View Full Version : Windham Weaponry promo ad...
This is the data sheet for their "plain Jane" Government model. I noticed that they make sure to mention the type/grade of steel that the bolt and barrel are made from. Would the average "Joe consumer" even know even know (or care) about types of steel?
http://www.windhamweaponry.com/pdf/NewTechSeets/R20GVTA4S-7%203-25-14%20MSRP.pdf
Never thought I'd see the day the manufacturer formerly known as "Bushmaster" would be running 1:7, 4150, M4 ramps, et al. Maybe they really did strive to improve after the split, contrary to what I've heard (which is "business as usual").
Despite all that, I doubt that one would place them on the same level with Colt, BCM, etc.
Despite all that, I doubt that one would place them on the same level with Colt, BCM, etc.
I would bet the carrier is still not an M16 carrier, key has crappy staking, FSB/barrel phosphated as an assmebly, chambers could be questionable, etc.
Somebody on the 1911 Forum (https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=623737) bought one of these, and he says it appears to be very well-made on the inside and out. There aren't a lot of options out there in a 20" Government rifle, and the best one (Colt AR15A4) is nearly impossible to find since they're only made in small batches with a long drought in between. The Windham is very decent alternative.
Renegade04
08-13-16, 12:12
I would bet the carrier is still not an M16 carrier, key has crappy staking, FSB/barrel phosphated as an assmebly, chambers could be questionable, etc.
The BCG is the M16 type. I have a couple of these upper assemblies as well as one of their 20" A2 government profile barrel assemblies. The gas keys are staked very well on the carrier. The chambers are clean and appropriately sized. The barrels are very accurate. Buy or try one before assuming anything.
The BCG is the M16 type. I have a couple of these upper assemblies as well as one of their 20" A2 government profile barrel assemblies. The gas keys are staked very well on the carrier. The chambers are clean and appropriately sized. The barrels are very accurate. Buy or try one before assuming anything.
If true I'm really surprised because it seems they were dead set on doing things their own way for so long.
Despite all that, I doubt that one would place them on the same level with Colt, BCM, etc.
They are better. It says right in the promo they "offer the highest quality rifles made anywhere."
Good to hear they seem to be improving, but that calm is a turn-off, at least for me.
Sparky5019
08-13-16, 13:53
So from what I've seen they are better than the Bushmasters used to be. I've got a buddy who buys them. Unless they've changed since, they're still using commercial RE tubes as of the last one I saw (he changes them to mil-spec). Their gas key staking has gotten better over time too. The newer ones have better gas port sizing but aren't up to top tier rifle spec like Colt, BCM, et al.
They work for most guys. I just wish they switch to mil-spec RE tubes then at least they'd be "on the path".
Talking to a industry pro in a class the other day, it was said that there isn't that much room in the rifle market anymore. Now would probably be a good time to one up peers in the industry and absorb some of their sales.
The BCG is the M16 type. I have a couple of these upper assemblies as well as one of their 20" A2 government profile barrel assemblies. The gas keys are staked very well on the carrier. The chambers are clean and appropriately sized. The barrels are very accurate. Buy or try one before assuming anything.
I would call it a logical conclusion rather than an assumption based on how long that company has (and previously) taken shortcuts. It is nice to hear they are doing things different now, but it doesn't change the amount of horrible examples I've seen on our range. I would be interested to know if they finally made the leap to clean up the entire system, such as milspec receiver extension and buffer as well.
ETA - In the case of this weapon, it doesn't mention if the upper receiver has M4 feedramps, or if just the barrel has them.
Windham Weaponry's 20" rifle has M4 feed ramps... It doesn't have an "F" height FSB, though this shouldn't matter on a 20 inch rifle.
Their buffer tubes are all commercial spec for both rifle and carbine tubes.
They still phosphate finish their barrels after the FSB has been installed.
On the plus side, they don't use barrel blocks to install barrels any more... Like they did back when they were Bushmaster.
From a non-expert - does a rifle-length weapon really need M4 feedramps?
From a non-expert - does a rifle-length weapon really need M4 feedramps?
No they don't.
Windham Weaponry's 20" rifle has M4 feed ramps... It doesn't have an "F" height FSB, though this shouldn't matter on a 20 inch rifle.
Their buffer tubes are all commercial spec for both rifle and carbine tubes.
They still phosphate finish their barrels after the FSB has been installed.
On the plus side, they don't use barrel blocks to install barrels any more... Like they did back when they were Bushmaster.
