View Full Version : Where have all the ARMALITE's gone?
Black Wrench
10-31-10, 00:39
It seems like nobody runs Armalite M4's. Where have they gone? Poor QC or is there something I haven't heard. Seems like BCM, KAC, DD, etc are the big names on this forum. I would think one of the original manufactures or AR-15's surely cannot be a poor rifle maker. I ask this because I see their prices and was interested in possibly purchasing one.
I did a search but didn't find much. If anybody can fill me in on these rifles (Good or bad) I'd appreciate it. Thanks guys
Well for one just look at the specs.
http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=LEC15A4CBK&ReturnUrl=Categories.aspx?Category=8e8e5de6-5022-483e-812b-822e58014822
1. 1/9 twist barrel= Fail
2. Occasional tight barrels= Fail
3. Price= Fail
4. Batch testing of barrels and bolts= Fail
5. Semi auto BCG's= Fail
I have an Armalite lower that I used for a couple of years and it worked fine. I wouldn't use their barrels or uppers. I can put together a BCM gun for around 915.00 or get a Colt 6920 for around 1050.00. No need to get an Armalite.
Rifleman_04
10-31-10, 05:39
They are not the original. They just own the rights to the name.
I would think one of the original manufactures or AR-15's surely cannot be a poor rifle maker.
My primary has an Armalite lower. I am going to start running a 6920 once I get all the trimmings together. It has been a good lower for me. It was my first and has about 12-15K through it. I do agree that you rarely see them any more and I have to agree that you can put something together that is better for less.
langston302
10-31-10, 08:43
They are not the original. They just own the rights to the name.
Not so...
1957 US Military contracts to Armalite Division of Fairchild Aviation to develop a small caliber rifle. Eugune Stoner used the AR10 Battle rifle setup as the base.
1958 Armalite delivers the first test weapons and the results are poor
1959 Armalite sells rights to COLT
1960 Stoner leaves Armalite and joins COLT
Armalite was first....then COLT perfected it...the whole time Stoner was right there.
Not so...
1957 US Military contracts to Armalite Division of Fairchild Aviation to develop a small caliber rifle. Eugune Stoner used the AR10 Battle rifle setup as the base.
1958 Armalite delivers the first test weapons and the results are poor
1959 Armalite sells rights to COLT
1960 Stoner leaves Armalite and joins COLT
Armalite was first....then COLT perfected it...the whole time Stoner was right there.
Not so.
Mark Westrom owned Eagle Arms, and purchased the rights to use the Armalite name from the company in the Philippines that had owned it.
It's similar to Springfield Armory Inc., using the name of the oldest armory in the US, but it has absolutely no ties to the original.
Armalite is done...
What do you expect from an owner who runs his company like a hobby shop?
They are not the original. They just own the rights to the name.
Yep. Just like Springfield Armory is not the same Springfield that made the 1903 and other fine rifles for WWI, WWII, and Korea. The original Springfield was closed in the 1960s by the Secretary of Defense. The "Springfield" name was used to establish Robert Reese's own company in the 1970s......which simply does not measure up to the old armory.
Not so...
1957 US Military contracts to Armalite Division of Fairchild Aviation to develop a small caliber rifle. Eugune Stoner used the AR10 Battle rifle setup as the base.
1958 Armalite delivers the first test weapons and the results are poor
1959 Armalite sells rights to COLT
1960 Stoner leaves Armalite and joins COLT
Armalite was first....then COLT perfected it...the whole time Stoner was right there.
Where do people come up with this stuff?
none of what you posted has ANYTHING to do with the company that currently manufactures firearms under the Armalite name.
The current history of Armalite, Inc.
ARMALITE DIVISION OF ELISCO TOOL
The short-lived third phase of ArmaLite’s history began with Elisco Tool
Manufacturing’s 1983 purchase of ArmaLite. The new ArmaLite operation was headed
by an Englishman hired to serve as interim President, Mr. Bruce
Swain. Mr. John Ugarte later replaced Swain. ArmaLite continued to market existing
rifles and parts manufactured by Sterling under the leadership of the new vice-president
of Marketing, Mr. Joe Armstrong. Elisco Tool had successfully produced the M16A1 for
the Philippine armed forces and police. Difficulties with Colt over M16 licensing
prompted Elisco to seek another 5.56mm rifle, and the AR-18 was the only real
contender.
Inventory, tooling, and machinery were therefore dispatched from Sterling’s plant to the
Philippines. The process fell apart not in the U.S. market, but due to political events in
the Philippines themselves. In short, Ferdinand Marcos was overturned and went into
exile. The political and economic links of the government were dramatically shifted, and
Elisco was unable to carry out the AR-18 production. The U.S. arm of the operation was
closed in 1987.
ARMALITE INCORPORATED II
Independent of ArmaLite, Karl Lewis and Jim Glazier
formed a company named Eagle Arms in Coal Valley
Illinois in 1986.
