View Full Version : Tired of all the talk about mil spec.
Well I am probably going to get flamed for this post by all the keyboard commandos but here it goes. I am tired of all the mil spec and kool aid. There are many great rifles out there and anything that a civilian ( non issued military) gets is not mil-spec. I have seen many mil-spec items including weapons fail and break.Just because a manufacture does not produce weapons to mil-spec or mil-standard does not make it inferior product. I say stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and get what suits you. Those of you who think colt consumer products are mil-spec quite deluding yourselves. There are only four carbines and 4 m16's currently made by Colt Defense LLC that are Mil-spec. They are the following
RO901 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO905 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO701 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO705 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst
for m16
RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst
for carbines.
Colt confirms this with this statement. "Colt Defense LLC is the sole source supplier of the M4 Carbine to the US military and the only manufacturer worldwide that meets or exceeds all US military specifications for the weapon"
Military Division ISO9001 FN Manufacturing, LLC is the other maker of the M16's that are true Mil-spec.
Now lets talk Mil-Spec. Here are some exerts from a few other websites.
Aramlites website.
The purpose of this Technical Note is to explain ArmaLite's conformance to MIL-R-63997, the MILSPEC for the M16A2 Rifle.
1. All claims from any manufacturer that they produce commercial rifles fully in conformance with the MILSPEC are false. Only M16A2 rifles produced by Colt or FNMI, and accepted by the Army’s Tank automotive and Armaments Command fully meet the requirements of the MILSPEC, and they are not legally producible for sale to the public. Even Colt brand commercial rifles are not in conformance with the drawing portion of the MILSPEC. In fact, ArmaLite’s rifles are closer to the government designs than Colt’s.
2. The M16A2 Rifle is manufactured in accordance with MILSPEC MIL-R-63997. A MILSPEC (military specification) describes a product. There are two key elements to a MILSPEC; a verbal description of what the product is and does, and a list of reference documents governing production of the product. In the case of the M16A2 Rifle, the key document is Drawing 9349000, which is a package of drawings setting forth the dimensions and tolerances for the M16A2 Rifle.
3. No commercial, semiautomatic rifle from ANY manufacturer meets both the verbal descriptions of the M16A2 and the technical drawing package.
4. ArmaLite does not claim that its rifles are made to the full provisions of MIL-R-63997. All ArmaLite/Eagle Arms rifles, however, are manufactured to the written requirements set forth by MIL-R-63997.
5. ArmaLite and Eagle Arms rifle parts feature excellent interchangeability with MILSPEC M16A1 and M16A2 parts. With the exception of parts designed for semiautomatic use only, no known incompatibilities exist.
CONCLUSION: Claims to production of fully MILSPEC rifles are untrue, and should be regarded with considerable suspicion.
"Speculating MIL-SPEC’s Meaning
By David R. Butcher
Predictably similar to so many other industry terms and phrases, MIL-SPEC and its numerous synonyms are amorphous. Tasking a targeted explanation is not a simple achievement. Though it lacks that one clear-cut definition -- for you, dear readers, we’ll try anyway.
MIL-SPEC, i.e., military specification, aka military standard (MIL-STD), is typically considered a United States Defense standard used to describe an item that can meet standardization objectives determined by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Also referred to as MIL-STD, this defense standard aims to ensure products meet very specific requirements, commonality, reliability, compatibility with logistics systems, total cost of ownership (TCO) and similar defense-related objectives.
Additional users of defense standards include other non-defense government organizations, technical organizations and industry.
But what, exactly, are military specifications, and how are they different from military standards, and does “defense standard” encompass both terms or is it synonymous with both?
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (pg. 4), “‘military specifications’ describe the physical and/or operational characteristics of a product, and ‘military standards’ detail the processes and materials to be used to make the product.” The standards, as further noted, can also describe how to manage the manufacturing and testing of a part. Further noted the GAO, some principal purposes for MIL-SPECs: to ensure interoperability between products; to provide products that can perform in extreme conditions; to protect against contractor fraud; and to promote greater opportunities for competition among contractors.
Defense standards originate from the necessary ensuring of military equipment’s proper performance, and from there they evolved. Despite the benefits of these standards’ compatibility, reliability and commonality, the proliferation of standards had a number of drawbacks. There were so many standards — nearly 30,000 by 1990, according to Wikipedia — there then came considered-unnecessary restrictions, increased cost to contractors, and an impediment of the incorporation of the latest technology. A memorandum in 1994 was issued by the then Secretary of Defense in response to growing criticism, effectively eliminating the use of most defense standards. (This has become known as the “Perry memo.”) As such, many defense standards were cancelled, and the DoD encouraged the use of industry standards in their place. (See previous article on industry standards.)
Earlier this year, however, the DoD partially reversed its previous proclamation, issuing a new memorandum that permits use of defense standards without obtaining a waiver; though it did not reinstate any cancelled defense standards.
A MIL-STD/MIL-SPEC/defense standard can also mean the actual documentation that lists, explains and altogether establishes the standard or specification itself, a compilation of prerequisites than an item must meet for DoD acceptance; whether for uniform engineering or technical requirements for processes, procedures, practices or methods.
There are considered five types of defense standards: manufacturing process; interface; design criteria; test method; and standard practices.
“According to a 2003 issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center, the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45,500 to 28,300,” Wikipedia noted. “However, other sources noted that the number of standards just before the Perry memorandum was issued was less than 30,000, and that thousands have been cancelled since then. This may be due to differences in what is counted as a ‘military standard.’”
The DoD, with a generously in-depth explanation, defines “MILSPEC” as — wait for it — “military performance specification.” That's it."
In conclusion I would like everyone to think for themselves and handle the weapons they are considering, read true reviews, and don't just take what others have to say as gospel. Find out for yourself not just because someone says Mil-Spec. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with Colt and they make fine firearms most of the time, but they are not the only manufactures that make fine weapons.
If you dont like what goes on in this FACT oriented website why even post here?
When Mil-spec is spoken here it is in the context of mil-spec quality. Take for instance the Colt 6920 it may have a longer barrel but it is still of the same high quality of the 14.5 inch barrel. Some of the FCG parts may be sligtly different to not gicve the burst or auto feature but they are still of the same high quality.
No one on this website is saying there is anything wrong with owening the weapons built to a lower standard. But someone in the know isnt going to say that lower quality DPMS is as well made as a Colt.
My guess since this is your first post is that you are already a member here and didnt want to make your statement under your real name.
Cyclic240B
08-05-07, 02:22
IMHO, no matter who his other S/N may or may not be, if he in real life is in fact an 18B2V, as his S/N suggests, than he is more than qualified to form that opinion and state it.
If you dont like what goes on in this FACT oriented website why even post here?
When Mil-spec is spoken here it is in the context of mil-spec quality. Take for instance the Colt 6920 it may have a longer barrel but it is still of the same high quality of the 14.5 inch barrel. Some of the FCG parts may be sligtly different to not gicve the burst or auto feature but they are still of the same high quality.
No one on this website is saying there is anything wrong with owening the weapons built to a lower standard. But someone in the know isnt going to say that lower quality DPMS is as well made as a Colt.
My guess since this is your first post is that you are already a member here and didnt want to make your statement under your real name.
You are incorrect in assuming that. I have been lurking here for a while and this is my first post. What makes you think the 6920 is made to the same standards as the M4 carbine? I am not saying it is or it isn't but everyone just assumes that it is because it was made by colt. I am saying just because it says colt on it does not necessarily make it better. Don't dismiss a maker because someone thinks that if it is not a colt it is not as good. Get what is best for you and not because someones opinion. Educate yourself on as much you can then decide for yourself. Don't be a sheep. If you decide that a Colt is best for you then get a colt. If you decide that some other is the best don't let what people say sway you because it is not an ABC manufacture. When this happens the opinions out weigh the true facts. It is like saying a mil-spec 1911 is superior to a ed brown 1911 just because it is mil-spec. I am all for peoples opinions, but that is what they are. Hell the millitary still gets thier equiptment from the lowest bidder, just because they have the contract does not make it the best there is.
Like i said before I do not have anything against colt. They have saved my life many times over, I just have an issue with sheepish thoughts.
IMHO, no matter who his other S/N may or may not be, if he in real life is in fact an 18B2V, as his S/N suggests, than he is more than qualified to form that opinion and state it.
Thankyou for your support. Yes as my SN states it is my MOS. I entered the service on feb 5 1996. Went to bassic at Ft Benning Dco2/54. Went straight to airborne school then reported to bco 1/505 in late early aug 05. Went HHC 1/505 scout platoon within a year and then to Ranger school. Asked for transfer to 313 MI LRSD in late 97 and then to millitary freefall school in early 98. SFAS in 99 and Q course in late 99. Assaigned to 7th group after 36 weeks of traning. Served with the 7th till I enlisted in the reserves in 2004 and was assaigned at the 490th CAB in Dallas Texas.
Im glad to see another Ranger in here. Out of all the manufacturers I prefer LMT, I was using Colt as an example. There is a sticky with a breakdown of what is and what isnt with the different manufacturers on the board somewhere that is accurate. This board is a information giving and recieving board and for the most part the answers are cut and dry around here. You can do a search for the questions you ask and you will find answers. If you have been lurking you will see that a good majority of posts are what do you think of XYZ brand or how does Tango compare to Foxtrot.
Im still trying to figure out the moral of you story?
IMHO, no matter who his other S/N may or may not be, if he in real life is in fact an 18B2V, as his S/N suggests, than he is more than qualified to form that opinion and state it.
What does his MOS have to do with the price of Iron in China?
Im glad to see another Ranger in here. Out of all the manufacturers I prefer LMT, I was using Colt as an example. There is a sticky with a breakdown of what is and what isnt with the different manufacturers on the board somewhere that is accurate. This board is a information giving and recieving board and for the most part the answers are cut and dry around here. You can do a search for the questions you ask and you will find answers. If you have been lurking you will see that a good majority of posts are what do you think of XYZ brand or how does Tango compare to Foxtrot.
Im still trying to figure out the moral of you story?
Moral of the story is don't take anothers word as gospel and do the research for yourself, and that what the millitary has mil-spec is not always the best. The chart you speak of is not completly accurate on some but I do nto have the pictures right now to add to that thread. I will get those eventually when I recieve another RRA.
Moral of the story is don't take anothers word as gospel and do the research for yourself, and that what the millitary has mil-spec is not always the best. The chart you speak of is not completly accurate on some but I do nto have the pictures right now to add to that thread. I will get those eventually when I recieve another RRA.
Im recently retired military so I know that mil-spec isnt always best. But at least it is some spec. Im not being a jerk but what spec does your RRA follow? As for doing the research, I have. Im a dealer for every major AR manufacturer out there and can order anything that is available on the market for my customers. I normally push LMT as I feel that is the best value available in terms of price and quality and feel confident in the product. I could sell a comparable RRA for the same money and RRA has a higher profit margin than does LMT but I sell the product that is better.
don't take anothers word as gospel and do the research for yourself
They are not simply "other guys", they are professionals who see more rounds going downrange in a month than I will probably shoot in a lifetime. In their classes, they observe more Ar15 variations (brands, builds, parts etc.) run really hard than most of us will ever be able to handle. When several of them speak of tight DPMS chambers, Bushmaster bolthead failures, Match triggers coming apart or faulty RRA staking jobs, I call that a clue.