So the barrels under the FSB are completely untreated? Obvious concern being lack of corrosion protection for the steel. How much of a concern is this? I've been looking at one of their hbar dissipator uppers.
jackblack73
08-13-16, 19:40
From a non-expert - does a rifle-length weapon really need M4 feedramps?
My understanding is that M4 feed ramps really only help with full auto. So the great majority of us don't "need" them.
So the barrels under the FSB are completely untreated? Obvious concern being lack of corrosion protection for the steel. How much of a concern is this? I've been looking at one of their hbar dissipator uppers.
It's not a big deal at all really, LMT does the same thing.
Their use of commercial grade 6061 aluminum receiver extensions is a bigger deal to me, though this is easily fixed.
That's nice. They still sell nothing I want.
Rifleman_04
08-13-16, 20:41
So the barrels under the FSB are completely untreated? Obvious concern being lack of corrosion protection for the steel. How much of a concern is this? I've been looking at one of their hbar dissipator uppers.
Its nothing to be concerned about.
The quality of the BCG and the staking of the gas keys is the most important thing to be concerned about. The rest is either no big deal or easily remedied if it bugs you.
TheNegativeOne
08-14-16, 19:36
If you really want to know what the Wyndam can do, this is a very intetesting vid.
https://youtu.be/Bvkj0uFyyt0
The BCG is the M16 type. I have a couple of these upper assemblies as well as one of their 20" A2 government profile barrel assemblies. The gas keys are staked very well on the carrier. The chambers are clean and appropriately sized. The barrels are very accurate. Buy or try one before assuming anything.
It's always nice to see an objective POV around here. For a forum that places a premium on firsthand experience, the conjecture sure starts flying when rifles with certain roll marks are mentioned. As someone who was an "outside observer" for years before joining, the obfuscation can lead one to feel like they might as well throw their brand new rifle away after purchasing brand X. Even if there's nothing reportedly wrong with its function. It's no surprise that a thread on Windham provided an opportunity to get in some jabs at Bushmaster. I actually posted about my Bushy M4A3 in another thread today, and will now take this topic as an opportunity to discuss some of the specs that supposedly don't exist.
The XM-15 M4A3 has a...
...M4 Extension and Receiver (picture below)
...Properly Staked Gas Key (picture below)
...Chrome Lined Carrier, Gas Key, Chamber, and Barrel
...4150 Barrel
...Cerro upper and lower. While not specifically called out in a "they don't use Cerro forgings" sort of way, the reason I mention the manufacturer is due to comments asserting poor quality uppers and lowers. Colt also uses Cerro forgings,, and while it's possible the machining will be different, they're both starting with the same structural integrity.
...Forged FSB
...Black Extractor insert and Crane O Ring and HD 4 Coil Extractor Spring
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t648/kmwood06/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5wdte1lp.jpeg (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/kmwood06/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5wdte1lp.jpeg.html)
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t648/kmwood06/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbvwfcryx.jpeg (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/kmwood06/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbvwfcryx.jpeg.html)
There are additional parts that could be addressed, but the above items are the ones that most often recieve unwarranted criticism. In the spirit of being fair and objective, the following are some items that are correctly described and often criticized.
...Commercial RE and unstaked castle nut
...Semi-Auto Carrier
...1:9 Twist
...Carbine Buffer (although I haven't weighed it to be certain)
...Non-F FSB and not parkerized under the FSB
Yet, for each of those items I basically say, who cares?
The Castle Nut can be staked in about 30 seconds, and the RE can be easily replaced. Have I done either? No. I thought about it at one point, after encountering the "just throw it away crowd". Instead I just put a small indexing mark on the castle nut. It hasn't budged after a few thousand rounds. In addition, somehow my stock has managed to stay on the tube and snugs up very well. Go figure.
The SA carrier is another item that I almost replaced; for the same reason as the RE. Yet again, somehow it functions as is. Zero malfunctions. Always feeds and chambers. Always fires. Always extracts and ejects nicely around 3 O'clock. The firing pin is shrouded, and the gas key is properly staked. Looking back, I have to laugh about actually considering swapping a part for a problem that didn't exist.
The 1:9 twist does not bother me as I prefer 60 gr loadings for both the Range and HD. Also, while it's listed as a 1:9, I think it might actually have a slightly faster twist rate. Something like 1:8.5, as it shoots 75s well and even handled 77s without keyholing; at least to 100 yards. Even if the 77s did become unstable past 100, again, I don't care. I'll role the dice on ending up in an apocalyptical scenario where all I can find are MK262s.