Lewis had manufactured a wide variety of both commercial and military parts for M-16
rifles, and Eagle Arms assumed the increasingly distracting retail business from Lewis’
company, Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT). Eagle Arms initially marketed M16 and AR-
15 type rifle parts. The early Stoner patents had expired, and Eagle was able to build both
parts and complete rifles. In 1989 Eagle commenced production of complete rifles, with
LMT serving as the major supplier.
In January 1994, Mr. Mark Westrom purchased the company. Westrom was a former
Army Ordnance Officer and a civilian employee of the Weapons Systems Management
Directorate of the Army’s Armament Materiel and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) at
nearby Rock Island Arsenal. After the purchase, he continued producing Eagle Arms EA-
15 rifles. Plans were made to add a line of telescopic sights to the product line.
Westrom’s background in military Service Rifle competition produced a focus on high
grade target rifles even before the AR-15/M-16 rifles came to dominate American
Service Rifle competition in the mid-90s. In November 1994 Westrom decided to initiate
the design of a .308 caliber AR-10 type rifle, to be called the “M-10” in line with Eagle’s
production of .223 caliber “M-15” rifles. Work on the project began in November 1994.
The bulk of the engineering work was contracted out to LMT, with an experienced
Quality Assurance expert, Mr. David Dorbeck, doing the bulk of the work.
http://www.armalite.com/Categories.aspx?Category=34924c3c-54fa-4b4b-9e48-e56d7c3c05f7
:cool:
Rmplstlskn
10-31-10, 09:45
The new ArmaLite operation was headed by an Englishman hired to serve as interim President, Mr. Bruce Swain.
Now if it would have been BRUCE WAYNE, I'd say it was just a cover company... :laugh:
Rmpl
Main reason u dont see many ARMALITE's is like what was mentioned above......Price.
U can put together a much better upper for cheaper so it doesnt make sense to go with a Colt.
Plus like Iraq mentioned......
1:9 Twist Barrels = FAIL
Armlite does have selected models with 1 in 7" twist. But I think they are integrated with other features that drive price up (railed HGs, BUISs). I don't think you can get 1 in 7" and plain HGs, but maybe you can if you are willing to build.
Der Waffenkollektor
10-31-10, 11:45
I don't see 1:9 barrels as being a fail. It is a choice.
There are several manufactures who offer both at the same price so, it's not like your getting cheated.
If I fault Armalite for anything it is no individual HPT/MPI testing.
That is their weakest link.
It's a bit strange that people here sing praises about S&W M&P rifles which are 1:9, except for the most expensive models, don't do individual HPT/MPI testing and use 4150 steel as opposed to Armalite's MIL-B-11595-E yet, Armalite is considered a dog?
GermanSynergy
10-31-10, 11:50
What are the advantages (in your opinion) of running a 1:9 barrel over a 1:7?
I don't see 1:9 barrels as being a fail. It is a choice.
There are several manufactures who offer both at the same price so, it's not like your getting cheated.
If I fault Armalite for anything it is no individual HPT/MPI testing.
That is their weakest link.
It's a bit strange that people here sing praises about S&W M&P rifles which are 1:9, except for the most expensive models, don't do individual HPT/MPI testing and use 4150 steel as opposed to Armalite's MIL-B-11595-E yet, Armalite is considered a dog?
It's a bit strange that people here sing praises about S&W M&P rifles which are 1:9, except for the most expensive models, don't do individual HPT/MPI testing and use 4150 steel as opposed to Armalite's MIL-B-11595-E yet, Armalite is considered a dog?
I believe that MIL-B-11595-E calls for ORD 4150.
justin_247
10-31-10, 14:23
If I fault Armalite for anything it is no individual HPT/MPI testing.
That is their weakest link.
It's a bit strange that people here sing praises about S&W M&P rifles which are 1:9, except for the most expensive models, don't do individual HPT/MPI testing and use 4150 steel as opposed to Armalite's MIL-B-11595-E yet, Armalite is considered a dog?
There is some truth to this. Armalite is pretty close to S&W, with the only significant deficiency compared to S&W is that they batch test their bolts. It's a decent mid-level rifle just like Sabre, CD, and S&W.
That is true that a 1:9 barrel is choice but i prefer a 1:7 any day of the week.
The main thing that Armalite drops the ball in, is them not HPT/MPI testing their barrels.
Their barrels not being proof loaded is a big deal in my eyes and one reason i wouldnt recommend them.
I think it has to do with their being an apparently very difficult company to work with if you're a dealer.
That might have been possible when Vanilla Ice was relevant, but it's 2010.
As for the 1:9 thing, that's a big deal for those of us who know how good 75-77 grain ammo is. I'd be willing to bet that 98% of the ammunition fired by US civilian AR shooters is 55 or 62 grain. Make the industry standard 1:8 and call it a day.
Der Waffenkollektor
10-31-10, 16:27
What are the advantages (in your opinion) of running a 1:9 barrel over a 1:7?
