View Full Version : Colt AR15A4 and FN15 - Side by Side Picture Comparison
Hello. Long time reader, first time post. First off, thanks for all the knowledge I have learned from this Forum. It is because of M4C that I decided to get into ARs. Previously into gas piston guns primarily...SCARs, SIG 556s (Swiss parts), M1As. My first AR was actually a Remington R-25 for hunting, then I picked up a Colt LE6940, and instantly caught the contagion....
I have always wanted to buy a rifle-length AR similar to the M16, but I wanted one from Colt, heard about the AR15A4, and it was on. Then I learned FN was going to release the FN15. So I decided I would like to own one of each, and now I do.
There seems to be a considerable amount of interest in these rifles, so I thought I would post some pictures showing the differences between the two as delivered from the factory.
I have not shot these yet - just bought them, but I plan to clean them and go shoot them ASAP. I know Brand X versus Brand Y comparisons are verboten, so I am staying away from that intentionally. Anyway, on with the picture show....
FN-15 out of the box (I bought it first while awaiting the Colt's arrival; comes with a D&H Industries mag with an FN baseplate):
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2297_zps124ab328.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2297_zps124ab328.jpg.html)
Colt out of the box (comes with a P-Mag):
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2316_zpsb8f18ce4.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2316_zpsb8f18ce4.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2312_zps9601df01.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2312_zps9601df01.jpg.html)
One of these things is different from the other:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2317_zps5a9e543b.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2317_zps5a9e543b.jpg.html)
There has been a lot of discussion on the Web about "F" marked front sight bases - the FN comes with one, the Colt does not. I plan to run these with iron sights for the foreseeable future; if it is an issue, a $15.00 part will make it a non-issue (at least for me...FN FSB first, Colt second):
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2300_zps5c522434.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2300_zps5c522434.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2314_zps410d5d0c.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2314_zps410d5d0c.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2315_zps66e166ef.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2315_zps66e166ef.jpg.html)
FN-15 - sure would be nice to see a milled FN logo here:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2302_zps8739089f.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2302_zps8739089f.jpg.html)
Colt - in my opinion, Colt did this right:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2311_zps2068975f.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2311_zps2068975f.jpg.html)
Colt has an ambidextrous safety selector - a definite plus..., and note the marking differences:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2321_zpsa78b4c38.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2321_zpsa78b4c38.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2320_zpsa7ab6555.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2320_zpsa7ab6555.jpg.html)
Quality niggle - the FN hand guards inner aluminum heat shield was misaligned - minor cosmetic issue, but the Colt's was aligned perfectly, suggesting more attention to detail in assembly, or perhaps better vendor quality control on the part:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2308_zps1c55901d.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2308_zps1c55901d.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2306_zps3f2dd43f.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2306_zps3f2dd43f.jpg.html)
FN laser etching - looks okay to my eye, but I would much rather have a milled logo - the difference in price between the two rifles was ~$100ish; not sure if I would pay the extra for the milled logo, but I probably would, in all honesty:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2303_zps6ecf5702.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2303_zps6ecf5702.jpg.html)
One final discernable external difference - the FN is about a quarter-inch longer:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2318_zps279acd0d.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2318_zps279acd0d.jpg.html)
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2319_zpsc45514e7.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2319_zpsc45514e7.jpg.html)
I will post some more pictures once I break the guns down to clean off the factory rust preventatives and machining crud.
My overall impression thus far is these are two high-quality rifles, and I am very pleased with and proud to own both of them. There are some differences between the two, for sure, but I have waited for a factory built and factory warrantied 20" barreled AR15 for as long as I can remember, and now they are commercially available, and affordable. It will be interesting to see how well they shoot.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed seeing the photos and some more details....
Thanks, welcome, and congrats!
Nice pics and comparison. I've been waiting to see the FN. Odd they went with a laser etching. That seems kinda weak IMO. I'm guessing the FN was the cheaper of the two?
No "f" marked FSB on the Colt? What the F? ...had to go there.
Eurodriver
04-13-14, 14:44
With posts like these you're more than welcome to continue. I think my quality post to useless banter ratio is 1:2000. Thanks for the info!
Slvr Surfr
04-13-14, 15:24
Clyde,
If you have the opportunity, please take pics of the internals on the FN such as the bolt carrier group to include the staking on the carrier key.
Thanks for the pics thus far!
No "f" marked FSB on the Colt?
The 20" rifle doesn't use the F marked FSB. The extra height of the F marked FSB came about to fix problems with the shorter sight radius of the AR carbine
How about the bcg differences and the buffers in each? Thanks and nice write up
MSparks909
04-13-14, 19:10
Nice first post! Thanks for the pics. Sub'd for pics of the buffer, BCG and chamber/feed ramps. Is the FN's barrel 1/7 or 1/9?
Great post! Thanks for info.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excellent pictures! Obviously its just cosmetic, but the FN laser etching above the magwell on the lower looks horrible imo (screams consumer level rifle). As far as the F marked FSB issue on the colts... Grant mentioned that some were shipping with the F marked FSB and some were not. I was under the impression that M16 A4's were supposed to have F marked FSB's. ??
wildcard600
04-13-14, 20:39
As far as the F marked FSB issue on the colts... Grant mentioned that some were shipping with the F marked FSB and some were not. I was under the impression that M16 A4's were supposed to have F marked FSB's. ??
I've always been under the impression that ALL flat tops should have an F marked FSB regardless of barrel length.
Proper zero seems to be less of an issue on 20" rifles with a regular A2 FSB, but I would much rather have the correct parts to begin with.
of course I may be misinformed.
Clyde,
If you have the opportunity, please take pics of the internals on the FN such as the bolt carrier group to include the staking on the carrier key.
Thanks for the pics thus far!
Per your request, here are some pictures of the FN15 internals.
Lighting at night is kind of dark in the man cave, so I had to edit this shot to show the gas key staking. It is properly staked, and is so uniform it appears to clearly be done by machine press equipment. Side view detail, best I could do at night.
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/1b13c9e2-e085-48e5-842a-53ed2e9ac4b1_zps86c9df72.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/1b13c9e2-e085-48e5-842a-53ed2e9ac4b1_zps86c9df72.jpg.html)
Same shot, unedited:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2324_zps07f8af0c.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2324_zps07f8af0c.jpg.html)
FN15 Bolt (unedited photo):
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2325_zps41344d12.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2325_zps41344d12.jpg.html)
Chrome lined bolt carrier (edited to lighten it up):
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/a007c426-5839-4c96-aa84-d07cd18e4df7_zps480535b8.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/a007c426-5839-4c96-aa84-d07cd18e4df7_zps480535b8.jpg.html)
M4 feed ramps, chrome lined chamber:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/29263f4e-3f34-4ac4-98ed-66eb03e2cf4c_zps569681d1.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/29263f4e-3f34-4ac4-98ed-66eb03e2cf4c_zps569681d1.jpg.html)
Barrel marks:
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx35/Clyde_44/IMG_2305_zps18d928dc.jpg (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/Clyde_44/media/IMG_2305_zps18d928dc.jpg.html)
How about the bcg differences and the buffers in each? Thanks and nice write up
I will shoot some comparison shots of each rifle bcg and buffers once I have more time - have to get ready for work soon....
