View Full Version : Bushmaster M4 "Patrolmen's Carbine" Inspection
Posted here by request:
////
Yesterday afternoon, I did an initial acceptance inspection of Bushmaster "Patrolmen's Carbine" for a LE agency adding this carbine to it's list of authorized units.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0754.jpg
Control samples were used in the eval, a Colt LE6920 and AR6520, DOD Colt M-4, FN M-16A2. All are currently issued/authorized.
Highlights:
-Circumferentially larger and longer (3/4") receiver extenion, curiously so. End of stock cut at an angle. Buttstock of questionable material quality and durability.
-Castle nut is not staked.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0761.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0766.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0756.jpg
-Standard rifle carbine extension and receiver. (No M4-type feedway cuts.) (Indifferent, if functional)
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0772.jpg
-Shrouded bolt carrier with SA rear tang. Bonus!
-Supplied with rifle extractor spring with blue insert.
-Properly staked bolt carrier key.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0771.jpg
-30rd magazine was supplied with green follower of soft and easily damaged plastic material. A similar mag like this melted in an auto gun in another unrelated eval. Distinctly different from milspec magazines.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/883273/IMG_0774.jpg
-Charging handle of thinner material than control samples. Bending is a concern if the handle receives lateral pressure.
-Pistol grip contains hex-head screw.
-Handguard of lightweight plastic, small prongs holding a single heat shield, prongs will likely melt.
-FSB appears TDC and uncanted.
Carbine has conditional approval by the agency pending demonstration of live-fire function and durability of components questioned, change of the grip screw, extractor spring, and staking of the castle nut. Magazine discarded.
////
I love these post! Keep up the good work.
Skintop911,
Thanks for this. These side-by-side comparisons are very good illustration of how Shrubmaster is not "MIL-spec" despite their assertion otherwise (see their site). They may have won in court, but there are many differences (other than SA-v-FA) between their "M4" and the real thing. These differences may be inconsequential to the hobbyists, but they may not be for people who use them for real.
By the way, what ammo does your agency issue? I ask because I believe the BM to have a 1/9"-twist barrel (?).
I love these post! Keep up the good work.
Ditto.
I'm looking forward to the live-fire report.
Pat_Rogers
08-02-06, 14:58
Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....
Ditto.
I'm looking forward to the live-fire report.
That was written up some time ago, and reposted here by request.
I give credit where credit where credit is due: That carbine ran fine during an orientation and qual course by the officer it was issued to. Several hundred rounds (500-700+/-) of common drills over an afternoon on a dusty range. It's continued to run without failure since, a few hundred rounds per session.
Discarding the OEM mag, and installing Ken Elmore's excellent HD extractor spring assembly undoubtedly helped.
The troop to whom it's issued runs it well, and cares for it properly. I gave it a check-up a week or two ago and it needed no meds. No unusual or excessive wear, or observations of concern.
It will get lots of attention over it's service life.
HAMMERDROP
08-02-06, 15:59
Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....
That is painful, I can hear the BM M4 death knell now ...LOL
Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....
Thanks Pat, seeing as how that's what I have maybe next time you can just kick me in the nuts. It probably won't hurt as bad.;)
BTW, I did get my Viton O-rings, HD ext springs and black inserts from Sully last week. Haven't tried them out yet but I expect good things. Next step might be a Sully stock. I like the idea of a simple, fixed stock and Sully has a pretty good rep for those. My A2 stock is A-OK, but it is long.
Pat_Rogers
08-02-06, 20:37
The Sully stock is the choice for a fixed stock- very much good to go. Taking care of your extractor stuff is a definite step in the right direction, and will go along way to keeping things right.
I have a bad taste for most of the aftermarket guns. The bushhamsters are always perplexing, and my experience with a SWAT teams guns 2 years ago, as well as poor CS kinda' clinched it.
If yours is running good, don't sweat it. Just keep on keeping on.
And no, i do not desire to place my foot near your ball bag...
I think it's fair to say that any company can have an issue from time to time.
It's what happens on the service end that can make or break a company in the long run.
A company shouldn't be condemmed for a few issues, as long as they resolve them properly.
As far as to condem someone's equipment soley by brand name - if the equipment runs and functions would be foolish.
Also, the end users often end up causing some of the problems for the brand.
No need to be "elitist" on brands if a weapon functions. If it's not your favorite then get what you like.
Pat_Rogers
08-03-06, 16:34
I agree that any company is capable of making both good and bad guns.
However, when 20+ guns are delivered to a SWAT Team (they ordered M4's but the bean counters got something "just as good") and they had problems out of the box, something is wrong..
Then you find out that eight have loose bolt carrier gas keys. All of the rest have poor stakes. Several have canted front sights etc.
It goes downhill from there friend. The company stated that the rep was on vacation- nothing could be done. Eventually he called and promised to send 20 new bolts and carriers out next day. 2 weeks later the cops were still waiting for them.
Of course they are not the only company to send shoddy work out.
AR manufacturers are of two types. Those that build to a standard (generally because they have to meet that standard contractually) and those that don't.
Clearly it costs less to not meet a standard. Things like out of spec receiver extensions, non MPI bolts and barrels, parts acquired from a pool source and so forth.
In two incidents with SWAT teams, the guns were brand new. Sorry, but the end users did nothing but show up at the range.
Some companies that are not required to meet a standard will still meet that standard- Bravo Company for example.
While none of this will have a serious effect on a hobby shooter, it could be tragic for those who use the guns for a living.
I'll disagree with you about "as long as they resolve them properly", because if they turn out a problem for a cop, it may turn into something a lot worse then a customer service issue.
I have seen enough problems with lower tier guns to make me understand clearly that i only purchase/ use those guns who have a better track record, over the long run.
Sorry it that offends you, but i don't believe in mediocrity- especially when it is someones life in the balance.
YM of course MV.
I am not elitist on guns. I use what works. I recommend what works.
I certainly wasn't calling you an elitist. No disrespect intended to you.
That's unfortunate for that team and that experience.