For the carbine buffer it's the same story as the SA bcg. This rifle has eaten everything I've put through it. The recoil is fine, and there are no signs of abnormal wear on the upper, bcg, buffer, etc. Again, why search for a problem that doesn't exist?
The non-F sight base is also of little consequence. It zeros just as well as any other rifle. Full disclosure, my OCD was triggered when I went to a 50m zero and had to bring the FSP up a little more than I'd have liked. While visually annoying to me, it meant nothing in regards to function. I ended up adding a MBUS Pro LR, which fixed my FSP "problem". In fact, I really think the issue was the cheap BUIS I'd purchased being out of spec. As for the parkerized critique, even comments in this thread concede it's not a big deal. I actually think that LMT even argues it's better to not parkerize under the FSB.
I'll probably get responses saying "well, it hasn't failed you...yet" or "you just happened to purchase one that works." That's fine. I guess it's just a coincidence that I've encountered a number of people who've also had a good experience with Bushmaster. Either way, the 4150 Barrel, M4 Feed Ramps, Chrome Lining, and even the Gas Key staking to a certain degree weren't a fluke that only ended up on my rifle. Now, every brand produces a lemon once and a while. Unfortunately, the response in such instances are not very equitable. That's my major issue with the "throw it away crowd." Too many blanket statements with too little firsthand experience.
wetidlerjr
08-15-16, 07:21
It's always nice to see an objective POV around here. For a forum that places a premium on firsthand experience, the conjecture sure starts flying when rifles with certain roll marks are mentioned...Too many blanket statements with too little firsthand experience.
It sounds like they are going in the right direction here but, to me, this is a "time will tell" deal which it has to be with any manufacturer of ARs. Small numbers of examples, good or bad, cannot be used to determine quality and value. I would like to be able to buy 100 of these rifles and fire 30,000 rounds through each of them to be able to give a definitive evaluation of the afore-mentioned value and quality but, alas, I lack the funds to do so. So we wait and see. Until then, I'll stick with BCM. As for firsthand experience, all I can offer is my former ownership of two pre-Windham Weaponry Bushmaster ARs (circa 2001-2002) which worked just fine for me although I am a low round shooter and not a pro or high round amateur.
It's always nice to see an objective POV around here. For a forum that places a premium on firsthand experience, the conjecture sure starts flying when rifles with certain roll marks are mentioned. As someone who was an "outside observer" for years before joining, the obfuscation can lead one to feel like they might as well throw their brand new rifle away after purchasing brand X. Even if there's nothing reportedly wrong with its function. It's no surprise that a thread on Windham provided an opportunity to get in some jabs at Bushmaster. I actually posted about my Bushy M4A3 in another thread today, and will now take this topic as an opportunity to discuss some of the specs that supposedly don't exist.
The XM-15 M4A3 has a...
...M4 Extension and Receiver (picture below)
...Properly Staked Gas Key (picture below)
...Chrome Lined Carrier, Gas Key, Chamber, and Barrel
...4150 Barrel
...Cerro upper and lower. While not specifically called out in a "they don't use Cerro forgings" sort of way, the reason I mention the manufacturer is due to comments asserting poor quality uppers and lowers. Colt also uses Cerro forgings,, and while it's possible the machining will be different, they're both starting with the same structural integrity.
...Forged FSB
...Black Extractor insert and Crane O Ring and HD 4 Coil Extractor Spring
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t648/kmwood06/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5wdte1lp.jpeg (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/kmwood06/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5wdte1lp.jpeg.html)
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t648/kmwood06/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbvwfcryx.jpeg (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/kmwood06/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbvwfcryx.jpeg.html)
There are additional parts that could be addressed, but the above items are the ones that most often recieve unwarranted criticism. In the spirit of being fair and objective, the following are some items that are correctly described and often criticized.
...Commercial RE and unstaked castle nut
...Semi-Auto Carrier
...1:9 Twist
...Carbine Buffer (although I haven't weighed it to be certain)
...Non-F FSB and not parkerized under the FSB
Yet, for each of those items I basically say, who cares?
The Castle Nut can be staked in about 30 seconds, and the RE can be easily replaced. Have I done either? No. I thought about it at one point, after encountering the "just throw it away crowd". Instead I just put a small indexing mark on the castle nut. It hasn't budged after a few thousand rounds. In addition, somehow my stock has managed to stay on the tube and snugs up very well. Go figure.