Not much unless you are handloading extremely light bullets.
I didn't claim there was an advantage, just a choice.
As Boss Hogg pointed out, with the exception of the types who hang around here, the majority of shooters never shoot anything over 68gr. so, for them it is a non-issue.
I have a Colt 6721 and it's 1:9. Is Colt in the dog house now to?
I believe that MIL-B-11595-E calls for ORD 4150.
I'll take your word for it but, either way we are talking S&W's 4140 vs Armalites 4150.
I miss typed in my original post when I said S&W uses 4150, it's 4140.
It's a decent mid-level rifle just like Sabre, CD, and S&W.
I don't consider Sabre to be a mid-level manufacturer.
As a supper to the DOD of M16 they have the TDP and point out many times in their information that all their rifles meet the same ISO 9001-2008 standard whether military or civilian. Page 31 of their current catalog specifically states that each barrel is individually test fired. I think "The Chart" is out of date when it comes to the current state of Sabre rifles.
As things don't always come across right on the internet I hope you all realize I'm not being argumentative but just having a friendly discussion like you would with friends at the pub unfortunately, minus the beer and cute waitresses.
That might have been possible when Vanilla Ice was relevant, but it's 2010.
Look out, I think I saw somewhere Vanilla Ice has a new TV show or something.
Black Wrench
10-31-10, 19:28
SSOOOO!!! Old Armalite good, New Armalite bad. I think I'll just keep looking then. Like was posted Better rifles for cheaper are out there. Just gotta find them. It's sad to see such poor quality from so many manufactures out there.
.
I don't consider Sabre to be a mid-level manufacturer.
As a supper to the DOD of M16 they have the TDP and point out many times in their information that all their rifles meet the same ISO 9001-2008 standard whether military or civilian.
Sabre is not equal to a Colt or FN.
I believe the contact they were suppose to be awarded with fell through or is on hold.
ISO regulation and the TDP are two completely different things. Making something to you ISO standards (that the company set forth) does not mean you are building the gun to the TDP.
ISO regulation sets proceedural standards for quality documentation. It doesn't mean you have to use 4150 ord steel, HP test, etc.
Sabre's civilian products are substandard.
Batch testing of components. No M203 notch handguard caps (even Bushmaster gets this right), and a host of other things don't make them top tier.
langston302
10-31-10, 20:34
Not so.
Mark Westrom owned Eagle Arms, and purchased the rights to use the Armalite name from the company in the Philippines that had owned it.
It's similar to Springfield Armory Inc., using the name of the oldest armory in the US, but it has absolutely no ties to the original.
Where do people come up with this stuff?
none of what you posted has ANYTHING to do with the company that currently manufactures firearms under the Armalite name.
You know you are both correct....I was basing my comments off of the name alone....
Der Waffenkollektor
10-31-10, 20:53
I believe the contact they were suppose to be awarded with fell through or is on hold.
I don't know where you got that mis-information.
Here it is directly from Sabre: http://www.sabredefence.com/about.php
"If you see U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world using a Browning M2 caliber machine gun, 7.62 mm mini-gun or M16 rifle, chances are very good you’re seeing Sabre products in action."
ISO regulation sets proceedural standards for quality documentation. It doesn't mean you have to use 4150 ord steel, HP test, etc.
I understand the difference between ISO 9001-2008 and the TDP but, there is a connection in that with ISO, you are documenting quality testing and if the same documenting applies to your military guns as civilian then you are doing the same tests and my next example will show that is the case.
Sabre's civilian products are substandard.
Not according to this magazine article: http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/borescopes-target-rifle-barrel-defects
It provides further evidence that Sabres is making military M16s and clearly states that it's civilian rifles meet the same standards as their TDP military ones:
"in 2008, Sabre became the third manufacturer in history to receive a contract for military-specified M-16 rifles. This achievement didn’t come easily. The company had to establish that it was capable of producing both the quality and the quantity the military requires. "We had to go through an extensive first-article process, which included endurance testing and accuracy testing before and after the endurance tests, just to mention a couple of the requirements" says Morris Blanton, the company’s quality manager. "Compared to the commercial market, where you can use, say, a lighter or cheaper material, we don’t have the same options."
However, the company’s drive for quality leads it to apply the same strict standards to its commercial jobs, such as AR-15 rifles that are used in law enforcement, competition shooting, hunting and more."
Seem fairly black and white to me and means that Sabre is a member of the same club as Colt and FN and are top tier. M203 handguards not withstanding.
All of Sabre's non-stainless barrels are made from MIL-S-11595 CMV. It says so in "The Chart" and I can provide further proof if requested.
As I already pointed out, Page 31 of Sabre's catalog plainly states that every barrel is individually tested. No batch testing involved and given the article I just quoted, it would be only logical that the bolts are individual as well.
I have done a lot of research on this subject and Sabre is quite insistent that their civilian rifles meet the same standards as their military ones, which would equate to top tier.