Nice first post! Thanks for the pics. Sub'd for pics of the buffer, BCG and chamber/feed ramps. Is the FN's barrel 1/7 or 1/9?
1 in 7"
They are 1/7 and that has been made clear in the other FN/Colt threads.
Nice first post! Thanks for the pics. Sub'd for pics of the buffer, BCG and chamber/feed ramps. Is the FN's barrel 1/7 or 1/9?
Thanks for all the encouraging comments, M4C Members, I thought there would be a lot of interest in these two rifles.
I think Colt and FN will sell a lot of these, judging from people's positive reactions when they see one.
People who have seen these definitely remember them and come right over for a closer look...and those who don't remember them directly from their own life experiences are curious to see them too.
Interesting reactions these cause.
Can't wait to go shoot them....
The 20" rifle doesn't use the F marked FSB. The extra height of the F marked FSB came about to fix problems with the shorter sight radius of the AR carbine
The M16A4 uses a F marked FSB
Gorgeous rifles, my older bushmaster AR A3 configuration - 20in govt profile barrel and removable carry handle is one of my favorites. Nothing beats that classic A2 look, looking forward to a range report!
With carbines being all the rage these days, rifle-length weapons would seem to be almost "retro".
With carbines being all the rage these days, rifle-length weapons would seem to be almost "retro".
That is very true, and I am guilty of that trend as well. My next rifle will be either an 18", or 20". I just need to make up my mind.
Nice photos OP, and a good look at two quality rifles. Looking forward to the range report. I would expect the accuracy, and reliability of both to be top notch.
I know Brand X versus Brand Y comparisons are verboten, so I am staying away from that intentionally. Anyway, on with the picture show....
It will be interesting to see how well they shoot.
Any chance you would post some groups for us? I suppose that can get into the brand comparison drivel, but you skillfully avoided that quite well thus far. Any thoughts on glass for group comparison, general use, etc. or are you staying with irons exclusively?
Any chance you would post some groups for us? I suppose that can get into the brand comparison drivel, but you skillfully avoided that quite well thus far. Any thoughts on glass for group comparison, general use, etc. or are you staying with irons exclusively?
I will shoot some groups with the same ammo under same conditions and same day/time/environmentals.
I picked up a can of ammo - Lake City XM193 420 rounds on stripper clips for 39 cents a round - best price I have seen in a long time. I want to shoot the gun for a few hundred rounds to settle it in. Then switch to some match ammo for groups.
I plan to use the irons initially. Eventually I would like to put some nice glass on these, and I am considering the Nightforce NXS Compacts - probably 2.5-10 x 42 - not sure on reticle yet. I want to shoot in the 100 to 300 yard range with irons. Switch to glass beyond 300 - about where my eyes benefit from magnification.
Terrific first post Clyde! I am interested in these two, particularly the Colt (I'm a Colt and BCM junkie) I was considering a Reece for my next rifle but this makes me want to go retro lol Thanks for the great photos and keep em coming.
Switch to glass beyond 300 - about where my eyes benefit from magnification.
Must be nice! I've considered LASIK surgery as my right eye has beed gradually going downhill over the past 5 years. This might be the year. I'll be interested to see your groups. Btw- aim surplus has had wolf gold in 1000 rd cases for $339.50. It's pretty good stuff from what I've heard. My friends have made recent purchases.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3z7GB6RD4kI
awesome thread on the fn rifle, as soon as i heard they were out i had to get one......actually ordered one of each. dont know but im really diggin the logo, thats just me. dont know if its true but heard on the net that the first batch with the logo on right side, will be actually corrected on next batch of fn rifles on the left side and will be there permanently. who knows the first batch might be worth some thing in the near future
Must be nice! I've considered LASIK surgery as my right eye has beed gradually going downhill over the past 5 years. This might be the year. I'll be interested to see your groups. Btw- aim surplus has had wolf gold in 1000 rd cases for $339.50. It's pretty good stuff from what I've heard. My friends have made recent purchases.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3z7GB6RD4kI
Easily the best money I ever spent. Solid 20/15, about 1/2 the chart at 20/10 although that's really pushing it. I can basically determine L vs D but not D vs B for example. But 20/15 is as solid as can be.
Easily the best money I ever spent. Solid 20/15, about 1/2 the chart at 20/10 although that's really pushing it. I can basically determine L vs D but not D vs B for example. But 20/15 is as solid as can be.
+1. LASIK is the best money I ever spent.
Ferris2son
05-10-14, 23:49
Still waiting for that range report, Clyde...
Beaver2334
05-11-14, 00:31
Thanks for the comparison! Both look like quality rifles.
Can't wait for the range report!
This thread is truly quintessential M4C in terms of what is great about this place. Nothing more educational than an apples to apples comparison that's supported by great pics/descriptions.
I'd say you made the most of your first post after being a member for several years....if only mine, or 99% of other member's first post were like it. I'm sure my first post or two on here came straight from the little yellow short bus :) Anyways, excellent comparison/thread....and it's one's like this that would make ArmyChief proud.
Rifleman_04
05-11-14, 14:12
I also noticed that the FN made CHF barrel on my PSA A4 upper is about a 1/4 inch too long.
I also noticed that the FN made CHF barrel on my PSA A4 upper is about a 1/4 inch too long. 1/4 inch = more fps.:cool::cool::cool: How does the upper work ? When and if PSA gets them and puts them on blem uppers I want one I like shooting the 20" over the 16"
Rifleman_04
05-11-14, 17:17
1/4 inch = more fps.:cool::cool::cool: How does the upper work ? When and if PSA gets them and puts them on blem uppers I want one I like shooting the 20" over the 16"
Haha yep, I'll take the extra fps. It doesn't bother me at all just an observation I made when it was set next to another 20" gun.
Upper works great. I also love the way a 20" gov't shoots.
Thanks Clyde! These are the posts I've come to appreciate at M4C.
Levi
Nice. The bug dun gone and bit you.
I also noticed that the FN made CHF barrel on my PSA A4 upper is about a 1/4 inch too long.
FN most likely didn't do it. You order barrels, the buyer has to submit drawings. My guess is that they (PSA) just went too far.
C4
Rifleman_04
05-12-14, 16:17
FN most likely didn't do it. You order barrels, the buyer has to submit drawings. My guess is that they (PSA) just went too far.
C4
I understand that FN makes parts to the customers specs but the op's gun is an FN branded gun.
I understand that FN makes parts to the customers specs but the op's gun is an FN branded gun.
The post he was addressing was about a Palmetto upper.
The post he was addressing was about a Palmetto upper.
Correct.
C4
Rifleman_04
05-12-14, 16:34
The post he was addressing was about a Palmetto upper.
I know that. It was my post and my upper.
I know exactly what he is saying. FN builds barrels to Palmettos specs. My 20" PSA barrel is 1/4 inch too long. The OP's FN branded 20" is 1/4 inch too long.
I know that. It was my post and my upper.
I know exactly what he is saying. FN builds barrels to Palmettos specs. My 20" PSA barrel is 1/4 inch too long. The OP's FN branded 20" is 1/4 inch too long.
