The SR-15 and derivatives aren't TDP spec rifles, but obviously leverage things like barrels, bolts, carriers, receivers, and fasteners that can be sourced at equivalent quality. It's not a stretch that FN will make only parts of these rifles in house (receivers, barrels, etc.) and source known quality components from elsewhere. Some of the simpler rifle arrangements wouldn't even require FN making a ton of the parts right away.
The key components though most ALWAYS follow the TDP. KAC is one of the few examples (if not the only one) where a higher standard has been achieved. With that said, the KAC sources or follows much of the TDP.
C4
Because colt is not offering the public what they want.
Sure they are. A known commodity. Sometimes that is better than all the fag rails and "optimized" gas systems in the world.
My advice is this: RELAX !!!! :stop: Stop trying to out guess what is going to happen and keep an eye open for any kind of ads or press releases from FNH-USA.
SHOT show will be here before you know it.
I'm not involved in any new projects other then what I see and the info that comes to us at meetings is "confidential" and will not be posted on the net. (please don't ask)
.
...Because colt is not offering the public what they want.
What does the public want? Bushmasters? Rock River? Both brands sell very well.
Something else to think about- Colt sued over the improper release of the TDP. Colt isn't the company to bring the middy to market. If they do begin offering one, will they have to pay monies to the company that did? It could be Colt is simply not willing to risk a messy legal entanglement. It may also be that so much of their manufacturing is dedicated to delivering M4s they cannot afford too many side projects
Colt is sitting there with its hands in its pockets and not offering anything new. That is the same thing car companies were doing in the 1970s. Then toyota came along and changed the car world.
Hopefully FN can be to colt what toyota was to gm, dodge and ford.
Toyota & Datsun didn't offer anything new, they simply upped their game in quality, control and efficiency at a time that Detroit was caught up in the throes of economic recession. Detroit made the mistake of cutting corners to economize to ride it out, while the Japanese invested in more efficient processes
Sure they are. A known commodity.
What does the public want? Bushmasters? Rock River? Both brands sell very well.
Where are the rifle length 300 blackout?
Maybe a 6.8 rifle length?
Maybe a civilian version of the m16a4?
How about a 300 blackout midlength?
Ford, gm, dodge all used the same excuses through the 1960s and 1970s. They were giving the customers exactly what they wanted and there was no room for improvement.
Then along came companies like toyota and nissan. What happened to gm, and dodge? They almost went bankrupt.
Personally, I would like to have a 300 blackout, but I want it in a barrel and sight length I can hunt with.
There is lots of room for improvement in the AR community. Companies like colt are ignoring what customers want.
If FN entered the AR market, hopefully it wil be in the niches other companies are ignoring.
http://media.theshootingwarehouse.com/large/84310.jpg
Check that one off. Should be here any day now ( maybe )
I'm still not convinced the public at large is interested in .300 whackoff or 6.8 useless, and I don't think Colt is being hurt by not offering those calibers.
My advice is this: RELAX !!!! :stop: Stop trying to out guess what is going to happen and keep an eye open for any kind of ads or press releases from FNH-USA.
SHOT show will be here before you know it.
I'm not involved in any new projects other then what I see and the info that comes to us at meetings is "confidential" and will not be posted on the net. (please don't ask)
.
Sure, but FN is NOT going to give us the details we are after. So ya, I will be able to finger bang one at shot and will be able to spot where most of the parts are coming form, but we won't get any hard spec details from them.
C4
I'm still not convinced the public at large is interested in .300 whackoff or 6.8 useless, and I don't think Colt is being hurt by not offering those calibers.
You are probably right, the public at large is probably not interested in a 6.8 or a 300 acc, that is why I keep using the word "niche".
Since its conception the AR has mostly ignored medium sized game hunters. Sure, some people deer hunt with a 223, but then again some states prohibit hunting deer with anything less than a 6mm/243 winchester.
A 300 blackout marketed towards deer and hog hunters would fill a wide niche. Which is something the vast majority of manufacturers have left void.
Personally, I do not think there is enough business for another M4 brandname. Not when the ARs at walmart and academy sports and outdoors are collecting dust.
I do however feel that there are niches out that that a specialty manufacturer can fill, such as marketing a new AR for hog hunters. An FN made rifle in 300 acc could be marketed as a good deer and hog rifle, but without recoil of a bolt action gun, and made from military grade parts.
I could see a father buying his daughter a rifle length FN in 6.8 or 300 acc to go deer and hog hunting with.
Sure, but FN is NOT going to give us the details we are after. So ya, I will be able to finger bang one at shot and will be able to spot where most of the parts are coming form, but we won't get any hard spec details from them.
C4
Hey make sure you measure the gas port for us :rolleyes:
I can see the FN booth now,
" shit here comes Grant with his tools "
Where are the rifle length 300 blackout?
Maybe a 6.8 rifle length?
Maybe a civilian version of the m16a4?
How about a 300 blackout midlength?
Ford, gm, dodge all used the same excuses through the 1960s and 1970s. They were giving the customers exactly what they wanted and there was no room for improvement.
Then along came companies like toyota and nissan. What happened to gm, and dodge? They almost went bankrupt.
Personally, I would like to have a 300 blackout, but I want it in a barrel and sight length I can hunt with.
There is lots of room for improvement in the AR community. Companies like colt are ignoring what customers want.
If FN entered the AR market, hopefully it wil be in the niches other companies are ignoring.
I'm talking about what actually sells. The buying public at large buys lots of ARs from Cecil The Seasick Sea Serpent and Rocket J. Squirrel. There isn't a large demand for the 300 BLK in any barrel length, although hog hunters seem to love it. This is the era of the carbine. 16" barrels are very popular and lots of shooters are jumping through the hoops for SBRs. Even in the 308, the 18" barrel is considered too long.
I'm not talking about excuses. I'm talking about what went down. Japanese car makers didn't offer anything Detroit didn't, their cars were just cheaper and being smaller and underpowered, they had better gas mileage. Combine that with the gas crisis, the recession and fuel prices doubling and tripling, they were able to get a good foothold in the American market. Detroit cut corners to to save on costs. That meant less money invested in product engineering and more importantly, none in improving manufacturing processes. Detroit hoped it would be enough to help them make it through the recession. In contrast, the Japanese took the opportunity to invest heavily in improving quality and streamlining manufacturing and rolled their profits back into product improvements. Detroit found itself behind the power curve in a landscape they thought they owned. The Japanese had changed consumer expectations and Detroit had to scramble to catch up
I'm talking about what actually sells. The buying public at large buys lots of ARs from Cecil The Seasick Sea Serpent and Rocket J. Squirrel. There isn't a large demand for the 300 BLK in any barrel length, although hog hunters seem to love it. This is the era of the carbine. 16" barrels are very popular and lots of shooters are jumping through the hoops for SBRs. Even in the 308, the 18" barrel is considered too long.
<snip>
The Japanese had changed consumer expectations and Detroit had to scramble to catch up
It is a difference in opinion, and what the rifle is being used for.
If you are slinging lead downrange at targets, so what if it just a 55 grain bullet.
If you are on a farm and need to get hogs or coyotes out of your field, you want a bullet that can break ribs, and do some serious damage.
If you are taking your kids deer hunting and you want something larger than a 223.
There are gaps in the AR market waiting for someone to fill. They might be niche gaps, but they are still gaps.
Your average shooter that goes deer hunting mroe than they go to a carbine course would probably get more use out of a AR chambered in 6.8 or 300 acc than 223.
eternal24k
12-02-13, 13:44
They could do that and more.
An FN16A5 with VLTOR A5 would be a ridiculously nice rifle, and pretty much be the rifle the USMC should be using right now.
I suspect there's money to be made gunning for the 6920, but the fact that idiots are still buying Bushmasters and RRA's for more money tells me the size of that market isn't necessarily big enough to justify it. They'll succeed at anything they try most likely, the question is what their market data will point the to for volume models, and to see if they'll churn out a few really well thought out weapon systems that punch above their price tag (e.g. DD V5 functions as a poor man's SR-15).
I really want to see in a couple year's time if they decide an FN-10 is worth the thought and hassle. The CHF barrel tech out of the FN SPR's applied to an SR-25/AR-10 layout could be the final standardizing nail in the .308 AR frame, and FN could well and truly deliver $2000 .308 AR's that do everything out to half a mile.
I would definitely be down for an FN-10...
As for the FN-15, if I wasn't saturated with ARs I would look into, but the price point is going to be tough, especially considering DD puts out just about every configuration I could want with a decent rail.
I am hoping for KiSS middies and 12.5" SBRs
Yes, there are niches to be filled but nobody is buying enough to fill the niche
Yes, there are niches to be filled but nobody is buying enough to fill the niche
Are there enough people buying to support another m4 brand name?
6 months ago sure FN could have probably sold trainloads of M4s during the panic buying. But now?
As I have said before, here in southeast Texas, at my local wlamarts and academy sports and outdoors, ARs just are not moving. Every sales person tells me the same thing, they might sale an AR every 2 weeks, maybe every 3 weeks.
With colt 6920s, dpms, and bushmasters sitting on the shelf collecting dust, who is going to buy FN?
Right now it is a buyers market. With 6920s selling for less than $900 online, would an FN m4 even sell?
TacticalSledgehammer
12-02-13, 15:11
I think they're "a little too late" to the civilian game, unless they're bringing something different.
justin_247
12-02-13, 15:36
Because colt is not offering the public what they want.
This is a total load of crap. Colt sells boat loads of ARs and remain in demand pretty much everywhere.
I don't think the market is soft for another AR as much as it is flooded from the super inflated demand from the Assault Weapons Ban that went to the Senate floor last spring and was defeated.
You still can't find .22 LR, a year later for it's old price even Ball park.
ETA: Case in point, I have bought three AR lowers and have an SBR pending still from those days. I bought a BCM SBR from Grant on December 18th of 2012 still pending.
Demand was WAY above normal in some cases over 200% increase. Look at Hornady.
As far as Colt? They're in trouble in my honest opinion.
This is a total load of crap. Colt sells boat loads of ARs and remain in demand pretty much everywhere.
How long have people been begging for a civilian version of the m16a4?
This topic has been discussed in the thread. Go back and read some of the post.
Where is the 300 acc in rifle length?
Where is the 6.8 version?
Where is the midlength?
Where is anything that colt did not make 20 years ago? What new product has colt brought to the market in the past decade?
Besides the slight engineering changes that have been made in the past few years, colt is still offering what it has always offered, just a couple of products to the civilian market.
How long have people been begging for a civilian version of the m16a4?
This topic has been discussed in the thread. Go back and read some of the post.
Where is the 300 acc in rifle length?
Where is the 6.8 version?
Where is the midlength?
Where is anything that colt did not make 20 years ago? What new product has colt brought to the market in the past decade?
Besides the slight engineering changes that have been made in the past few years, colt is still offering what it has always offered, just a couple of products to the civilian market.
