DaBigBR
05-03-11, 20:25
I'm a LEO and firearms instructor for my agency. This past weekend we hosted a basic patrol rifle school. Students shot somewhere in the area of 800 or 900 rounds of 5.56 over two days.
There were a total of six students with the following rifles:
-Colt 6920 (x2, plus mine)
-RRA Entry Tactical (x2)
-Daniel Defense (forget which variant)
-Superior Arms
All rifles were 16" M4 style models in various configurations. All performed well (including the RRAs) with the exception of the Superior Arms model. I wanted to give everyone some background and information should they ever find themselves considering a rifle from Superior.
Prior to this school I provided a pre-course lecture to give the students information on selecting a rifle. This was essentially an explanation of key components of the TDP (those from "The Chart"), their meaning, and their importance. I suggested seeking rifles from Colt, BCM, DD, or LMT. One RRA, one 6920, and the DD were already owned by the officers. The remainder were purchased after receiving the information in the lecture.
Superior Arms is a manufacturer based out of Wapello, Iowa and is relatively popular in this area. The officer that bought the Superior Arms rifle is originally from very near their operation and knows several of their people. I detected very early on that he would not buy anything else and did what I could to investigate their product. Emails to their LE rep inquiring about their TDP compliance were not returned. The officer who ultimately bought one of their rifles took my list of questions directly to them and finally got a response.
Their response was at the same time encouraging and suspicious. In specific regards they provided good answers and appeared to be complying with the TDP. In every way that they weren't, they stated that they were able to, but also provided a reason why it was not necessary. They stated that there was "no noticeable difference" between a CAR and H buffer, that chrome lining was "not worth the money", that a 1:7" twist "would not work with 55gr ammunition", and that they did not MPI/HPT their bolts or barrels, but could do so for an additional charge. When it came time to order, our officer ordered a basic M4 style rifle and quickly found out that the 1:7" chrome lined barrel was not available. Superior offered to sell him an 11.5" barrel, which puzzles me, since Class III is pretty much a no-go in this state, and they should know that. He settled for a 1:9" chrome lined.
Fast forward to the arrival of the rifle and our classroom day before the range. Our guy has purchased a single point sling and replacement rear plate, which he needs installed. It took a hammer and punch to get the takedown pin opened. It wasn't because it was a new rifle, it was because it was so far out of spec it wasn't even funny. Next, it took three people to loosen the castle nut, which we found was NOT staked, but was very cross-threaded. After finally getting the gun back together, it seemed to hold up during dry drills (loading, stoppages, etc). The mag well was in spec, which I gather is not always the case with Superior Arms' products. About half of the other Superior Arms lowers I have seen had mag wells far enough out of spec that they would not accept PMAGs.
Now on to our two days at the range...
We started with zeroing. We found that the rear sight elevation wheel was improperly assembled so that the wheel bottomed out at 6/3 minus two clicks. This was not encouraging. At 25 yards, we ended up with the rear windage approximately 20 clicks right to make center hits. This was verified with at least two additional shooters trying the rifle. We at least got it to where the shooter could consistently hit where intended and we got him qualified (state course is all 100 yards).
On day two, we found that the zero had walked significantly overnight. Our first course of fire was a simple 50yd bullseye course to get everybody dialed in to their sights and triggers. This shooter ended up moving his windage to the wall and was still several inches off. Due to the range size and configuration, we actually had to stop the class for half an hour to investigate. I first verified that I got the same results. I did. Next, I removed the POS UTG picatinny light mount that Superior Arms had provided for the officer's TLR-1. This particular mount clamps to the barrel via four small screws. I suspected that the design was possibly affecting barrel harmonics. After removing the light mount and recentering the windage (mechanical zero) I found that I was hitting in about the same place as I had been with the windage walled out and the light mount on. We re-zeroed it and found that we were about 18 clicks right. The rifle stayed zeroed for the remainder of the day and the shooter was instructed to take the rifle back to the manufacturer and to force them to make it right.
One other random concern: Superior Arms provided a quadrail on the rifle that was among the roughest, most poorly assembled I have ever seen. I advised against buying it, but the shooter elected to do so anyway. Supposedly this item is built by Superior Arms as well.
So in summary, our shooter got a shoddily assembled, out of spec rifle. In addition to the problems with the rifle, the accessories sold by the manufacturer were unimpressive (UTG? Seriously!?!?). he paid somewhere in the $800 range for the gun. Another shooter managed to snag a very lightly used 6920 for $950.