As an LEO I've been on the down side of the administrator's decisions several times - including a chief's choice of a Sigma pistol as the department weapon. Administrators can quickly kill morale with poor choices and put us in danger. Being an "armorer" for the department on that system was almost a disgrace. Luckily for those officers now - those are gone. I watched one not fire when one of my LEOs tried to put a wounded deer down - that certainly didn't do anything positive for the department, especially the gun shy LEOs.
I know there are reports out there with Bushmaster and I'm certainly not defending them on your experiences.
Hopefully those are issues of the past or under control.
I've had no problems with the Bushmaster I have. The one I've used has been reliable through training and on carry.
I've been on the problem side at training too with sub-standard equipment and gotten the "clear the jam again" practice.
One of the best aspects of training is finding what works and what fails. When it fails it's time to find the reliable replacement.
Pat_Rogers
08-03-06, 17:10
No disrespect taken.
I've had several BM in the early 90's that ran real well, and i still see most that work well. My preference is toward other makers purely because of consistency in their guns.
PM headed your way.
Stay safe!
Thanks Pat, you are truely a professional.
Pat_Rogers
08-03-06, 17:55
I try- doesn't always work out that way sometimes...
For me the issue isn't what kind of customer service a company has after the product fails. I would much prefer to purchase from a company who's customer service I never need to make use of. Very few take the steps to insure that the customer will never need to test their warranty or customer service.
That's a good point - the best kind of customer service is the kind you never need. Like a warranty.
Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....
OUCH !!!!!! :p
Jay
Texas_Soldier
08-08-06, 21:26
I have the Bushy Patrolmans carbine with the A2 upper, in 1 year and several thousand rounds down the pipe I have had zero malfunctions, and have been pretty happy with it.
BTW- it is bone stock.
Eats any ammo I feed it- jsp, fmj, cheap russian stuff without a hiccup.
I maintain it well and it serves it function.
However I have seen some that just won't run right no matter what brand they are, luck of the draw?
I like the 6 pos stock vs 4 pos, I can get it to fit better than my .gov issue M4
ex_soldier1911
08-18-06, 00:38
I have read that Bushmaster sells more black rifles than Colt, Armalite, and RRA combined. That was one of the deciding factors when I purchased mine. I carried a Colt M4 for a few years in the Army, but when I decided the time was right to purchase my own M4 I decided to go with the Bushmaster M4 14.5" barrel with perm. attached FH. However, now that I am more educated about the different manufacturers, and I didn't already purchase the Bushmaster, I would probably go with CMMG because they are apx. the same price but carry a lifetime warranty. I have also heard their accuracy is on par with Bushmaster.
For me the issue isn't what kind of customer service a company has after the product fails. I would much prefer to purchase from a company who's customer service I never need to make use of. Very few take the steps to insure that the customer will never need to test their warranty or customer service.
Preach it :D
Pat_Rogers
08-20-06, 08:01
ex soldier- Colt produces significantly more than all of the lower tier makers.
Almost all of that is military contract work, and those numbers you are referring to cover civilian sales only.
ex_soldier1911
08-20-06, 14:46
Pat,
Thanks, that makes sense. I don't remember where I read the numbers but I am trying to find them.
ex_soldier1911
08-20-06, 15:14
Here is one link:
http://shootingindustry.com/SpecReport06/06FAReport.pdf
Says Bushmaster produced 44,348 rifles in 2004, and Colt produced 13,705.
Heavy Metal
08-20-06, 15:19
You are talking Civilian production and Pat is talking Mil/LE. Apples and oranges.
ex_soldier1911
08-20-06, 15:45
How many rifles does Colt manufacture a year for the Mil/LE? I know Bushmaster doesn't make rifles for the military, but how many for LE, and does that mean that those numbers are also seperate from these numbers?
ex_soldier1911
08-26-06, 04:41
Found something, according to this Colt ships about 8,000 M4's a month, WOW.
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2006/ammunition_plant/
Skintop911,
Thanks for this. These side-by-side comparisons are very good illustration of how Shrubmaster is not "MIL-spec" despite their assertion otherwise (see their site). They may have won in court, but there are many differences (other than SA-v-FA) between their "M4" and the real thing. These differences may be inconsequential to the hobbyists, but they may not be for people who use them for real.
By the way, what ammo does your agency issue? I ask because I believe the BM to have a 1/9"-twist barrel (?).
I have a bushmaster shorty I bought back in 2000 its ran 100 %
has a 1/9 twist and shoots Black Hills 77gr and 75gr fine!
In my Book Bushmaster is Good Quality! SEVERAL LEO USE THEM FOR REAL:D
They dont have milspec tube or M4 feed ramps? BUT they seem to RUN Well?
Right Now Im Likeing My LMT DEFENDER M4
Colt good and all But I rather have a LMT or Bushmaster or BC
GastonG-NoVa
08-27-06, 19:30
LMT for me, but out sister agency has been using bushys for about 3 years. They have approximately 60 guns and no issues with any of them. They have also had really good customer service. Apparrently Blackwater has had good results with them as well.
I guess it is either very good or very bad.
Keep your head down and continue the fine work
G
John_Wayne777
08-28-06, 13:28
I agree that any company is capable of making both good and bad guns.
However, when 20+ guns are delivered to a SWAT Team (they ordered M4's but the bean counters got something "just as good") and they had problems out of the box, something is wrong..
Then you find out that eight have loose bolt carrier gas keys. All of the rest have poor stakes. Several have canted front sights etc.
It goes downhill from there friend. The company stated that the rep was on vacation- nothing could be done. Eventually he called and promised to send 20 new bolts and carriers out next day. 2 weeks later the cops were still waiting for them.
That's odd.
It is rare for me to hear anything bad about Bushmasters. I have seen quite a few of them in action (although probably nowhere near as many as you) and they generally seem to be at the very least reliable weapons that go bang most of the time. (Franken guns made from Bushmaster parts and the various parts of other weapons, on the other hand, seem to be the first ones to die in a class....)
Nobody's label is a guarantee of perfection, but still...I would expect a lot better than that from BM. ESPECIALLY if they are SWAT guns.
John_Wayne777
08-28-06, 13:37
LMT for me, but out sister agency has been using bushys for about 3 years. They have approximately 60 guns and no issues with any of them. They have also had really good customer service. Apparrently Blackwater has had good results with them as well.