I guess I missed that the OP had that issue as well. This plays into the theory that FN CANNOT use the TDP in anyway to make an A4. So they used a commercial drawing submitted from a buyer to make the A4's with their name on them? Very odd and what is even stranger is that they didn't check the length of the barrel before starting to make them under their own name. :confused:
C4
Cincinnatus15
09-17-14, 13:53
OP, whats your opinion of the rifle after owning it for a few months? Good to go? Anyone else have opinions on them? EDIT: Read some other threads that said they're hobby guns. My bad.
Very odd and what is even stranger is that they didn't check the length of the barrel before starting to make them under their own name. :confused:
C4
Or they offer branded barrels to buyers in the same spec as their own barrels. There were a number of comparison threads on TOS where they measure/compare FN and PSA HF/CL, and in the threads I saw everything came out the same.
I just picked up one of these rifles recently (thanks Grant), my rifle came with the F marked front site base. Ill post pics a bit later. The colt is defiantly not a hobby gun, it's a typical colt rifle.
Or they offer branded barrels to buyers in the same spec as their own barrels. There were a number of comparison threads on TOS where they measure/compare FN and PSA HF/CL, and in the threads I saw everything came out the same.
I believe that PSA had the barrel first and then some time later FN used the same drawings.
C4
Moose-Knuckle
09-18-14, 19:20
Just something sexy about a 20" rifle . . .
Ferris2son
11-09-14, 20:58
I will shoot some groups with the same ammo under same conditions and same day/time/environmentals.
I picked up a can of ammo - Lake City XM193 420 rounds on stripper clips for 39 cents a round - best price I have seen in a long time. I want to shoot the gun for a few hundred rounds to settle it in. Then switch to some match ammo for groups.
I plan to use the irons initially. Eventually I would like to put some nice glass on these, and I am considering the Nightforce NXS Compacts - probably 2.5-10 x 42 - not sure on reticle yet. I want to shoot in the 100 to 300 yard range with irons. Switch to glass beyond 300 - about where my eyes benefit from magnification.
How's that range report coming Clyde?
Really interested in hearing the range report. I've been interested in the FN-15 rifle for a while now. I was issued an FNH M16A4 many moons ago, and loved it, at least in comparison to the Colt M16A4 I had had before. If I ever find one of these at a good price, I'll probably pick one up for a A4 "clone" build.
Thanks for posting regarding your interest in these two rifles.
My apologies for not being able to post a range report; I was given an opportunity to work on a major project where I work and I have been traveling a lot. That has ended now, so I plan to hit the range ASAP.
Because of some of the posts here discussing the prospect that FNH USA and FN Manufacturing LLC may not be building these 20" rifles in the FNM LLC factory in Columbia, SC, I reached out to my contacts at FNM for clarification. I have previously been invited to tour the FNM facility at the time of the SCAR 17S commercial release, having been invited by FNM through its Engineering Department to come shoot the SCAR Heavy full auto on their indoor range, and where FNM showed me the prototype of the Mk20 that will soon be commercially available.
On that factory tour, I will never forget seeing the racks of M16s lined up in a row, cart after cart full of the M16s FNM was building for the US DOD and our warriors. I even was allowed to see the proof testers test firing the M16s for function and accuracy.
So when I read the posts speculating about build quality and outsourcing, I was skeptical.
I formally requested clarification on whether or not FNM was building the FN15 series in Columbia, in the same plant where the M240B, M249 SAW, M16s, and M4s are being built. FNM has confirmed these commercial models are being built in Columbia, in writing. So the rumors to the contrary are not true.
Those of you familiar with the TDP understand that the terms and conditions of the TDP do not allow the commercial variants to be built in the same manufacturing area (work cells or work station "modules") that the military weapons are built. However, that does not prohibit FNM from building the commercial models in the same manufacturing facility, under the same roof.
Which is apparently exactly what FNM is doing.
As to build quality, these two manufacturers are very close. I know from examining mine side by side.
The only question remaining is how they shoot side by side, and I hope to help answer that question soon.
I will withhold judgment until then. Now, what I really need is a day off...so I can get some targets posted up.
Soon, very soon....
I think the main concern rests with the construction materials used in the FN. Barrel steel, bolt steel etc. Can you comment on that? Any idea why FN makes their 20 inch barrels longer than 20 inches?
I think the main concern rests with the construction materials used in the FN. Barrel steel, bolt steel etc. Can you comment on that? Any idea why FN makes their 20 inch barrels longer than 20 inches?
Yeah, FN cannot build these using any of the knowledge gained from having the TDP, so these can either be made worse or made better but they cannot be made the same and I have a feeling that they aren't made better.
Even if Clyde's particular FN A4 shoots better than his particular Colt A4, just because they both have a 1/7 twist barrel doesn't mean that they will like the same load equally and it definitely wouldn't prove that one is better than the other in any meaningful way.
Over on TOS every time an FN vs. Colt thread comes up this is not even debatable. You will be shouted down for even entertaining the idea that the FN rifles are not better than the Colt rifles. According to the majority opinion over there the FN commercial rifles are every bit the equal to the FN military rifles, all this with no proof to back it up either, while claiming that the fact that FN can't use the TDP for their commercial rifles means nothing. It just makes me sick.
Because ya know, the (TDP) is a dirty word and "parts is parts" and this company's receiver has the same forging marks as that company's receiver so they are the same, SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE. All AR parts are made by the same place to the same specs, quality in assembly and QC means nothing and don't you dare mention "The Chart". Hey, did you guys know that DPMS has "turned a corner" and has really been given a "bum rap" and that Windham's are !AWESOMER! than Colt's and the Bushmaster's that were built in Maine were problem free and the new standard by which all others are judged. :fie:
At this point just because of what we don't know about the FN rifles would make me steer clear of them in favor of Colt.
Thanks for posting regarding your interest in these two rifles.
My apologies for not being able to post a range report; I was given an opportunity to work on a major project where I work and I have been traveling a lot. That has ended now, so I plan to hit the range ASAP.
Because of some of the posts here discussing the prospect that FNH USA and FN Manufacturing LLC may not be building these 20" rifles in the FNM LLC factory in Columbia, SC, I reached out to my contacts at FNM for clarification. I have previously been invited to tour the FNM facility at the time of the SCAR 17S commercial release, having been invited by FNM through its Engineering Department to come shoot the SCAR Heavy full auto on their indoor range, and where FNM showed me the prototype of the Mk20 that will soon be commercially available.
On that factory tour, I will never forget seeing the racks of M16s lined up in a row, cart after cart full of the M16s FNM was building for the US DOD and our warriors. I even was allowed to see the proof testers test firing the M16s for function and accuracy.
So when I read the posts speculating about build quality and outsourcing, I was skeptical.
I formally requested clarification on whether or not FNM was building the FN15 series in Columbia, in the same plant where the M240B, M249 SAW, M16s, and M4s are being built. FNM has confirmed these commercial models are being built in Columbia, in writing. So the rumors to the contrary are not true.