In my almost 5.5 years of duty in the Middle East- Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan I have never seen a Sabre Defense M16.
I have seen some of their .50 parts, barrels and stuff, but that's it. I also worked with units from the U.S Army, U.S Navy, Coast Guard and Marines during that time.
Not much unless you are handloading extremely light bullets.
I didn't claim there was an advantage, just a choice.
As Boss Hogg pointed out, with the exception of the types who hang around here, the majority of shooters never shoot anything over 68gr. so, for them it is a non-issue.
I have a Colt 6721 and it's 1:9. Is Colt in the dog house now to?
I'll take your word for it but, either way we are talking S&W's 4140 vs Armalites 4150.
I miss typed in my original post when I said S&W uses 4150, it's 4140.
I don't consider Sabre to be a mid-level manufacturer.
As a supper to the DOD of M16 they have the TDP and point out many times in their information that all their rifles meet the same ISO 9001-2008 standard whether military or civilian. Page 31 of their current catalog specifically states that each barrel is individually test fired. I think "The Chart" is out of date when it comes to the current state of Sabre rifles.
As things don't always come across right on the internet I hope you all realize I'm not being argumentative but just having a friendly discussion like you would with friends at the pub unfortunately, minus the beer and cute waitresses.
Look out, I think I saw somewhere Vanilla Ice has a new TV show or something.
I have done a lot of research on this subject and Sabre is quite insistent that their civilian rifles meet the same standards as their military ones, which would equate to top tier.
Your "research" isn't research then, it's simply repeating their marketing.
My first AR purchase was a Sabre M5 Tactical (payed nearly $2k for it) and it was overly heavy (and muzzle-heavy), used cheap, substandard rails; and was not compliant with the TDP.
Here's the link:
http://www.sabredefence.com/products.php#products/m5tact
As I mentioned, I purchased a Sabre M5 Tactical as my first AR, not knowing much about ARs at all. I purchased it because 1) they are local (being in Tennessee) and 2) they were advertising to be mil-spec and hyping the win of the M16 contract. I believed the marketing and bought it, thinking I had a superior weapon.
Upon getting my weapon home and playing around with it (dry-firing and practicing shouldering the weapon), I found it to be EXTREMELY muzzle-heavy. Many people complain about a slightly forward CG or if a weapon requires support to keep on target - this gun makes everything else feel like it's make of carbon-fiber.
It uses Samson MEX-EBR rails (widely regarded as minimum acceptable quality), which weigh in at 18.0 oz (that's 1.5lbs) without the barrel nut. They are wide and very "square," making it difficult to hold comfortably for prolonged periods of time. Further, that specific rail is intended for a fixed FSB, but they installed it with a low-profile gas-block with an integral flip-up sight. This is a poor choice for many reasons, namely because the small section of rail in front of the FSB is unusable, therefore negating the benefit of a rifle-length rail on a mid-length. It would have been better to put a full rifle-length rail and rail-mounted sights to utilize the benefit of a rifle-length sight radius. Even with the sight flipped down, you lose the forward 2" or so of the top rail, making the configuration virtually useless for any tactical shooter.
And before anyone forgets: this thing is MUZZLE HEAVY! I cannot stress this point enough. I've handled many, many AR's (I've owned 4 personally) and none of them, not even my 11lb scoped, mid-weight SS Noveske is as hard to control as this gun was. The rails and their effect on the CG was atrocious at best.
The flip-up FSB's (a YHM) parkerizing job was also sub-par, as the sight started showing surface rust within a matter of weeks without ever having been outside or having been fired. This was in an indoors environment (my walk-in closet, actually) where the temperature was roughly 70* F with low relative humidity (aka a gunsafe environment).
The rear flip-up was also a YHM sight. While there's nothing wrong per-se with YHM, they (as is the case with Samson) are bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of quality. The adjustment knobs/screws were very tight and, if my memory serves me correct, the crossbolt attaching the sight to the rails was loose.
As far as following (or not following) the actual TDP, the rifle utilized a commercial receiver extension (or buffer tube). Why a company would claim to build mil-spec weapons and get the majority of components to fall within mil-spec... and then cheap out on the receiver extension is beyond me. This was primarily irritating because the stock M5 Tactical model came with a Magpul CTR stock. At the time, there was virtually no support for the commercial CTR stock and swapping out stocks meant having to disassemble the entire receiver extension assembly. As a new AR owner, this was very disappointing.
The bolt carrier was also semi-auto. Again, disappointing as they have M16 BCGs available in-house and there's no reason not to use them as they increase weapon reliability.
As for the "good" aspects of Sabre's rifles, they do come with a everything a new shooter would need to sight-in, run, clean, and maintain their weapons. They come with a decent cleaning kit, 2 mags, sight-in target, lock, and a very nice tactical carry case (it's actually a very nice case and would probably cost you $80-100 elsewhere).