The SA carrier is another item that I almost replaced; for the same reason as the RE. Yet again, somehow it functions as is. Zero malfunctions. Always feeds and chambers. Always fires. Always extracts and ejects nicely around 3 O'clock. The firing pin is shrouded, and the gas key is properly staked. Looking back, I have to laugh about actually considering swapping a part for a problem that didn't exist.
The 1:9 twist does not bother me as I prefer 60 gr loadings for both the Range and HD. Also, while it's listed as a 1:9, I think it might actually have a slightly faster twist rate. Something like 1:8.5, as it shoots 75s well and even handled 77s without keyholing; at least to 100 yards. Even if the 77s did become unstable past 100, again, I don't care. I'll role the dice on ending up in an apocalyptical scenario where all I can find are MK262s.
For the carbine buffer it's the same story as the SA bcg. This rifle has eaten everything I've put through it. The recoil is fine, and there are no signs of abnormal wear on the upper, bcg, buffer, etc. Again, why search for a problem that doesn't exist?
The non-F sight base is also of little consequence. It zeros just as well as any other rifle. Full disclosure, my OCD was triggered when I went to a 50m zero and had to bring the FSP up a little more than I'd have liked. While visually annoying to me, it meant nothing in regards to function. I ended up adding a MBUS Pro LR, which fixed my FSP "problem". In fact, I really think the issue was the cheap BUIS I'd purchased being out of spec. As for the parkerized critique, even comments in this thread concede it's not a big deal. I actually think that LMT even argues it's better to not parkerize under the FSB.
I'll probably get responses saying "well, it hasn't failed you...yet" or "you just happened to purchase one that works." That's fine. I guess it's just a coincidence that I've encountered a number of people who've also had a good experience with Bushmaster. Either way, the 4150 Barrel, M4 Feed Ramps, Chrome Lining, and even the Gas Key staking to a certain degree weren't a fluke that only ended up on my rifle. Now, every brand produces a lemon once and a while. Unfortunately, the response in such instances are not very equitable. That's my major issue with the "throw it away crowd." Too many blanket statements with too little firsthand experience.
I actually did own a Bushmaster M4A3 from right before the change to Wyndham. They didn't advertise what the barrel steel was and it had the following flaws:
Non "F" FSB (you didn't mention if yours has that or not)
No M4 Feed Ramps
Semi Auto Carrier
Commercial RE
FSB/Barrel Park'd as an assembly
Shitty key staking. It didn't displace enough material to do anything.
1:9 barrel
FSB secured with straight pins
It did have Cerro upper/lower and chrome lining in all the places it should.
Nice to see them improve in some areas but with 6920s for 850 I'm still not seeing anything mind blowing. So I do have experience with this MFG.
Renegade04
08-15-16, 09:05
If you really want to know what the Wyndam can do, this is a very intetesting vid.
https://youtu.be/Bvkj0uFyyt0
Good video. For those who have never seen or been in the mud in Louisiana, it is gray, gooey, and is almost like silt. It gets into ever little crease and crevice. I was not surprised at the issue it presented. It would do that to most any AR out there.
PapaFoxtrot
08-15-16, 10:11
I would like to see Windham continue its improvement, re-invent itself or at least evolve, and do well. It would be great to have quality ARs come out of Maine, and that is achieveable by following the right specs under very tight process control.
I had a govt rifle and it was good through out. Reliable and shot good enough. 1/7 chrome lined barrel.
My understanding is that AR parts are made by many different vendors. Furthermore, various AR makers might use parts from the same vendors. And, of course, some peoples' parts must be better than others. Consider the very large organization FN, might they manufacture all their AR parts? How do you make sense of who makes what part, and if they do, how do you know if it's a good part? These questions have perplexed me for a very long time.
From what I've seen,some firearms manufacturers (in many cases) would rather not reveal who supplies their parts.
If Windham has improved their product over the Bushmaster offerings from years ago, I might consider trying one out in a few years. First, they have to prove themselves and that they are not marketing product like the old Bushmaster.
I prefer the 1:9 for most purposes other than match shooting, so that is a plus. A 1:8 barrel would be acceptable.
Windham Weaponry's 20" rifle has M4 feed ramps... It doesn't have an "F" height FSB, though this shouldn't matter on a 20 inch rifle.
Their buffer tubes are all commercial spec for both rifle and carbine tubes.
They still phosphate finish their barrels after the FSB has been installed.
On the plus side, they don't use barrel blocks to install barrels any more... Like they did back when they were Bushmaster.
Thanks, if they stepped up just a few things they could have all bases covered. I appreciate the info.