Those of you familiar with the TDP understand that the terms and conditions of the TDP do not allow the commercial variants to be built in the same manufacturing area (work cells or work station "modules") that the military weapons are built. However, that does not prohibit FNM from building the commercial models in the same manufacturing facility, under the same roof.
Which is apparently exactly what FNM is doing.
As to build quality, these two manufacturers are very close. I know from examining mine side by side.
The only question remaining is how they shoot side by side, and I hope to help answer that question soon.
I will withhold judgment until then. Now, what I really need is a day off...so I can get some targets posted up.
Soon, very soon....
There have been several documented posts showing photos of FN rifles bring made with substandard techniques.
No stock staking, 6 position tubes, etc.
Flankenstein
11-10-14, 16:09
There have been several documented posts showing photos of FN rifles bring made with substandard techniques.
No stock staking, 6 position tubes, etc.
Seeing those post was enough for me to steer clear.
There have been several documented posts showing photos of FN rifles bring made with substandard techniques.
No stock staking, 6 position tubes, etc.
Maybe "substandard collectables" for this one. Not sure how a 6-position extension is considered a "substandard technique" without saying every KAC and BCM rifle ever made is "substandard."
Let's be clear at least.
I still don't understand why Colt can drill just one more hole between the first and second position on their extensions.
A friend sent me this link to a new FN15 model that is about to drop.
Looks like FN is looking to expand in the already mature market of AR15s:
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2014/10/coming-soon-fnh-usa-fn-15-sporting-rifle/
Looks like Magpul is a supplier now...along with Surefire....
FN is also offering cold hammer forged chrome lined barrels now:
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/media-center/press-releases/pr-141103/
Looks like more options will be available for the choosing....
One suggestion to FN...stop doing the white logo.
Probably not the rail that I would want. 18" barrel with rifle length gas system seems ok. But FN's previous FN15s were not exactly loved by folks who reviewed them. And I don't know what the street price is, but it would have to be very low.
Seeing those post was enough for me to steer clear.
Agreed, I like Colt AR's a lot, but it is interesting to see how FN does overtime
One suggestion to FN...stop doing the white logo.
Also I second this
One suggestion to FN...stop doing the white logo.
Third!
Clyde...I also picked up the FN 15 rifle and also have some close up pics. And something that surprised me:) ok to post some pics of the rifle and my range results?
Clyde...I also picked up the FN 15 rifle and also have some close up pics. And something that surprised me:) ok to post some pics of the rifle and my range results?
Sure...feel free. I think the members here want more information on these, for sure.
I started this thread to share information about these two new rifles based on the proven design.
I should emphasize I have no connection with or allegiance to any particular manufacturer.
Just an enthusiast enjoying our shooting sports. I still plan to compare these side by side in same day conditions.
Post up your input...! I would like to see how you did too!
The white logo is extremely obnoxious and is hindering sales.
I really like the logo:). Some pics
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg544/sr16ve2/9b6120eb-d78c-4b36-a76c-c7b6d31a6fdd_zps238b8654.jpg
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg544/sr16ve2/imagejpg1_zpsa132b54c.jpg
Range trip...these are the first shots using irons outa the fn15, using my handloads at 25y just too see where I'm hitting
You can see 1-2-3 shot groups trying to get on target
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg544/sr16ve2/imagejpg1_zps9bbed2a5.jpg
Then shot a group at 50y
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg544/sr16ve2/imagejpg1_zpsba05734e.jpg
One day decided to remove flashhider and to my surprise....look what I found
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg544/sr16ve2/imagejpg1_zpscea602e9.jpg
What's surprising you? The counterbore? Looks clean.
As to the white FN markings, I agree. Hideous and overdone.
At one point—several years ago—FN made a very small run of properly engraved lowers as a special run for SC employees. Some of them made it to GunBroker and sold in the $750+ range.
So, they can easily engrave them like this if they wanted to.
http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t362/JTMSalePhotos/FNLowerEngraved.jpg
I really like the logo:).
And here I thought I was the only one. I think the logo looks good.
[QUOTE=JChops;2023851]What's surprising you? The counterbore? Looks clean.
I would not call it counterbore...but more like in the realm of target crown, what surprises me is for FN to offer their rifles for the first time to the masses would have this done to their barrels. I'm curios how it would do with a scope on my next range trip
I know I am late to the thread, but was the carry handle that came with the FN15 marked 6/3 or 8/3?
Thanks,
- Mike
Just a little. You might be in the running for the 2016 Necropost Awards, not too sure.
I know I am late to the thread, but was the carry handle that came with the FN15 marked 6/3 or 8/3?
Thanks,
- Mike
Eurodriver
12-17-16, 05:28
I know I am late to the thread, but was the carry handle that came with the FN15 marked 6/3 or 8/3?
Thanks,
- Mike
6/3...have you ever seen an 8/3 marked removable carry handle?
Thanks. An answer to the question would have been better than the nomination, but much appreciated anyway.
Anyone know who makes the Colt ambi safety?
I believe Colt makes them.
Here's a few links if you need one.
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/safety-parts/safeties/ambidextrous-safety-selelctor-lever-full-auto-sku160000397-70968-146421.aspx
http://www.specializedarmament.com/%E2%80%94-fire-control-%C2%B7-semi-auto-only/selector-semi-auto-ambidextrous-colt/
http://www.specializedarmament.com/%E2%80%94-fire-control-%C2%B7-semi-auto-only/selector-semi-auto-ambidextrous-sa/
What he's asking is who actually makes them. Colt makes very few parts, to include their lower parts. It's made for them by a large parts manufacturer.
I believe Colt makes them.
Here's a few links if you need one.
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/safety-parts/safeties/ambidextrous-safety-selelctor-lever-full-auto-sku160000397-70968-146421.aspx
http://www.specializedarmament.com/%E2%80%94-fire-control-%C2%B7-semi-auto-only/selector-semi-auto-ambidextrous-colt/
http://www.specializedarmament.com/%E2%80%94-fire-control-%C2%B7-semi-auto-only/selector-semi-auto-ambidextrous-sa/
Eurodriver
12-18-16, 10:02
Thanks. An answer to the question would have been better than the nomination, but much appreciated anyway.
I'm sorry you misjudged my tone, but your post is ironic considering you're the one that didn't answer my question.
MeanCarbine
12-18-16, 10:14
Clyde...how bout that range report comparison??? lol
My post was directed to Iraqgunz not answering my carry handle question, not you. I did not get a notification of your reply. I have not looked, but thought the 8/3 was proper for 20'' and didn't know there wasn't a detachable 8/3. Sorry for the confusion
Mrgunsngear
04-08-17, 15:03
Didn't want to start a new thread so I figured I revive this one from the dead...
Colt AR15A4s are in stock here at Brownells (https://goo.gl/hdHWmw) for $979 shipped with code L9Q :cool:
Didn't both get the latest gov. Contract? My question is which holds up to more hot firing over time side by side.
Great pics for this post!
They both have heavy chrome lined barrels and are designed to be fired full auto. I can't imagine that you'd wear either out in semiauto mode.
Yes, it does suggest that being both in very close ballpark on the the same street. But which one hits the most homeruns on testing? Is there results? Just asking. Just cuz mill spec. Doesn't mean best. Just met mill spec for contract which is the standard for contract. Which one failed more was what I was asking.