Just wanted to post an experience with this manufacturer. Approach with caution.
There were a total of six students with the following rifles:
-Colt 6920 (x2, plus mine)
-RRA Entry Tactical (x2)
-Daniel Defense (forget which variant)
-Superior Arms
All rifles were 16" M4 style models in various configurations. All performed well (including the RRAs) with the exception of the Superior Arms model. I wanted to give everyone some background and information should they ever find themselves considering a rifle from Superior.
Prior to this school I provided a pre-course lecture to give the students information on selecting a rifle. This was essentially an explanation of key components of the TDP (those from "The Chart"), their meaning, and their importance. I suggested seeking rifles from Colt, BCM, DD, or LMT. One RRA, one 6920, and the DD were already owned by the officers. The remainder were purchased after receiving the information in the lecture.
Superior Arms is a manufacturer based out of Wapello, Iowa and is relatively popular in this area. The officer that bought the Superior Arms rifle is originally from very near their operation and knows several of their people. I detected very early on that he would not buy anything else and did what I could to investigate their product. Emails to their LE rep inquiring about their TDP compliance were not returned. The officer who ultimately bought one of their rifles took my list of questions directly to them and finally got a response.
Their response was at the same time encouraging and suspicious. In specific regards they provided good answers and appeared to be complying with the TDP. In every way that they weren't, they stated that they were able to, but also provided a reason why it was not necessary. They stated that there was "no noticeable difference" between a CAR and H buffer, that chrome lining was "not worth the money", that a 1:7" twist "would not work with 55gr ammunition", and that they did not MPI/HPT their bolts or barrels, but could do so for an additional charge. When it came time to order, our officer ordered a basic M4 style rifle and quickly found out that the 1:7" chrome lined barrel was not available. Superior offered to sell him an 11.5" barrel, which puzzles me, since Class III is pretty much a no-go in this state, and they should know that. He settled for a 1:9" chrome lined.
Fast forward to the arrival of the rifle and our classroom day before the range. Our guy has purchased a single point sling and replacement rear plate, which he needs installed. It took a hammer and punch to get the takedown pin opened. It wasn't because it was a new rifle, it was because it was so far out of spec it wasn't even funny. Next, it took three people to loosen the castle nut, which we found was NOT staked, but was very cross-threaded. After finally getting the gun back together, it seemed to hold up during dry drills (loading, stoppages, etc). The mag well was in spec, which I gather is not always the case with Superior Arms' products. About half of the other Superior Arms lowers I have seen had mag wells far enough out of spec that they would not accept PMAGs.
Now on to our two days at the range...
We started with zeroing. We found that the rear sight elevation wheel was improperly assembled so that the wheel bottomed out at 6/3 minus two clicks. This was not encouraging. At 25 yards, we ended up with the rear windage approximately 20 clicks right to make center hits. This was verified with at least two additional shooters trying the rifle. We at least got it to where the shooter could consistently hit where intended and we got him qualified (state course is all 100 yards).
On day two, we found that the zero had walked significantly overnight. Our first course of fire was a simple 50yd bullseye course to get everybody dialed in to their sights and triggers. This shooter ended up moving his windage to the wall and was still several inches off. Due to the range size and configuration, we actually had to stop the class for half an hour to investigate. I first verified that I got the same results. I did. Next, I removed the POS UTG picatinny light mount that Superior Arms had provided for the officer's TLR-1. This particular mount clamps to the barrel via four small screws. I suspected that the design was possibly affecting barrel harmonics. After removing the light mount and recentering the windage (mechanical zero) I found that I was hitting in about the same place as I had been with the windage walled out and the light mount on. We re-zeroed it and found that we were about 18 clicks right. The rifle stayed zeroed for the remainder of the day and the shooter was instructed to take the rifle back to the manufacturer and to force them to make it right.
One other random concern: Superior Arms provided a quadrail on the rifle that was among the roughest, most poorly assembled I have ever seen. I advised against buying it, but the shooter elected to do so anyway. Supposedly this item is built by Superior Arms as well.
So in summary, our shooter got a shoddily assembled, out of spec rifle. In addition to the problems with the rifle, the accessories sold by the manufacturer were unimpressive (UTG? Seriously!?!?). he paid somewhere in the $800 range for the gun. Another shooter managed to snag a very lightly used 6920 for $950.
Just wanted to post an experience with this manufacturer. Approach with caution.