They also have very good customer service. My M5 Tactical was missing its magazines (the gun store threw in 2 Pmags with the purchase because of that). I called Sabre Defense to see if I could get replacements (I'm a stickler about having everything that originally came with the weapon) and they sent them to me, free of charge, zero questions asked.
My conclusion? Is it a mil-spec weapon? Not entirely. However, the areas it doesn't meet mil-spec won't make a difference even to 95% of overseas operators. BUT...
If Sabre can't even use the correct receiver extension or throw in the correct BCG (which you KNOW they have on-hand), then how can you trust them? This is further amplified by the choice of low-quality, HEAVY rails and bulky YHM flip-up sights (front and rear).
Yes, the gun may be reliable, but there are better options out there. And for the prices they are charging, there are MANY better options out there.
Black Wrench
10-31-10, 23:06
Seems like we're a little off topic here. Sabre defence, Colt, etc? I was looking through the forum when I stumbled across this chart. Very helpful. Shows why colt is well... "COLT".
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA&single=true&gid=5&output=html
Question: The rifles on this chart, are they top models or is it in reference to all rifles made by that particular manufacturer?
I don't know where you got that mis-information.
Here it is directly from Sabre: http://www.sabredefence.com/about.php
"If you see U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world using a Browning M2 caliber machine gun, 7.62 mm mini-gun or M16 rifle, chances are very good you’re seeing Sabre products in action."
I understand the difference between ISO 9001-2008 and the TDP but, there is a connection in that with ISO, you are documenting quality testing and if the same documenting applies to your military guns as civilian then you are doing the same tests and my next example will show that is the case.
Not according to this magazine article: http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/borescopes-target-rifle-barrel-defects
It provides further evidence that Sabres is making military M16s and clearly states that it's civilian rifles meet the same standards as their TDP military ones:
"in 2008, Sabre became the third manufacturer in history to receive a contract for military-specified M-16 rifles. This achievement didn’t come easily. The company had to establish that it was capable of producing both the quality and the quantity the military requires. "We had to go through an extensive first-article process, which included endurance testing and accuracy testing before and after the endurance tests, just to mention a couple of the requirements" says Morris Blanton, the company’s quality manager. "Compared to the commercial market, where you can use, say, a lighter or cheaper material, we don’t have the same options."
However, the company’s drive for quality leads it to apply the same strict standards to its commercial jobs, such as AR-15 rifles that are used in law enforcement, competition shooting, hunting and more."
Seem fairly black and white to me and means that Sabre is a member of the same club as Colt and FN and are top tier. M203 handguards not withstanding.
All of Sabre's non-stainless barrels are made from MIL-S-11595 CMV. It says so in "The Chart" and I can provide further proof if requested.
As I already pointed out, Page 31 of Sabre's catalog plainly states that every barrel is individually tested. No batch testing involved and given the article I just quoted, it would be only logical that the bolts are individual as well.
I have done a lot of research on this subject and Sabre is quite insistent that their civilian rifles meet the same standards as their military ones, which would equate to top tier.
Show me government documentation that Sabre has delivered a M16 to the US Military. I'm waiting. And even if they did, their civilian guns are not to the same standard.
Sabre batch tests their bolts.
You quote the chart but the chart clearly shows Sabre not being anywhere close to Colt on the left side. What is your explanation for your own contradiction?
You need to look around here a bit more before you post and realize who you are trying to argue with.
Sabre has laser engraving on their uppers which is not milspec.
Sabre puts carbine feedramps in their 20" rifles which is not milspec.
Sabre uses commercial carbine receiver extensions.
1:9 Twist Barrels = FAIL
A little off topic, but it's been discussed in this thread. I picked S&W partly because of the 1/9 twist barrels. My department's issued ammo is 55gr. All my research (much of it was here) helped me pick a twist rate that would better match the ammo I was using. I think that's also why my dept issues S&Ws.
When I put together an exclusively personal rifle, it will likely have a 1/7twist barrel and a mid-length gas system, because I'm restricted to carbine lenth now.
Sabre has laser engraving on their uppers which is not milspec.
Reaching much? Seriously? Is this Arfcom?
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site - scratch that, any AR-oriented site.
Colt laser-marks their rails too, bright guy.
Sabre puts carbine feedramps in their 20" rifles which is not milspec.
If you meant m4 feed ramps on a 20", I can't see how that's a bad thing.
That would be better than mil spec.
Not so.
Mark Westrom owned Eagle Arms, and purchased the rights to use the Armalite name from the company in the Philippines that had owned it.
It's similar to Springfield Armory Inc., using the name of the oldest armory in the US, but it has absolutely no ties to the original.
Well put. I want to beat my head against a wall every time I hear some know-it-all equate the current Springfield Armory to the Historical Springfield Armory.
justin_247
11-01-10, 04:12
Across the three different bases I've been assigned to, I have yet to see a Sabre Defense M-16 upper receiver. In Korea our M-16s had brand new uppers on them and none of them were from Sabre.