Didn't want to start a new thread so I figured I revive this one from the dead...
Colt AR15A4s are in stock here at Brownells (https://goo.gl/hdHWmw) for $979 shipped with code L9Q :cool:
My credit card hates you right now.
I was just looking at these at a coupl or other sites that all wanted over $1k. For that price, I went ahead and bought one. I've been wanting one since they were first announced, but my gun buying funds and they're availability have never lined up until now.
Flankenstein
04-10-17, 14:38
Didn't both get the latest gov. Contract? My question is which holds up to more hot firing over time side by side.
Great pics for this post!
Nope, thats not the question. There are no questions here. The Colt is the superior civilian rifle.
And... The mil contract rifles are the same regardless of who is filling the orders.
Looking at FN's current website, I don't even see the basic FN-15 listed any more:
https://fnamerica.com/rifles/
Edit: It's on their Discontinued list:
https://fnamerica.com/discontinued-products/
As far as FN's civilian AR-type platforms, it seems they're trending toward the more expensive (sorry, "higher end") configurations.
Maybe someone in the know about FN will know if this is true.......I have read reviews where FN is claiming "the same technology, materials, and engineering" that goes into their 'warfighters' rifles' is being used in the civilian sector.
Did something change with FN and the TDP agreement that they are now building their civilian line to those specs.?
Maybe someone in the know about FN will know if this is true.......I have read reviews where FN is claiming "the same technology, materials, and engineering" that goes into their 'warfighters' rifles' is being used in the civilian sector.
Did something change with FN and the TDP agreement that they are now building their civilian line to those specs.?
THey have always said that. Part of their marketing campaign.
C4
I was not aware of that and it's good to know, thanks for clearing that up.
I was actually interested in the FN's when they were first released BUT I am not interested in doing business with a company that knowingly and willingly deceives their customers. I guess when it's A4 purchase time, it will be either BCM or Colt. Thanks again.
Gunnar da Wolf
04-10-17, 18:13
I've been told by two FN employees on separate occasions that the civilian guns are built on the same line by the same employees using the same parts as the .mil guns. The only exceptions are the NFA parts, the CHF barrels on some variants, the obvious handguards and the lower receiver on the civilian guns has a better looking roll mark than the .mil guns. My "Tactical Carbine" has a nice FN scroll on the left side not the laser etched billboard they originally used. The .mil guns have some thin roll mark with the circle, "F" and "N" crunched together so it looks like the international symbol for "Don't F with it".
THey have always said that. Part of their marketing campaign.
C4
Can you substantiate that, or are we supposed to take your word for it? Would the same pass be given regarding a marketing statement from Colt, who has systematically been building poorly finished and poorly supplied weapons with shitty customer service for decades to civilians until .gov said no mas? What about BCM, who has never held a single contract?
I've been told by two FN employees on separate occasions that the civilian guns are built on the same line by the same employees using the same parts as the .mil guns. The only exceptions are the NFA parts, the CHF barrels on some variants, the obvious handguards and the lower receiver on the civilian guns has a better looking roll mark than the .mil guns. My "Tactical Carbine" has a nice FN scroll on the left side not the laser etched billboard they originally used. The .mil guns have some thin roll mark with the circle, "F" and "N" crunched together so it looks like the international symbol for "Don't F with it".
They can't. Please understand who owns the TDP and how it can and cannot be used.
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you substantiate that, or are we supposed to take your word for it? Would the same pass be given regarding a marketing statement from Colt, who has systematically been building poorly finished and poorly supplied weapons with shitty customer service for decades to civilians until .gov said no mas? What about BCM, who has never held a single contract?
I have covered his MANY times on the forum. 556cliff pretty much nails it on page 3.
Colt AR's are not finished poorly, in fact they are finished to the TDP REQS. The US Govt does not care about F&F and thusly neither does Colt. No one should EVER buy a Colt because F&F is important to them. If it is, buy a BCM (as they follow the TDP AND pay attention to F&F).
BCM isn't trying to be a .Mil contractor. In fact they TURN DOWN request from large agencies to bid on contracts due to all the BS that goes along with it.
Lastly, what you believe or don't is irrelevant to me. Do whatever you like.
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gunnar da Wolf
04-10-17, 19:26
Grant,
The two employees I asked weren't reeling off some canned "company line" answer. They were genuinely confused by the concept that rifles would be built in two separate assembly lines or using different parts or methodology due to some holy "TDP".
Maybe we need a tour of the factory? :cool:
Grant,
The two employees I asked weren't reeling off some canned "company line" answer. They were genuinely confused by the concept that rifles would be built in two separate assembly lines or using different parts or methodology due to some holy "TDP".
Maybe we need a tour of the factory? :cool:
Sure. Look at where the lowers are made (for instance).
There are laws as to how the TDP can be used. At no time can they use the knowledge gained, machinery, etc from the TDP to produce an AR15 (unless it is for a US Govt contract).
FYI, we are a direct LE Dealer for FNH.
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I really don't understand the continued emphasis many place on the TDP in reference to non government rifles. Please educate me.
I believe Colt's patents pretty much expired in 1983. As a result, there are numerous vendors who are producing AR pattern parts for the civilian market. I do believe that if Colt had a leg to stand on there would be litigation over their production.
Granted, there is a licensing agreement with the DOD covering Colt's TDP dating from 1967. There have been modifications to the agreement over the years, but in essence the agreement allows Colt to collect royalties for any M16's and M4's manufactured under Government contract.
I believe that since the patents are expired, the TDP agreement is Colt's protection for use of it's intellectual property in government contracts. The DOD has been overly kind to Colt in this issue, especially in view of the fvcking Colt was giving the .mil on M4's from the late 1990's through 2006.
The materials used in the production of the mil-spec receivers, bolts, bolt carriers, barrels, etc. are all in the public domain. We are continually bombarded with manufacturers and sales people asserting that their products are 'mil-spec' which, by logic, means produced IAW the TDP.
If Colt could prevent the manufacture of such items I'm sure they would. However, outside of military production they can't.
If this is incorrect, please direct me to a source that states it in writing.
Sure. Look at where the lowers are made (for instance).
There are laws as to how the TDP can be used. At no time can they use the knowledge gained, machinery, etc from the TDP to produce an AR15 (unless it is for a US Govt contract).
FYI, we are a direct LE Dealer for FNH.
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grant, if that was the case how can so many manufacturers use a 1/7 twist or chrome lined barrels? Can only mil contractors torque their barrel nuts to the proper setting?
Flankenstein
04-11-17, 15:35
Grant, if that was the case how can so many manufacturers use a 1/7 twist or chrome lined barrels? Can only mil contractors torque their barrel nuts to the proper setting?
Your ignorance is showing...
Your ignorance is showing...
I bet! I'm a Project Manager for a Medical Device company. Before that I was a Scout/Sniper in the Army. I don't fully understand the revered TDP. I don't manufacture firearms. I should be ignorant of the minutiae involved with the TDP and government contracts.
Grant, if that was the case how can so many manufacturers use a 1/7 twist or chrome lined barrels? Can only mil contractors torque their barrel nuts to the proper setting?