My opinion is the same... Colt was bailed out from bankruptcy, which is what started their public LE-only persona. The 1911 was replaced in the 80's, the M4 contract went part way to Remington and then fully to FN. Colt has the special edition 1911 for the USMC in contract. But other then that, they don't have active military contracts.
I mean, they make good products, but if you look at it. They've been on a downward slope as a company for about 20-30 years from a Bird's eye view, getting pushed out of market after market.
I don't know if the market will support the entry of another M4. My points were directed at the comments about Colt's same old offerings. Only time will tell how it plays out for FN. They do have an advantage that shooters recognize FN makes quality parts, especially barrels. Maybe it's time someone brought us a 20" flat top with a lightweight or sporterweight barrel, a synthetic freefloat tube and an A5 RE. What I'd want is a lightweight version of the UBR stock on an A5 RE
SeriousStudent
12-02-13, 17:00
Here's a thought. If you want to talk about the possibility of FN producing an AR for public sale, do it in this thread.
If you want to talk about any perceived marketing failures by Colt, start your own thread. Or I can just go jihad on a bunch of posts that have nothing to do with FN.
justin_247
12-02-13, 17:00
How long have people been begging for a civilian version of the m16a4?
This topic has been discussed in the thread. Go back and read some of the post.
Where is the 300 acc in rifle length?
Where is the 6.8 version?
Where is the midlength?
Where is anything that colt did not make 20 years ago? What new product has colt brought to the market in the past decade?
Besides the slight engineering changes that have been made in the past few years, colt is still offering what it has always offered, just a couple of products to the civilian market.
~kev~
Quit asking the same question. And quit taking a dump in my thread. This is not about Colt. I created this thread so that I could gather information about a possible rifle from FN. If you have nothing to contribute in that regard, please go elsewhere.
SeriousStudent
12-02-13, 17:02
Justin, you read my mind.
~kev~
Quit asking the same question. And quit taking a dump in my thread. This is not about Colt. I created this thread so that I could gather information about a possible rifle from FN. If you have nothing to contribute in that regard, please go elsewhere.
If you would have read my post, all of them, you would see I am making a point about there being a niche market for FN to fill.
Lets say FN were to release an AR, the market is already saturated and stagnated. Walmart has shelves full of ARs collecting dust. Is another one on the shelf going to magically make people buy?
Of course not.
However, most manufacturers have left niche markets open for FN to fill.
And that is my opinion of FN producing a rifle.
PatrioticDisorder
12-02-13, 17:25
Competition is a great thing, I hope FN gets into the game. It would definitely be nice to have another high quality manufacturer making AR's. It will be interesting to see specifically how their rifles are configured.
kaltesherz
12-02-13, 18:06
FN makes great weapons and if they keep up their standards I'd love for them to enter the civie market.
I still think a plain jane M16A2/A4 would sell well- hell we had a couple in our old arms room and people couldn't take their hands off them. M16's are crazy light and simple- M4's beg to have a ton of mods and additions but an M16A2 just needs a sling, mag, and ammo.
MountainRaven
12-02-13, 19:03
I hope that FN does a 'real' M16A4. And a 'real' M16A2. And a 'real' M16A1, both early and late. And maybe an 'FNAR-15' (retro carbine).
In other words… I want factory retro guns from somebody not DPMS or Bushmaster. And also an M16A4-alike.
Larry Vickers posted this on his facebook. Pre production model.
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/995254_10153546362320416_457128970_n.jpg
Steel head
12-02-13, 20:53
Larry Vickers posted this on his facebook.
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/995254_10153546362320416_457128970_n.jpg
Nice!
I'm going to have to look into one of those when they come out.
I'm not a fan of Colt at all but I got no beef with FN.
I don't really understand why FN would want to get into the 5.56 commercial AR market at this point. They already supply what is arguably the highest value component (barrel/extension) to a large number of OEMs. Why piss off your customers? Are they going to challenge DPMS/Bushie etc. in the low-end? Seems doubtful.
The previously suggested idea of FN driving a high volume standard for the 7.62x51 market to challenge DPMS/Armalite on the low-end and LMT/Larue on the high end is an exciting idea but after seeing the "FNX" picture above I'm scratching my head.
I guess we'll wait and see.
Here's another thought as far as the marketability of an FN AR-15.
I mean just being honest. They are currently the only manufacturer of M4's/M16's for the Military (HK IAR, excluded). I mean, they already have all of the machinery up and running to makes these guns. All they have to do is re-brand them, not install F/A FCG into them and make 16''-20'' barrels and they're in.
I'm excited for the state of S.C. in this matter.
I don't really understand why FN would want to get into the 5.56 commercial AR market at this point. They already supply what is arguably the highest value component (barrel/extension) to a large number of OEMs. Why piss off your customers? Are they going to challenge DPMS/Bushie etc. in the low-end? Seems doubtful.
Maybe not challenge dpms/bushmaster, but what about offer a quality product in the low range market?
FN has the financial backing with its military contracts so that they can make less money from each rifle and not lose money.
Lets say dpms and bushmaster make $150 off each rifle. With military being its bread and butter, FN can afford to make $50 off each rifle sold in the civilian market. Thus undercutting the low teir manufacturers.
I am just throwing those numbers out there for examples.
I don't really understand why FN would want to get into the 5.56 commercial AR market at this point. $$$$$$
FN sells every SCAR they make. They sell tons of barrels. With the name branding out there more to the masses, especially making the M4 for the DOD, it makes perfect sense they move into the civie AR market as long as they keep quality where it needs to be.
HackerF15E
12-03-13, 08:21
If they're going to bank on the "we make the M4s for Uncle Sam" tagline, they'd better present a reason why an FN M4 is a better alternative to the Colt 6940. With the exception of price, I can't think of a single reason why that might be -- especially since according to Grant's post, (unlike Colt) FN would be prohibited from using any of the tools or manufacturing processes set up to produce the USGI M4s.
Here's another thought as far as the marketability of an FN AR-15.
I mean just being honest. They are currently the only manufacturer of M4's/M16's for the Military (HK IAR, excluded). I mean, they already have all of the machinery up and running to makes these guns. All they have to do is re-brand them, not install F/A FCG into them and make 16''-20'' barrels and they're in.
I'm excited for the state of S.C. in this matter.
I think you need to go back and read my posts.
You absolutely will NOT be getting an AR15 built on the same equipment that they make the M16 on nor will the parts be the same.
C4
jonconsiglio
12-03-13, 08:25
I was going to ask, but it looks like Grant covered it. I was curious if like Remington, the TDP and tooling would be limited to mil use only and the civilian rifles would have to come from another source.
I guess this doesn't necessarily mean they'd be built to lower quality, but they might be or at least they don't go through the same QC as their mil rifles.
As far as Colt not offering what people want.... I had to say that while I'm a big fan of mid length rifles, my longest barrels are 14.5". A Colt 6921 with a Vltor a5 (or H2 in a carbine RE) is extremely reliable and doesn't slow me down compared to the "flatter shooting" midlengths.
To be honest, I only notice the difference when I'm standing still at the range and focusing on it. Put me through a drill, especially one with movement and much more to focus on than just recoil, and I can hardly tell a difference.
I don't run brakes, and I'm perfectly content with a 14.5" carbine. The a5 does help smooth it out and make it more tolerant of ammo differences. I'm sure I'll buy another 14.5" midlength from BCM at some point, but not because I feel there's some incredible benefit.
I was going to ask, but it looks like Grant covered it. I was curious if like Remington, the TDP and tooling would be limited to mil use only and the civilian rifles would have to come from another source.
I guess this doesn't necessarily mean they'd be built to lower quality.
Remington cannot make commercially available AR15's because of the contract.
This is why 80% of the original group of manufacturers that went after this contract backed out. Their commercial sales were way to lucrative to let go.
C4
jonconsiglio
12-03-13, 08:33
Remington cannot make commercially available AR15's because of the contract.
This is why 80% of the original group of manufacturers that went after this contract backed out. Their commercial sales were way to lucrative to let go.
C4
Maybe I worded that wrong since I'm not too familiar with Remington. I meant that they could/were able to use the TDP for contract rifles only and not for anything outside of that.
I just assumed that Remington sold civilian ARs. It they did, it was clear they could not manufacturer them using the TDP and tooling/assembly line.
HackerF15E
12-03-13, 09:12
Remington cannot make commercially available AR15's because of the contract.
I still see a bunch of "Remington R-15s" listed on the Remington website, and they've supposedly been delivering USGI contract M4s for 5 or 6 months so far.
Is the limitation that they cannot produce a GI-configuration M4-pattern carbine that uses the TDP data? None of the rifles I see advertised there have the collapsable stock, fixed-front, 14.5"/16" barrel config that would "benefit" from the experience and proceducres outlined in the TDP.
HackerF15E
12-03-13, 09:22
According to armytimes.com, the army has control of the m4 tdp, and not colt.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20090706/NEWS/907060307/Army-acquires-rights-to-M4
According to that article, colt no longer owns the tdp for the m4, and has not owned it in some time.
If the army owns the tdp for the m4 and not colt, what is stopping FN from sellign their own rifle to the public?
Just as some further info about this:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/08/army-takes-control-of-m4-design/#comment-45824
“It is a bit of an exaggeration to say the Army has control of the TDP. As of July 1, the Army merely gained limited license rights to use the M4 TDP to second source production, as an extension of the 1967 licensing agreement for the M16. Until the end of calender year 2050, the Army will have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt for every M4 procured from second sources. The TDP will remain Colt proprietary data, and any second source M4 contractor will no doubt be required to sign non-disclosure agreements just as they do for the M16."
Where are the rifle length 300 blackout? Niche
Maybe a 6.8 rifle length? Niche
Maybe a civilian version of the m16a4? Yep
How about a 300 blackout midlength? Niche
Just because YOU want a specific contortion of an AR doesn't mean it will sell broadly.
ETA: I see you already recognize this as a fact. Best bet for niche AR's is to buy a stock one and swap parts to create your dream rifle.
I still see a bunch of "Remington R-15s" listed on the Remington website, and they've supposedly been delivering USGI contract M4s for 5 or 6 months so far.
Is the limitation that they cannot produce a GI-configuration M4-pattern carbine that uses the TDP data? None of the rifles I see advertised there have the collapsable stock, fixed-front, 14.5"/16" barrel config that would "benefit" from the experience and proceducres outlined in the TDP.
Yes, they were making those guns as far back as 2007. Those have ZERO to do with anything of the TDP.
Read my earlier post where I quoted a TDP expert on what is allowed and what isn't. Simply stated, how a gun "looks" has nothing to do with anything.
C4
jonconsiglio
12-03-13, 10:28
Yes, they were making those guns as far back as 2007. Those have ZERO to do with anything of the TDP.
Read my earlier post where I quoted a TDP expert on what is allowed and what isn't. Simply stated, how a gun "looks" has nothing to do with anything.