As far as my own testing is concerned, its basically the same as with car crash tests. I don't have the technical equipment to do scientific crash tests and don't want to be my own crash test dummy anyway. Besides I don't want to buy and crash a car just to be able to tell it had shitty safety construction.
Looking at Ar15 prices here in Europe (>2000,- USD) I will gladly let others be the beta-tester while I rely on proven info the pros offer us here for free. Its your own decision to take it.
Best Regards
Cato
Jay Cunningham
08-05-07, 04:29
The phrase "Drink the Kool-Aide" indicates that one blindly embraces a particular philosophy or perspective, completely buys into an idea or system, whether good or bad, or goes along with what a crowd desires.
I don't think the above definition fits the guys on this forum who present the facts as to what "mil-spec" means and who meets that requirement with thie rifles.
If you are emotionally invested in your particular AR rifle then you are probably going to get your feathers ruffled on this forum.
BTW, what are "sheepish thoughts"?
The phrase "Drink the Kool-Aide" indicates that one blindly embraces a particular philosophy or perspective, completely buys into an idea or system, whether good or bad, or goes along with what a crowd desires.
I don't think the above definition fits the guys on this forum who present the facts as to what "mil-spec" means and who meets that requirement with thie rifles.
If you are emotionally invested in your particular AR rifle then you are probably going to get your feathers ruffled on this forum.
BTW, what are "sheepish thoughts"?
Sheepish thoughts I used pretty much like drinking the Kool aide. It is not having a mind of your own and just following the crowd. I am not set on any one particular make of ar so I am not worried about my feathers being ruffled. I have seen falures and breackage in every weapons systems we have used, but telling someone that rra and others are not as good because it is not mil spec just doesn't fly in my book. Now giving examples of how systems fail and reasons why is a different story. People putting Mil-spec on such a high pedestal is what irritates me. I have seen vast improvements with RRA, LMT, and many others while I have seen a decline in quality in Colt. Basicly it comes down to an idividule evaluating thier needs and the products on hand. If a RRA,Bushmaster,CMT, LMT meets or exceeds thier needs or expectations don't trash it because it is not Mil- spec. If you truly do not have first hand experience with these then you should not open your mouth and let people that have experienced falures and breakages give examples, then let the person decide and leave it at that. I have seen a fair amount of knowledgeable people on this site give great feedback but i have seen a lot of people who only know what they hear talk out thier arse. Mil-spec is not the end all standard and don't judge byjust that. Ok my rant is over I think I got my point across and people can accept it or not. It will not affect me staying in the community as I feel there are a lot of experienced people here and we can all learn from each other. As this is my opinion people can take it or leave it. I will back up all my posts with my experiences first hand and facts of what I have experienced and all I ask is the same from everyone else. I have enjoyed this conversation and look forward to more of them.
Im recently retired military so I know that mil-spec isnt always best. But at least it is some spec. Im not being a jerk but what spec does your RRA follow? As for doing the research, I have. Im a dealer for every major AR manufacturer out there and can order anything that is available on the market for my customers. I normally push LMT as I feel that is the best value available in terms of price and quality and feel confident in the product. I could sell a comparable RRA for the same money and RRA has a higher profit margin than does LMT but I sell the product that is better.
Well RRA and many others such as ed brown, sig, glock follow thier own specs. That is not saying it is inferior to Beretta, Colt, springfield, Rock Island because these are Mil-spec. Maybe I have been lucky with the RRA, Stag, that I have used excessivly and not so lucky with the colts I have used. I think everyone puts out lemons and that is usually what you hear about. I would not hessitate to reccomend LMT, Stag, and RRA to anyone based on my experience with these brands.
Some spec is better than no spec at all. Which is what the majority of the manufacturers follow. It's whatever they want to do, based mainly, I suppose, on their production costs. What lowers their production costs and increases their profit margin, while being affordable enough to entice as many customers as possible? It's business 101.
Are there manufacturers who produce things better than mil spec? Yep. And they are recognized here. They often do not seek to put out a lot of them, compared to some of the big name AR makers, and they generally cost more.
Ok so since in your oppinion mil-spec dosent mean squat. Which manufacturers exceed mil-spec in terms of quality of components and testing of components. Please list in detail.
Robb Jensen
08-05-07, 06:40
Will your RRA run?, maybe, maybe not. Can it be made to run? Sure.
If you're going to run an AR really hard I'd suggest a much more 'mil-spec' rifle than an RRA. If it's to impress your brother-in-law during the holidays your RRA will do just fine. ;)
The military has specifications because they would like to maintain a known level of quality. We here at M4C use 'mil-spec' as a guideline of a minimum level of acceptable quality. It's very much like the SAE has standards for the quality of bolts (i.e. grade 8 bolts).
Somethings I use on my own ARs aren't mil-spec but I'm wise enough to know if it's a quality part or not.
Some parts I use aren't technically mil-spec but do exceed the quality being addressed by the mil-spec. (i.e. my VLTOR MUR upper receiver)
It sounds as though what's really going on here is that you own an RRA and are upset that it doesn't have as many little Xs in it's column as some of the others. If that is in fact the case, why not take your own advice and be happy with what you bought and not worry about what others think?
I do think you're missing the point of the chart though, and I think you may be misunderstanding why people care so much about milspec in this case.
My business is construction. I have been involved in the construction of schools, condos, single-family homes, libraries, YMCA, etc. No matter what we build we are required by law to conform to the building code in our area. The code is a baseline. We can build to higher standards, but we have to at least build to the code.
If you were buying a house, would you buy the one that you know at least conformed to the building code, or the one from somebody that told you "oh, the code? Yeah the code is shit, the way I built it is much better"?
Finally, so what if someone "sheepishly" buys a Colt? Many times in life people don't have the time or the interest in finding out all the details of why a thing is the way it is, they just want to know that they bought the best quality they could find. Colt is an excellent way to do that.
I think that many people here would agree that there are options that exceed a 6920. Those may include the various Noveske offerings, the Larue, the Vltor, the DD, etc. Also, if you follow along enough, you'll see that many times we recommend LMT over Colt mostly because of price issues.
re: "milspec" in general, I would agree with you. I worked for a few years in a gun/surplus store and we had quite a bit of "milspec" surplus gear come through. We also stocked quite a bit of commercial camping, hiking, and survival gear and in many cases the commercial equipment was lighter, stronger, better quality, and tougher.
"Milspec" offers a known, published standard by which something is made and the materials used to make it. When you purchase a true Milspec item, you can research these facts. If you do not like the result, you can choose a different item that better suits your needs.
When you a rifle from Brand X, that is not even close to Milspec, it's harder to know how it's assembled or what it's made of. How many threads have we all read where people are arguing over that type of steel Brand X's barrels are made of? Half the time the company can't even answer the question - you'll get several different answers from different CS people.
Any rifle that is accurate and reliable long-term is by my definition a good rifle. Milspec is just a tool IMO to help guide people towards something that is more likely to be durable and reliable long term. It's not a sure thing by any means.
What does his MOS have to do with the price of Iron in China?
Nothing actually. I found very few to any Military guys know a lot about what makes a quality part and what doesn't. Very few of them are even basic armorers.
C4
Im recently retired military so I know that mil-spec isnt always best. But at least it is some spec. Im not being a jerk but what spec does your RRA follow? As for doing the research, I have. Im a dealer for every major AR manufacturer out there and can order anything that is available on the market for my customers. I normally push LMT as I feel that is the best value available in terms of price and quality and feel confident in the product. I could sell a comparable RRA for the same money and RRA has a higher profit margin than does LMT but I sell the product that is better.
You have pretty much nailed. While Mil-Spec is NOT the best, it is still a standard. What the orig. poster doesn't or has not realized yet is that companies like RRA follow NO STANDARD. They buy the parts from the cheapest sources they can and assemble them as cheaply as possible.
C4
They are not simply "other guys", they are professionals who see more rounds going downrange in a month than I will probably shoot in a lifetime. In their classes, they observe more Ar15 variations (brands, builds, parts etc.) run really hard than most of us will ever be able to handle. When several of them speak of tight DPMS chambers, Bushmaster bolthead failures, Match triggers coming apart or faulty RRA staking jobs, I call that a clue.
As far as my own testing is concerned, its basically the same as with car crash tests. I don't have the technical equipment to do scientific crash tests and don't want to be my own crash test dummy anyway. Besides I don't want to buy and crash a car just to be able to tell it had shitty safety construction.
Looking at Ar15 prices here in Europe (>2000,- USD) I will gladly let others be the beta-tester while I rely on proven info the pros offer us here for free. Its your own decision to take it.
Best Regards
Cato
Well said! In reading the original post, I found myself thinking, what is he is suggesting someone use as a standard? MIL-STD is at least a standard. Rationalization of using price as the only standard is a really poor suggestion.
So, what ODA were you on?
Sheepish thoughts I used pretty much like drinking the Kool aide. It is not having a mind of your own and just following the crowd. I am not set on any one particular make of ar so I am not worried about my feathers being ruffled. I have seen falures and breackage in every weapons systems we have used, but telling someone that rra and others are not as good because it is not mil spec just doesn't fly in my book.
All things break. I am sure that you are aware that just about everything in the M16/M4 platform has a life span. Couple that with hard use and and lack of PM's being done and you have a recipe for disaster.
Can you tell us exactly what parts in a RRA are better than say Colt or LMT?? Be as technical as possible and discuss what metals they use, what testing they do and how they assemble the weapon.
Now giving examples of how systems fail and reasons why is a different story. People putting Mil-spec on such a high pedestal is what irritates me. I have seen vast improvements with RRA, LMT, and many others while I have seen a decline in quality in Colt.
I believe just the opposite. I have owned RRA's since the early days. Their quality (along with BM) was very good I think. It has fallen off drastically over the years.
Colt is the only company out of all the ones mentioned that has the official TDP and has .Gov inspectors in their plant watching how everything is built and reviewin the test logs.
Basicly it comes down to an idividule evaluating thier needs and the products on hand. If a RRA,Bushmaster,CMT, LMT meets or exceeds thier needs or expectations don't trash it because it is not Mil- spec.
I somewhat agree with this. If the guy is just a casual plinker and is not serious about training or using the weapon for personal defense, then just about any AR will do. Anyone that comes on this board and says that they are looking for a cheap plinker, will not be put down for their wanting a cheap weapon.
If you truly do not have first hand experience with these then you should not open your mouth and let people that have experienced falures and breakages give examples, then let the person decide and leave it at that.
Here is the problem with this. Most Civy shooters have only owned 1-2 AR's with no more than 3K fired through both weapons. Based on their limited exposure to the weapon, should we accept their POV as gospel? Don't think so. People like myself that build, fix and see 30-50 AR's a month have a much better idea what is quality and what isn't. How about professional instructors like Pat Rogers and Larry Vickers? They see more AR's than ANYONE on this forum. I also know that Vickers has fired more rounds through an M16/M4 weapon than just about anyone else on the planet. Vickers (as you most likely know) spent 15 years in Delta. His opinion on what is a quality AR? Colt. His opinion on what is a POS AR? BM, Oly, DPMS, etc. Should we accept your opinion over over his about what makes a quality weapon and what does not? I don't think so.