The BW armorers and others I have had the chance to train with and talk to seem to like the Bushmasters well enough. Gun nerds tend to get caught up in x brand vs. y brand stuff where those who use the weapons for a living tend to just view them as tools. Give them a reliable weapon that puts a bullet where they want it and they are generally happy.
Even at that, reliability wise the BW guys say that the Bushy made weapons perform every bit as good as Colt civilian, LE and .mil weapons do in training. They issue Bushmasters for their instructors and contractors and seem to be pretty happy with them overall. I have been in carbine courses with Bushys in my hands and with Bushys on the line with me, and they seemed to do alright to me.
The weapons they have the most problems with are the ones where a well meaning gun guy buys the best example of each component of an AR and then assembles it all to produce a franken-weapon that chokes constantly.
That being said, anybody can foul up and produce crappy machines if they don't pay enough attention....even Bushmaster.
John_Wayne777
08-28-06, 13:45
However I have seen some that just won't run right no matter what brand they are, luck of the draw?
Every manufacturer of every machine has to have workers that produce parts and assemble them into a final product. There are a million tiny things that have to go into producing quality finished products, and if a new employee or a bad employee doesn't do their job right, the finished product can be a steaming pile of awful.
Guys more familiar with the intricacies of production for military contracts can correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that when you are producing for a military contract you typically have more quality control checks built into the production process as a part of the contract.
Thus the attraction of "milspec" weapons, as the .mil typically goes to lengths to ensure a minimum standard of quality that you won't see on most civilian production weapons.
On many/most guns the factory produces it might not matter, but on the ones that aren't produced right or have problems the problems are more likely to be caught under a .mil contract before a soldier gets it....
I don't care!
I picked up my first M4gery on Saturday night a brand new Bushmaster XM15 M4 type with the 14.5" bbl and perm Izzy.
$640 plus tax:D
SinnFéinM1911
08-28-06, 15:23
I personally have seen BM's not work quite a few times and or come out of the box in a NO-GO QC check on simple things (most are previously listed so I will not again, there are other manufacturers also, but not on the same scale, or even close).
One thing to note is just because a Manufacturer produces more than another does not mean they are better. If they do not grow at the right pace they can easily out grow themselves. Then a few things happen, QC drops, things slip by, jobs get done to fast and parts are not assembled correctly - RESULT - BAD GUNS!
You pretty much get what you pay for, spend your hard earned money and get reliability and durability, or scrape and roll the dice!
There is a few examples in the past of many examples on way and few showing different positive results. For hobby shooters, sure it could be your key to a good start in part time range days, for people that rely on these tools for their lives or there partners / teammates, there is no question.
How many Bushmaster recceiver extension have you seen FAILED? :D
Dont worry LMT beats THEM ALL
Quote:
"How many Bushmaster recceiver extension have you seen FAILED?"
One. Mine.
Quote:
"Dont worry LMT beats THEM ALL"
Why?
Brewer
Wayne Dobbs
08-30-06, 22:28
BM is certainly aggressive with their claims to be "as good" as the Big C, but truth be told, they are NOT. They are like the old Star handguns of the 70s and the current Kel Techs: very good or very bad. Just because they're selling a lot of them means nothing with regard to how suitable they are to defending your life. Most guns get sold to hobby shooters and folks that never send a 1000 rounds TOTAL through the gun. If it malfs, they just think it's normal and go on.
Those of us who buy/own/carry these things to protect our lives AND are well informed can see the folly of that approach. I've endured a Bushwhacker M4gery here in Shitsville for nearly two years. The carrier key wasn't staked (and my employer never checked any of them) and it came loose. The trigger sucks hard (~12#) and I've only shot it enough to verify zero and to keep skills at a minimal level. Most of ours get shot only to zero, so the real problems don't make themselves known. I've seen enough photos of broken BM bolts and seen enough loose and unstaked carrier keys to know not to trust the gun in heavy use.
Friends at home in the world that've seen and delivered training on BMs sold to LE agencies tell me of bad extractors, unstaked carrier keys, etc. They report that about 20% of these guns are UNSAT as delivered. So if you think that the big BM (what a lovely combination of letters to describe them!) is top notch, perhaps Jeff Cooper's old dictum is true: "One man's experience is rarely extensive enough to make doctrine".
BMs shit the sheets too much to make them OK for serious use...
I own several Colts my first was a AR15 wich I took back after the same day.
A Detective Special wich had to go back to Colt because the barrel wasnt straight! Combat Elite 1911 Pefect out of the Box,1911 Officers acp& Mustang wich were good out of the box!
Colt isnt perfect!
I have only bought 2 bushmasters
1st one was a SHORTY wich has several 1000 of rounds threw her without a SINGLE Hic Up
2nd a 20HBAR wich had a burr wich caused a few feed problems at First but ran 100% after that and shoots ragged holes at 100yards with federal 69gr
During the BAN I seen ALOT of LEO`S in my town exchange there COLTS for BUSHMASTERS
The one thing about COLT I dont like is theyReally DONT WANT the PUBLIC to have there AR15`s
Why didnt COLT offer a 6920 to the public during the ban without the EVIL telestock,Flashider,Lug
Only NOW you hear about there 6920
Quote:
"How many Bushmaster recceiver extension have you seen FAILED?"
One. Mine.
Quote:
"Dont worry LMT beats THEM ALL"
Why?
Brewer
PLZ I got to hear!!!
How did your rec ext Fail
LMT has alot going for them!
You havent seen LMT`s AR`s
I think a Few in the know like them
Let me guess they are no good because no park under FSB:D
People are missing the point. Pat is (as are others with similar experience) telling us that he sees alot of guns fail in his classes. He's telling us that a large number of these failures go back to Bushmaster (after eliminating so called "frankenguns").
You may personally own a Bushmaster that shoots just great for your purposes. The issue is that Pat, and again others with similar experiences, sees more than a few of them fail, or sees QC issues with them that would lead to an eventual failure. He does not see the same number of failures or QC issues with Colts.