These "other" manufacturers you speak of are not building govt. contract weapons, they are not .gov suppliers so their builds and location of their builds should not be in question. FN is a .gov contractor/supplier, different rules apply when building civilian AR's.
If you spend some time reading the educational posts on this forum, you will spend much less time questioning those who give us the information.
Flankenstein
04-11-17, 17:27
I bet! I'm a Project Manager for a Medical Device company. Before that I was a Scout/Sniper in the Army. I don't fully understand the revered TDP. I don't manufacture firearms. I should be ignorant of the minutiae involved with the TDP and government contracts.
Congrats. Very proud of you. Ignorance? No big deal. Ignorant and argumentative? Not a great combo.
Nobody has yet to explain how the FN rifles are deficient relative to the full auto FN's or FN's competition.
Congrats. Very proud of you. Ignorance? No big deal. Ignorant and argumentative? Not a great combo.
Please quote my argument. I only read the black letters on the screen, you should give that a shot before you post a passive aggressive reply. I also wasn't bragging, Freud- I was explaining why I don't have in depth knowledge of the setup. I just shoot them, at one point for a living.
http://www.military.com/equipment/m4-carbine
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...od-until-2020/
http://kitup.military.com/2015/06/o...ker-files.html
http://search.yahoo.com/yes/search?...homerun_portal
I hope this helps in some clarifications dealing with gov contract stuff
Flankenstein
04-12-17, 12:01
Nobody has yet to explain how the FN rifles are deficient relative to the full auto FN's or FN's competition.
Except for in that incredibly long thread when the rifles were first released. Other threads here as well. Deficient? Not the word I'd chose. Inferior? Yes.
OK, I stand corrected. How are they inferior relative to the full auto FN's or FN's competition (Colt specifically)?
Cincinnatus15
04-12-17, 13:10
Apparently Colt is the only manufacturer that can produce rifles for civilian use according to the TDP, the same TDP that is used for their military rifles, is this correct? In that same breath, FN can use the TDP for military rifles but CANNOT use the TDP for their civilian line?
Correct. If FN uses the TDP to produce civilian rifles, Colt will drop the legal hammer on FN.
Likewise, FN must pay royalties to Colt for each DOD contract rifle they produce to TDP.
OK, I stand corrected. How are they inferior relative to the full auto FN's or FN's competition (Colt specifically)?
The only thing I know of at the moment is that FN buffer tubes (both rifle and carbine tubes) are made of a mystery material.
This doesn't mean that they are not made of 7075 aluminum, it's just that no one seems to know for sure... They could be 6061 for all we know.
Colt uses 7075 for their carbine buffer tubes but I'm not 100% certain what grade of aluminum Colt is using for the rifle buffer tube on the AR15A4.
Cincinnatus15
04-12-17, 13:41
Correct. If FN uses the TDP to produce civilian rifles, Colt will drop the legal hammer on FN.
Likewise, FN must pay royalties to Colt for each DOD contract rifle they produce to TDP.
Boom. /of argument? Doubt it.
Might just be me, but reading around a lot on this forum, it seems to me there is a strong bias toward COLT and BCM...can't say I disagree either. It seem most people who think they have a good case to make against either brand general go crashing to earth in a ball of flame and any effort to take on the resident experts generally ends this way for the person making the attempt.
:suicide2:
Gunnar da Wolf
04-12-17, 14:30
Correct. If FN uses the TDP to produce civilian rifles, Colt will drop the legal hammer on FN.
Likewise, FN must pay royalties to Colt for each DOD contract rifle they produce to TDP.
But then we have Grant stating (snipped for brevity):
Colt AR's are not finished poorly, in fact they are finished to the TDP REQS. The US Govt does not care about F&F and thusly neither does Colt. No one should EVER buy a Colt because F&F is important to them. If it is, buy a BCM (as they follow the TDP AND pay attention to F&F).
C4
Why can BCM "follow the TDP" without hammer fall but FN isn't allowed to do what their employees told me they do? But none of the detractors has been to the FN factory to see how they actually build rifles?
Lastly someone over on the Lightfighter forum FOIA'd a copy of the Marine rifle tests from 2009 where FN did quite well. Not as well as HK but better than Colt. If they didn't have the contract I guess they didn't use the TDP to produce those test rifles? So it looks like they had it sorted out quite well back then.
jackblack73
04-12-17, 14:52
Nobody has yet to explain how the FN rifles are deficient relative to the full auto FN's or FN's competition.
I don't know if they're deficient or inferior and I don't really care. What I have noticed, however, is that's it's difficult to find the specs for civilian FN rifles. What barrel steel do they use? What kind of aluminum is the receiver extension made of? I haven't searched extensively, but I have googled a little bit and didn't find the info.
jackblack73
04-12-17, 14:54
Why can BCM "follow the TDP" without hammer fall but FN isn't allowed to do what their employees told me they do?
BCM never signed a contract agreeing not to.
BCM never signed a contract agreeing not to.
That is not how it works. If Colt owns the TDP and it is legally considered intellectual property, then anyone that utilizes it without proper legal permission and royalties would be sued into history.
Given the mess that Colt is currently in, I am really wondering if they even still have legal ownership to the TDP. It is after all the proper manufacturing method for the current issue rifle, and we all know who paid for large parts of the development of that TDP.
Might just be me, but reading around a lot on this forum, it seems to me there is a strong bias toward COLT and BCM...can't say I disagree either. It seem most people who think they have a good case to make against either brand general go crashing to earth in a ball of flame and any effort to take on the resident experts generally ends this way for the person making the attempt.
:suicide2:
Really, I hadn't noticed. :D
Seriously, it's not that most folks have anything against Colt or BCM per se, they just get tired of hearing that their builds aren't for shit because they aren't a Colt.
The TDP is in essence the 'recipe' that Colt used in 1967 to mfg M16's. From what I've been able to piece together, included in the 'recipe' are material requirements and dimensions for everything including plus and minus tolerances. The original TDP in essence established 'mil-spec' both as a standard and, in later years, as a marketing tool.
Most of Colt's original patents on the M16 have expired. Colt has always sourced parts from outside vendors, so it isn't hard to imagine how information on material composition, exact pin and spring sizes and other manufacturing minutia became available. The AR15 system developed by Eugene Stoner is genius in it's simplicity. I would hazard to guess that most competent mechanical engineers, given an AR15, and a look at the original patents, could reverse engineer pretty close to the TDP's exact recipe, maybe even improve it.
In today's world we know much more about metallurgy and precision manufacturing processes than was known in the 1960's. Based on all that, while I don't think saying something is built to the TDP has no meaning, I don't think it carries the awe-factor many would believe.
I would be more worried about materials used, how often the manufacturer changes tooling, and quality control, then I would worry about the magic sauce of the, kneel toward Hartford, TDP.
However, if I was selling Colts I'd be pushing the TDP big time.
That is not how it works. If Colt owns the TDP and it is legally considered intellectual property, then anyone that utilizes it without proper legal permission and royalties would be sued into history.
I believe if you get down to it, since many of the original patents expired, it is fair game. The TDP agreement between Colt and the DOD/US Government involves military/government sales, not civilian.