I have seen a fair amount of knowledgeable people on this site give great feedback but i have seen a lot of people who only know what they hear talk out thier arse. Mil-spec is not the end all standard and don't judge byjust that.
This forum has the largest collection of professional shooters on the net. You are correct that Mil-Spec is not the best and there are ways to improve upon it. It is howeve the standard. It is great if a company goes above the standard, but not so good if they go below. To date, I know of no manufacturer that goes above what the TDP calls for. If you have proof other wise then please post it.
Ok my rant is over I think I got my point across and people can accept it or not. It will not affect me staying in the community as I feel there are a lot of experienced people here and we can all learn from each other. As this is my opinion people can take it or leave it. I will back up all my posts with my experiences first hand and facts of what I have experienced and all I ask is the same from everyone else. I have enjoyed this conversation and look forward to more of them.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. I have not seen any proof however that the brands that you believe to be better than Colt are actually better. We need to see specifics on why the barrel steel that RRA uses is better than what Colt uses. We need to see how RRA tests their barrels and bolts is better than how Colt does it. We need to see why dremel tooling in feed ramps into the receiver is better than how Colt does it. We need to see why using commercial receiver extensions and then red loc tighting the castle nut on is better than how Colt does it.
I could go on and on, but think you see the point. I look forward to your technical post on why RRA (for instance) is better than Colt.
C4
IIRC, an 18B2V, will be a Special Forces Weapons Specialist, E5, Ranger qualified, FWIW.
Mil-spec, TDP, Tier 1, etc etc. yea it can get burdensome, heres the thing.....
When Larry Vickers and Pat Rogers recommend something, thats a clue.
Review most of the common gun boards, and you rarely see complaints about Colt AR's not working, what you do see, ussually fall into these categories....
Your a gun snob(actually they use that as justification for their RIA 1911 also)
Its to expensive, and they are gouging you
Its to much money for what you get
Your a gun snob
They have different size pins
Some lack a bayonet lug, collapsible stock, or flash suppressor
Your a gun snob
There politics suck
The "fit and finish" , or other cosmetic issue is faulty(thye use that alot about their 1911's, even though they are two different companies)
Your a gun snob.
So just by "researching" here and other forums, and taking everyone at their word, with due regard for their credentials, Colt may not be "mil-pec", but they seem to work far better then most other brands.
Bob
BTW: Credentials, I love when people have N/A under their bio, I guess their 4 figure post count should be enough credentials. I mean, at least pretend, and lie. Show some effort.
Nothing actually. I found very few to any Military guys know a lot about what makes a quality part and what doesn't. Very few of them are even basic armorers.
C4
I can't agree more. I was an 0300 in the Marines and don't know much about the design & armory level maintenance of M16/AR15 platform.
I can hit with it, keep it running, maintain it in the field etc. All else is for REMFs. :D
However the guy makes a great point regarding the comparison between a mil-spec 1911 and one from Ed Brown.......
OK this is getting into a pissing match on which is better or not. It was not meant to do so. The original point is that people need to research what thier needs and not justy go off mil spec. I never once stated that one make is better than another, just that I have had luck with the ones i have handled. No I do not currently own a RRA, I have in the past and most likely will in the future. will expand more on needs o further when I get home. I do believe there should be a standard. I do not believe that Mil spec is the only anwser. I agree that it could be a starting place but shoould try to exceend it.
So, what ODA were you on?
You have a PM.
We have an advantage as Civilians in that we can build our rifles to whatever standard we want. We can build and use a gun that is better than military standard, and there are companies that produce high quality stuff. The military can take years and years to update a standard that we can in a day.
The bad news is that sometimes companies claim to have a new better than military part or rifle and it turns out to be a piece of crap. Without some type of standard we don't know what we are getting. Hence the need for mil-spec or some kind of spec.
One example is what HK and other companies are pushing in their piston rifles. These companies are always saying their guns are better and more reliable than the gas operated AR's. They claim this and that and poo-poo the AR/M16, but they dont show any proof. If they have a better rifle then whats currently being used than they wouldn't have to justify their design by slamming others.
I guess what I am saying is be careful of company claims. They can claim this or that but in the end its just talk unless it proven by heavy users in the field. If you go as mil-spec as possible you know the design is at least proven. It may be the best available or it may not, but you know it works.
the1911fan
08-05-07, 14:03
Well RRA and many others such as ed brown, sig, glock follow thier own specs. That is not saying it is inferior to Beretta, Colt, springfield, Rock Island because these are Mil-spec. Maybe I have been lucky with the RRA, Stag, that I have used excessivly and not so lucky with the colts I have used. I think everyone puts out lemons and that is usually what you hear about. I would not hessitate to reccomend LMT, Stag, and RRA to anyone based on my experience with these brands.
This posting makes sense, should have just left it there.
OK this is getting into a pissing match on which is better or not. It was not meant to do so. The original point is that people need to research what thier needs and not justy go off mil spec. I never once stated that one make is better than another, just that I have had luck with the ones i have handled. No I do not currently own a RRA, I have in the past and most likely will in the future. will expand more on needs o further when I get home. I do believe there should be a standard. I do not believe that Mil spec is the only anwser. I agree that it could be a starting place but shoould try to exceend it.
No pissing match here. We do not agree with your assessment that RRA/BM/DPMS/Oly is as good as say a Colt. If you would like to prove any of us wrong, please put forth the info about how these manufacturers build a better weapon. Show us that they use better materials and assemble their weapons better. Lord knows I would love to be proven wrong as I am tired of waiting for Colt AR's to come in. I can get as many RRA/Bm/DPMS/Oly AR's as I want!
People do need to do research and this is the forum to do it. You will not find a more technical discussion forum on the net.
When you say that you have had "luck" with the ones you have, what does that mean? Have you owned several of each brand, ran 10K through them with the majority of the rounds being fired at training?? This would be my definition of "luck."
I 100% agree that the TDP is baseline standard and there are lots of ways to go above it. The sad part is that very few manufacturers go above what the TDP calls for. RRA/BM/Oly/DPMS do NOT go above the Mil standard and that is the whole point and the point of the chart that Rob_S put together.
C4
Ok lets talk about the chart and actual needs.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/070801-AR-Chart.jpg
Start of with m16 BCG. Maybe things have changed but none that i have seen actually have this standard and why should they. The main differences is there is more metal and weight to enable full auto.
M4 feed ramps. Does a civillian really need this. No. M16's have not had the feed ramps for 30 years now they are all the hype in ar-15's. I understand what they are for but I do not really see a true need for a semi auto weapon.
Mil- spec barrel steel. a few people on here actually know what the true mil spec for the steel is. Does colt use this, on ther defense LLc guns yes, but on thier civilian and LE probably not. 4150 is not the mil spec. Would the civillian user actually see a difference in 4140, 4150, and MIL-B-11595E. Most likely not except in extreme conditions.
I agree that the barrel and chamber should be crome lined for durability issues down the line.
1:7 twust. Well depends on what ammo you choose to use. If you plan on using 70 grain and above then I would say go for 1:7 but if you plan on using lighter bullets then a 1:9 or 1:8 would be a better choice. Hell 1:8 would be an outstanding all around twist rate.
F sight front base. Well for a flattop I would say it is essential, for a fixed carry handle not so much.
Taper pins at fsb. Not really needed. As many have stated here many makes use straight tapper pins and are extreamly durrable.
Pakarized under fsb. Umm why is this soo important. Are you planning on going swimming with your ar-15? You will most likely wear out your barrel before you see rust under the FSB.
Stalked castle nut. Have you actually seen a buffer tube and stock fall off because it is not stalked?
H buffer is nice because added weight helps cycling in a car cas system, but is not necessary.
Double shielded hand guards. For those that actually keep thier hand guards standard it could be nice to dissipate hear in extream conditions, but most civies will never see those.
Lifetime warrenty is a must in my book.
Mil spec pins are nice if you plan on swapping out uppers.
In conclusion most people would never need the true mil-spec that is so holy thought of. If you want as close to mil-spec as you can get then great for you, but if you think you really need it you should do some evaluating. This thread was never about which is better it is all about mil-spec and what the average citizen actually needs. And that all mil-spec is not always the best which we pretty much agree on. I do believe every company should strive for the best they can produce whether it is mil-spec or thier own specs. If it truly is sub par by workmanship the it is so not by mil-spec but because it was built by someone that should not be doing so.
Ohh and again thanks for the civil discussion and not truly flamming a person because of thier oppinion. Many other boards would be childish about a discussion of such magnitude. Most of us are professional's and maintained a professional manner which this was discuessed. Wheather you agree with me or not is irrevelant as each is his/hers own opinion and they are entitled to such an opinion. I look forward to other discussions and hope everyone maintains a professional demenier about thier wits. As i have said before one should educate thimselves first and foremost before taking advice from others.
Heavy Metal
08-05-07, 15:54
on ther defense LLc guns yes, but on thier civilian and LE probably not
I think Bravo Company did a forensic analysis of the Colt barrel steel and determined it was the same.
Heavy Metal
08-05-07, 15:57
Mil spec pins are nice if you plan on swapping out uppers.
Makes no difference. He is referring to the hammer/trigger pins, not the takedown pins.
I think Bravo Company did a forensic analysis of the Colt barrel steel and determined it was the same.
If that is the case outstanding. BC makes great products and verry affordable prices.
Makes no difference. He is referring to the hammer/trigger pins, not the takedown pins.
Thanks for pointing that out. Not that it really matters much as most use the same standard. That was my mistake.
Ok lets talk about the chart and actual needs.
This opinion is going to cause you problems here and frankly goes against the very culture of this entire website. First of all it come across as elitist, second of all who asked you what anyone else needed? "Need" is a horrible word to use in discussions like these as it's totally immaterial. Better is still better, it's up to the end-user to determine if they "need" it or not.
It's important to note that you are falling into the same trap that many have on other forums, you're assigning emotion and opinion where there is none. The chart is a list of facts, as best as I can ascertain them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I started to rebutt your post item-by-item, but that's really pretty useless.
You have taken the position that I have seen before; non-LE civilians don't "need" the same quality and features in their weapon as military and law-enforcement. That's a very dangerous position to take for a variety of reasons that would take too long to list and that you likely wouldn't get anyway.
And at the end of the day, none of it has anything to do with a chart that lists the features included in several semi-auto, off-the-shelf, major-brand M4 copies.
Heavy Metal
08-05-07, 16:07
M4 feed ramps. Does a civillian really need this. No. M16's have not had the feed ramps for 30 years now they are all the hype in ar-15's. I understand what they are for but I do not really see a true need for a semi auto weapon.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=66&t=338029
Ok lets talk about the chart and actual needs.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/070801-AR-Chart.jpg
Start of with m16 BCG. Maybe things have changed but none that i have seen actually have this standard and why should they. The main differences is there is more metal and weight to enable full auto.
I think I see what the problem is. I am not sure why you think you can decide or even suggest what someone needs. Paging Hawkeye, Paging Hawkeye, your favorite topic has just come up.
On to the subject. M16 Carrier comes standard with Colt's and can be ordered that way on several other weapons. The extra weight makes the weapon slightly more reliable as it slows everything down. My question, is why deviate from how the weapon was designed? No need to do that.