Robb Jensen
08-31-06, 07:31
People are missing the point. Pat is (as are others with similar experience) telling us that he sees alot of guns fail in his classes. He's telling us that a large number of these failures go back to Bushmaster (after eliminating so called "frankenguns").
You may personally own a Bushmaster that shoots just great for your purposes. The issue is that Pat, and again others with similar experiences, sees more than a few of them fail, or sees QC issues with them that would lead to an eventual failure. He does not see the same number of failures or QC issues with Colts.
Exactly.
Saying that you have a Bushmaster that runs 100% doesn't mean all Bushys run that well. It's illogical to argue from the particular to the general.
You can't say that all Bushmasters are going to have more failures than Colts but seeing a lot of Bushmasters at his courses and many with problems Pat Rogers knows what he's talking about. There's much higher 'probablity' that a Bushy will have problems that a Colt might not. Pat knows what he's talking about!
Courses like his are pushing the shooter and his equipment to the edge. You will find out VERY QUICKLY if something is not right with your AR. Shooting at the range won't push it anywhere near as hard as real 'training'.
If properly assembled with good parts 'a Bushmaster' can be made to run 100% but may mean a lot of non-Bushy parts will be in the gun. Most of my guns are 'Frankenguns' meaning I like certain parts over others. The two that have been 100% reliable are my two SBRs (a 11.5" and a 14.5"). I also run a AAC M4-2000 on my 14.5" I did shear a lug off the RRA bolt right around 4K rounds in the 11.5" SBR but it still ran, I only noticed it while cleaning it. I could find the lug it must have ejected with the spent brass. I assembed both of these this year.
over 7.5K rounds jam free:
11.5" SBR=
DPMS lower and LPK
RRA 2 stage trigger w/KNS anti-rotational pins
VLTOR receiver extension w/staked CQB plate and Magpul CTR stock & MIAD grip, Enidine CAR buffer w/ISMI spring
CMT upper receiver
PRI gas buster charging handle
RRA 'enhanced' bolt carrier, CMT MPI tested bolt w/Crane O-ring & Wolff M4 spring
CMMG 11.5" chrome lined 1x7 twist barrel w/Noveske KX3 brake
Larue cutdown 12.0 rail
LMT front sight, Larue BUIS rear sight
EoTech 552 on a Larue mount
over 5K rounds jam free:
14.5" SBR =
LMT assembled lower, McCormick trigger w/KNS pins
Colt M16 carrier, CMT bolt w/Crane O-ring & Wolff M4 spring
PRI gas buster charging handle
LMT upper receiver & 14.5" chrome lined 1x7 twist bbl, M4-2000 FS'r
Troy 7.0 rail
Magpul 93A2 stock & MIAD grip, Enidine CAR buffer w/ISMI spring
Larue BUIS, Aimpoint Comp ML3 2MOA on a Larue mount
Pat_Rogers
08-31-06, 07:53
Wayne hits the nail right on the head.
The fact that the one gun that you have works/ doesn't work doesn't mean that the maker is good/ not good.
One, ten, or even a hundred is not a good statistical sample. When i see guns in groups (that is, 6-10 from one organization) show up in class - on multiple occasions- and see deficiencies in all of them, that is what we in police work call a "clue".
Bushampster has great marketing, but no amount of marketing can make up for poor QC.
You don't like Colt's attitude towards the general population. Me either.
Understand that they are obligated- by law- to the city and state in which they reside.
Also understand that they cannot keep up with sales right now.
As a marketing issue, why take away resources from military sales to push into a market that can be satisfied by the lower tier makers- a market where the only standard has been the lack of standards?
I love to hear all the whining about Colt, but in the interim the masses open their pie holes wide to swallow the hk body fluid- and that company despises commercial sales.
No one is perfect. However, the guns in the mil classes generally run a lot better then the guns in my open enrollment classes. The reason is simple.
The onlt two vendors who make the M16's and M4's for the military are Colt and FN. They make their guns according to a standard , and are required contactually to meet that standard.
Do you really and truly believe that the lower tier makers meet any standard?
How does the allegation that a company MPI's random samples of bolts affect anything?
My company owns Colt's, Noveske and LMT.
There is a reason for that.
John_Wayne777
08-31-06, 08:36
Courses like his are pushing the shooter and his equipment to the edge. You will find out VERY QUICKLY if something is not right with your AR. Shooting at the range won't push it anywhere near as hard as real 'training'.
Indeed. My Bushy has been through a few of those real training experiences, all without a hitch.
I can't speak for all Bushmasters, but mine works pretty good!
(But I secretly lust for an LMT rifle, which one day I will aquire if The Lord smiles upon my finances...)
If properly assembled with good parts 'a Bushmaster' can be made to run 100% but may mean a lot of non-Bushy parts will be in the gun. Most of my guns are 'Frankenguns' meaning I like certain parts over others.
It should be noted that there is a big difference between someone who assembles an AR from various parts, and someone who actually knows what they are doing building a rifle.
The first is likely to end in disaster, the second is likely to produce a pretty nice rifle.
I would like to add my .02 to the conversation. I have seen Pat's book of broken gun's and it is full of BM BCG and other parts. That is simple fact. BM also MP tests a barrel in a BATCH (not every barrel) and then marks each one as MP tested (bad idea).
Another simple fact is the BM, RRA, Oly, Armalite, etc are tier TWO companies. It is my opinion that they use the cheapest items then can find when making their weapons. For the record I own a RRA and BM. Both run fine, but I have changed out a good number of parts in them (Springs, BCG, etc).
As Pat said, there are only two tier one companies (FN and Colt) I would put LMT and BCM as tier 1.5 and in some cases, they offer a better product and are interested in Civy sales.
I personally doubt that I will EVER buy another "mass assembled" AR15 again. Why? Because I can build one using all the best parts and pieces for less money. If you know who makes what for whom and KNOW what is quality, you can build a weapon that is superior to a Tier 1 weapon.
C4
Kravin Moorehead
08-31-06, 12:31
LOOK!!! A Real M-4.
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h151/starlidr/P1000034.jpg
Quote:
"PLZ I got to hear!!!
How did your rec ext Fail
LMT has alot going for them!