C4
That's exactly what I meant by my earlier post. Their civilian rifles remain(ed) separate from those built to the TDP. So, if it's important to the buyer to have a rifle built to the TDP, their options are Colt.... The 6921 to get as close as possible.
I missed the earlier posts that you're talking about, otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered posting on the subject.
ETA: I see you already recognize this as a fact. Best bet for niche AR's is to buy a stock one and swap parts to create your dream rifle.
My stance has been that the AR m4 market is saturated at all layers. There are the low tier, mid and high tier.
Are rifles selling? Sure they are. I just bought a PSA m4 rifle kit minus the lower on cyber-monday.
So exactly where is FN expecting to enter the market? Next to the windham weaponry, colt, bushmaster, S&W, dpms,,, already sitting on the shelves?
Or, are they going to offer something different, or a high grade rifle at a basement price?
If PSA can offer an M4 with hammer forged barrel for $600 - $650, why can't FN do close to the same thing? For cyber-monday PSA had m4s with aimpoint for $999. Minus the $400 optic that is $599 for the rifle.
Personally, I think if FN is going to enter the m4 market, they are going to cut dpms / bushmaster prices and offer a great quality product. Who says FN can not offer a complete mil-spec m4 for $700 or $800? If PSA can do it for $600, why cant FN for $700 or $800?
That's exactly what I meant by my earlier post. Their civilian rifles remain(ed) separate from those built to the TDP. So, if it's important to the buyer to have a rifle built to the TDP, their options are Colt.... The 6921 to get as close as possible.
I missed the earlier posts that you're talking about, otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered posting on the subject.
I think the difference though is that those are HUNTING AR's (camo'd up and everything) and Remington has never even attempted to portray them as anything other than what they are.
In order for FN to really sell these guns (especially as clones of .Mil weapons), they will NEED to say that they are Mil-Spec in just about every way. I am not sure how they will pull that one off.
C4
My stance has been that the AR m4 market is saturated at all layers. There are the low tier, mid and high tier.
Are rifles selling? Sure they are. I just bought a PSA m4 rifle kit minus the lower on cyber-monday.
So exactly where is FN expecting to enter the market? Next to the windham weaponry, colt, bushmaster, S&W, dpms,,, already sitting on the shelves?
Or, are they going to offer something different, or a high grade rifle at a basement price?
If PSA can offer an M4 with hammer forged barrel for $600 - $650, why can't FN do close to the same thing? For cyber-monday PSA had m4s with aimpoint for $999. Minus the $400 optic that is $599 for the rifle.
Personally, I think if FN is going to enter the m4 market, they are going to cut dpms / bushmaster prices and offer a great quality product. Who says FN can not offer a complete mil-spec m4 for $700 or $800? If PSA can do it for $600, why cant FN for $700 or $800?
First, you have to realize that the gun market is a roller coaster ride. From 11/2012-5/2013 I could have sold $800,000 dollars a MONTH worth of AR's (if I could have gotten enough inventory). Even though gun sales have slowed down, we are still selling $50k-$100k more a month than what we did last year (on average). So sales are very much up.
Second, people gravitate toward the bigger name brands. So if there is a PSA, Oly Arms and an FN sitting on the dealers shelf and the FN is more money, people will choose that one with the better name recognition/rarity. This means that FN wins.
Third, FN isn't going to sell a gun for $700 because they will lose money on the deal (assuming they are doing everything right). Realize that FN has LARGE Commercial distributors AND a LE Distributors and those companies will need to make a profit as well. Then the dealer will need to be able to do the same thing. Companies like PSA don't have these problems and can afford to offer heavier discounts (as they cut the middle man out).
C4
Colt is sitting there with its hands in its pockets and not offering anything new. That is the same thing car companies were doing in the 1970s. Then toyota came along and changed the car world.
Hopefully FN can be to colt what toyota was to gm, dodge and ford.
I believe the EPA, the UAW and the oil embargo had as much to do with changing the car world than did stubbornness of American motor companies. Companies that thrived on large, powerful muscle cars that were in demand didn't seem so enthusiastic to American motorists after their horsepower ratings went from 375bhp to 170bhp and still got 10 mpg while gas prices tripled and car prices increased. It was more of a "perfect storm" than Toyota being the innovative "new" company that single-highhandedly changed things.
Realize that FN has LARGE Commercial distributors AND a LE Distributors and those companies will need to make a profit as well.
C4
I wonder if FN is counting on vets buying their rifles?
Vet comes home from service, goes shopping for a rifle, sees the FN rollmark, thinks to himself (or herself) that is just like the rifle I used. Pulls out the credit card and bam, FN sold a rifle to someone who had experience with their products.
As for the $700 FN rifle, I was just throwing numbers out there.
Second, people gravitate toward the bigger name brands. So if there is a PSA, Oly Arms and an FN sitting on the dealers shelf and the FN is more money, people will choose that one with the better name recognition/rarity. This means that FN wins.
Third, FN isn't going to sell a gun for $700 because they will lose money on the deal (assuming they are doing everything right). Realize that FN has LARGE Commercial distributors AND a LE Distributors and those companies will need to make a profit as well. Then the dealer will need to be able to do the same thing. Companies like PSA don't have these problems and can afford to offer heavier discounts (as they cut the middle man out).
C4
Good points.
Also FN has an established market value. I'm sure they could bring in a quality carbine for sub $900, but why would they when they can sell for more just from their reputation?
I wonder if FN is counting on vets buying their rifles?
Vet comes home from service, goes shopping for a rifle, sees the FN rollmark, thinks to himself (or herself) that is just like the rifle I used. Pulls out the credit card and bam, FN sold a rifle to someone who had experience with their products.
As for the $700 FN rifle, I was just throwing numbers out there.
Could be. Many in this thread have said so. Like anything else that was never available before, people will buy it.
As Colt Distributor, I would assume that they will be inline with their prices. So this means that you COULD see $1100-$1200 dollar M4's (once the dust settles on them).
C4
Good points.
Also FN has an established market value. I'm sure they could bring in a quality carbine for sub $900, but why would they when they can sell for more just from their reputation?
My guess is that Distributor prices will be just South of $900 for a stock M4. Then they will sell to dealers for around $1k and dealers will then sell them for whatever they want. This is unless FN suffers a "SCAR moment" and way over charges for them. Then all bets are off.
C4
Of course there are the technical / legal hurdles that FN has to jump through to make non-TDP production line M4/AR weapons.
But they have the personnel and ability to acquire the raw materials and acquire the separate machinery to do it, as well as the QC know how to ensure the weapons meet a certain specification that they decide to have them live up to.
People are comfortable buying a BCM, DD, LMT, and Noveske... so why wouldn't they be comfortable buying an FN, assuming it is marketed to and lives up to a certain specification? Because, as has been beaten to death, if you really want "the same thing as is issues overseas", your only option is Colt if you are talking M4/M16 weapons. So once someone is comfortable deviating from the Pony, its a matter of choosing a weapon that meets your desires, specifications, and price point.
Or maybe I'm just missing something...
Of course there are the technical / legal hurdles that FN has to jump through to make non-TDP production line M4/AR weapons.
But they have the personnel and ability to acquire the raw materials and acquire the separate machinery to do it, as well as the QC know how to ensure the weapons meet a certain specification that they decide to have them live up to.
People are comfortable buying a BCM, DD, LMT, and Noveske... so why wouldn't they be comfortable buying an FN, assuming it is marketed to and lives up to a certain specification? Because, as has been beaten to death, if you really want "the same thing as is issues overseas", your only option is Colt if you are talking M4/M16 weapons. So once someone is comfortable deviating from the Pony, its a matter of choosing a weapon that meets your desires, specifications, and price point.
Or maybe I'm just missing something...
Many of these companies have the TDP and follow it (though it is an un-offical copy). If FN is "caught" breaking their agreement, they will be sued. Not so with these other companies. It will be very interesting to see how closely they walk this line.
C4
A question occurred to me. I might have missed it if someone said it, but, what is the non-legal reason for separate tooling? I understand the contractual requirement...... what is the reason that it even matters?
Is the reason for accounting/cost/reimbursement calculation purposes?
Wear and tear?
Danger of equipment going out of spec?
Union?
National Security? Pre-qualified operators requiring special clearance?
Qualifications required of the operators?
Serial number tracking?
Non-disclosure of methods and techniques?
Quality control tracking?
To hide raw material usage...so other countries can't track military production like we used to do against Russia in the 80s, 90s. WE knew how many aircraft because we could track raw materials like iron, aluminum, etc.
I can think of a thousand reasons.... but what is the underlying thinking to contractually dedicate the tooling like that?
3ACR_Scout
12-03-13, 12:59
I wonder if FN is counting on vets buying their rifles?
If they are, I don't think it's going to be all that effective. Based on my experience in the Army, not many soldiers pay attention to the manufacturer's name on their weapon, and probably a lot of them assume that their rifle was made by Colt (without bothering to look at the roll mark), because that's a name they recognize. The vets on this board and others are in the minority - most guys don't get involved in these kinds of discussion boards outside of the military. They know how to maintain and shoot their weapons (for the most part) , but they don't really care who made them or what the history is behind them. As I mentioned elsewhere here, most of the guys I run into went out and bought a Rock River or Bushmaster when they got home from a deployment because it was cheap, available, and they had seen the ads in some magazine or heard about the brand(s) from another guy. Most soldiers have never heard of BCM, Daniel Defense, or LMT. I think the one time I heard someone mention FN, it was to make a joke about it being a "French" company.
Dave
It's been stated pretty clearly why it's not allowed.
A question occurred to me. I might have missed it if someone said it, but, what is the non-legal reason for separate tooling? I understand the contractual requirement...... what is the reason that it even matters?
Is the reason for accounting/cost/reimbursement calculation purposes?
Wear and tear?
Danger of equipment going out of spec?
Union?
National Security? Pre-qualified operators requiring special clearance?
Qualifications required of the operators?
Serial number tracking?
Non-disclosure of methods and techniques?
Quality control tracking?
To hide raw material usage...so other countries can't track military production like we used to do against Russia in the 80s, 90s. WE knew how many aircraft because we could track raw materials like iron, aluminum, etc.
I can think of a thousand reasons.... but what is the underlying thinking to contractually dedicate the tooling like that?
My stance has been that the AR m4 market is saturated at all layers. There are the low tier, mid and high tier.
Are rifles selling? Sure they are. I just bought a PSA m4 rifle kit minus the lower on cyber-monday.
So exactly where is FN expecting to enter the market? Next to the windham weaponry, colt, bushmaster, S&W, dpms,,, already sitting on the shelves?
Or, are they going to offer something different, or a high grade rifle at a basement price?
If PSA can offer an M4 with hammer forged barrel for $600 - $650, why can't FN do close to the same thing? For cyber-monday PSA had m4s with aimpoint for $999. Minus the $400 optic that is $599 for the rifle.
Personally, I think if FN is going to enter the m4 market, they are going to cut dpms / bushmaster prices and offer a great quality product. Who says FN can not offer a complete mil-spec m4 for $700 or $800? If PSA can do it for $600, why cant FN for $700 or $800?