M4 feed ramps. Does a civillian really need this. No. M16's have not had the feed ramps for 30 years now they are all the hype in ar-15's. I understand what they are for but I do not really see a true need for a semi auto weapon.
Yes. M4 feed ramps do help when shooting heavier grain bullets (basically make the weapon more reliable). Do you know how many times M4 feed ramps have kept a malfunction from happening??? Even if they help with nothing, it does ZERO harm to have them.
Mil- spec barrel steel. a few people on here actually know what the true mil spec for the steel is. Does colt use this, on ther defense LLc guns yes, but on thier civilian and LE probably not. 4150 is not the mil spec. Would the civillian user actually see a difference in 4140, 4150, and MIL-B-11595E. Most likely not except in extreme conditions.
Colt LE AR's have already been tested and they do use CMV steel. BCM, LMT and Sabre Defence also use steel that is found in the 11595E specs.
As we know, the better steel dissipates heat better. Can a semi-auto AR get hot enough to realize this benefit? Don't know, but again, it is nicer to have the option and not need it then to need it and not have it.
I agree that the barrel and chamber should be crome lined for durability issues down the line.
Thank God we agree on something!
1:7 twust. Well depends on what ammo you choose to use. If you plan on using 70 grain and above then I would say go for 1:7 but if you plan on using lighter bullets then a 1:9 or 1:8 would be a better choice. Hell 1:8 would be an outstanding all around twist rate.
I like the 1/7 and 1/8 twist the best as they allow the use of 55gr to 77gr. Two of the best defensive rounds available (75gr TAP and 77gr MK) really need a 1/7 twist to get the maximum effectiveness.
F sight front base. Well for a flattop I would say it is essential, for a fixed carry handle not so much.
Agree.
Taper pins at fsb. Not really needed. As many have stated here many makes use straight tapper pins and are extreamly durrable.
Agree for the most part. The reason why companies have gone to straight pins is because they are easier to install.
Pakarized under fsb. Umm why is this soo important. Are you planning on going swimming with your ar-15? You will most likely wear out your barrel before you see rust under the FSB.
Don't know that it really is, but also doesn't hurt anything either.
Stalked castle nut. Have you actually seen a buffer tube and stock fall off because it is not stalked?
Not fall off, but come apart so that the stock was moving around nicely. Again, stake it so there is one less thing to worry about.
H buffer is nice because added weight helps cycling in a car cas system, but is not necessary.
It makes the weapon more reliable and believe it is less wear and tear on the weapon. This makes it necessary in my book.
Double shielded hand guards. For those that actually keep thier hand guards standard it could be nice to dissipate hear in extream conditions, but most civies will never see those.
On semi-autos, most likely not needed, but again, not a bad thing to have either as it hurts nothing.
Lifetime warrenty is a must in my book.
What is funny to me is that the companies that talk most about their 'lifetime warranties" generally have the poorest quality weapons. I know for a fact that if something goes wrong on an AR, the company will almost always fix it (even without the warranty). Another thing that I am amazed by is how big tier 2 manufacturers CS dept is. Anyone ever call up LMT, Colt's or Sabre Defences CS dept. There is like one person doing this work. This is commonly called a "clue." I would like to see companies take all the money they put into CS and apply it to better parts. I think they would be amazed at how many fewer calls they would get.
Mil spec pins are nice if you plan on swapping out uppers.
Agree.
In conclusion most people would never need the true mil-spec that is so holy thought of. If you want as close to mil-spec as you can get then great for you, but if you think you really need it you should do some evaluating. This thread was never about which is better it is all about mil-spec and what the average citizen actually needs. And that all mil-spec is not always the best which we pretty much agree on. I do believe every company should strive for the best they can produce whether it is mil-spec or thier own specs. If it truly is sub par by workmanship the it is so not by mil-spec but because it was built by someone that should not be doing so.
How do you know that and why do you think it is up to you to tell them that they do not need a high quality defensive tool??? I am simply amazed by this.
I actually hope that I will never need to use my AR to defend my life or the lives of my loved ones. With that said, I am planning for the worst and hoping for the best. It is always better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it!
Just as an FYI to you, advising members on this forum about what they "need" will not get you very far.
C4
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=66&t=338029
Thanks for that. I often forget about hollow points. In this case then yes the m4 feed ramps would most likely fix the problem.
I think Bravo Company did a forensic analysis of the Colt barrel steel and determined it was the same.
They submitted a 14.5" m4 sopmod barrel for destructive analysis. This could be or might not be the same steel as the civ/le barrels.
QUOTE=rob_s;68595]This opinion is going to cause you problems here and frankly goes against the very culture of this entire website. First of all it come across as elitist, second of all who asked you what anyone else needed? "Need" is a horrible word to use in discussions like these as it's totally immaterial. Better is still better, it's up to the end-user to determine if they "need" it or not.
It's important to note that you are falling into the same trap that many have on other forums, you're assigning emotion and opinion where there is none. The chart is a list of facts, as best as I can ascertain them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I started to rebutt your post item-by-item, but that's really pretty useless.
You have taken the position that I have seen before; non-LE civilians don't "need" the same quality and features in their weapon as military and law-enforcement. That's a very dangerous position to take for a variety of reasons that would take too long to list and that you likely wouldn't get anyway.
And at the end of the day, none of it has anything to do with a chart that lists the features included in several semi-auto, off-the-shelf, major-brand M4 copies.[/QUOTE]
Then again what is truly better? Better is as subjective as what is truly needed and ones opinion. It is just my opinion that each mil-spec is not necessarly needed or necessarly better just as it is your opinion on what is better. That is my whole point. People's opinions are subjective and one should research and meet thier needs. I agree the chart is a starting point but one should not be completly sold on just the chart. It is just funny how I make a statement about thier prcsioous Mil-spec and so many people get offended. As far as my position on whether le/civ don't need what the millitary has, hell I don't even think the Mil spec is what the millitary needs. It is just a standard the mil put in place to keep competition equal. Does this make mil- spec better. No it just makes the competition for the contracts equal. Now question is did the mil-spec come before or after the m16 contract was won? What else was the competition? This was never supposed to be about which maker is better it was just supposed to be about problems with Mil-spec. This will be my last post in this thread explaining my issues with mil spec and peoples attitude that it should be the end all. Lets move on.
Then again what is truly better? Better is as subjective as what is truly needed and ones opinion. It is just my opinion that each mil-spec is not necessarly needed or necessarly better just as it is your opinion on what is better. That is my whole point. People's opinions are subjective and one should research and meet thier needs. I agree the chart is a starting point but one should not be completly sold on just the chart. It is just funny how I make a statement about thier prcsioous Mil-spec and so many people get offended. As far as my position on whether le/civ don't need what the millitary has, hell I don't even think the Mil spec is what the millitary needs. It is just a standard the mil put in place to keep competition equal. Does this make mil- spec better. No it just makes the competition for the contracts equal. Now question is did the mil-spec come before or after the m16 contract was won? What else was the competition? This was never supposed to be about which maker is better it was just supposed to be about problems with Mil-spec. This will be my last post in this thread explaining my issues with mil spec and peoples attitude that it should be the end all. Lets move on.
The US Govt has given us the standard for what is best way to build a fighting weapon. This is not really an opinion, but more of a fact based on their testing and analysis.
I don't think anyone is offended by your opinion, but more about the fact that you have not shown us why a brand that doesn't follow the baseline standard is better. To make matters worse, you for some reason believe that you should tell people what they "need." That is a HUGE no no in my book and a good number of members on this board (if not all).
The TDP is an ever evolving document. As the US Govt finds ways to make the weapon more reliable they make changes. Case in point. M4's orig. came with H buffers. Some time ago, they switched to H2 buffers. Why? Becuase the increased lock time made the weapons more reliable.
C4
I'm not offended. As I've said repeatedly, I'm just relaying the facts. It is you that are placing a value on those facts and projecting onto others as to how we interpret those facts. If you thin that Oly's stainless barrel is superior enough to the materials the others use, and superior enough to overlook all the other features they're missing, then buy one. I don't think anyone here really cares just so long as you don't run around the site professing it's superiority over all others based on the material of the barrel alone.
I believe it was Grant that asked you, are you saying that you think that RRA, Bushmaster, DPMS, or Oly are the equal to Colt, LMT, or even S&W or Stag? If so, what makes you say that?
If you just have some ax to grind regarding milspec and the over-use of the term, I'm with you there, but this isn't the time or place or thread to get wound up about it.
The final thing to remember is that nobody on this site claimed that any of these other brands meet the spec, but the manufacturers themselves sure did. Spend any amount of time on their websites or at their booths at SHOT and you'll hear them toss the term around without any regard whatsoever for what it means.
LukeMacGillie
08-05-07, 16:54
Ive never seen a receiver extension fall off due to lack of staking, but I have seen it back out enough that the buffer retainer came out and jammed everything up. It happend back in May at Pat's class in Quantico.
18B2V:
I would suggest that you think about your entrance into this site to be just like a mission. You have inserted yourself, but the Partisan link up is not going so well. All that high speed training will be for naught if you dont establish rapport;)
Ive never seen a receiver extension fall off due to lack of staking, but I have seen it back out enough that the buffer retainer came out and jammed everything up. It happend back in May at Pat's class in Quantico.
I hate to admit I was a "that guy" in an LAV class. Happened with a SOPMOD stock kit. I didn't want to stake the thing because I couldn't bring myself to mark up a $250 stock kit.
Yeah, that took exactly one time of that happening for me to change my tune. Luckily it happened on a square range.
I believe that 18B2V to be a nice guy and sincere about his opinion (sent me a nice PM). I just don't agree with most everything he has to say. His opinion is welcome here just like everyone elses and I encourage him to keep posting on M4C.
C4
I hate to admit I was a "that guy" in an LAV class. Happened with a SOPMOD stock kit. I didn't want to stake the thing because I couldn't bring myself to mark up a $250 stock kit.
Yeah, that took exactly one time of that happening for me to change my tune. Luckily it happened on a square range.
Just takes it happening one time to change ones POV doesn't it! Kind of like KNS pins. Have your hammer pin walk just one time and get the "click" instead of the "bang" and you won't look at the KNS pins a worthless ever again.
C4
Ive never seen a receiver extension fall off due to lack of staking, but I have seen it back out enough that the buffer retainer came out and jammed everything up. It happend back in May at Pat's class in Quantico.
That happened to me with a RRA rifle. And it did jam the rifle up to such an extent that I had to beat it with a hammer to get it apart. Once apart, I found that the tube had backed out, the retainer had come out and the retaining spring had tied itself up in the bolt carrier and locked the carrier back in the tube (which explained why I couldn't shotgun the rifle open.
You know what it taught me?
The importance of staking.
Thanks guys for the discussion. I never meant to tell people what he/she needs but used it as an example. It ultimatly comes down to opinions and what each think he or she needs. and that is what I was trying to get from the start. I am not dead set in my opinions as I hope we all can learn from each other if we all have an open mind. Just thought this would be a hell of a way to introduce myself and share some of my opinions about mil-spec and internet forums. I would love to get some range time with many of you and meet in person. Maybe it will hapen some day and I look forward to my time spent here. We all love the ebr and you should get what makes you happy and we should all rejoice.