You havent seen LMT`s AR`s
I think a Few in the know like them
Let me guess they are no good because no park under FSB"
The receiver extension in my Bushmaster "M4" bent badly when doing a malfunction drill and had to be replaced. The same maneuver with several Colt carbines has resulted in no damage. Was it an extrusion flaw in the Bushmaster stock? I don't know. I do know that, generally, forgings are stronger than extrusions.
I haven't seen complete LMT carbines, only uppers. They look indentical to every other upper I've seen. Most AR offerings look similar - the difference is in the details, i.e. proofing, inspection, etc. How are they different / better than Colts? I have to admit that any product offered for sale that isn't assembled from parts that are finished separately doesn't inpsire confidence, but I'd be willing to overlook it for a range gun and isn't a deal breaker for me.
BTW, Colt did produce an M4 during the ban - a very good one I might add - the Colt Match Target M4 (MT6400C). It is every bit an "M4", minus a bayonet lug, collapsible stock and flash suppressor.
Brewer
I have a VLTOR on my Bushmaster lower and a LMT M4 14.5 upper/551 eotech
and a LMT Defender 2000 that came with a SOPMOD and run a ML2 on a Larue cantilever
So I know a LITTLE about Mil specs rec ext or Buffer Tubes
The TRUTH is that the Mil spec Tube isnt THAT MUCH STRONGER than the commercial rec ext!!
I would have NO WORRIES if I used a regular Bushmaster,RRA,Armalite TELE Stock
ALSO THE DEA bought RRA AR`s did they worry about the TUBE :D
Would Pat have a PROBLEM useing a RRA/Bushmaster TELESTOCK?
I like to see a TEST Proveing that My Mil spec is FAR STRONGER than Bushy/RRA etc!
Also COLT didnt OFFER to CIVI`S there 6920 back during the BAN PERIOD
Also a FACT BUSHMASTER has sold to the MILITARY
Another Fact is BUSHMASTER doesnt make there MAGS or Followers so Dont Blame them for a SOFT Follower or MAG ?
Another COLT Problem is that they really dont want CIVI`S to own a 6920
other than that I like them
Do I like the 6920 yes love it and is one of the BEST M4`s out there
But the LMT DEFENDER 2000 M4 I feel is Better comes with a SOPMOD
and your FAMOUS Mil spec BUFFER TUBE and Feed ramps:D
But no park under FSB:(
Im just saying Colt aint all that even though I own them
I have a VLTOR on my Bushmaster lower and a LMT M4 14.5 upper/551 eotech
and a LMT Defender 2000 that came with a SOPMOD and run a ML2 on a Larue cantilever
So I know a LITTLE about Mil specs rec ext or Buffer Tubes
The TRUTH is that the Mil spec Tube isnt THAT MUCH STRONGER than the commercial rec ext!!
I would have NO WORRIES if I used a regular Bushmaster,RRA,Armalite TELE Stock
ALSO THE DEA bought RRA AR`s did they worry about the TUBE :D
Would Pat have a PROBLEM useing a RRA/Bushmaster TELESTOCK?
I like to see a TEST Proveing that My Mil spec is FAR STRONGER than Bushy/RRA etc!
Also COLT didnt OFFER to CIVI`S there 6920 back during the BAN PERIOD
Also a FACT BUSHMASTER has sold to the MILITARY
Another Fact is BUSHMASTER doesnt make there MAGS or Followers so Dont Blame them for a SOFT Follower or MAG ?
Another COLT Problem is that they really dont want CIVI`S to own a 6920
other than that I like them
Do I like the 6920 yes love it and is one of the BEST M4`s out there
But the LMT DEFENDER 2000 M4 I feel is Better comes with a SOPMOD
and your FAMOUS Mil spec BUFFER TUBE and Feed ramps:D
But no park under FSB:(
Im just saying Colt aint all that even though I own them
I don't think it is really an issue of whether a mil-spec tube is stronger than a non-mil spec one. It is the simply fact that you have more stock options if you use a mil-spec tube.
DEA or any other Govt entity generaly go with the lowest bidder on gear (worked DoD contracting for awhile). I wouldn't put any value in a piece of gear or weapon simply because they got a .Gov contract.
I have never seen proof that BM sold anything to the US Military. If they did, it was in a VERY small QTY and were most likely spec'd differently from their "normal" M4.
C4
Quote:
"PLZ I got to hear!!!
How did your rec ext Fail
LMT has alot going for them!
You havent seen LMT`s AR`s
I think a Few in the know like them
Let me guess they are no good because no park under FSB"
The receiver extension in my Bushmaster "M4" bent badly when doing a malfunction drill and had to be replaced. The same maneuver with several Colt carbines has resulted in no damage. Was it an extrusion flaw in the Bushmaster stock? I don't know. I do know that, generally, forgings are stronger than extrusions.
I haven't seen complete LMT carbines, only uppers. They look indentical to every other upper I've seen. Most AR offerings look similar - the difference is in the details, i.e. proofing, inspection, etc. How are they different / better than Colts? I have to admit that any product offered for sale that isn't assembled from parts that are finished separately doesn't inpsire confidence, but I'd be willing to overlook it for a range gun and isn't a deal breaker for me.
BTW, Colt did produce an M4 during the ban - a very good one I might add - the Colt Match Target M4 (MT6400C). It is every bit an "M4", minus a bayonet lug, collapsible stock and flash suppressor.
Brewer
Myabe PAT can school you on LMT
Im sure he has ran into one at school and can EXPLAIN them better than I can since Im BIUS and like them better than ANY AR15 out there.
I have a Defender 2000 a complete LMT M4 14.5
I like it alot better than my COLT I bought in 83/84
I didnt know the the MT 6400C had a 14.5 M4 barrel Thanks for the Tip:)
I don't think it is really an issue of whether a mil-spec tube is stronger than a non-mil spec one. It is the simply fact that you have more stock options if you use a mil-spec tube.
DEA or any other Govt entity generaly go with the lowest bidder on gear (worked DoD contracting for awhile). I wouldn't put any value in a piece of gear or weapon simply because they got a .Gov contract.
I have never seen proof that BM sold anything to the US Military. If they did, it was in a VERY small QTY and were most likely spec'd differently from their "normal" M4.