Sabre has laser engraving on their uppers which is not milspec.
This is absolutely irrelevant. This has no impact upon the quality of the weapon in any sort of way, and I would like to see where in the TDP this is forbidden. BCM, DD, and Noveske all user laser engraving.
Sabre puts carbine feedramps in their 20" rifles which is not milspec.
If anything, this is going above and beyond the TDP. Please show me how this could negatively impact the weapon and where it is stated that doing this is verboten. Both BCM and Noveske have extended feed ramps on their 18" and 20" uppers.
Back on the subject of, you know, Armalite (maybe someone can split off the Sabre posts?) I have found it curious for quite a while that they don't appear more often, especially given that they are mid-length and the popularity of the mid-length these days.
In 2008 (http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2008-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf) Armalite produced just over 15k rifles, and remember they have the AR10 as well which is included in that number. There's no mention of Eagle Arms. By comparison, Bushmaster produced 83k. Somewhat interestingly, Colt is listed at 21k+/-, and S&W is listed at 38k.
I remember when I was selling guns during the Ban one of the more desirable brands, and hardest to get, was Armalite. Of course, the market wasn't as crowded then, and the competition tended to be much lower grade (Olympic, Hesse, DPMS, etc.) I think today it's just a case of being passed by and not keeping up, and not having the marketing campaign of Bushmaster.
SWATcop556
11-01-10, 04:51
As has been stated, this thread is about Armalite, NOT SABRE.
If you want to discuss Sabre and the merits or pitfalls of their rifles, you are welcome to started a new thread.
Rifleman_04
11-01-10, 09:10
You know you are both correct....I was basing my comments off of the name alone....
My response was not about the name alone.
He was asking about the quaility of the rifles produced by the current company that uses the name Armalite while assuming, just like you did, that the old and new were the same company.
I should have clarified in my first post.
My first personally owned AR was a Armalite M15A4. I have since changed every single part on that rifle since buying it new over ten years ago. I still run the original lower receiver on one of my duty rifles, but again, every single part in it has been replaced, and the entire lower receiver has been rebuilt with a new LPK (Colt).
The only PD in my area that I have seen that issues Armalite's, is the ISP (Illinois State Police).
Not much unless you are handloading extremely light bullets.
I didn't claim there was an advantage, just a choice.
As Boss Hogg pointed out, with the exception of the types who hang around here, the majority of shooters never shoot anything over 68gr. so, for them it is a non-issue.
I have a Colt 6721 and it's 1:9. Is Colt in the dog house now to?
It isn't the "weight" of the bullet that is the problem, it is the length of the bullet. Longer bullets require faster twisting rates to stablize the bullet, and the adoption of the 1:7" twist was primarily to shoot the longer M856 tracer round. However, that change in twist also opened up the option to shoot heavier bullets which have increased the effective range of the M4, barrier penetration, and terminal effects. A 68gr lead core bullet is short in comparison to any non lead 68gr round. The new US Army M855A1, partition bonded loads, green ammo, and most other new ammo designs are either incorporating non lead for green purposes, or for additional windshield and armor penetration. Either way, using a 1:9" twist greatly limits your ammunition selection......especially when most military and defensive loads are being designed around the standard 1:7" twist.
There is only one advantage to using a 1:9" twist over a 1:7" twist, and that is that it "slightly" increases barrel life and lowers operating pressures. Definately something that you'd want to put onto a cheaply made rifle to cover up the weaknesses in the barrel steel and bolt carrier group. Funny though how these rifles still don't last as long as a top tier M4 that adheres to the TDP. However, if you pony up a little extra money you can get a hammer forged 1:7" barrel that will last at least 3x as long as the 1:9" barrel, and you have the ability to shoot just about anything you want out of it.
My department owns 2 Armalite M15A4s that are issued to the designated marksmen on the SWAT team (who sit somewhere between sniper and assaulter roles). Yes, I'm issued one of these.
I've noticed: improperly cut ramps, tight chamber, semiauto carrier.
These don't matter as much in a gun that's better suited as a varminter or a benchrest gun, but in a defensive gun, these can be big factors. I'm leery enough of the feedramp and carrier issues that I carry a multitool on my 1st line in case I have to work the bolt to clear a malfunction or un-stick a round. The site advertises the barrel twist as 1:8, and ours are stabilizing 75gr TAP just fine, but I don't know if this was a recent change.
Just in case, I still deploy with my Colt on my back.
If you meant m4 feed ramps on a 20", I can't see how that's a bad thing.
That would be better than mil spec.
That isn't the point. The point is their products are not interchangeable then with Colt and FN M16A4s.
If their stuff was milspec, they wouldn't be doing this.
I chose an ArmaLite U15A4C upper for my first AR build in the summer of 2009 mainly because I wanted a midlength in 1:9". Back then it was difficult to find the selection and prices we have today and honestly I liked the idea of having the ArmaLite name even though I understood the original company was long gone. A good sale convinced me to go with it even though I knew it wasn't Tier 1. ArmaLite definitely isn't common, other than this upper I've only seen one other for sale in town.