Just takes it happening one time to change ones POV doesn't it! Kind of like KNS pins. Have your hammer pin walk just one time and get the "click" instead of the "bang" and you won't look at the KNS pins a worthless ever again.
C4
Had that happen at another class...:rolleyes:
Pat_Rogers
08-05-07, 17:22
Ive never seen a receiver extension fall off due to lack of staking, but I have seen it back out enough that the buffer retainer came out and jammed everything up. It happend back in May at Pat's class in Quantico.
That was the 10th (of a total of 11) that i have seen since November.
Some were because the owners put another receiver plate on for a sling loop. In several instances there were insufficient threads left to engage the receiver.
Only one was a Colt (Paul- Paul??)
That was the 10th (of a total of 11) that i have seen since November.
Some were because the owners put another receiver plate on for a sling loop. In several instances there were insufficient threads left to engage the receiver.
Only one was a Colt (Paul- Paul??)
That is pretty incredible. I have never seen it in person and that is why I made the statement.. Would you say most were from personal builds, factory builds, or factory builds that were modified by the user?
Pat_Rogers
08-05-07, 18:10
Sorry Ranger Buddy, this was not broken receiver extensions, but rather those that came loose because of no/ improper stake on the castle nut. The end plate moves, and then the detent will pop up into the receiver, the buffer will move forward etc.
I have only seen one broken receiver extension in my life (commercial tube)
That was the 10th (of a total of 11) that i have seen since November.
Some were because the owners put another receiver plate on for a sling loop. In several instances there were insufficient threads left to engage the receiver.
Only one was a Colt (Paul- Paul??)
I had mine shoot loose after putting a DD plate on, so I wound up staking it. It DOES happen.
18B, nice to have you here btw.
Submariner
08-05-07, 19:43
That was the 10th (of a total of 11) that i have seen since November.
Some were because the owners put another receiver plate on for a sling loop. In several instances there were insufficient threads left to engage the receiver.
Only one was a Colt (Paul- Paul??)
Mea culpa, Pat. Colt with a GG&G Single Sling Plate purchased years before TD came out with theirs which requires no removal of factory receiver end plate. Plenty of threads. My fault for not checking tightness before class. I really need to stake them properly.
the1911fan
08-05-07, 20:28
this was not broken receiver extensions, but rather those that came loose because of no/ improper stake on the castle nut. The end plate moves, and then the detent will pop up into the receiver, the buffer will move forward etc.
I have only seen one broken receiver extension in my life (commercial tube)
That happened with 5 out of 6 of our dept. owned BM's all happened within 24 months of use.
Pat_Rogers
08-05-07, 20:33
Arrggg...
I am shocked i tell you shocked to hear of that happening...:rolleyes:
I had mine shoot loose after putting a DD plate on, so I wound up staking it. It DOES happen.
18B, nice to have you here btw.
Thanks for the welcome.
Always good to see a Fellow NCO on board Welcome Brother.... (I like how you make an entrance...you have style...;) )
We need more Dog faces on board to keep al these Gyrenes in check....
I think you will be a great addition to the board....
Nothing actually. I found very few to any Military guys know a lot about what makes a quality part and what doesn't. Very few of them are even basic armorers.
C4
This is a fact my friend!
Nothing actually. I found very few to any Military guys know a lot about what makes a quality part and what doesn't. Very few of them are even basic armorers.
C4
As I posted before, very true. I left the armors level maintenance to the armors/REFMs. :D
But all I did was carry it and make it run around the world. literally. I can hit with it and don't get all wrapped tight about how to lube it or what lube to use.
There's running one on the range and running under true field conditions. There's operator level maintenance and then there's stuff best left for armors like replacing parts and building one. I'll leave the latter for guys who know.....
Stretz Tactical Inc
08-05-07, 22:03
I know it is a little off topic, What is the "v" designator in the 18b20v mos?
I know it is a little off topic, What is the "v" designator in the 18b20v mos?
V is ranger designator. Means i went to Ranger School. Nothing more.
Fair enough. Opinions are opinions. We all have them. We don't all have to agree.
I've changed a lot of my opinions over the years -- some of the guys here know more than most people can comprehend. I defer to them on a regular basis.
I know which of the military specifications I need to concern myself over, and I make sure I buy parts, uppers, and weapons that meet MY needs.
In short, I don't really much care what anyone else is running -- unless they are covering my six.
Which as a civilian, means I don't care what anyone is running. ;)
I think I see what the problem is. I am not sure why you think you can decide or even suggest what someone needs. Paging Hawkeye, Paging Hawkeye, your favorite topic has just come up.
C4
I've been following since the first post, and have been trying to avoid posting.... I've already got this twitch in my left eye from reading. That word....it just....... argh....
Welcome aboard 18b2v. :)
I've been following since the first post, and have been trying to avoid posting.... I've already got this twitch in my left eye from reading. That word....it just....... argh....
Welcome aboard 18b2v. :)
Thanks a lot guys I really do feel welcomed now. Look forward to more.
V is ranger designator. Means i went to Ranger School. Nothing more.
What Class?
That happened with 5 out of 6 of our dept. owned BM's all happened within 24 months of use.
Irony leaps forth yet again to grab us by the short ones :eek:
The lower in question that I mentioned just 'magically' happens to be a shrubmaster, it wasn't staked before I swapped the plate on either. Silly me, back at THAT point in my life I didn't thinking staking was a big deal. WRONG. Now, to BM's 'credit' :rolleyes: I did shoot a gas key loose once after a long range session, and didn't know it was FUBAR until I got home and was cleaning the weapon. Kinda blew my mind that it wasn't short stroking on me during live fire. What do you think I did? I asked Tweak from TOS how to stake the sumbitch the RIGHT way. GTG.
Some would say, do all these little 'nuances' make a difference? Perhaps not for the vast majority of people. However that isn't the audience of this site so YMMV. The crowd here is more 'serious'
The odds that I will ever have to employ my carbine in some type of heavy duty situation are pretty low. However.....IF the need should arise, I want to be abso****inlutely sure (to the extent that we CAN control all the variables in any mechanical device) that its going to work. I tend to look at guns like I look at Skillsaws: they are tools and I expect the mother f'ers to work when I need them to work. I don't own any guns that I don't shoot. I have a LOT of hobbies and can't afford to have shit laying around just because it looks pretty or its 'collectable'. I'm the kinda dude that IF I were to pay 5k for a HK416 upper (which I wouldn't just because of the price) I'd take it out and shoot it. And then I'd repeat same. If it got scratched, O well.
Take care of your tools, and they will take care of you...Murphy excepted.
Cheers and good will to everyone!
J
That happened with 5 out of 6 of our dept. owned BM's all happened within 24 months of use.
What?? How can this be?? BM builds mil-spec weapons! Oh sorry, thought I was on TOS for a minute.
C4
That happened with 5 out of 6 of our dept. owned BM's all happened within 24 months of use.
Just out of curiosity, what was the approximate round count when that happened?
I've noticed there's a good number of folks here to did some work to the area and then they loosed up. I'll pay attention to that. :D
Kudos for taking the initiative and doing research yourself.
There are only four carbines and 4 m16's currently made by Colt Defense LLC that are Mil-spec. They are the following
RO901 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO905 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO701 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO705 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst
for m16
RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst
for carbines.
Those are what are refered to as "Export Models", as in not USGI, and as such do they do not comply with MIL-SPECs. For example, the USGI M4 Carbine in the RO920 and it's MIL-SPEC is MIL-C-70599A (AR).
Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with Colt and they make fine firearms most of the time, but they are not the only manufactures that make fine weapons.
Correct, there is always the other manufacturer, IZHMASH.
John_Wayne777
08-06-07, 14:46
My 2 cents and I'll shutup because this one is way over my head:
Average folks don't have the necessary background to competently engage in the process of evaluating the things (barrel steels, what sight base markings, etc) that make up a suitable combat worthy weapon that will offer long term reliability and durability in all sorts of conditions...but they still have the need for a weapon that isn't going to fail them in a time of need just the same as somebody kicking down doors in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As such there are constantly questions about what carbine they should buy for serious social purposes. The same is going to be true of police officers in various departments who are in the process of trying to upgrade their patrol loadout to have rifles instead of 870s.
These folks need a straight up and simple answer to the question of what they should arm themselves with. They instinctively know that nobody knows how to build a combat worthy weapon better than the folks who specialize in it, and thus seek out "mil-spec" features because they believe (rightly so) that critical military specs exist to provide the functionality and durability they are looking for....and companies who make weapons understand this and start slapping the mil-spec label on all sorts of stuff in an attempt to attract customers.
IF all the various options on the market offered similar out of the box reliability and durability, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Lots of customers of various brands have taken their weapon to the range only to discover that it doesn't run because of an improperly staked carrier key, or won't feed properly because of a chamber that is out of spec. More than one police armorer has opened a big box of carbines ordered for providing much needed firepower to police officers on the street to find badly canted front sight bases and various other defects that all have to be corrected either at the department's expense or after much arguing with the weapon manufacturer...all while the patrol officers who need the weapons go without.
The point of championing the idea of sticking to weapons that adhere to mil-spec for social purposes is, as far as I can tell, to provide your average buyer with the best chance of obtaining a weapon that is going to be reliable and durable for the long term right out of the box. This has always been the logic of recommending specific weapons and makers that I have seen from competent people.
The TDP isn't holy writ chiseled into stone by the hand of God or anything, but it seems to me that it is a pretty good starting point for figuring out what would make for a suitable fighting weapon. For most people the black rifles they own may be range toys, but for the majority of the folks here on M4Carbine.net the ARs they own are counted as fighting weapons.
While the owners of those weapons may not spend their days killing taliban fighters along the Pakistani border, they do face the reality of having to deal with the homegrown goblins that plague our society....and in the moment when they need to rely on their weapons to stop the hostile actions of some felon with a rap sheet longer than the driveway of the house they are trying to break into, they can end up just as screwed if their weapon pukes on them as any of our elite military personnel whose weapon pukes on them. Ditto police officers.
The experience of folks who are kind enough to share their wisdom with us on this board (like Pat Rogers and Larry Vickers) has shown that there really IS a difference in how the various options on the market perform and (at least in my opinion) validates the concern folks have in trying to obtain the best weapon that they can to protect themselves.
Any maker can make a decent rifle. My personal go to gun is a Bushmaster that I've owned for many many many many years, and that has gone through multiple carbine training courses without trouble or complaint. It will be going through the Vickers/Hackathorn low-light course taking place later this year along side guys here who are going to be packing the prancing ponies and the BCMs and the LMTs, and will likely perform just fine as it has in previous classes. (with allowances made for the inadequacy of the guy shooting it...)
That being said, if I had it all to do over again I would NOT be buying a Bushmaster. I bought mine at the time because everybody told me a Bushmaster was just as good (if not BETTER) than a Colt, and that it had all sorts of neat "mil-spec" features. Thankfully it turns out that mine was put together right and runs fine. What I realize now is that the people telling me all that stuff when I bought my rifle lo those many years ago were as ignorant as I was and didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about.
Their frame of reference was based on a couple of hundred rounds on a sunny Sunday afternoon as opposed to lots of time in training and supporting the weapons in issue numbers. It wasn't until I got into training with the carbine (which, oddly enough, many of the very same people insisted was a waste of money or some sort of "wannabe" fantasy camp) that I learned a bit more about reality.