IMHO it's the name they're looking to capitalize on. I may be wrong but due to the reasons you list I can't think of another motivating factor. The market is saturated with a mix-mash of low to upper tier weapons, niche products are unlikely, so what does that leave?
I wonder if FN is counting on vets buying their rifles?
Vet comes home from service, goes shopping for a rifle, sees the FN rollmark, thinks to himself (or herself) that is just like the rifle I used. Pulls out the credit card and bam, FN sold a rifle to someone who had experience with their products.
I fall into the vocal group mentioned by Grant in that I certainly would pickup a FN A4 based solely on my time overseas. One member mentioned they felt opposite given experience on the Army side. I can see that, however the A4 varient is more institutional with the Corps, with the Army being more M4 centric (a Marines point of view). I could see prior service Marines interested in building their own memento snatching these rifles up. More so once the builds are posted outside of firearms forums such as this, and move into the Marine oriented forums such as on Military.com, Jarhead, etc.
3ACR_Scout
12-03-13, 14:36
One member mentioned they felt opposite given experience on the Army side.
I wasn't referring to the A4 model in particular, but rather the FN name. I personally don't think vets would necessarily buy a rifle because it says FN on it, as the poster I responded to was suggesting. As I posted previously, I carried an M16A4 in the Army at the beginning of my first Iraq deployment (my unit was gradually replacing older M16A2s with A4s, because the MTOE still called for M16s in many duty positions), and I'd be interested in having an M16A4 in my collection as a momento of that experience. However, I have to confess that I'm not even sure if I recall my rifle saying FN on the side, but I think I vaguely remember that. My M4 that I carried for the rest of the deployment is more memorable to me though, because I inherited it from our first soldier who was KIA in that deployment, and I carried it in his honor after that.
To put my opinion another way, if offered the choice of an AR15A4 made by FN, Colt, BCM, Bushmaster, or Rock River, I don't think the average vet would choose the FN because of name recognition. However, I think ABNAK may have a point about name recognition: I think some AR enthusiasts in the civilian world might buy FNs because they recognize it as the current military manufacturer. I just don't think most vets pay much attention to the fact that their M4, M16A4, or M240B was made by FN.
Dave
Many of these companies have the TDP and follow it (though it is an un-offical copy). If FN is "caught" breaking their agreement, they will be sued. Not so with these other companies. It will be very interesting to see how closely they walk this line.
Makes sense. I'm sure the lawyers have had to weigh in and decide how "different" it needs to be.
To put my opinion another way, if offered the choice of an AR15A4 made by FN, Colt, BCM, Bushmaster, or Rock River, I don't think the average vet would choose the FN because of name recognition. However, I think ABNAK may have a point about name recognition: I think some AR enthusiasts in the civilian world might buy FNs because they recognize it as the current military manufacturer. I just don't think most vets pay much attention to the fact that their M4, M16A4, or M240B was made by FN.
Dave
Oh ok I got ya. Sorry, been one of those days. I had forgotten the M240 in the FN mix so I should probably disclose that being a machine gunner I pay more attention to or identify with FN than the average Jarhead Grunt. Regardless... if we confirm this (100%), it'll replace the Colt as the basis for my A4/OIF build.
Like Grant, I'd like to see exactly how they are getting around the TDP holder roadblock. Certain aspects of the TDP, such as receiver materials, dimensions, and finishes seem to be common knowledge in the firearms industry and I don't think FN could be accused of misusing the TDP by producing a rifle with those elements. I'm also fairly confident in assuming that any commercial AR-15 FN produces will come with one of their hammer forged machine gun steel barrels, so that's at least one feature that will differentiate them from the M4 TDP. However, I have never seen the agreement that comes with access to the TDP so I can only speculate about how much detail it goes into when producing commercial rifles is concerned.
Like Grant, I'd like to see exactly how they are getting around the TDP holder roadblock. Certain aspects of the TDP, such as receiver materials, dimensions, and finishes seem to be common knowledge in the firearms industry and I don't think FN could be accused of misusing the TDP by producing a rifle with those elements. I'm also fairly confident in assuming that any commercial AR-15 FN produces will come with one of their hammer forged machine gun steel barrels, so that's at least one feature that will differentiate them from the M4 TDP. However, I have never seen the agreement that comes with access to the TDP so I can only speculate about how much detail it goes into when producing commercial rifles is concerned.
I think we have our answer for how they are going to get around the TDP issues. Read the second sentence on Soldier Systems: http://soldiersystems.net/2013/12/03/ready-for-a-commercial-fn-carbine/
C4
Here's a question... Are they using their "machine gun barrel" blanks for their govt. contract(s)? If not, is it safe to assume that atleast their barrels are going to be done in house?
Here's a question... Are they using their "machine gun barrel" blanks for their govt. contract(s)? If not, is it safe to assume that atleast their barrels are going to be done in house?
When a company comes to FN to have barrels made, they MUST provide the prints. So what will be interesting is to see how much their M4 and 20" barrels differ from the TDP (as they will have too).
C4
HackerF15E
12-03-13, 17:15
I think we have our answer for how they are going to get around the TDP issues. Read the second sentence on Soldier Systems: http://soldiersystems.net/2013/12/03/ready-for-a-commercial-fn-carbine/
So, can FN simply ask a third party manufacturer to make a particular part to certain "specifications"? And those "specifications" just happen to be the ones FN is building USGI parts to under the TDP?
All a big coincidence that those specs FN orders to are the same as the TDP, of course....
I think we have our answer for how they are going to get around the TDP issues. Read the second sentence on Soldier Systems: [url]http://soldiersystems.net/2013/12/03/ready-for-a-commercial-fn-carbine/[/url
That does explain a lot. It also make sense, considering the costs that would be involved in setting up a second production line to build AR parts, since the same tooling cannot be used. FN is likely turning to the same sources that Colt and other companies turn to while using the non-TDP CHF barrels they make in house. Based on FN's reputation, my guess is that the specs that they sent out to their suppliers are awfully close the the TDP and May exceed it in certain areas.
So many posters have mentioned either Colt or FN producing an A4 variant. Has anyone seen The latest issue of 'Shooting Times: Tactical Operator'. They've got a review article of the Colt AR15A4, MSRP is stated at $1,270. Sure looks like a street legal M16A4 to me.
sinlessorrow
12-03-13, 22:26
So, can FN simply ask a third party manufacturer to make a particular part to certain "specifications"? And those "specifications" just happen to be the ones FN is building USGI parts to under the TDP?
All a big coincidence that those specs FN orders to are the same as the TDP, of course....
Excellent question.
This is pure speculation, but there is plenty of information in the public domain about correct barrels, port sizes, etc... I think it would be rather hard for a case to be made or to prove FN is doing something. As long as they are using quality control/assurance they could probably make a good solid carbine.
So, can FN simply ask a third party manufacturer to make a particular part to certain "specifications"? And those "specifications" just happen to be the ones FN is building USGI parts to under the TDP?
All a big coincidence that those specs FN orders to are the same as the TDP, of course....
I'd be interested in one just based off of their barrels alone, a FN rollmark would be cool too.
So, can FN simply ask a third party manufacturer to make a particular part to certain "specifications"? And those "specifications" just happen to be the ones FN is building USGI parts to under the TDP?
All a big coincidence that those specs FN orders to are the same as the TDP, of course....
We will use BCG's as a reference item. When you call a company that makes them, they will commonly have many different options. You can choose the steel used, testing done (if they offer it), etc, etc. The company making the BCG's will follow THEIR drawings and standards when making them. This is how many low end AR "manufacturers" and dealers buy BCG's. The bigger/more educated AR manufacturers will get the TDP and create their OWN drawings & specs off this and send them to the BCG manufacturer. Now you have a standard and buyer can hold the company to these drawings.
So FN has the TDP. FN (by law) cannot use any of it. So one of two things is realistic. They (FN) will come up with their own drawings OR just go with however the manufacturer makes that item. If I was to put money down on one of these two, they will go with however the manufacturer makes it.
C4
One possible outcome will be more stringent QC standards (hopefully).
M-FOURTEEN
12-05-13, 08:18
When would we expect FN to have their A4 out to the public?
When would we expect FN to have their A4 out to the public?
More than likely Shot.
C4
So many posters have mentioned either Colt or FN producing an A4 variant. Has anyone seen The latest issue of 'Shooting Times: Tactical Operator'. They've got a review article of the Colt AR15A4, MSRP is stated at $1,270. Sure looks like a street legal M16A4 to me.
This would be a very good alternative to the Colt6920. I'd love to have a 20" AR from FN in my lineup.
With that MSRP they will be very close to the 6920's pricing, but with a rifle length gas system and 20" barrel.
kaltesherz
12-05-13, 19:53
When would we expect FN to have their A4 out to the public?
Dude, we don't know if they're even going to make an A4... right now everyone is just speculating. Odds are it'll just be a plain jane 16" M4 style AR, we'll find out at SHOT.
BrigandTwoFour
12-05-13, 22:09
This would be a very good alternative to the Colt6920. I'd love to have a 20" AR from FN in my lineup.
With that MSRP they will be very close to the 6920's pricing, but with a rifle length gas system and 20" barrel.
I saw that article as well. Immediately thought of this thread and people saying how badly they wanted an A4. I'm guessing it was a pre-release model to start generating buzz.
I'm wondering if Colt is going make the A4 in response to rumors that FN was going to enter the commercial AR market. I wonder how much "spite" was involved, since FN is the current contract on the A4.
Falasacookie
12-05-13, 22:34
I am by no means an insider on this topic, but I can tell you FN has been maneuvering their manufacturing facilities for the past year. Some of that includes adjustments for their recent contracts, and some of that relates to new production and assembly (TDP bypass?). The buzz around town is consistent with what's being discussed in this thread. As a parting gift, lets not forget the "friendly" competition that exists between Colt and FN...they've lawyered up before.
I saw that article as well. Immediately thought of this thread and people saying how badly they wanted an A4. I'm guessing it was a pre-release model to start generating buzz.
I'm wondering if Colt is going make the A4 in response to rumors that FN was going to enter the commercial AR market. I wonder how much "spite" was involved, since FN is the current contract on the A4.
Colt had intended to bring out an A4 long before this article. We have had pricing available to us for some time.
C4
coastwatcher42
12-08-13, 18:30
It looks as though Sportsman's Depot has them listed on their site. Price looks pretty good.
http://www.sportsmans-depot.com/products/FNH-FN15-223REM-16-BLK-CARBINE-FNH-36001.html
HackerF15E
12-08-13, 18:49
It looks as though Sportsman's Depot has them listed on their site. Price looks pretty good.
http://www.sportsmans-depot.com/products/FNH-FN15-223REM-16-BLK-CARBINE-FNH-36001.html
Comparable in price to the 6920, but without knowing any other stats about it whatsoever hard to tell if there is any reason to go with it over a 6920.