C4
I AGREE with you
BM did sell a very SMALL BATCH
I m just saying the DEA didnt have any concerns about the RRA
And EVERYONE knows the lowest bidder gets it!
Like the M9 everyone knows the Sig 226 was better
Wayne Dobbs
09-02-06, 13:24
Where BM sold a lot of "government" rifles was to the Dept of State. Every contractor carbine I've seen here in Iraq is a BM XM15-E2S M4gery. They come complete with unstaked bolt carrier keys, front sight assemblies crooked and the nastiest trigger pulls you've ever seen. They also really set the world on fire accuracy wise, with 25 meter, three shot groups around an inch at best. I've seen OLD M16A2s here that beat hell out of that performance.
But....the great unwashed, the bean counters and folks that think that "it's as good as" something really desirable will keep on buying these POSs and keeping them in business.
Wayne
I AGREE with you
BM did sell a very SMALL BATCH
I m just saying the DEA didnt have any concerns about the RRA
And EVERYONE knows the lowest bidder gets it!
Like the M9 everyone knows the Sig 226 was better
RRA basically gave the rifles to the DEA so that they could use the transaction for marketing to their largest customer...the general public.
Pat_Rogers
09-02-06, 14:17
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=28743&page=1&fpart=1&vc=1
RRA uses the aftermarket receiver extension for reasons unknown to me. We found that out when an agency wanted to replace the OEM stock with a Crane stock. They were disappointed as they were told these were "mil-spec" guns.
Grant is correct in that it gives you more options. Is it stronger? Probably. Is it a show stopper? Probably not.
I don't train people to a level of mediocrity- i won't buy mediocre either, especially when it comes to something that may be life support.
Low bidder wins many contracts. However, the military- parts of it at least- also considers "Best Value" for specific items.
Nitrox- can you provide documentation that they "basically gave the rifles to DEA..."??
The sale is in the public domain, so i'm just curious as to if you have an official source. Are you suggesting that it was something illegal or somehow tainted?
RBL- And can you provide documentation about BM having actually sold guns to the military? That rumor started way back when Peter Kokalis apparently swallowed some kool aid and printed that in a SOF spin off magazine.
Of course several years later he also gulped again and stated in print that a SA only BAR clone could be used in service rifle competition (in then DCM matches)- something that the makers advertised, and false.
So if you have something for real, please share it.
It is not unusual in this business to have people allege that their guns have been sold to, used by or otherwise "tested" by some particular unit, organization or entity.
A while back one maker (now png'd) alleged that his item came in first in a test with and existing unit (in this case a Mk18).
Turns out that one guy asked for a T&E gun. He fired x amount of rounds out of it at 30m. The Mk18 had over 30,000 rds through it and had broken extractor and so on so wasn't able to shoot more then one round at a time. Therefore, the makers claims to one and all that he won.
Sure. New gun against old worn gun. One of each.
An official test.
Simple.
Of course this same guy alleged that one branch of the military adopted his gun- though it never did. His ju ju was strong enough to have it printed in a book though.
he also alleged that the reason average Joe's couldn't get his guns because everything he sent out the door went to the mil.
But that didn't happen either.
The link above concerns RRA experiences. Mine have been positive, but i see very few.
Truthfully, most guns i see are Colt (mil and other agencies, with more civilians then you would think); BM, and then a smattering of others, including LMT, Noveske, RRA, and some others.
Nitrox- can you provide documentation that they "basically gave the rifles to DEA..."??
The sale is in the public domain, so i'm just curious as to if you have an official source. Are you suggesting that it was something illegal or somehow tainted?
I'm not suggesting anything illegal and they didn't give them away free of charge. However, they certainly didn't make money either (not on the single transaction). As far as sources go, as you said it is public.
I'm not saying RRA makes a bad gun but as you well know it isn't up to certain standards. The transaction with the DEA happened because of cost and value, (again) as you stated...it is pretty hard to walk away from a sweetheart deal.
What is very clear is the mileage RRA has gotten out of the transaction.
Pat_Rogers
09-02-06, 16:12
Roger, understood. That is the way to do business though, and clearly succeeded. I clearly misunderstood and thought you meant they did something shady.
QuietShootr
09-02-06, 22:45
I would like to add my .02 to the conversation. I have seen Pat's book of broken gun's and it is full of BM BCG and other parts. That is simple fact. BM also MP tests a barrel in a BATCH (not every barrel) and then marks each one as MP tested (bad idea).
Another simple fact is the BM, RRA, Oly, Armalite, etc are tier TWO companies. It is my opinion that they use the cheapest items then can find when making their weapons. For the record I own a RRA and BM. Both run fine, but I have changed out a good number of parts in them (Springs, BCG, etc).
As Pat said, there are only two tier one companies (FN and Colt) I would put LMT and BCM as tier 1.5 and in some cases, they offer a better product and are interested in Civy sales.
I personally doubt that I will EVER buy another "mass assembled" AR15 again. Why? Because I can build one using all the best parts and pieces for less money. If you know who makes what for whom and KNOW what is quality, you can build a weapon that is superior to a Tier 1 weapon.
C4
My thoughts exactly. I can, and do, build an AR using Tier 1+ parts and get EXACTLY what I want. Rack guns hold little appeal for me anymore, unless they're factory Colt or LMT. "Frankenguns"....Nope. Yes, I pay $150 for a Colt FCG from SAW....I swallow hard when I do it, but it's all worth it when I'm not "that guy" ****ing up the class at Pat's when the gun doesn't run.
RRA basically gave the rifles to the DEA so that they could use the transaction for marketing to their largest customer...the general public.
And you are right
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=28743&page=1&fpart=1&vc=1
RRA uses the aftermarket receiver extension for reasons unknown to me. We found that out when an agency wanted to replace the OEM stock with a Crane stock. They were disappointed as they were told these were "mil-spec" guns.
Grant is correct in that it gives you more options. Is it stronger? Probably. Is it a show stopper? Probably not.
I don't train people to a level of mediocrity- i won't buy mediocre either, especially when it comes to something that may be life support.
Low bidder wins many contracts. However, the military- parts of it at least- also considers "Best Value" for specific items.