The "tier 1" and "mil-spec" talk isn't about promoting one brand over another or about proving that one guy's internet johnson is bigger than another guy's internet johnson....it's about helping people who are confused in the swirling torrent of confusion and outright stupidity in the gun world find what is most likely to give them a good result. It is about helping those who are serious about obtaining a defensive tool to find something suitable rather than just relying on gunstore level bullsh*t to make poorly informed decisions.
It's the equivalent of what I did that got me banned from an area gunstore a while back....the guy behind the counter was telling this poor woman who was looking for a gun after she had sought a protective order against her abusive boyfriend that this Kel-Tech .32 acp would hit like a "three-fiddy-sebum" if she loaded it with "these here boolets!". This woman was seeking out a weapon to stop a determined attacker who had already abused her (she had a heck of a shiner and a severely swolen lip) and this idiot was telling her a .32 loaded with piss poor ammo was going to stop him. I interjected with some actual facts and ended up being threatened by the jackass behind the counter because of it. The woman decided that I was probably a better source of information and followed me right out the door where I pointed her to a better gun store and a retired police officer in the store who could help her select the right handgun for her, train her in its use, and select the proper ammunition.
The talk you see here on M4C is aimed at helping people make an informed decision. A decision not based on Bubba's opinion based on a sample of 1 and routine gunstore BS. There's plenty of BS in the gun world. It runs so deep that you often need hip-waders to get through it. The purpose of this board (as far as I can tell) is to help cut through the nonsense and point people to something suitable for their needs.
YMMV, opinion void where prohibited or taxed, etcetera.
Thank you for your service and welcome to the board.
That being said, if I had it all to do over again I would NOT be buying a Bushmaster. I bought mine at the time because everybody told me a Bushmaster was just as good (if not BETTER) than a Colt, and that it had all sorts of neat "mil-spec" features. Thankfully it turns out that mine was put together right and runs fine. What I realize now is that the people telling me all that stuff when I bought my rifle lo those many years ago were as ignorant as I was and didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about.
I am in the same boat with my two RRA rifles. No problems so far, one has survived a carbine class and both have a couple thousand rounds in them with no issues whatsoever.
But - my next carbines, whenever that may be, will not be RRA rifles. Like you, I seemed to be lucky and fared well (so far.) Next time I will spend just a little more and get the very best that I can possibly afford. Consider it insurance.
Nathan_Bell
08-06-07, 17:32
Possibly the most cogent and concise explanation yet posted.
My 2 cents and I'll shutup because this one is way over my head:
Average folks don't have the necessary background to competently engage in the process of evaluating the things (barrel steels, what sight base markings, etc) that make up a suitable combat worthy weapon that will offer long term reliability and durability in all sorts of conditions...but they still have the need for a weapon that isn't going to fail them in a time of need just the same as somebody kicking down doors in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As such there are constantly questions about what carbine they should buy for serious social purposes. The same is going to be true of police officers in various departments who are in the process of trying to upgrade their patrol loadout to have rifles instead of 870s.
These folks need a straight up and simple answer to the question of what they should arm themselves with. They instinctively know that nobody knows how to build a combat worthy weapon better than the folks who specialize in it, and thus seek out "mil-spec" features because they believe (rightly so) that critical military specs exist to provide the functionality and durability they are looking for....and companies who make weapons understand this and start slapping the mil-spec label on all sorts of stuff in an attempt to attract customers.
IF all the various options on the market offered similar out of the box reliability and durability, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Lots of customers of various brands have taken their weapon to the range only to discover that it doesn't run because of an improperly staked carrier key, or won't feed properly because of a chamber that is out of spec. More than one police armorer has opened a big box of carbines ordered for providing much needed firepower to police officers on the street to find badly canted front sight bases and various other defects that all have to be corrected either at the department's expense or after much arguing with the weapon manufacturer...all while the patrol officers who need the weapons go without.
The point of championing the idea of sticking to weapons that adhere to mil-spec for social purposes is, as far as I can tell, to provide your average buyer with the best chance of obtaining a weapon that is going to be reliable and durable for the long term right out of the box. This has always been the logic of recommending specific weapons and makers that I have seen from competent people.
The TDP isn't holy writ chiseled into stone by the hand of God or anything, but it seems to me that it is a pretty good starting point for figuring out what would make for a suitable fighting weapon. For most people the black rifles they own may be range toys, but for the majority of the folks here on M4Carbine.net the ARs they own are counted as fighting weapons.
While the owners of those weapons may not spend their days killing taliban fighters along the Pakistani border, they do face the reality of having to deal with the homegrown goblins that plague our society....and in the moment when they need to rely on their weapons to stop the hostile actions of some felon with a rap sheet longer than the driveway of the house they are trying to break into, they can end up just as screwed if their weapon pukes on them as any of our elite military personnel whose weapon pukes on them. Ditto police officers.
The experience of folks who are kind enough to share their wisdom with us on this board (like Pat Rogers and Larry Vickers) has shown that there really IS a difference in how the various options on the market perform and (at least in my opinion) validates the concern folks have in trying to obtain the best weapon that they can to protect themselves.
Any maker can make a decent rifle. My personal go to gun is a Bushmaster that I've owned for many many many many years, and that has gone through multiple carbine training courses without trouble or complaint. It will be going through the Vickers/Hackathorn low-light course taking place later this year along side guys here who are going to be packing the prancing ponies and the BCMs and the LMTs, and will likely perform just fine as it has in previous classes. (with allowances made for the inadequacy of the guy shooting it...)
That being said, if I had it all to do over again I would NOT be buying a Bushmaster. I bought mine at the time because everybody told me a Bushmaster was just as good (if not BETTER) than a Colt, and that it had all sorts of neat "mil-spec" features. Thankfully it turns out that mine was put together right and runs fine. What I realize now is that the people telling me all that stuff when I bought my rifle lo those many years ago were as ignorant as I was and didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about.
Their frame of reference was based on a couple of hundred rounds on a sunny Sunday afternoon as opposed to lots of time in training and supporting the weapons in issue numbers. It wasn't until I got into training with the carbine (which, oddly enough, many of the very same people insisted was a waste of money or some sort of "wannabe" fantasy camp) that I learned a bit more about reality.
The "tier 1" and "mil-spec" talk isn't about promoting one brand over another or about proving that one guy's internet johnson is bigger than another guy's internet johnson....it's about helping people who are confused in the swirling torrent of confusion and outright stupidity in the gun world find what is most likely to give them a good result. It is about helping those who are serious about obtaining a defensive tool to find something suitable rather than just relying on gunstore level bullsh*t to make poorly informed decisions.
It's the equivalent of what I did that got me banned from an area gunstore a while back....the guy behind the counter was telling this poor woman who was looking for a gun after she had sought a protective order against her abusive boyfriend that this Kel-Tech .32 acp would hit like a "three-fiddy-sebum" if she loaded it with "these here boolets!". This woman was seeking out a weapon to stop a determined attacker who had already abused her (she had a heck of a shiner and a severely swolen lip) and this idiot was telling her a .32 loaded with piss poor ammo was going to stop him. I interjected with some actual facts and ended up being threatened by the jackass behind the counter because of it. The woman decided that I was probably a better source of information and followed me right out the door where I pointed her to a better gun store and a retired police officer in the store who could help her select the right handgun for her, train her in its use, and select the proper ammunition.
The talk you see here on M4C is aimed at helping people make an informed decision. A decision not based on Bubba's opinion based on a sample of 1 and routine gunstore BS. There's plenty of BS in the gun world. It runs so deep that you often need hip-waders to get through it. The purpose of this board (as far as I can tell) is to help cut through the nonsense and point people to something suitable for their needs.
YMMV, opinion void where prohibited or taxed, etcetera.
Thank you for your service and welcome to the board.
Jay Cunningham
08-06-07, 18:02
Possibly the most cogent and concise explanation yet posted.
He's got a knack for that.
;)
Do the LEOs on this board have access to AARs that detail any instances of any AR15 platform failures, either catastrophic (broken bolt/cam pin, buffer retainer backing out tying up gun, etc.) or chronic operability issues (FTF, FTE, etc.) that resulted in mission failure? I'm not asking if they were injured or killed as a result, simply a situation where at the worst possible time their carbine went TU? And then the corollary, is their a DB of AARs that highlight mission success with their carbines?
It would interesting to see how real world "gun fighting" data stacks up against the chart.
Pat_Rogers
08-06-07, 19:32
You will not likely see that on an unrestricted basis for a wide variety of reasons, to include OPSEC, civil liability and other legal issues.
HolyRoller
08-06-07, 19:54
jmart, I think I see a pattern in your questions. :) They are good questions to be asking too. That line of inquiry may be good for a whole other thread. I don't personally know of any incidents one way or the other. My personal deal is, I lube my patrol carbine every time I open its case, and hope it doesn't go down in a CQB environment. If it does, that's show biz--sweep it aside and transition to pistol, which should get me through the day.
18b2v, thank you for your service indeed, and your opinion is very valuable. I live not far from Bragg, many of my friends are Team guys or Group support or going through the Q course, and I think the world of all of them. Here at M4C, credentials don't hurt, but facts rule. There is a certain other forum elsewhere on the net where if your MOS starts with 18 or 180, you're therefore always right and can be as disrespectful as you want toward all others, who are then not allowed to disagree regardless of facts or logic. I do not hang around at that board anymore and have not encountered that attitude anywhere among the SF I know in real life. I'm glad to see that you don't act that way either, and you back up your opinions with the facts as best you know them. That was also a reality check on certain aspects of "mil-spec" not being identical with perfection or even excellence. Welcome and please keep passing along the good scoop.
oh yeah--I had my castle nut back out because it wasn't staked after changing the wobbly OEM buttstock for a Vltor. The stock didn't fall off but I could rotate it like a volume knob--a bit disconcerting, that. Now it's staked in place and hasn't moved since.
jmart, I think I see a pattern in your questions. :) They are good questions to be asking too. That line of inquiry may be good for a whole other thread. I don't personally know of any incidents one way or the other. My personal deal is, I lube my patrol carbine every time I open its case, and hope it doesn't go down in a CQB environment. If it does, that's show biz--sweep it aside and transition to pistol, which should get me through the day.
18b2v, thank you for your service indeed, and your opinion is very valuable. I live not far from Bragg, many of my friends are Team guys or Group support or going through the Q course, and I think the world of all of them. Here at M4C, credentials don't hurt, but facts rule. There is a certain other forum elsewhere on the net where if your MOS starts with 18 or 180, you're therefore always right and can be as disrespectful as you want toward all others, who are then not allowed to disagree regardless of facts or logic. I do not hang around at that board anymore and have not encountered that attitude anywhere among the SF I know in real life. I'm glad to see that you don't act that way either, and you back up your opinions with the facts as best you know them. That was also a reality check on certain aspects of "mil-spec" not being identical with perfection or even excellence. Welcome and please keep passing along the good scoop.
oh yeah--I had my castle nut back out because it wasn't staked after changing the wobbly OEM buttstock for a Vltor. The stock didn't fall off but I could rotate it like a volume knob--a bit disconcerting, that. Now it's staked in place and hasn't moved since.