It looks as though Sportsman's Depot has them listed on their site. Price looks pretty good.
http://www.sportsmans-depot.com/products/FNH-FN15-223REM-16-BLK-CARBINE-FNH-36001.html
interesting
sinlessorrow
12-08-13, 22:10
interesting
Indeed, what it comes with will be the real judgement.
If its a bare bones Ar-15 with plastic round handguards and a carry handle it will be tough to choose over a Colt that comes with a KAC RAS and Matech BUIS.
Indeed, what it comes with will be the real judgement.
If its a bare bones Ar-15 with plastic round handguards and a carry handle it will be tough to choose over a Colt that comes with a KAC RAS and Matech BUIS.
Maybe. It is the waiting game.
coastwatcher42
12-08-13, 22:18
If its a bare bones Ar-15 with plastic round handguards and a carry handle it will be tough to choose over a Colt that comes with a KAC RAS and Matech BUIS.
Didn't Colt switch to Troy rails?
sinlessorrow
12-08-13, 22:30
Didn't Colt switch to Troy rails?
im not sure, my local WM has them with KAC RAS. It is possible though since the KAC RAS is on its way to becoming a thing of the past and is exceptionally expensive compared to any rail made today.
StevieJ309
01-01-14, 16:52
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/new-fnh-usa-fn-15-modern-sporting-rifles/
Voodoo_Man
01-01-14, 17:51
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/new-fnh-usa-fn-15-modern-sporting-rifles/
If FN undercuts the 6920's price this will be the new standard.
sinlessorrow
01-01-14, 17:53
If FN undercuts the 6920's price this will be the new standard.
What makes you say this? Bcm is not the standard and FNH is not making these, just assembling them due to the TDP.
Voodoo_Man
01-01-14, 18:22
What makes you say this? Bcm is not the standard and FNH is not making these, just assembling them due to the TDP.
While that may be true, I can tell you that FNH's quality has an awesome reputation and in the mass market (outside of this board) people will see the FNH logo, then the price tag, and if it is lower than a 6920 wonder why anyone would buy a 6920 for more when the FNH is better.
hell yes! looks good!
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Image-1-FN-15-Carbine.jpg
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Image-2-FN-15-Rifle.jpg
hell yes! looks good!
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Image-1-FN-15-Carbine.jpg
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Image-2-FN-15-Rifle.jpg
Those pictures bother me.
The A4 barrel doesn't have a step down right behind the flash hider.
No staking on the castle nut on the carbine.
Front sling swivel rivets installed the wrong way.
The buffer tube on the A4 should be gray, not black, on a 20" rifle of modern vintage. This makes me think this is a junk DPMS'esque pot metal buffer tube.
No F forge code above the forward assist.
The "look" of those guns just screams "aftermarket" to me. I hope I'm proven wrong.
So much butthurt in this thread from the diehard Colt guys. Gimme a break.
So much butthurt in this thread from the diehard Colt guys. Gimme a break.
Really? Show us.
C4
So much butthurt in this thread from the diehard Colt guys. Gimme a break.
Not really. We have been wondering how FN is going to get around their intellectual property agreements with Colt over the TDP.
It seems they are farming the production of these guns out to a third party to get around this. The pictures above and my comments support this.
brushy bill
01-01-14, 21:19
Late to the party, but I will say that the FN rifle I had in the Army was in no way comparable to the Colts, even the oldest of the Colts. Could have been a number of reasons for this, but as a result I'll pass on any future FN offerings.
SeriousStudent
01-01-14, 21:24
So much butthurt in this thread from the diehard Colt guys. Gimme a break.
Speaking of "gimme a break":
Why don't you offer a polite, cogent explanation consisting of facts? Rather than something that any 16-year-old on TOS could have posted?
If that's all you've got, don't post it. And that's not a suggestion.
I had a FN national sales rep in my shop last week and I asked him about the new rifles. He said they are going after the 6920 market and let me know what dealer cost will be and it is very comparable to the 6920.
No he's actually making some good points that others are going to look at as well.
So much butthurt in this thread from the diehard Colt guys. Gimme a break.
I disagree.
1. Colt quality is every bit as good as FN especially when we are talking the AR platform. I have worked on military contract Colt and FN rifles and I have never seen a significant difference.
2. People outside of this board (not sure where/what you are referring to) also buy plenty of shit. That's why DPMS, Bushmaster, Windham Trashonry, Delton and the others thrive. Too many people including military members and police officers think that all AR's are the same. I see and hear it so much it makes my head swim.
3. There is some appeal especially for the AR collector and that is having the FN rollmark lower in the safe.
4. What makes you believe that an FN is better, especially when we have ZERO details about the source of parts supply, assembly, etc..?
While that may be true, I can tell you that FNH's quality has an awesome reputation and in the mass market (outside of this board) people will see the FNH logo, then the price tag, and if it is lower than a 6920 wonder why anyone would buy a 6920 for more when the FNH is better.
Voodoo_Man
01-02-14, 03:59
I never said its better, obviously it has to be tested and vetted.
I said that the general public may look at this fn15 and go apeshit for them especially if they are marketed towards the 6920 crowd. This was not specifically a dig on colt or their rifles, it is a fact of circumstance. Obviously fn would go after the biggest market segment right away, look at their past firearms and what niches/holes they filled.
Only time will really tell what will happen, but I forsee fn giving colt a run for their money in this area. Of course this type of competition is going to benefit us, the consumer, since they will be competing to gain dominance in their market.
Actually you did say it was better in your last sentence in the form of a question. Of course they are going after a segment of the market. Its the same thing with most companies that build a similar.carbine/rifle. Keep in mind that they also need to compete against Bushmaster, SIG, S&W and everyone else as well. There will be plenty of idiots who will still base their purchase on price alone and those who have no clue about some "new fangled AR company called FN".
I never said its better, obviously it has to be tested and vetted.
I said that the general public may look at this fn15 and go apeshit for them especially if they are marketed towards the 6920 crowd. This was not specifically a dig on colt or their rifles, it is a fact of circumstance. Obviously fn would go after the biggest market segment right away, look at their past firearms and what niches/holes they filled.
Only time will really tell what will happen, but I forsee fn giving colt a run for their money in this area. Of course this type of competition is going to benefit us, the consumer, since they will be competing to gain dominance in their market.
Personally Id love to see COLT taken down a peg, especially after their childish behavior over the Remington M4 thing when they got called on their overly high price point. Of course they claim it was for the soldiers, but we all know it was to keep their insane profit margin from Uncle Sugar. I will Happily buy an FN, just wish it were a 20" and not a Carbine, though I get why they would release a carbine, its the king of the AR market
Let's keep this about the FN product and not what Colt did, or other stuff that doesn't contribute to this thread.
I thought FN was convinced of the superiority of their SCAR design?
WickedWillis
01-02-14, 11:20
I thought FN was convinced of the superiority of their SCAR design?
Aside from the reciprocating charging handle I would say it is a superior design.
I thought FN was convinced of the superiority of their SCAR design?
Chevy is convinced the Corvette is a superior sports car than the Camero but they don't exclude themselves from competing in that market.
The AR market is huge.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
coastwatcher42
01-02-14, 11:23
I thought FN was convinced of the superiority of their SCAR design?
Even so, as long as there is a market for AR/M4 style rifles and they can make money, they will produce them. That's business.
Aside from the reciprocating charging handle I would say it is a superior design.
Interesting. Having talked to some folks issued this gun, I don't hear many positives.
C4
Interesting. Having talked to some folks issued this gun, I don't hear many positives.
Considering 'what should have been' across the board on all the m4 replacement FOW candidates, I think it's the general disappointment that none of them, including the SCAR, were an improvement across the board despite 50 years of metallurgy and propellant development which has transpired. The Masada was an even bigger example of 'this should be completely better) and for a variety of reasons a complete failure.
WickedWillis
01-02-14, 11:59
Interesting. Having talked to some folks issued this gun, I don't hear many positives.
C4
Neither have I from guys who know far more than I do, and have done more range time than I can afford or fathom. It was just my humble opinion, I am personally a big fan of the Scar system and I will own one eventually it's just not practical at it's price point for me personally. Speaking on the FN AR15, I hope it slides in at less than the Colt now because it would be great to have a well built, well priced option that is more reliable than current offerings.
quaesitor logica
01-02-14, 12:01
I would put my money on the AR being around for quite a few more years despite the SCARS and Masada's and the like. For whatever reasons and whether or not we approve of all those reasons, the Stoner platform has survived long enough to be perfected. Manufacturing process has been streamlined to the point that a decent quality, accurate and reliable firearm can be produced inexpensively. With the advances in gunpowder, coatings, lubes etc.The M/4, AR does its job better than ever before.
I am of the idea that the AR platform will be around for a good while yet, until we are shooting caseless ammo or magnetically launched projectiles anyway. F.N certainly feels the same way considering how late they are to the AR making party.
Neither have I from guys who know far more than I do, and have done more range time than I can afford or fathom. It was just my humble opinion, I am personally a big fan of the Scar system and I will own one eventually it's just not practical at it's price point for me personally. Speaking on the FN AR15, I hope it slides in at less than the Colt now because it would be great to have a well built, well priced option that is more reliable than current offerings.
Just so we are clear, you don't own this gun, but think the design is superior??
The Colt LE6920 can be had for under $1k. How much cheaper does it need to be? How much more "reliable" does it need to be for the going price (of under $1k)??
C4
WickedWillis
01-02-14, 12:14
Just so we are clear, you don't own this gun, but think the design is superior??
The Colt LE6920 can be had for under $1k. How much cheaper does it need to be? How much more "reliable" does it need to be for the going price (of under $1k)??
C4
No I do not own the rifle, but I have put roughly 700rds through one that a family friend owns. Enough for me to form the opinion that I think some features are superior. Like I said, I'm not expert by any stretch of the imagination I was just stating a personal opinion and did not intend to create any animosity on here. With the pricing I have seen since I recently posted It's closer to the 6920 than I anticipated it would be. So, obviously it would be pointless to buy it in place of the Colt. I had figured they were going be around $800 or so.
No I do not own the rifle, but I have put roughly 700rds through one that a family friend owns. Enough for me to form the opinion that I think some features are superior. Like I said, I'm not expert by any stretch of the imagination I was just stating a personal opinion and did not intend to create any animosity on here. With the pricing I have seen since I recently posted It's closer to the 6920 than I anticipated it would be. So, obviously it would be pointless to buy it in place of the Colt. I had figured they were going be around $800 or so.
Ok so you don't own one and have fired 700rds through someone else's SCAR. Can you tell us what those "features" are and how they are superior??
C4
Not really. We have been wondering how FN is going to get around their intellectual property agreements with Colt over the TDP.
It seems they are farming the production of these guns out to a third party to get around this. The pictures above and my comments support this.
Technically its the IP agreement with the USG.
Colt does not own the M4 TDP anymore. However the agreement with the USG is that the data is only for use for a USG contract - not commercial sales.