It's turned out to be a decent upper but just in case I replaced the BCG with a Daniel Defense M16 group that was recommended on this site. Also the front sight post was replaced with the 0.04" taller Bushmaster post to allow proper zeroing with milspec height rear sights. It is a little heavy with the rifle coming in at 7.75 lbs with irons/RDS/sling but no magazine.
Otherwise no complaints, the M4 feed ramps are done well and the barrel extension and receiver align properly. The chamber is in spec and handles 5.56, steel case and low priced 55gr ammo that I largely practice with. The 1:9" twist of course is ideal for that type of ammo but still can handle much heavier/longer stuff up to 100 yards, a reasonable distance for my applications. The midlength gas system with the M16 BCG and H-buffer have been smooth and reliable with the ammo above. I thought I might introduce short-stroking with the heavier components but that hasn't been the case, even with Wolf.
Would I choose it again today? No, in fact I'm about to get a BCM LW midlength upper for my next build. Am I going to keep it? Yes, in fact for the new build I bought an ArmaLite stripped lower (a good sale, a good lower plus I like the rollmark) which has been married to the ArmaLite upper. The original M&P-15 lower will be used with the BCM upper.
A shame that ArmaLite having such a fine name doesn't improve a few things, especially in the BCG, to be more highly regarded. We always can use another high grade choice.
wolf_walker
11-01-10, 17:48
If you meant m4 feed ramps on a 20", I can't see how that's a bad thing.
That would be better than mil spec.
And this is something anyone with any mechanical sense should smile upon. I am not even remotely knocking colt, but they are built to a price for a contract. Reasonable compatibility with accepted standards while incorporating worth while upgrades is what I look for. Personally, I can afford better for my rifle than the Mil/Gov is going to spend on a given one of theirs.
Personally, I can afford better for my rifle than the Mil/Gov is going to spend on a given one of theirs.
Prove to me how your rifle is better than a Colt or FN.
There is no need for M4 ramps on a 20in rifle.
Der Waffenkollektor
11-01-10, 19:36
In my almost 5.5 years of duty in the Middle East- Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan I have never seen a Sabre Defense M16.
I've never seen a black swan, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As suggested by the moderator, Its time to put the Sabre issue to rest in this thread. I have said my piece, presented independent evidence and invite open minds to draw their own conclusions and Google away. Just in fairness I would like to respond to some attacks on my credibility and then I'm done with Sabre.
Your "research" isn't research then, it's simply repeating their marketing.My first AR purchase was a Sabre M5 Tactical.
I referenced an outside independent source. Any one can click on the article and read it for themselves. If anything the article is pushing bore scopes, not rifles.
Plus if you buy one of their custom models and complain that it is different than a military model well… that just makes no sense. Also, the Samson rail you are so upset with is no different than similar rails from DD and others that extend past the front sight, except it has metal on top, in front of the sight, which protects the folding sight, which the others do not.
You quote the chart but the chart clearly shows Sabre not being anywhere close to Colt on the left side. What is your explanation for your own contradiction?
I clearly stated that the chart was wrong in several areas, just because I say it is right in others, in no way means I'm contradicting myself.
Rob_s does a commendable job putting "The Chart" together but neither you, me, him or the chart are perfect. It's not the ten commandments delivered from on high.
I think people sometimes loose perspective on that.
I also think that "The Chart" makes it seem like the only reason to buy an AR is to mimic a military M4. I would rather not have a M203 cut out on my barrel, thank you. Unless your only reason to buy an AR is to play soldier.
You need to look around here a bit more before you post and realize who you are trying to argue with.
I'm not trying to argue with anybody, just discuss.
I'm all about challenging peoples preconceived notions or having them re-think what they though they knew. I have no agenda other than to provoke thought so we can all learn more in the process.
You have no idea who I am or what I know.
I chose to keep it that way and over time people can decide from my posts if I have any idea what I am talking about.
I can see from two of the three points you made at the end of your post that were all pretty much soundly dismissed by others, that maybe you don't know as much as you think. Think about it.
Back to points that apply to Armalite.
There is only one advantage to using a 1:9" twist over a 1:7" twist, and that is that it "slightly" increases barrel life and lowers operating pressures. Definately something that you'd want to put onto a cheaply made rifle to cover up the weaknesses in the barrel steel and bolt carrier group. Funny though how these rifles still don't last as long as a top tier M4 that adheres to the TDP. However, if you pony up a little extra money you can get a hammer forged 1:7" barrel that will last at least 3x as long as the 1:9" barrel, and you have the ability to shoot just about anything you want out of it.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you are saying but, I think you are over stating you case. Do you have any empirical evidence about the effect of twist rate on bolt stress? There is probably more difference in bolt stress between hot and standard loaded rounds than between the same round fired in a 1:7 vs a 1:9. I don't see that the difference between the two twists is going to have a significant effect on bolt life.