Given the mess that Colt is currently in, I am really wondering if they even still have legal ownership to the TDP. It is after all the proper manufacturing method for the current issue rifle, and we all know who paid for large parts of the development of that TDP.
Yes, why wouldn't they have legal ownership? It is their intellectual property. The government pays them a royalty for each rifle they buy that is produced by another manufacturer. The real issue is the 'value' of the TDP outside government purchasing.
That is not how it works. If Colt owns the TDP and it is legally considered intellectual property, then anyone that utilizes it without proper legal permission and royalties would be sued into history.
Given the mess that Colt is currently in, I am really wondering if they even still have legal ownership to the TDP. It is after all the proper manufacturing method for the current issue rifle, and we all know who paid for large parts of the development of that TDP.
I really wish these arguements would just die, but...
That is actually how it works. The patent's that Colt owned on the AR-15 have since expired, allowing anyone and everyone to make, market, and sell AR-15's.
When FN won the bids to produce M4's and M16's for the military, they entered into a legally binding agreement. They received the TDP for those rifles to make the guns for the contract. They also agreed that they would not use the knowledge gained from the TDP to produce guns for the civilian market. BCM never won a government contract to produce guns using the TDP and therefore never received a copy of the TDP and never entered into a agreement to not use it for civilian rifle production.
Over time, enough reverse engineering has been done to make most of what's contained within the TDP public knowledge. Companies are free to produce guns that meet those specs. The only time they have to worry is if they entered into any contracts to produce guns for the government using the TDP.
Yes, why wouldn't they have legal ownership? It is their intellectual property. The government pays them a royalty for each rifle they buy that is produced by another manufacturer. The real issue is the 'value' of the TDP outside government purchasing.
I'm not really arguing whether or not the TDP is still actually own by Colt or not, more or less a rhetorical question. But it still begs to be answered why they do not sue manufacturers that advertise using the TDP, which is their property. Ad to the mix that the interwebz say FN can't legally sell civilian version of their contract rifles, yet the workers are saying they are supposedly, and no suits. Either Colt doesn't care, FN is sliding them some $$$ or maybe they just don't actually have the grounds. These big companies do have a long history of pulverizing any and all who even slightly tread on their "turf".
I really wish these arguements would just die, but...
That is actually how it works. The patent's that Colt owned on the AR-15 have since expired, allowing anyone and everyone to make, market, and sell AR-15's.
WOW!! Ya don't say. Guess I've been hiding under a rock for the past 30 years after reach adulthood.
When FN won the bids to produce M4's and M16's for the military, they entered into a legally binding agreement. They received the TDP for those rifles to make the guns for the contract. They also agreed that they would not use the knowledge gained from the TDP to produce guns for the civilian market. BCM never won a government contract to produce guns using the TDP and therefore never received a copy of the TDP and never entered into a agreement to not use it for civilian rifle production.
Where is the primary documentation for that?
Over time, enough reverse engineering has been done to make most of what's contained within the TDP public knowledge. Companies are free to produce guns that meet those specs. The only time they have to worry is if they entered into any contracts to produce guns for the government using the TDP.
Most of the info is public knowledge because it was designed as an industrial rifle.
Really, I hadn't noticed. :D
Seriously, it's not that most folks have anything against Colt or BCM per se, they just get tired of hearing that their builds aren't for shit because they aren't a Colt.
The TDP is in essence the 'recipe' that Colt used in 1967 to mfg M16's. From what I've been able to piece together, included in the 'recipe' are material requirements and dimensions for everything including plus and minus tolerances. The original TDP in essence established 'mil-spec' both as a standard and, in later years, as a marketing tool.
Most of Colt's original patents on the M16 have expired. Colt has always sourced parts from outside vendors, so it isn't hard to imagine how information on material composition, exact pin and spring sizes and other manufacturing minutia became available. The AR15 system developed by Eugene Stoner is genius in it's simplicity. I would hazard to guess that most competent mechanical engineers, given an AR15, and a look at the original patents, could reverse engineer pretty close to the TDP's exact recipe, maybe even improve it.
In today's world we know much more about metallurgy and precision manufacturing processes than was known in the 1960's. Based on all that, while I don't think saying something is built to the TDP has no meaning, I don't think it carries the awe-factor many would believe.
I would be more worried about materials used, how often the manufacturer changes tooling, and quality control, then I would worry about the magic sauce of the, kneel toward Hartford, TDP.
However, if I was selling Colts I'd be pushing the TDP big time.
Thanks for the extremely useful post and commentary, very educational.
Cincinnatus15
04-13-17, 07:13
OK. So with all of this said.. Who as a consumer can we buy from that produces rifles equal or greater than Colt and do they release their specs to the public to allow confirmation?
OK. So with all of this said.. Who as a consumer can we buy from that produces rifles equal or greater than Colt and do they release their specs to the public to allow confirmation?
You pose an interesting question.
FWIW I don't care for the carbine look or ergonomics, therefore I don't own one. I also have yet to buy a complete rifle, upper, or lower for personal use. If I were to buy a complete carbine it would be a Colt LE6920, at this point I believe it offers the best bang for the buck.
One of the things I find so compelling about the AR, aside from its shootability, could best be described by paraphrasing a saying - God made man, but Eugene Stoner made them armorers - the simplicity and modularity of the weapon makes it easy for each owner to pursue their ideal of the perfect rifle.
If you dig you can find the info on materials used, and then make your decision based on budget, and perceived use. Of course, unless you are going to send it off to a lab for testing, you have to take their word as to materials and produced IAW mil-spec. :D
PSA receives a lot of flack on the forum but, they provide a lot of detail on what goes into their rifles:
Our M4 Carbine starts with one of our Premium chrome-lined Mil-spec steel barrels in the versatile M4 profile, mated to our forged aluminum upper, and finished off with a standard carbine hand guard. Pinned f-marked front sight post and A2 Flash hider. The forged lower is built with our 6 position Mil-spec size buffer tube and stock, Standard PSA lower parts kit with A2 pistol grip and aluminum trigger guard. It comes with one 30 Round D&H Magazine (where allowed by law).
Barrel: 16" chrome-lined mil-spec chrome moly vanadium barrel and chamber, chambered in 5.56 NATO, with a 1/7 twist, M4 barrel extension, and a carbine gas system. M4 style profile is phosphate coated to mil-specs, and is High Pressure tested, and Magnetic Particle inspected, to ensure quality and dependability. Barrel is finished off with a standard carbine hand guard, pinned f-marked front sight post, and A2 flash hider. The Barrel is made for us by FN Manufacturing in Columbia.
Upper: Forged 7075-T6 A3 AR upper is made to MIL-SPECS and hard coat anodized black for durability. Featuring machined T marks, and a mil-spec finish. These uppers are made for us right here in the USA by a mil-spec manufacturer and are marked with the Palmetto State Armory logo on the left side, up front, just below the rail.
Bolt: Bolt is made of Mil-spec Carpenter 158 steel, Shot peened, and MPI. Gas key is secured with grade 8 fasteners and staked per mil-spec. Bolt carrier is parkerized outside, chrome lined inside.