IF FN was to pursue commercial sales, they would need to negotiate with Colt unless they could explain the difference in their guns (and where prepared to do so in court). FN has been building M16A3 and M16A4 rifles (next to no A3 guns - Full Auto with A2 Upper) so they could build rifles easily - the issue would be the carbine.
That said a 16" barrel and semi-auto lower is quite a difference from a 14.5" full auto M4A1.
Technically its the IP agreement with the USG.
Colt does not own the M4 TDP anymore. However the agreement with the USG is that the data is only for use for a USG contract - not commercial sales.
IF FN was to pursue commercial sales, they would need to negotiate with Colt unless they could explain the difference in their guns (and where prepared to do so in court). FN has been building M16A3 and M16A4 rifles (next to no A3 guns - Full Auto with A2 Upper) so they could build rifles easily - the issue would be the carbine.
That said a 16" barrel and semi-auto lower is quite a difference from a 14.5" full auto M4A1.
From what Colt tells me, no discussions between them and FN have occurred.
C4
I remember when FN sold of a bunch of A2 uppers, the market went Gaga. Id expect their rifles to do the same. If they can build a fullsize AR, its not exactly rocket science to build a carbine now days, and with their know how
goodwitwood
01-02-14, 14:44
FN would probably affect the market in parts alone. Imagine getting FN barrels, lowers and bcgs direct or from all retailers. Mid-length chf cl barrels are a hot commodity already.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I remember when FN sold of a bunch of A2 uppers, the market went Gaga. Id expect their rifles to do the same. If they can build a fullsize AR, its not exactly rocket science to build a carbine now days, and with their know how
Agree. There is only one issue though. The parts won't be the same parts that you would get in an issued gun (as they can't).
So the question is, how "gaga" would people be for a gun where FN made NONE of the parts and just sourced them like lots of AR manufacturers do??
C4
Of the M-16s I've been issued the worse ones have been FN A2s.. IMHO. GM HYDROs, H&R Colt. Then FN a2s the only ones that I have had that malfunctioned regularly and issues zeroing. Part in due to magazine issues. I've seen rifle barrels that had no rifling in the barrel from FN. (1990s) Stuff happens but that's things that I remember. . Would I still get one possibly. It would be higher quality than some of mine in name. :rolleyes: being I still have a POS Olmpy too.:eek: I could go for a standard A2-A4 upper much less a good A1 1-12.
Meh, I was really excited at first. I never saw a Colt firearm while I was in until we got some M4's around 2001. Our FN A-2's were pretty good though, I thought. As a vet I wanted one, but I wasn't considering that the parts wouldn't be coming off the same line as the military's (sans three round burst of course). My enthusiasm has cooled after finding out different on this thread. Ah, really I'd be happy with just a lower anyway. I've pretty much gone to Bravo uppers exclusively at this point anyway.
quaesitor logica
01-02-14, 18:22
Meh, I was really excited at first. I never saw a Colt firearm while I was in until we got some M4's around 2001. Our FN A-2's were pretty good though, I thought. As a vet I wanted one, but I wasn't considering that the parts wouldn't be coming off the same line as the military's (sans three round burst of course). My enthusiasm has cooled after finding out different on this thread. Ah, really I'd be happy with just a lower anyway. I've pretty much gone to Bravo uppers exclusively at this point anyway.
Same here, If I could get a lower I would call it day
It says on FNs site the carbine has a six position tube. This is not milspec.
goodwitwood
01-03-14, 12:33
Is that bad?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Not necessarily.
I prefer 4 pos, but most of mine are 6.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Mauser KAR98K
01-03-14, 12:56
Link to FNs site:
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/carbines/fn-15-series/
Will want to look at the 20" rifle over the carbine 9rather go colt for an "M4"). Really want the reviews to be good.
goodwitwood
01-03-14, 13:07
Link to FNs site:
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/carbines/fn-15-series/
Will want to look at the 20" rifle over the carbine 9rather go colt for an "M4"). Really want the reviews to be good.
Oh nice. I would want a mid length or rifle.
I wonder if they are making those in Columbia or Virginia.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Is that bad?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
No, but adds more credibility that FN cannot build this gun following the TDP.
C4
No, but adds more credibility that FN cannot build this gun following the TDP.
C4
I thought they had the M16 TDP, not the M4 TDP?
If so, why couldn't they make a 4 position carbine buffer tube if they wanted?
I also find it interesting that the barrels used are button rifled.
I thought they had the M16 TDP, not the M4 TDP?
If so, why couldn't they make a 4 position carbine buffer tube if they wanted?
I also find it interesting that the barrels used are button rifled.
FN has made M4 parts for .Mil contracts so they have both TDP's.
C4
HackerF15E
01-03-14, 13:56
Colt does not own the M4 TDP anymore
Do you know of a source that says this specifically? That contradicts other statements from other sources posted previously in this thread (like this one) that say that Colt still owns the TDP, but has licensed it to the Army/USG:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/08/army-takes-control-of-m4-design/#comment-45824
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say the Army has control of the TDP. As of July 1, the Army merely gained limited license rights to use the M4 TDP to second source production, as an extension of the 1967 licensing agreement for the M16. Until the end of calender year 2050, the Army will have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt for every M4 procured from second sources. The TDP will remain Colt proprietary data, and any second source M4 contractor will no doubt be required to sign non-disclosure agreements just as they do for the M16.
Do you know of a source that says this specifically? That contradicts other statements from other sources posted previously in this thread (like this one) that say that Colt still owns the TDP, but has licensed it to the Army/USG:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/08/army-takes-control-of-m4-design/#comment-45824
KevinB himself is a pretty good source.
HackerF15E
01-03-14, 17:01
KevinB himself is a pretty good source.
Okay, I'll be more specific: a written, quotable document that shows that Colt no longer "owns" the TDP.
Oh nice. I would want a mid length or rifle.
I wonder if they are making those in Columbia or Virginia.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Columbia.
.
Grand58742
01-03-14, 18:36
In reading this thread, I've seen a lot of nitpicking done without anyone actually putting hands on yet. I can see some even looking at a picture and making assumptions of quality. Like that's a good indicator of how the newest AR to the market will perform.
Anyway, here's the big question that nobody seems to have asked. Does anyone here think a company like FNH is going to put out a garbage weapon? They have a good track record so far and is there any reason to think they are suddenly going to drop their standards because....why?
My only concern would be if FN made the minor mistake of going M4 on us instead of releasing something else like an M16 style 20" rifle. Carbines are the common workhorse, but rifles could do with having a firmer place in the civilian world. Just my bit on that one.
In reading this thread, I've seen a lot of nitpicking done without anyone actually putting hands on yet. I can see some even looking at a picture and making assumptions of quality. Like that's a good indicator of how the newest AR to the market will perform.
Anyway, here's the big question that nobody seems to have asked. Does anyone here think a company like FNH is going to put out a garbage weapon? They have a good track record so far and is there any reason to think they are suddenly going to drop their standards because....why?
Given the current management at some gun companies now days anything is possible.
The points I brought up are 100% factual and indicate a commercial hobby grade gun. I don't need to hold it or shoot it to make these comments.
It would be ironic if they just sold rebranded PSA guns.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Technically its the IP agreement with the USG.
Colt does not own the M4 TDP anymore. However the agreement with the USG is that the data is only for use for a USG contract - not commercial sales.
IF FN was to pursue commercial sales, they would need to negotiate with Colt unless they could explain the difference in their guns (and where prepared to do so in court). FN has been building M16A3 and M16A4 rifles (next to no A3 guns - Full Auto with A2 Upper) so they could build rifles easily - the issue would be the carbine.
That said a 16" barrel and semi-auto lower is quite a difference from a 14.5" full auto M4A1.
This is actually pretty interesting. The Colt ads in a few gun mags all state the consumer Colt ar's are made with the same Colt owned TDP, on the same line as their Military counterparts. I'll see if I can find a pic to paste here.
3ACR_Scout
01-04-14, 00:10
This is actually pretty interesting. The Colt ads in a few gun mags all state the consumer Colt ar's are made with the same Colt owned TDP, on the same line as their Military counterparts. I'll see if I can find a pic to paste here.
I believe what Kevin meant was that other manufacturers can only use the TDP for USG contracts, according to the agreement. Since it's Colt's design, they are free to continue using it for any of their rifles.
Dave
Colt can do what they want since it's their IP. I might be wrong, but that is how I understand it. But, I do not believe they are made on the same lines.
This is actually pretty interesting. The Colt ads in a few gun mags all state the consumer Colt ar's are made with the same Colt owned TDP, on the same line as their Military counterparts. I'll see if I can find a pic to paste here.
Grand58742
01-04-14, 00:19
Given the current management at some gun companies now days anything is possible.
The points I brought up are 100% factual and indicate a commercial hobby grade gun. I don't need to hold it or shoot it to make these comments.
You are correct, you don't need to hold it or shoot it to make comments about it being nothing more than a weekend Coke can blaster.
Honestly, anything you said should be taken with a grain of salt since you are looking at photos from a third party website and you haven't actually handled said carbine yourself. You can make the judgment all day long about how it "sucks," but how can anyone take you seriously unless you've actually got hands on yourself?
goodwitwood
01-04-14, 07:59
You are correct, you don't need to hold it or shoot it to make comments about it being nothing more than a weekend Coke can blaster.
Honestly, anything you said should be taken with a grain of salt since you are looking at photos from a third party website and you haven't actually handled said carbine yourself. You can make the judgment all day long about how it "sucks," but how can anyone take you seriously unless you've actually got hands on yourself?
You have a good point but most have their minds made up. If it's not X, then it's crap.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
In reading this thread, I've seen a lot of nitpicking done without anyone actually putting hands on yet. I can see some even looking at a picture and making assumptions of quality. Like that's a good indicator of how the newest AR to the market will perform.
Anyway, here's the big question that nobody seems to have asked. Does anyone here think a company like FNH is going to put out a garbage weapon? They have a good track record so far and is there any reason to think they are suddenly going to drop their standards because....why?
You are right. We have not held this gun. Here is what we do know though:
1. FN cannot use the TDP in any way, knowledge gained, programming in machines setup to make parts for the Military or anything related to it.
2. FN has been buying parts throughout the industry. This substantiates #1.
3. The retail prices I have seen listed for these FN guns a VERY low. As a Distributor for such companies as Colt, S&W, BCM, Noveske, etc I know what what good guns cost to produce. You cannot retail an AR for $800 and have Distributor sales in there (which FN does) without cutting some corners.
I will be at Shot and will look this gun over (and possibly take it apart if they let me) so I hope to know more and will report back. From the looks of things though, this gun will most likely be somewhere between a S&W M&P and a PSA AR. Is that bad? No, not at all. Is it a Colt? No.
C4
You are correct, you don't need to hold it or shoot it to make comments about it being nothing more than a weekend Coke can blaster.