The BCG is the M16 type. I have a couple of these upper assemblies as well as one of their 20" A2 government profile barrel assemblies. The gas keys are staked very well on the carrier. The chambers are clean and appropriately sized. The barrels are very accurate. Buy or try one before assuming anything.
I've seen a few people in recent times talk about the barrels having good accuracy. I haven't tried one of their newer barrels myself but it is nice to see good things said about another vendor building 20 inch gi style uppers. I was considering one of their barrels not too long ago for a 20 inch a2 build, ended up going with an ar15sport complete upper. Can't speak for the quality(although they did use an m4 barrel extension with a non-m4 a2 upper but m4 feedramped a2 uppers are not as common) but since it is a range toy I'm not that worried.
My problem with companies like Windham is that for most stuff their prices are not not far enough off from a company like BCM for me to warrant going with them. The windham 20 inch upper complete is 690 ish from their site. I can get the complete BCM upper for like 678 minus the carry handle(which isn't a big deal as if I wanted to use that I'd go with an a2 upper instead where I can fit my handle in the handle easier). The BCM upper also is coming with a much nicer charging handle. If you dropped it to a normal charging handle you could pretty much get a magpul rear sight to go with it and be around the same price. If you went with something like an aero precision upper you would be cheaper(mind you with a melonited barrel instead).
With a very competitive market I'd rather go with the company with a much better reputation with the price being the same. With so many companies offering very good products I can be picky. For a 20 inch gi style gun(since these are more rare than the other offerings) I'd go bcm(have two) or colt(which wasn't out at the time). If LMT actually would sell the 20 inch gi style gun they showed by mistake at shot show I'd be all over it as well(for some reason I want this more than the colt, not really sure why).
I actually did own a Bushmaster M4A3 from right before the change to Wyndham. They didn't advertise what the barrel steel was and it had the following flaws:
Non "F" FSB (you didn't mention if yours has that or not)
No M4 Feed Ramps
Semi Auto Carrier
Commercial RE
FSB/Barrel Park'd as an assembly
Shitty key staking. It didn't displace enough material to do anything.
1:9 barrel
FSB secured with straight pins
It did have Cerro upper/lower and chrome lining in all the places it should.
Nice to see them improve in some areas but with 6920s for 850 I'm still not seeing anything mind blowing. So I do have experience with this MFG.
First of all, I want to say thank you. Your response was crafted with reason and grace. I wasn't necessarily targeting your comment, but I do acknowledge that most of the items I addressed were also mentioned in your original post. Mine was just a general reply to some of the most common critiques that pop up just about every time Bushmaster is mentioned.
My M4A3 was purchased after the split with Windham. Some time circa 2011/2012 IIRC. From what I've seen, at the bare minimum, they've maintained much of the features that came with my rifle. They use 4150, chrome plated barrels in about 95% of their rifles; with the others being Stainless. They still come with M4 extensions and receivers, properly staked gas keys, etc. Additionally, as a result of their partnership with Magpul in producing the ACR, they have added some XM-15s that now come stock with Magpul furniture. They even added some retro designs, and still make some of their more classic models like the Varminter. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they have a "wide array" of choices, but there is a very nice variety.
Regarding the few items you mentioned on your Bushy...
I did call out the non-F FSB, as mine also came with a standard FSB. While the F-Marked may be more desirable, I don't find that the Standard is necessarily a flaw. It zeros just fine (outside of my OCD that was sparked from a combination of a 50m zero and crappy BUIS). I won't rehash it word for word, but my annoyance over the FSP height disappeared with the addition of an MBUS Pro LR. Below is a picture I just took of where the FSP sits in relation to the FSB with my 50m zero. So while its not F-Marked, it is forged, has no issues zeroing, and witnesses well with the more popular BUIS brands in the market. On a final note regarding the FSB, I have seen some report that their Bushy FSB is F-Marked. While I've handled some newer productions than my own, I can't recall checking for this change. So, either those claiming they're now F-Marked either don't know what they're talking about, or something had actually changed. But again, the non-F hasn't negatively impacted my rifle one bit.