Nitrox- can you provide documentation that they "basically gave the rifles to DEA..."??
The sale is in the public domain, so i'm just curious as to if you have an official source. Are you suggesting that it was something illegal or somehow tainted?
RBL- And can you provide documentation about BM having actually sold guns to the military? That rumor started way back when Peter Kokalis apparently swallowed some kool aid and printed that in a SOF spin off magazine.
Of course several years later he also gulped again and stated in print that a SA only BAR clone could be used in service rifle competition (in then DCM matches)- something that the makers advertised, and false.
So if you have something for real, please share it.
It is not unusual in this business to have people allege that their guns have been sold to, used by or otherwise "tested" by some particular unit, organization or entity.
A while back one maker (now png'd) alleged that his item came in first in a test with and existing unit (in this case a Mk18).
Turns out that one guy asked for a T&E gun. He fired x amount of rounds out of it at 30m. The Mk18 had over 30,000 rds through it and had broken extractor and so on so wasn't able to shoot more then one round at a time. Therefore, the makers claims to one and all that he won.
Sure. New gun against old worn gun. One of each.
An official test.
Simple.
Of course this same guy alleged that one branch of the military adopted his gun- though it never did. His ju ju was strong enough to have it printed in a book though.
he also alleged that the reason average Joe's couldn't get his guns because everything he sent out the door went to the mil.
But that didn't happen either.
The link above concerns RRA experiences. Mine have been positive, but i see very few.
Truthfully, most guns i see are Colt (mil and other agencies, with more civilians then you would think); BM, and then a smattering of others, including LMT, Noveske, RRA, and some others.
The only info I have seen is what bushmaster stated back in 2001 or so on the AR15.com Forum
Im Not a Bushmaster Attorney
I guess what really Pisses me off about this SUBJECT is these COLT FANS
TURNING BUSHMASTER into a HESSE or VULCAN AR15
I agree Colt is one of the BEST out there
I have several
To Down a AR15 for a commercial Buffer tube and lack of FEED ramps IS RETARTED!
You all my have the LAST WORD on the subject
And BTW I dont trust any COLT/LMT/Bushmaster AR15 with my LIFE UNTIL I have at LEAST 1000rds FIRED
Pat_Rogers
09-03-06, 11:55
We know that some companies speak with forked tongues, and absent documentation- that is, a contract or other USG docs concerning this, it may be nothing more then another of their marketing ploys.
Slow down on your screaming partner, it doesn't do you any good..
John_Wayne777
09-03-06, 16:49
They come complete with unstaked bolt carrier keys, front sight assemblies crooked and the nastiest trigger pulls you've ever seen. They also really set the world on fire accuracy wise, with 25 meter, three shot groups around an inch at best. I've seen OLD M16A2s here that beat hell out of that performance.
Wayne
Has Bushmaster's QC degraded that much??
I bought my Bushmaster rifle a long time ago. At the time I bought mine the quality of fit and finish on the rifle was actually superior to the Colts hanging on the dealer's wall. The trigger on the rifle was very good, and the accuracy was good enough to shoot sub MOA if I did my part with the rifle.
It has always been a superbly reliable weapon. The only time it has ever malfunctioned has been with bad magazines.
My carrier key is properly staked, and the rifle has gone through a few high round carbine training classes (such as Blackwater's Bushmaster Carbine Operator course...it has been through that 3 times...And this past May it went through all of that without having been cleaned, and yet it ran like a champ) and has never given any problems.
At the time I bought my rifle, the prevailing experience of everyone I knew and trusted was basically the same as mine: Bushys were good reliable rifles with a lot of desireable features at a pretty good price. (When I bought mine it cost around 650 bucks...that should tell you how long ago this was...)
What I can't figure out is when that changed. Anyone can make a lemon or two, but that's not what I am hearing in this thread. I am hearing that there is a systemic problem at Bushmaster and that they are turning out an inferior product.
Has this always been the case and I just lucked out with a good rifle, or did they produce good rifles for a while and then decide to increase their profit margins by decreasing QC?
I am asking because I am genuinely puzzled. I have put over 10,000 rounds downrange with my Bushmaster just in carbine training classes. In those classes I have been beside a lot of Bushmasters that have performed every bit as well as my rifle has.
Now I freely admit that this is a relatively meager level of experience on this board, as there are lots of folks here who have vastly more trigger time and knowledge about the intricacies of the AR than I ever will.
I am just trying to figure out why my observations are so different than what I am hearing from some knowledgable folks in this thread. Is it a matter of scale, in that I simply haven't seen enough Bushmasters on the line to see these problems firsthand? Or is it that at some point the quality of Bushmaster's product went south and it is showing up in experiences with more recently produced rifles?
I have owned 4 Bushmasters, all purchased new, between 1998 and 2004. All of them suffered from the dreaded over-indexed barrel and poorly staked gas key. Two of them had very tight mag wells that would not allow any of my mags to drop free. The carbines did not have the correct F marked front sight bases and as a result, could not be zeroed without using a taller front sight post which protruded above the ears of the tower. I do not appreciate that Bushmaster marks their barrels as having been proofed and magnafluxed when, in fact, only a sample is tested (same with their bolts). I have found Bushmaster handguards to be flimsier than Colt's although I have never broken one.
I think Bushmaster is capable of building a great AR and they obviously do from time to time, it's just that they don't do it with any consistency IMO. I would LOVE to buy an AR that has the same performance, reliability and durability of my Colts, for a lower price - who wouldn't? Why should I buy a $900 AR that may or may not be made of excellent parts (because they haven't been inspected/tested accordingly), and have to replace $3-400 worth of parts to bring it up to the level of a factory Colt? It's not that I have any great affection for Colt, it's just that they build AR's the way I want 'em, of parts of known quality, by people who know how to put them together.
Brewer
the quality of fit and finish on the rifle was actually superior to the Colts hanging on the dealer's wall.
Can you please qualify and quantify what this means?
My carrier key is properly staked
Can you post pictures?