Most SF guys do not have the opinion or attitude that we are better than anyone else. I defently know i am not right all the time and can learn from anyone. Majority of the time we have a laid back attitude until it comes time to take care of buisness and in that respect we strive for perfection. I have worked with the elite of every force in the us military and many from other countries. No one knows everything and there is always someone better. I am really glad to be apart of this community and apreciate all the comments.
Do the LEOs on this board have access to AARs that detail any instances of any AR15 platform failures, either catastrophic (broken bolt/cam pin, buffer retainer backing out tying up gun, etc.) or chronic operability issues (FTF, FTE, etc.) that resulted in mission failure? I'm not asking if they were injured or killed as a result, simply a situation where at the worst possible time their carbine went TU? And then the corollary, is their a DB of AARs that highlight mission success with their carbines?
It would interesting to see how real world "gun fighting" data stacks up against the chart.
jmart,
While not an LEO analysis and it only looks at Colt M4s, as well as Colt and FNH M16A2s/A4s the following are excerpts from an Unclass Army sponsored CNA (Center for Naval Analysis) look at weapon durability, reliability, stoppages, and maintanence.
"This study assessed soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapon systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army. The weapons examined in this study were the M9 pistol, M4 and M16 (A2 and A4) rifles, and the M249 light machine gun."
"CNA conducted over 2,600 surveys with soldiers who had returned from Iraq or Afghanistan within the previous 12 months and had engaged in a firefight using the M9, M4, M16 (A2 or A4), or M249 during their last deployment. The survey covered key issues related to weapon reliability and durability including training and experience, weapon maintenance/cleaning, weapon stoppages, accessories, and environment."
"Over fifty percent of soldiers utilizing the M4 and M16 reported that they never
experienced a stoppage while in theater (this finding includes stoppages during an entire deployment and is therefore not limited to firefights and includes training)."
"For the M4, M16, and M249, firing in semi-automatic mode decreased the reported occurrence of stoppages and repairs, as well as increasing soldier levels of confidence in weapon reliability and durability. Soldiers issued cleaning kits were less likely to experience stoppages and more likely to be confident in weapon reliability. However, weapon cleaning type and frequency had little impact on stoppages and repairs overall. Soldiers who frequently performed quick wipedown cleanings experienced more stoppages."
"Overall, 78 percent of soldiers surveyed reported being satisfied with their weapons. Soldiers were most satisfied with the M4 (89 percent) and least satisfied with the M9 (58 percent). M16 and M249 users were 75 percent and 71 percent satisfied, respectively."
"Overall, soldiers reported high levels of satisfaction with weapon accuracy (90 percent), range (88 percent), and rate of fire (91 percent). M4 users reported the highest levels of satisfaction with weapon accuracy, range, and rate of fire (94, 92, and 93 percent) and M9 users reported the lowest levels of satisfaction in these areas (76, 66, and 88 percent)."
"Most soldiers (82 percent) reported applying a light layer of lubrication to their weapons. Most often soldiers reported applying lubrication at least once a day (45 percent) or once a week (35 percent). Wet lubricants were most commonly applied (56 percent). Sixty two percent used an Army issued lubricant. The majority of those who did not use an Army issued lubricant used Miltech (55 percent)."
"Weapon stoppages can be caused by many factors, such as failure to feed, failure to fire, and failure to eject/extract. Many times weapon users are not able to specify the exact cause of a stoppage. Therefore, here the occurrence of stoppages are reviewed but not diagnosed. The highest percentage of soldiers reported weapon stoppages with the M9 (26 percent) and the M249 (30 percent) while engaging the enemy in theater. Reports of stoppages with the M4 and M16 were equal at 19 percent. This equality is not surprising
given the similarity of the two rifles."
"Soldiers were most confident in the reliability of the M4 (80 percent) and M16 (71 percent) and least confident in the reliability of the M9 (54 percent). Soldiers most often attributed confidence in the reliability of their weapon to their own maintenance, and reported the high number of malfunctions and difficulty of maintaining the weapon as reason for their lack of confidence in weapon reliability."
"Recall that durability is defined as soldier level of confidence that their weapon will not suffer major breakage or failure that necessitates repair before further use. As with reliability, soldiers are most confident in the durability of the M4 (83 percent) and M16 (72 percent) and least confident in the durability of the M9 (63 percent) and the M249 (64 percent). While level of confidence remains fairly equal across reliability and durability for the M4,
M16, and M249, M9 users have more confidence in the durability of the weapon than in its reliability. Soldiers most often attributed confidence in the durability of their weapon to their own maintenance, and reported the age of the weapon and difficulty of maintaining the weapon as reasons for their lack of confidence in weapon durability."
"Soldiers issued a cleaning kit with their weapons were one-third less likely to experience a stoppage than those not issued a cleaning kit. Given that only 64 percent of soldiers reported being issued a cleaning kit, this appears to be an area where the Army might easily have an impact in decreasing weapon stoppages. Lubrication of the weapon did have a slight impact on reported stoppages. Soldiers reporting a high frequency of lube application (one or more times per day) were more likely to experience stoppages. This result was
most significantly linked to M16 users. Increased frequency in quick wipe down weapon cleaning also increased the odds of experiencing a stoppage. This somewhat counter-intuitive finding is most likely a result of soldiers replacing fully disassembled cleanings with quicker and less effective methods."
"Accessory attachment had significant impact on reported stoppages. Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached (those using duct tape and zip cord were more likely to experience stoppages). M4 and
M16 users using duct tape and zip cord to attach accessories to their weapon were two and three times more likely to experience a stoppage. Those who were issued a rebuilt M4 were 3.5 times more likely to experience a stoppage. Rebuilt M16s, M9s, and M249s had comparable stoppages to those that hadn’t been rebuilt. Finally, using a dry lubricant on the M4 decreased the probability of experiencing a stoppage by half."
"Soldiers firing weapons on the semi-automatic setting decreased the probability of experiencing a stoppage by half."
"Recall that reliability has been defined as soldier level of confidence that their weapon will fire without malfunction in the combat environment. Malfunction is defined as a weapon stoppage usually corrected by immediate or remedial clearing actions not necessitating an actual repair of the weapon. Unlike weapon stoppages, soldier level of proficiency and training had significant impact on levels of confidence in weapon reliability. Those with higher levels of qualification are approximately two times more likely to be confident in their weapon reliability. Although soldiers at a higher level of qualification (expert and sharpshooter) were more confident in the reliability and durability of their weapons, they did not report a lower level of stoppages as described in the previous section. On average, they were able to clear their weapons of malfunctions in a shorter amount of time. Therefore, one explanation is that their quick clearing capabilities lessened the impact of the malfunction, thereby not significantly impacting their perceptions of overall weapon performance and effectiveness. Soldiers with higher level qualification were more likely
to report that the stoppage had a small impact on their ability to continue engaging the enemy. Soldiers who trained in an environment similar to the theater environment prior to deployment were one-third more likely to have confidence in weapon reliability. M4 users reporting this type of training were twice as likely to have confidence in weapon reliability."
S/F
Very interesting post. I wish I could ask for more details. This section was the most surprising to me:
Lubrication of the weapon did have a slight impact on reported stoppages. Soldiers reporting a high frequency of lube application (one or more times per day) were more likely to experience stoppages. This result was
most significantly linked to M16 users. Increased frequency in quick wipe down weapon cleaning also increased the odds of experiencing a stoppage. This somewhat counter-intuitive finding is most likely a result of soldiers replacing fully disassembled cleanings with quicker and less effective methods."
I'm curious what the wipe down consisted of. Wiping all the lube off of the BCG and repalcing it? Exterior surface wipedown? Also, I'm wondering if the stoppages were occurring with M855 or Mk 262 OTM ammo. I was a bit surprised that M-16 reliability was poorer than M4 reliability, I wonder if that has to do with age of the weapon.
Appreciate you posting this, it's a data point, but I was really looking for other data from LEOs who would be more likely to be involved in encounters with few rounds fired.
Robb Jensen
08-07-07, 08:14
I'm curious what the wipe down consisted of. Wiping all the lube off of the BCG and repalcing it? Exterior surface wipedown? Also, I'm wondering if the stoppages were occurring with M855 or Mk 262 OTM ammo. I was a bit surprised that M-16 reliability was poorer than M4 reliability, I wonder if that has to do with age of the weapon.
There's all kinds of variables at work here, age of the weapons, how the user lubed it, ammunition variables, buffer spring lengths, status of the gas systems etc just to name a few.
In a vacuum (in a perfect world) all things being equal, in theory the amount of carbon & dirt required to make either rifle fail should make a M16 (20") fail to cycle sooner than it would a M4 (14.5"). This is due to the lower cyclic rate of the rifle (and lower gas pressures) meaning it would likely slow it down enough that it failed sooner than a 14.5" M4. There probably is no way to scientifically test this which is why I said in a perfect world. Because the M4 cycles more violently it should work a little better dirty vs. the M16.
I've experienced this with ammo. Some weaker ammo will not run some of my 20" ARs but will run great in my 16" ARs.
Pat_Rogers
08-07-07, 08:20
JMART- don't get wrapped around the axle over this reprot.
It has been stated by some SME's that it is deeply flawed. Also understand that PV2' s and L/Cpl's are not always the best to qualify and identify situations that occur in combat.
The mil testing in Jan 07 established what has been known for a long time- the guns run better wet then dry.
It is like saying a mil-spec 1911 is superior to a ed brown 1911 just because it is mil-spec.
Not necessarily true in the world of AR15s or 1911s, but an entertaining statement to me just the same.
What I realize now is that the people telling me all that stuff when I bought my rifle lo those many years ago were as ignorant as I was and didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about.
-John Wayne 777
As true a statement as can be. Same here.
Reading this thread reminds me why I like this site so much. It had every opportunity to implode, but knowledge was communicated and solidarity was maintained. Good show!
Not necessarily true in the world of AR15s or 1911s, but an entertaining statement to me just the same.
You'd be surprized how many people on a certain forum, believe,and will tell everyone that a stock Gi gun is superior to anything with "tactical bling" on it.
Bob
...."Soldiers firing weapons on the semi-automatic setting decreased the probability of experiencing a stoppage by half.".......
Makes you wonder if going to the 3 round burst was more of a 'reliabilty issue' more then the accuracy or wasting to much ammo issue.
On another note, one of my former employees stopped in the other day, he is Army, M1 tank driver, so is issued an M4. He will be doing a tour in Iraq in a month or so. We talked about the sandy conditions and what instructions he was given to maintain his weapon.
He said they issue CLP (I didn't get the brand) and to use plenty of it.....
Pat_Rogers
08-07-07, 18:02
There are generally 2 M4's in a tank. Unit SOP dicatates, and while some have loader and driver, others are TC and loader.
Very little room for an M4 rack in the drivers compartment...
Glad they are lubing though..
I can tell ya.. the TC and the Loader have them up top.. for "social" reasons... Driver is to busy driving ands the gunner has his own toy's...;)
I can tell ya.. the TC and the Loader have them up top.. for "social" reasons... Driver is to busy driving ands the gunner has his own toy's...;)
Yeah, an oversized Rem. 700. :D
...."Soldiers firing weapons on the semi-automatic setting decreased the probability of experiencing a stoppage by half.".......