Honestly, anything you said should be taken with a grain of salt since you are looking at photos from a third party website and you haven't actually handled said carbine yourself. You can make the judgment all day long about how it "sucks," but how can anyone take you seriously unless you've actually got hands on yourself?
To be brutally honest, fit and finish means nothing (which is how most people are going to judge an AR). This is all you are going to get by "getting your hands on it." What needs to be looked at is the quality of the parts (materials used, testing done and if the TDP was used to make the parts).
I am familiar with a lot of the AR parts manufacturers and should be able to spot some common parts, but I cannot tell whether it was HPT/MPI'd, gas port size, chamber specs, metals used, etc.
C4
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 09:54
It would be ironic if they just sold rebranded PSA guns.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Being that they already make lowers and barrels for them, it would not be stretch of the imagination. If the FN carbine are equal in quality to a premium PSA offering and Colts 6920 then the price is ok. I hope the fit and finish is better than Colts though.
Having both Colt and Premium PSA, the Colt is much better. The finish is nicer on PSA, but that doesn't really matter IMO.
I wouldn't doubt that they form some kind of partnership to get this done, however.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 10:49
Having both Colt and Premium PSA, the Colt is much better. The finish is nicer on PSA, but that doesn't really matter IMO.
I wouldn't doubt that they form some kind of partnership to get this done, however.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
The only thing I found better on Colts is the RE and BCG. I have had Colts and until a year ago my issued longarm was a Colt. One thing that was apparent to me was that blemishes that would not make it past civilian brands Q.C like PSA regularly made it onto Colts civilian offerings. Not all Colts are blemished but you gotta look for the ones that aren't. I just hope FN will maintain Colt mechanical quality with PSA finish quality.
Are you saying that FN is making PSA lowers? I am pretty sure that they aren't. I would also like to know where you heard this.
Being that they already make lowers and barrels for them, it would not be stretch of the imagination. If the FN carbine are equal in quality to a premium PSA offering and Colts 6920 then the price is ok. I hope the fit and finish is better than Colts though.
The only thing I found better on Colts is the RE and BCG. I have had Colts and until a year ago my issued longarm was a Colt. One thing that was apparent to me was that blemishes that would not make it past civilian brands Q.C like PSA regularly made it onto Colts civilian offerings. Not all Colts are blemished but you gotta look for the ones that aren't. I just hope FN will maintain Colt mechanical quality with PSA finish quality.
Colt only knows how to build guns one way (to Military Spec). The US Govt does not care if there is a ding or a scratch on the the gun.
I know some Civy's are offended, upset or annoyed with my above comments, but it is the truth. If you want a safe queen, are OCD or a collector, NEVER buy a Colt.
C4
The first time I use them, they are dinged. Doesn't bother me at all. I don't know how indicative of quality it is but the springs in PSAs aren't the same. Some of the lower parts are different as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Grand58742
01-04-14, 11:59
You are right. We have not held this gun. Here is what we do know though:
1. FN cannot use the TDP in any way, knowledge gained, programming in machines setup to make parts for the Military or anything related to it.
2. FN has been buying parts throughout the industry. This substantiates #1.
3. The retail prices I have seen listed for these FN guns a VERY low. As a Distributor for such companies as Colt, S&W, BCM, Noveske, etc I know what what good guns cost to produce. You cannot retail an AR for $800 and have Distributor sales in there (which FN does) without cutting some corners.
I will be at Shot and will look this gun over (and possibly take it apart if they let me) so I hope to know more and will report back. From the looks of things though, this gun will most likely be somewhere between a S&W M&P and a PSA AR. Is that bad? No, not at all. Is it a Colt? No.
C4
You are correct, they cannot use the TDP, however, neither BCM, Daniel Defense, LMT or any number of companies that produce a high quality AR use it either (at least that we know of). Having said that, I figure if they are marketing an AR to go after the 6920 market, they have to have comparable specs. Now I know Bushmaster, DPMS and others have been doing it for years (going after the Colt market) and have nowhere near the quality of a Colt, so there is that chance they are cutting corners. But in order to break into the market, they may be dropping the price to absurd low levels in order to get in and slowly push them upwards over time. But like I said, nobody can tell until the true specs come out and trying to interpret from a picture is a little crazy. The last part there is not directed at you.
To be brutally honest, fit and finish means nothing (which is how most people are going to judge an AR). This is all you are going to get by "getting your hands on it." What needs to be looked at is the quality of the parts (materials used, testing done and if the TDP was used to make the parts).
I am familiar with a lot of the AR parts manufacturers and should be able to spot some common parts, but I cannot tell whether it was HPT/MPI'd, gas port size, chamber specs, metals used, etc.
C4
Biggest thing is a lot of people are making assumptions based on some serious lack of information. Some point to the military grade weapons and say they will be good to go. Others look at pictures and claim they will be garbage. I've made one myself when I said I don't believe FN would willingly put out a lemon when trying to break into the commercial AR market. Having said that, you do have a lot more insight into the market than I do, so I'm willing to wait for someone not unlike yourself to look one over and pick the brain of the SHOT rep at the show and report back. Only then can we objectively look at this new AR and realistically say "it sucks/it's worth picking up."
You are correct, they cannot use the TDP, however, neither BCM, Daniel Defense, LMT or any number of companies that produce a high quality AR use it either (at least that we know of). Having said that, I figure if they are marketing an AR to go after the 6920 market, they have to have comparable specs. Now I know Bushmaster, DPMS and others have been doing it for years (going after the Colt market) and have nowhere near the quality of a Colt, so there is that chance they are cutting corners. But in order to break into the market, they may be dropping the price to absurd low levels in order to get in and slowly push them upwards over time. But like I said, nobody can tell until the true specs come out and trying to interpret from a picture is a little crazy. The last part there is not directed at you.
This is incorrect. Most (if not all) the companies you listed have seen, have a copy or know the dimensions called out in the TDP.
My guess is that LMT, BCM, etc will be closer to Colt than the FN AR's will be.
FN will never give you all the full specs and most likely will never answer any detailed questions when asked.
Biggest thing is a lot of people are making assumptions based on some serious lack of information. Some point to the military grade weapons and say they will be good to go. Others look at pictures and claim they will be garbage. I've made one myself when I said I don't believe FN would willingly put out a lemon when trying to break into the commercial AR market. Having said that, you do have a lot more insight into the market than I do, so I'm willing to wait for someone not unlike yourself to look one over and pick the brain of the SHOT rep at the show and report back. Only then can we objectively look at this new AR and realistically say "it sucks/it's worth picking up."
One pic can say 10,000 words (if you know what you are looking for). With that said, I have never based my opinion on the pic. My opinion comes from knowing the rules for how the TDP is allowed to be used.
Do I think FN is going to TRY and put out a lemon? Of course not. Are they going to make a commercial AR where few to NONE of the parts were actually made by FN? Yes.
C4
Grand58742
01-04-14, 12:12
Are you saying that FN is making PSA lowers? I am pretty sure that they aren't. I would also like to know where you heard this.
I believe they made a special limited run, but PSA never stated it came from FN specifically. All they said was "mannufactured by a highly respected military supplier based in Columbia, South Carolina." Here's the link:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/241438_New_SC_lowers_.html
However, no significant numbers and never specifically said "FN." But only one military supplier that only sold ARs to military organizations based in Columbia, SC that I know of.
Grand58742
01-04-14, 12:15
This is incorrect. Most (if not all) the companies you listed have seen, have a copy or know the dimensions called out in the TDP.
My guess is that LMT, BCM, etc will be closer to Colt than the FN AR's will be.
FN will never give you all the full specs and most likely will never answer any detailed questions when asked.
One pic can say 10,000 words (if you know what you are looking for). With that said, I have never based my opinion on the pic. My opinion comes from knowing the rules for how the TDP is allowed to be used.
Do I think FN is going to TRY and put out a lemon? Of course not. Are they going to make a commercial AR where few to NONE of the parts were actually made by FN? Yes.
C4
Like I said, I'll hold off on anything judgmental until someone objective not unlike yourself gets their hands on one and asks the right questions. And if you start carrying FN ARs, I figure they will at least pass your pinky test lol
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 12:16
The first time I use them, they are dinged. Doesn't bother me at all. I don't know how indicative of quality it is but the springs in PSAs aren't the same. Some of the lower parts are different as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I always put together my lowers with an upgraded trigger and a Stag, WOA or CMMG LPK so not much experience with PSA Lpk's. As far as dings and such on a new weapon. I am not satisfied with government/military standards when they allow for easily avoided blemishes. I realize a scratch or a ding won't impact function but I won't pay top dollar for damaged goods. Colt would do well to eliminate cosmetic defects and factory damage to products intended for civilian sales.
I remember brand new CUCVs and HMMVs being delivered with dents and dings. The fact that they functioned perfectly well never made me overlook dings and scratches when purchasing an equivalent civilian pickup truck. That's just me though and what I demand for my money. YMMV
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 12:24
Colt only knows how to build guns one way (to Military Spec). The US Govt does not care if there is a ding or a scratch on the the gun.
I know some Civy's are offended, upset or annoyed with my above comments, but it is the truth. If you want a safe queen, are OCD or a collector, NEVER buy a Colt.
C4
I for one, am not offended in the least. You're speaking of tools not mom's. I do have a safe queen and I have tool grade. When I purchase the parts for either set up I demand an undamaged product. If I was buying a few thousand that were going to get abused I wouldn't be nit-picky over the details. That said, I would never buy a Colt for more than I would pay to build a less cosmetically flawed rifle that's just as reliable, or an FN for that matter.
I do look forward to hearing your assessment of the FN offering.
So if you've not used their LPK, their trigger or anything else, how can you say that it's as good as Colt? If you haven't had a factory built AR from them, how can you compare blemishes between the two?
And blemishes are not damaged goods. They are just blemishes. Sure, Colt Defense could pay attention to that, but their price would go up and their mi/le customers don't care.
Myself, I'll pay too dollar for quality parts that function and last. Cosmetics are not something I worry so much about. You should see the finish on an Accuracy International rifle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
NoveskeFan
01-04-14, 12:47
Has this been posted yet:
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/carbines/fn-15-series/
Edit: two pages ago. Anyway, curious about pricing on the 20".
Has this been posted yet:
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/carbines/fn-15-series/
See post #217 -)
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 12:56
So if you've not used their LPK, their trigger or anything else, how can you say that it's as good as Colt? If you haven't had a factory built AR from them, how can you compare blemishes between the two?
And blemishes are not damaged goods. They are just blemishes. Sure, Colt Defense could pay attention to that, but their price would go up and their mi/le customers don't care.
Myself, I'll pay too dollar for quality parts that function and last. Cosmetics are not something I worry so much about. You should see the finish on an Accuracy International rifle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I mentioned I don't have experience with PSA Lpk's. So I was inferring that I could not compare them with Colt's lpk. I have had a lot more experience with Colt rifles and carbines than most going back to the mid 80's to about 2 years ago, I don't have one now but I haven't forgotten what I know about them. The biggest difference from what you have being select fire.