Lower: These forged lowers are quality made using 7075-T6 aluminum and are marked "MULTI" for caliber. Finish is Black Hardcoat Anodize per MIL-8625 Type 3 class 2. Mil-spec sized buffer tube is forged of 7075 aluminum, is dry film lube coated on the inside, has 6 adjustment positions, is finished with an M4 stock and has a staked castle nut. Standard carbine buffer is Black anodized and has the PSA logo on the face. The standard PSA combat trigger has a smooth pull and clean break.
If you look you can find the same data from other manufacturers.
Good luck!
OK. So with all of this said.. Who as a consumer can we buy from that produces rifles equal or greater than Colt and do they release their specs to the public to allow confirmation?
Simple answer: Many choices and it is wrong to say that just because the TDP are the exclusive property of Colt and licensed to FN there are not MANY excellent ARs being made, many of **higher** quality than Colt. TDP are minimal standards, and are in many cases, in terms of quality, are met and exceeded by AR makers/builders, such as BCM or Daniel Defense, etc. Just be careful not to get too caught up in the pedantic debates over these things. There is nothing magical about the TDP. Good AR builders are producing excellent ARs even if they don't have the "great and mighty TDP" at their disposal. Never ending debates about all this are the stuff and nonsense of gun forum discussion sites, like this one as well as any other.
Simple answer: Many choices and it is wrong to say that just because the TDP are the exclusive property of Colt and licensed to FN there are not MANY excellent ARs being made, many of **higher** quality than Colt. TDP are minimal standards, and are in many cases, in terms of quality, are met and exceeded by AR makers/builders, such as BCM or Daniel Defense, etc. Just be careful not to get too caught up in the pedantic debates over these things. There is nothing magical about the TDP. Good AR builders are producing excellent ARs even if they don't have the "great and mighty TDP" at their disposal. Never ending debates about all this are the stuff and nonsense of gun forum discussion sites, like this one as well as any other.
TDP is not a "minimal" standard. It is a spec for a particular use. You cannot "exceed it" and still meet the spec.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cincinnatus15
04-14-17, 08:46
In the 20" AR market.. Is Colt still the best value?
In the 20" AR market.. Is Colt still the best value?
As far as complete, off the shelf rifles goes I would say yes. However, if you want to build up a lower yourself and source a few parts you can get a 20" rifle upper from BCM and build your own, which may or may not come out cheaper in the end.
My order for a Colt AR15A4 with Brownells was canceled due to them running out of guns before they could fill my order. I called Colt's customer service and asked when they planned on doing another production run on the A4's and the rep told me they were in the middle of another run right now and should have guns shipping in a week or two. I personally took that with a grain of salt since over the phone CS isn't the most reliable, but hopefully I will get another shot at one soon.
Cincinnatus15
04-14-17, 09:13
As far as complete, off the shelf rifles goes I would say yes. However, if you want to build up a lower yourself and source a few parts you can get a 20" rifle upper from BCM and build your own, which may or may not come out cheaper in the end.
My order for a Colt AR15A4 with Brownells was canceled due to them running out of guns before they could fill my order. I called Colt's customer service and asked when they planned on doing another production run on the A4's and the rep told me they were in the middle of another run right now and should have guns shipping in a week or two. I personally took that with a grain of salt since over the phone CS isn't the most reliable, but hopefully I will get another shot at one soon.
I saw those, thought about grabbing one. Well if they come around again maybe I will. I see that PSA has A2 complete lowers. IIRC, someone said in another thread that the LPK in the PSA lowers are less than desirable. Is this factual? Even with the PSA lower the price is around the same as the Colt which makes me think that the Colt may be a better value.
Eurodriver
04-14-17, 10:23
In the 20" AR market.. Is Colt still the best value?
This dude's been asking about 20" ARs for like two years now lol
Did you ever get one?
Cincinnatus15
04-14-17, 10:33
This dude's been asking about 20" ARs for like two years now lol
Did you ever get one?
Haha no.. But once I do... I'll probably post about it! :lol:
In the 20" AR market.. Is Colt still the best value?
I chose to buy a complete BCM from Grant. I had him throw in a Geisselle while he was at it. Looking back on it, I should have bought a Colt first, as I was trying to build a clone of my OSUT rifle. That being said, I am now going to buy a Colt and make some sort of SPR out of the BCM.
Eurodriver
04-14-17, 20:49
Haha no.. But once I do... I'll probably post about it! :lol:
Very curious to see what you end up getting. It will without question be the best because it's been researched forever! :)
Fordtough25
04-15-17, 09:21
I've got a bcm mismatch a4 clone but would love a colt!! My lgs does have the FN standard 20" and has had it for some time. Think he wants $1100 for it, I haven't seen the colt version in the wild. I handled the fn last year and it did seem like a nice rifle for what's it worth.
Cincinnatus15
04-16-17, 11:46
Very curious to see what you end up getting. It will without question be the best because it's been researched forever! :)
I'm gonna go with a Colt AR15A4 once they come back in stock. I'd like a factory built rifle rather than one I pieced together. I just hope they don't slap some expanse parts on it. Anyone know if the A4 is still built To the same specs. I feel like I read something recently saying Colt is sourcing parts from other manufacturers now.
Edit: I'd buy another BCM 20" A4 if GandR would place an order for me.
Flankenstein
04-17-17, 17:25
I've got a bcm mismatch a4 clone but would love a colt!! My lgs does have the FN standard 20" and has had it for some time. Think he wants $1100 for it, I haven't seen the colt version in the wild. I handled the fn last year and it did seem like a nice rifle for what's it worth.
Sorry... Handling the thing isn't worth much.
Not hating either... I wanted FN to come out with a solid product. They didn't
Fordtough25
04-17-17, 20:32
Sorry... Handling the thing isn't worth much.
Not hating either... I wanted FN to come out with a solid product. They didn't
No you're right of course, handling it is nothing more than fan boy stuff. Have to inspect it and shoot it to see if it's worth s dime.
Mrgunsngear
04-17-17, 20:41
I'm gonna go with a Colt AR15A4 once they come back in stock. I'd like a factory built rifle rather than one I pieced together. I just hope they don't slap some expanse parts on it. Anyone know if the A4 is still built To the same specs. I feel like I read something recently saying Colt is sourcing parts from other manufacturers now.
Edit: I'd buy another BCM 20" A4 if GandR would place an order for me.
In stock for $975 shipped at Arms Unlimited as of now (https://www.armsunlimited.com/Colt-AR15-A4-Semi-Auto-20-inch-Barrel-Rifle-p/ar15a4.htm?Click=46687)
Cincinnatus15
04-19-17, 07:28
In stock for $975 shipped at Arms Unlimited as of now (https://www.armsunlimited.com/Colt-AR15-A4-Semi-Auto-20-inch-Barrel-Rifle-p/ar15a4.htm?Click=46687)
Thanks I was late on the draw. They sure go quick..
OK. So with all of this said.. Who as a consumer can we buy from that produces rifles equal or greater than Colt and do they release their specs to the public to allow confirmation?
From what I know (via private convo's and or doing my own research), I would choose BCM.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.