How about tests showing that a hammer forged barrel last 3x as long as an Armalite MIL-B-11595-E 4150 barrel? I'm all for hammer forged barrels but, that seems a bit much.
Everyone agrees Daniel Defense makes great hammer forged barrels yet, on one hand, they are sub-mil-spec because they use 4150 ordinance steel yet, on the other hand they are above mil-spec because they are hammer forged. So, where does that leave them on a scale of one to ten? My point being much more of what is and isn't good, bad TDP, mil-spec or not is less black and white and a bit more subjective than it first appears.
I am someone who owns several Colt ARs and thinks they are good stuff, I'm still curious why Armalite gets bashed for some of their rifles being 1:9 yet Colt gets a free pass with the 6721? They must have had a reason for it and I don't think it is crappy barrel steel or weak bolts.
Prove to me how your rifle is better than a Colt or FN.
What about Knight's Armament? I'm sure Kevin B could offer you proof.
And there you have it again, one of the best ARs made isn't even on "The Chart" because they don't make a M-Forgery.
I would rather not have a M203 cut out on my barrel, thank you. Unless your only reason to buy an AR is to play soldier.
Let me explain this to you so you can follow along better.
Sabre defense M4 barrels do not use an M203 handguard cap. They cannot mount an M203 launcher even though they have the notch on the barrel. DPMS and Oly do this. This practice that companies do is the lowest of the low shit.
You don't even know what an M203 handguard cap is, so the rest of your postings are irrelevant.
wolf_walker
11-01-10, 20:13
Prove to me how your rifle is better than a Colt or FN.
Mid-length gas sys, nickel boron coated FCG. Some other stuff but those are two good obvious examples. And my stock don't rattle. :)
That's as far as I'm going.
Der Waffenkollektor
11-01-10, 23:01
Let me explain this to you so you can follow along better.
Sabre defense M4 barrels do not use an M203 handguard cap. They cannot mount an M203 launcher even though they have the notch on the barrel. DPMS and Oly do this. This practice that companies do is the lowest of the low shit.
You don't even know what an M203 handguard cap is, so the rest of your postings are irrelevant.
You can drop the condescending attitude right now.
For someone who has made pronouncements that others have chewed to pieces, it doesn't seem like you have much of a leg to stand on.
I know exactly what a M203 handguard cap is and per the moderator's request I am not not talking about Sabre anymore anyway.
If you had read my post correctly, I'm talking about the ring cut into the barrel of all the ARs on "The Chart" and how it is an unnecessary negative feature for 99% of private purchasers, unless you are playing soldier.
If you want to discuss any thing further I suggest you go back and read my post properly, instead of twisting my words around into something I did not say and then acting like a know it all who still can't address any of the points I made.
Unless someone has something intelligent to say, I pretty much so done here.
That's as far as I'm going.
Smart man.
I'm curious how often anyone here sees ArmaLite in gun shops. I sure don't and it's odd since pricewise they are competitive with RRA and Bushmaster. I suppose you see them in IL but not complete rifles up here in the Northwest. However I was able to buy a stripped lower at Impact Guns.
variablebinary
11-02-10, 01:30
If you meant m4 feed ramps on a 20", I can't see how that's a bad thing.
That would be better than mil spec.
It doesn't matter if it is good or bad.
Either your guns are built to military specs or they aren't. Lets say Sabre does build their M16's to the correct spec, then why build a gun that is out of spec for the civilian market?
This is what separates Colt from the majority of firearms makers out there in general. They are consistent across their entire product line.
Here's my bone stock Armalite M15A4:
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1925/sdc10598or.jpg
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/8531/sdc10603v.jpg
;)
Just kidding, I replaced everything on this 10 year old Armalite (which was my first ever personally owned AR rifle), including all of the lower receiver parts except for the take-down pins.
Magic_Salad0892
11-02-10, 04:58
I really like you're ballistic information stuck to your EOTech.
I'm trying to think of a good place to put mine. (SOPMOD Stock?)
Oh while I'm thinking about it:
Does anybody have an Armalite C.O.P. upper? They look interesting:
That said, I wouldn't buy it to save my life.
justin_247
11-02-10, 04:59
Prove to me how your rifle is better than a Colt or FN.
I would say that a rifle with a Noveske, DD, or Centurion barrel, extended feed ramps, FailZero or nickel boron coated bolt carrier, and LMT enhanced bolt would definitely be better. I would say a KAC is superior to a Colt or FN, as well.
There is no need for M4 ramps on a 20in rifle.
So by extending the barrel another 5.5 in you're somehow getting rid of possible magazine feed problems?
Either your guns are built to military specs or they aren't. Lets say Sabre does build their M16's to the correct spec, then why build a gun that is out of spec for the civilian market?
This is what separates Colt from the majority of firearms makers out there in general. They are consistent across their entire product line.
+1
my "stick" is bigger and better-enough already
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.