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t648/kmwood06/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsyiktwts8.jpeg (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/kmwood06/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsyiktwts8.jpeg.html)
The concern over the lack of M4 Ramps seems to now be a remnant of the past. For at least the last 5 years they've been putting them in their rifles. References to their M4 Ramps can be found nearly 10 years back; including even the Carbon 15. That particular rifle was not exactly viewed as a high point for Bushmaster in the shooting community, and I feel much of their criticism today is still driven by lingering disdain for the Carbon 15. It'd almost be like if the opinions of Colt were all based upon the Expanse. Opinions of the Carbon 15 were mixed bag of reviews. I do give them credit for trying. A carbon fiber design that held up well could have been big for the lightweight crowd. I got a little sidetracked there, but it generally seems that both companies headed in the right direction regarding the M4 Extensions and Recievers after the two parted ways. After nearly 10 years of putting these in their rifles, I'd say that Bushmaster has put this issue to bed.
A semi auto carrier, properly staked key, and commercial RE all came with my 2011-12ish M4A3. I haven't handled any 2016 models, so I'm not sure if any of those changed carrier designs. They do have FA carriers in their 2016 catalogue, so it's certainly possible some of their rifles get a FA instead of the SA. As I mentioned earlier, mine does have a SA, chrome lined BCG, with a shrouded FP. The short version of my previous discussion is that I've never had an issue with the BCG. It's outfitted with the more desirable spring, o-ring, and insert. I also know that mine is made by Toolcraft (at least the carrier is). Right about the time that TC earned a military contract to supply the carrier assemblies, they also started supplying Bushmaster. I even confirmed once with a Rep that they were in fact being supplied by TC at the time I purchased my M4A3. Outside of the government contract, TC is pretty well respected in the community for producing solid carriers. Like with the FSB, an M16 carrier might be more desirable, but the SA version is not exactly flawed when it comes to reliability and the base quality of construction. As far as the RE, I'm not sure where they stand these days. Without giving a new production model a once over, I'll concede that they are likely still using Commercial tubes. The RE is one thing, if truly still unchanged, that I do not understand. Like all of the other "flaws", I've not had an issue with the Commercial version; even with intermittent periods of harder use. However, it'd be such an easy thing to change for a minimal cost to improved perception ratio. Ultimately, it really comes down to the quality of the parts; outside of the few instances of certain stocks not being compatible. A commercial tube can be equal in strength to its mil-spec brethren, but I've not been able to determine the material specs of the Bushmaster REs. They seem to hold up just fine but, if it really bugged someone, the piece of mind with a BCM quality tube can be had for pretty cheap. Again, is it less desirable? Sure. Is it less reliable? Not necessarily.
For the parkerizing as an assembly and usage of straight pins over tapered, my rifle is guilty. Yet, again, even a decent proportion of members in this very thread don't believe the lack of being parkerized under the FSB is anything to be concerned about. As I'd mentioned earlier, Bushmaster is not the only one that skips the parkerizing and opts for straight pins. LMT is one of them. Or, at least they were. I've seen some infer that LMT feels the contrarian approach, when it comes to these two items, can be argued to be the better method. However, I'd have to verify the hearsay at the source to get past my own conjecture. Regardless, I don't often come across people personally or on the forums who complain of rusted barrels under the FSB or failures caused by straight pins. I'm sure both can happen, but it seems to largely be a non-issue.
Whew, final item. That 1:9 twist barrel. Again, I'm not sure it can be considered a flaw. For some it's actually a preferred twist rate. I addressed this in more detail earlier, and will keep it shorter here. Simply put, it's not a problem given my preferred loads. Personally, I will admit that if I had only one choice, I would go with a 1:8 twist. Yet, I don't feel cheated with the 1:9. It puts the rounds where I want them to go, and with more than adequate precision and accuracy. Of all the flaws listed above, the 1:9 twist is likely the least aligned with the typical connotation of that word. For the other items, one can make arguments that they are not preferred. However, when it comes to twist rates, pros and cons can be asserted each.
Thanks again for the reasonable reply. Ultimately, I agree there is nothing earth shattering with the new Bushmasters. My intent was to simply illustrate that the conventional wisdom and opinions of their rifles might be a bit dated. They may not be top tier, but they deserve more credit than they're afforded.
Bayoublaster
08-17-16, 14:59
A lot has already been discussed but I had been emailing them about specs when we had one of their Way of the Gun Proctor carbines come through the shop.
- Bolts are batch MP inspected. Didn't respond about barrels.
- Bolts are shot peened.
- WW didn't respond to the question on HPT.
- Uppers have dry film lube. Didn't respond about receiver extensions being dry filmed.
- They do parkerize the barrels and sights as an assembly. This was also noted earlier in the thread.
As a previous Bushmaster owner, I'm glad they are making improvements since going back out on their own post Remington. They still have a ways to go but they seem to be trying.
Good to hear Bushy taking steps towards the right direction.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.