As I stated before ,I do consider blemishes and factory-made dings substandard when I can buy the equivalent product unblemished for less money.
But really lets not make this a debate about what constitutes damaged/flawed goods. You are not wrong for setting your own standards. Your dime, your decision.
I figure if they are marketing an AR to go after the 6920 market, they have to have comparable specs.
Is there enough demand to support another over the counter M4?
Every place I go, every website I visit, there are a slew of M4s being marked down at discounted prices. 6920s are going for less than $900 on various sites across the web.
How can FN hope to sell a product in an already saturated market.
This has already been addressed if you read through the thread.
Is there enough demand to support another over the counter M4?
Every place I go, every website I visit, there are a slew of M4s being marked down at discounted prices. 6920s are going for less than $900 on various sites across the web.
How can FN hope to sell a product in an already saturated market.
Like I said, I'll hold off on anything judgmental until someone objective not unlike yourself gets their hands on one and asks the right questions. And if you start carrying FN ARs, I figure they will at least pass your pinky test lol
I intend to handle the gun and ask questions. I doubt I will get any REAL answers though.
We are an FN LE Dealer and intend on stocking them (at least on the LE side).
C4
I for one, am not offended in the least. You're speaking of tools not mom's. I do have a safe queen and I have tool grade. When I purchase the parts for either set up I demand an undamaged product. If I was buying a few thousand that were going to get abused I wouldn't be nit-picky over the details. That said, I would never buy a Colt for more than I would pay to build a less cosmetically flawed rifle that's just as reliable, or an FN for that matter.
I do look forward to hearing your assessment of the FN offering.
A ding or a nick in an AR is NOT damaged. AR's are like hammers. When I buy hammers, I NEVER concern myself with any cosmetics imperfections as I AM going to do far worse to it.
YMMV.
C4
JBecker 72
01-04-14, 13:30
To be honest, I just want the lower receiver, if it says Fredericksburg, VA on it. I might just buy a complete rifle, and sell the upper to get one too.
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 13:43
Are you saying that FN is making PSA lowers? I am pretty sure that they aren't. I would also like to know where you heard this.
I dont have more info than what Grand58742 posted but given the clues put out by PSA thats the best I can tell. Seems like PSA cannot reveal who makes the lower.
I would buy an FN AR in a heartbeat, just to have one.
No reason for it not to be a good quality product. Their other firearms seem to work well, why would their AR be any different?
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 14:22
A ding or a nick in an AR is NOT damaged. AR's are like hammers. When I buy hammers, I NEVER concern myself with any cosmetics imperfections as I AM going to do far worse to it.
YMMV.
C4
I cant equate a simple single component tool like a hammer to a complex mechanical assembly like an AR carbine. Apples and oranges to me, but again that is just my opinion. A ding and a nick are by their very nature a form of damage. If I was going to compare the AR to a tool it would be a micrometer or a caliper. In everyday use they will get scuffed and marred but that doesn't mean I am going to purchase a nicked or dinged one for top dollar, if there is a discount involved, then I am willing to deal.
I know AR's will get damaged with use, even my safe/range queen has a couple of knicks on it. My G.P AR is pretty dinged up. I put a couple of dins in while assembling it. But the individual components were spotless when I received them from the manufacturer. If I did not care about dings and scratches I suppose I would not bother to source individual components and assemble my rifles myself.
To each his own C4, I know that nicks and dings wont effect function and I will never convince you that they matter but on the same note you will never convince me that they don't. In the end it matters about as much as our favorite color.
My point when I brought up dings and scratches was that I hope FN puts out a product less marred then the typical Colt product. Nothing more.
Manufacturers ding parts assembling ARs. Not just Colt. You are comparing unassembled parts to complete rifles. Apples and oranges.
Perfect finish shouldn't be sought if it means lesser quality parts that matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I would buy an FN AR in a heartbeat, just to have one.
No reason for it not to be a good quality product. Their other firearms seem to work well, why would their AR be any different?
The SCAR is their own design (they hold the TDP). Same deal with their SG's, HG's and bolt guns.
To put things in perspective, the Govt gains access to the SCAR TDP. They put a solicitation out and gives the SCAR TDP to ANY company that is competing. One caveat though. If you wins the solicitation, you can NEVER use the TDP to build a commercial SCAR.
Colt wins with the highest bid and uses all the knowledge gained with the TDP to built SCAR's the Govt specifications.
Fast forward, Colt decides to make a commercial SCAR. They cannot use the SCAR TDP in anyway and must buy all the parts for the SCAR on the open market from "parts makers."
So the question is, would you want a SCAR built by FN (who CAN USE the TDP and parts made in house) or Colt?
C4
I cant equate a simple single component tool like a hammer to a complex mechanical assembly like an AR carbine. Apples and oranges to me, but again that is just my opinion. A ding and a nick are by their very nature a form of damage. If I was going to compare the AR to a tool it would be a micrometer or a caliper. In everyday use they will get scuffed and marred but that doesn't mean I am going to purchase a nicked or dinged one for top dollar, if there is a discount involved, then I am willing to deal.
I can. I own guns where fit and finish is just as important as how it "shoots." You see this alot with higher end shotguns, revolvers, 1911's, etc.
The AR is simply not that precise. So comparing it to calipers is foolish. If you wanted an apples to apples comparison, a $3k bolt gun would be a much better match.
Just so we are clear, we know that the AR is going to get scratched and dinged up under NORMAL training environments or during installation, but it isn't ok if there is a small ding on it coming from the manufacturer??
My point when I brought up dings and scratches was that I hope FN puts out a product less marred product then the typical Colt product. Nothing more.
They might. They would have to change how they normally do things though. Will be interesting to see.
From my point of view, I MUCH prefer gun that is built right, uses all the proper internal, etc, WITH A DING on it, VS a gun that is not built using TDP following parts that has a "flawless" finish on it.
C4
That's why I bring up AI rifles. 6k for finish about like a Colt. Best precision rifle on the market. Made for military abuse. It isn't a Biesen M70 in French walnut that you show your buddies when they come over and never shoot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
That's why I bring up AI rifles. 6k for finish about like a Colt. Best precision rifle on the market. Made for military abuse. It isn't a Biesen M70 in French walnut that you show your buddies when they come over and never shoot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
That is funny. So Colt isn't alone in their "rough" finish, but offer a good product. For me, it isn't a hard pill to swallow on a Sub $1k rifle. Might be a harder pill to swallow if it was $6k though! :)
I mostly use german tools for building guns (calibrated torque wrenches, drivers, etc) so I guess it is just like an expensive hammer (that I am going to beat up anyways).
C4
justin_247
01-04-14, 15:04
I cant equate a simple single component tool like a hammer to a complex mechanical assembly like an AR carbine. Apples and oranges to me, but again that is just my opinion. A ding and a nick are by their very nature a form of damage. If I was going to compare the AR to a tool it would be a micrometer or a caliper. In everyday use they will get scuffed and marred but that doesn't mean I am going to purchase a nicked or dinged one for top dollar, if there is a discount involved, then I am willing to deal.
I know AR's will get damaged with use, even my safe/range queen has a couple of knicks on it. My G.P AR is pretty dinged up. I put a couple of dins in while assembling it. But the individual components were spotless when I received them from the manufacturer. If I did not care about dings and scratches I suppose I would not bother to source individual components and assemble my rifles myself.
To each his own C4, I know that nicks and dings wont effect function and I will never convince you that they matter but on the same note you will never convince me that they don't. In the end it matters about as much as our favorite color.
My point when I brought up dings and scratches was that I hope FN puts out a product less marred product then the typical Colt product. Nothing more.
I don't know what your point is. Top dollar ARs, like those from Noveske, come without most of the problems you are concerned about. When you're talking about a Colt, which is moderately priced, it's sometimes going to have these problems.
On another note, big thanks to C4IGrant, Iraqgunz, scottryan, and other SMEs. Without you, this thread would be nothing but a compilation of speculation and irrelevant thoughts. THANK YOU!!!!
I don't know what your point is. Top dollar ARs, like those from Noveske, come without most of the problems you are concerned about. When you're talking about a Colt, which is moderately priced, it's sometimes going to have these problems.
On another note, big thanks to C4IGrant, Iraqgunz, scottryan, and other SMEs. Without you, this thread would be nothing but a compilation of speculation and irrelevant thoughts. THANK YOU!!!!
You are welcome. The internet (especially gun forums) is FULL of mis-information (which pains me to see). M4C is one of the few places where the truth tries to come out.
C4
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 15:13
Manufacturers ding parts assembling ARs. Not just Colt. You are comparing unassembled parts to complete rifles. Apples and oranges.
Perfect finish shouldn't be sought if it means lesser quality parts that matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Not necessarily. Just off hand I have seen complete Colt, Sionic, LMT, S&W, PSA, KAC, BCM rifles without a scratch on them when new . But I agree with not sacrificing good for perfection.
I've seen plenty that were fine of various brands including Colt, and plenty that weren't. How many complete PSAs have you seen as that was your original reference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 15:25
I don't know what your point is. Top dollar ARs, like those from Noveske, come without most of the problems you are concerned about. When you're talking about a Colt, which is moderately priced, it's sometimes going to have these problems.
On another note, big thanks to C4IGrant, Iraqgunz, scottryan, and other SMEs. Without you, this thread would be nothing but a compilation of speculation and irrelevant thoughts. THANK YOU!!!!
I never mentioned top dollar AR's. My point was simple. I hope that FN can put together a less blemished AR than Colt for around the same price, pretty much it and now it has turned into a debate on what a blemish or damage is. For example Sionics "Patrol 0" is a 900 dollar rifle that comes without a scratch on it and quality parts, there are plenty more of examples of unblemished, complete factory assembled AR's. This doesnt make Colts less mechanically capable and I never made that claim.
But in respect to keeping this thread on track, I hear wardrums beating and see the glow of the torchs and pointy pitchforks on the horizon so I'll end this with an acknowledgement. Dings can and do happen to any AR that is used. They happen at factories and they happen to DIY'ers like me. Dings and scratches dont effect function.
So are Sionics are the same quality of parts as Colt?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
quaesitor logica
01-04-14, 15:34
I can. I own guns where fit and finish is just as important as how it "shoots." You see this alot with higher end shotguns, revolvers, 1911's, etc.
The AR is simply not that precise. So comparing it to calipers is foolish. If you wanted an apples to apples comparison, a $3k bolt gun would be a much better match.
Just so we are clear, we know that the AR is going to get scratched and dinged up under NORMAL training environments or during installation, but it isn't ok if there is a small ding on it coming from the manufacturer??
They might. They would have to change how they normally do things though. Will be interesting to see.
From my point of view, I MUCH prefer gun that is built right, uses all the proper internal, etc, WITH A DING on it, VS a gun that is not built using TDP following parts that has a "flawless" finish on it.
C4
Check and mate C4 , you win. Your pond, your rules.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.