Wayne Dobbs
09-05-06, 12:44
After reading about and experiencing BM's sorry QC/QA for a long time, I started to wonder something. I'm not an industry insider or anything like it. I'm a well experienced cop and trainer that's been very fortunate to get to attend lots of schools, put on lots of training and to be able to pick the brains of lots of folks who know lots more than me.
All of that to ask: What would it really cost BM and the others to do a GOOD job of production and QC/QA in real dollars? How much more would one of their carbines cost us at the retail level to do the job right? And, most importantly, how much would their sales and revenues INCREASE if they were really making and selling a product that was competitive with Colt or FN or any other Tier I manufacturer?
It's like watching the Japanese auto manufacturers come in during the 70s and 80s and commece to kicking the Big 3 automakers' collective asses with much higher quality and a competitive price. If BM did business on the Japanese auto maker model, they would really do well, or at least that's my theory.
Wayne Dobbs
John_Wayne777
09-05-06, 13:21
Can you please qualify and quantify what this means?
Can you post pictures?
1. Better trigger, fewer machining marks, etc.
2. I don't have a digicam, but the sides of the key are dimpled into the sides of the allen screws as they should be.
After reading about and experiencing BM's sorry QC/QA for a long time, I started to wonder something. I'm not an industry insider or anything like it. I'm a well experienced cop and trainer that's been very fortunate to get to attend lots of schools, put on lots of training and to be able to pick the brains of lots of folks who know lots more than me.
All of that to ask: What would it really cost BM and the others to do a GOOD job of production and QC/QA in real dollars? How much more would one of their carbines cost us at the retail level to do the job right? And, most importantly, how much would their sales and revenues INCREASE if they were really making and selling a product that was competitive with Colt or FN or any other Tier I manufacturer?
It's like watching the Japanese auto manufacturers come in during the 70s and 80s and commece to kicking the Big 3 automakers' collective asses with much higher quality and a competitive price. If BM did business on the Japanese auto maker model, they would really do well, or at least that's my theory.
Wayne Dobbs
there's no incentive. They are doing "really well" now with shoddy parts, "fit and finish", and QC.
Hence the emergence of Bravo Company and LMT as very close to mil-spec yet priced competitively to BM.
Or is it that at some point the quality of Bushmaster's product went south and it is showing up in experiences with more recently produced rifles?
IIRC, Pat's book dates back some time...
Grendelizer
09-05-06, 16:19
If BM did business on the Japanese auto maker model, they would really do well, or at least that's my theory.
Wayne, I've also been really curious to see what would happen if the U.S. arms industry adopted a "lean production" culture.
The whole gun industry seems old-fashioned and stodgy and ripe for a manufacturing renaissance, despite the use of modern CAD and CNC.
Like the Japanese auto makers, LaRue Tactical, for example, seems to be able to make quality, reliable, innovative products at a reasonable price that are able to capture a good share of their market. And their production processes are jealously guarded trade secrets, so perhaps they're on to something?
John
John_Wayne777
09-05-06, 20:02
IIRC, Pat's book dates back some time...
I kind of imagined that was the case.
I must have just lucked out and bought a rifle built by the people in the plant who actually build them right.
BoyScout4Life
01-06-07, 21:41
Bushhamster is to M4 as Rap is to Music.....
Roger that Pat....;)
After reading about and experiencing BM's sorry QC/QA for a long time, I started to wonder something. I'm not an industry insider or anything like it. I'm a well experienced cop and trainer that's been very fortunate to get to attend lots of schools, put on lots of training and to be able to pick the brains of lots of folks who know lots more than me.
All of that to ask: What would it really cost BM and the others to do a GOOD job of production and QC/QA in real dollars? How much more would one of their carbines cost us at the retail level to do the job right? And, most importantly, how much would their sales and revenues INCREASE if they were really making and selling a product that was competitive with Colt or FN or any other Tier I manufacturer?
It's like watching the Japanese auto manufacturers come in during the 70s and 80s and commece to kicking the Big 3 automakers' collective asses with much higher quality and a competitive price. If BM did business on the Japanese auto maker model, they would really do well, or at least that's my theory.
Wayne Dobbs
The difference, I believe, is that you drive your car everyday. Most civilian AR-15 buyers don't shoot often enough to notice the difference.
Besides, last I saw, GM still has the majority of car sales. ;)
The difference, I believe, is that you drive your car everyday. Most civilian AR-15 buyers don't shoot often enough to notice the difference.
Besides, last I saw, GM still has the majority of car sales. ;)
I do believe they will be/have been unseated by Toyota.:p
I do believe they will be/have been unseated by Toyota.:p
They took third from Chrysler. GM is still on top.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/business/04auto.html
deadwood83
01-07-07, 21:12
Why should I buy a $900 AR that may or may not be made of excellent parts (because they haven't been inspected/tested accordingly), and have to replace $3-400 worth of parts to bring it up to the level of a factory Colt?
Brewer
Not hating or ragging your point just thought it kinda funny. But 900+300=1200 which is roughly the same price as a Colt IIRC.
About Bushy mags, the follower does suck majorly. I was able to make little designs with my fingernail in the factory follower! However the rest of the mag I really like. The finish doesn't wear as easily as the nasty bluish milspec finish that a plastic bag will rub off. Also they have CS springs in them so as long as you wipe em with CLP when you clean em they will outlast milspec springs.
I learned that they sell the QC tested rifles and according to what I was told when I did serial number research, I got a lucky one!:D
Frankenguns can be insanely nice for the money but it's kinda like building a computer. Lots of compatibility checks and research. And if one thing is wrong the whole thing can go kaput real fast.
Robb Jensen
01-07-07, 21:13
I do believe they will be/have been unseated by Toyota.:p
OT- Doesn't GM own like 40 something percent of Toyota?
I think it's fair to say that any company can have an issue from time to time.
It's what happens on the service end that can make or break a company in the long run.
A company shouldn't be condemmed for a few issues, as long as they resolve them properly.
As far as to condem someone's equipment soley by brand name - if the equipment runs and functions would be foolish.
Also, the end users often end up causing some of the problems for the brand.
No need to be "elitist" on brands if a weapon functions. If it's not your favorite then get what you like.
That is best way I have heard that said. The "elitists" among us is what makes this sight not as attractive as it could be:cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.