Makes you wonder if going to the 3 round burst was more of a 'reliabilty issue' more then the accuracy or wasting to much ammo issue.
On another note, one of my former employees stopped in the other day, he is Army, M1 tank driver, so is issued an M4. He will be doing a tour in Iraq in a month or so. We talked about the sandy conditions and what instructions he was given to maintain his weapon.
He said they issue CLP (I didn't get the brand) and to use plenty of it.....
I was in the Corps when the turn over from A1 to A2 occurred. I can say I didn't notice any difference in reliability between the models. The 3 rd burst does help with accuracy. And I'll say it again, the only problems I've had with reliability were mag issues not the rifle.
I have a factory assembled RRA carbine lower, and they may not stake their castle nuts but they do love Red locktite, and they seem to locktite the trigger/hammer pins in too.
The castle nut was a bitch to get off (it's staked now), and I don't think the pins will walk or rotate out...
To me Mil-spec means it’s a spec I can follow when buying parts, and I know the parts will work with each other.
Although a commercial receiver extension seems to be more robust than the mil spec part.
I have a ton of respect for LMT parts now, I have a CMT BCG, and a LMT one, the LMT has proper staking of the gas key and the key is chrome lined, the CMT does not have either.
It’s the little things that make the difference IMO.
I\Although a commercial receiver extension seems to be more robust than the mil spec part.
The commercial tube is thicker but the threads are thinner therefore making it weaker. They use the commercial tubes as theyb are cheaper to make because of less machining.
Pat_Rogers
08-08-07, 09:00
To me Mil-spec means it’s a spec I can follow when buying parts, and I know the parts will work with each other.
Although a commercial receiver extension seems to be more robust than the mil spec part.
It’s the little things that make the difference IMO.
As Shihan points out, the opposite is true. Do a search here and you will find an explanation.
The commercial receiver extension was one of those short cuts that the commercial/ hobby makers took to cut corners.
It is one example of why just as good as, isn't.
PALADIN-hgwt
08-08-07, 09:40
xxxxx
JMART- don't get wrapped around the axle over this reprot.
It has been stated by some SME's that it is deeply flawed. Also understand that PV2' s and L/Cpl's are not always the best to qualify and identify situations that occur in combat.
The mil testing in Jan 07 established what has been known for a long time- the guns run better wet then dry.
As mentioned by Pat and others on this thread, this study like all studies has flaws. Often the people asking the questions don't know what they are asking when talking to less than technically knowledgeable operators/end users. However, it does provide some interesting data points that should be further explored. Unfortunately, the right expertise to pursue those points for more indepth analysis won't be contracted to do so. Thus, the study is what it is and nothing more.
S/F
As mentioned by Pat and others on this thread, this study like all studies has flaws. Often the people asking the questions don't know what they are asking when talking to less than technically knowledgeable operators/end users. However, it does provide some interesting data points that should be further explored. Unfortunately, the right expertise to pursue those points for more indepth analysis won't be contracted to do so. Thus, the study is what it is and nothing more.
S/F
That's pretty much what I figured when I read it. Without the ability to dig deeper it's just a data point without omplete context.
IIRC the old NRA booklet on the AR15/M16 had a story about Colt's M16 production, and how they tested the interchangability of their "mil-spec" production.
"The second test requires that the 10 weapons be disassembled and the resulting parts thoroughly mixed, randomly paired, and reassembled into 10 acceptably performing weapons."
I'd love to see how a weapon built using parts from a half a dozen tier 2 or 3 "milspec" aftermarket manufacturers would fare on a test like that. Oh wait, Mr. Rogers has already seen those results and reported them here...
Paladin
I would expect parts from different manufactures that were mixed to not work, even with some Colt mixed in. However if 10 RRA rifles (for instance) of the same model were taken down and the parts mixed up and reassembled and they did not work, that would be a huge problem.
I would expect parts from different manufactures that were mixed to not work, even with some Colt mixed in. However if 10 RRA rifles (for instance) of the same model were taken down and the parts mixed up and reassembled and they did not work, that would be a huge problem.
I thnk your point of the 10 RRA guns mixed and matched and then put together being a huge problem is probably something likely to happen as I dont think their QC is tight enough to ensure it happening.
I thnk your point of the 10 RRA guns mixed and matched and then put together being a huge problem is probably something likely to happen as I dont think their QC is tight enough to ensure it happening.
I'll have to try it with a BM then, I have one as does a shooting buddy. I'll only do it with parts that are accessible via normal field maintenance, e.g. down to the extractor. Of course that will not be the same as taking 10 guns and doing it.
If they don't work that would imply that every carbine/rifle from any of the 2nd/3rd tier makers produced would have to be hand fit to run.
I would fully expect it to not work if you mixed 2 or 3 each of Colts, BM, RRA, Armalite, DPMS etc. Which of course would not be valid comparison to doing the same "test" with all new M16A2s.
AR15barrels
08-09-07, 14:35
I would fully expect it to not work if you mixed 2 or 3 each of Colts, BM, RRA, Armalite, DPMS etc. Which of course would not be valid comparison to doing the same "test" with all new M16A2s.
I'd be willing to bet that you could take two Bushmaster, two Rock River, Two DPMS and Two Stag guns, put all the FCG internals in a big pile, build up the 8 guns again and they would all function fine.
I would fully expect it to not work if you mixed 2 or 3 each of Colts, BM, RRA, Armalite, DPMS etc.
Everything will work except the Colt and whatever guns wind up with the Colt parts. Not using standard FCG parts kinda takes them out of the running in any test like this.
Unless someone cares to take the individual mil spec parts out of an AR, lay them down individually and then explain specifically how each or some of these mil spec parts could be IMPROVED, its going to be difficult to argue against current mil spec standards.
I certainly don't have the time, inclination nor ability to do that...however, I would suspect that there are certainly ingredients that make up a mil spec part that can be made better....stronger, more reliable. If the .gov can improve on them, the private sector certainly can as well. And in the event the private sector (non-.gov contracted companies) release such a part...the mil spec is not automatically modified to accommodate that particular advance. A side by side of any parts in this question, and an educated analysis would be required before asserting mil spec is the lesser of the two INDIVIDUAL parts in question.
Unless that is actually done, and someone can definitively state "X" mil spec part would be BETTER if made with "Y" materials or "Z" manufacturing process....this discussion is relegated to somewhat ambiguous dialog.
The short of it:
Higher quality than mil spec standards define, in some cases of individual parts can and do exist in some cases. But unless rigid specifics and real world testing are completed, it would be damn hard to make a case against the current mil spec standards, as few have the time or ability to formally draw that conclusion.
Unless someone cares to take the individual mil spec parts out of an AR, lay them down individually and then explain specifically how each or some of these mil spec parts could be IMPROVED, its going to be difficult to argue against current mil spec standards.
I certainly don't have the time, inclination nor ability to do that...however, I would suspect that there are certainly ingredients that make up a mil spec part that can be made better....stronger, more reliable. If the .gov can improve on them, the private sector certainly can as well. And in the event the private sector (non-.gov contracted companies) release such a part...the mil spec is not automatically modified to accommodate that particular advance. A side by side of any parts in this question, and an educated analysis would be required before asserting mil spec is the lesser of the two INDIVIDUAL parts in question.
Unless that is actually done, and someone can definitively state "X" mil spec part would be BETTER if made with "Y" materials or "Z" manufacturing process....this discussion is relegated to somewhat ambiguous dialog.
The short of it:
Higher quality than mil spec standards define, in some cases of individual parts can and do exist in some cases. But unless rigid specifics and real world testing are completed, it would be damn hard to make a case against the current mil spec standards, as few have the time or ability to formally draw that conclusion.
Crane extractor kit?
LukeMacGillie
08-19-07, 14:50
Crane extractor kit?
A Modification made to specific weapons, being used in a specific manner. The Crane Extractor Upgrade is not common outside of military units that use M4A1's.
A Modification made to specific weapons, being used in a specific manner. The Crane Extractor Upgrade is not common outside of military units that use M4A1's.
Just one "better than mil-spec" part(s) that jumped into my head.
LukeMacGillie
08-19-07, 15:27
Im not sure Better is the way to put it, as the spring and insert are the same as what comes from the factory, and the O-ring is an addition. They come packed together since if your having issues, you might as well change out all the possible offending parts at the same time.
Pat_Rogers
08-19-07, 15:48
Low Drag- no, not "better then milspec". They- unlike the Marine Corps and big Army- understand that their people do a lot of shooting. When that happens, parts wear. The lit also includes bolt rings.
They know stuff wears- and they provide parts to prevent stoppagces- as opposed to waiting until failure to replace parts.
Low Drag- no, not "better then milspec". They- unlike the Marine Corps and big Army- understand that their people do a lot of shooting. When that happens, parts wear. The lit also includes bolt rings.
They know stuff wears- and they provide parts to prevent stoppagces- as opposed to waiting until failure to replace parts.
So those extractor upgrade kits I see are simply OEM replacements?
I get the whole PM of the weapon after a given number of rounds, it makes perfect sense. If you guys have a good scheduled maint. plan based on round count I'm a willing consumer!
So those extractor upgrade kits I see are simply OEM replacements?
I get the whole PM of the weapon after a given number of rounds, it makes perfect sense. If you guys have a good scheduled maint. plan based on round count I'm a willing consumer!
Yes on the OEM. I believe it also comes standard with the MK18.
Here is the schedule that I follow for PM's with SS springs and blue extractor insert:
Extractor Spring, extractor insert, gas rings and buffer spring: 3-5K
Here is the schedule I follow for CS springs and a black insert:
Extractor spring, extractor insert (black), buffer spring: 7-10K
At the 7K mark you should also be looking at your bolt for cracks and such and at the 10K mark, would just buy a new bolt and replace it.
This is what has worked for me and might not work for you so don't take what I am saying as the ONLY way to do it.
C4
I've got a part:
KAC E3 bolt ;)
Yes on the OEM. I believe it also comes standard with the MK18.
Here is the schedule that I follow for PM's with SS springs and blue extractor insert:
Extractor Spring, extractor insert, gas rings and buffer spring: 3-5K
Here is the schedule I follow for CS springs and a black insert:
Extractor spring, extractor insert (black), buffer spring: 7-10K
At the 7K mark you should also be looking at your bolt for cracks and such and at the 10K mark, would just buy a new bolt and replace it.
This is what has worked for me and might not work for you so don't take what I am saying as the ONLY way to do it.
C4
Thanks. That's simple enough for even for a knuckle dragger like me to follow. :p
Hell, you're talking about (after you have the black extractor spring kit) a whopping $80-$100 after 5-7K of ammo. (for springs and bolt) That's not bad at all for piece of mind.
How about the trigger group springs, is it a good idea to replace them on a schedule like the others?
EDIT: This section of the post should be made a sticky.
Possibly the most cogent and concise explanation yet posted.
agreed
Two more cents on this:
I have several years of experience as a SOF armorer.
In general, any gun that will have a high round count will benefit from MILSPEC constuction and parts.
Any 3-gun-action-shooter-guy will benefit from the best built gun he can get.
Nothing wrong with the weekend warrior getting into the fight with whatever he can afford. However, if you want a piece that is built to last then you will have to buy the good stuff.
In the great wide world there are better engineering standards than MILSPEC.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.