Please let me know who that someone is. I know it isn't us and to insinuate that Paul (owner of BCM) would do such a thing, tells me that your village is looking for you.
C4
Printable View
how do i give spikes a bad name. i own a spikes m4 and a bcm m16 clone. and if you call any manufacture that is worth a grain of salt they will produce so called tech documents. guess i pissed the fan boys off
How? You made a technical thread (about educating the consumer) into a pissing match between two AR manufacturers!
The definition of a fan boy is one that goes into a thread (that is not a comparison thread) and attempts to push their favorite brand.
In case you did not realize it, that would be you.
C4
guys i want to apologize for my comments. i was and am misinformed and the lack of me being able to put into words what im thinking makes me look and feel like an ass. i apologize to who i offended, and to grant for making ASSumptions. this is the qoute from grant that made me realize he wasnt about just bashing a product,
Originally Posted by SuppressingFire
I have to say that after the amount of pages this thread took up, I'm extremely disappointed there is no conclusive proof to support anyones point here. Grant, I appreciate your latest message but if the barrel did not do well during testing, I think you are obligated to let us know so nobody makes a mistake and purchases an inferior or dangerous product. At this point I don't care about the debate, I just want to know if the materials are quality and as claimed. I say this because obviously throughout this thread people have purchased products from this company regardless of not knowing what was what. I appologize for putting you on the spot, I just really want to know if I should look elsewhere to buy my next AR.
I understand your POV, but I ask that you understand where I am coming from. The MIL-B-11595E spec (for instance) has something like 40 different requirements. So if the barrel steel lines up with the compounds spec'd out, it might fail the other 39. The fight would never end and a winner would never be identified. It is a lose lose situation for all parties involved.
Let me state the following for you. Would I take a ST AR over 80% of what is on the market? Yep, sure would. Is buying a ST AR going to put you in danger? NO.
Buy a ST product because you like the company, their CS, their pricing or how they build their products. If you have questions about how they are building their AR's, call them and ask them for the certs, specs or whatever will satisfy you. I am responsible for me and my company. Not for Tom and his company. So no, I am not obligated to anyone for anything (sorry).
i really thought you were being unbiased but after reading 60 some pages i really think you are speking from experience
Disregard; PM's inbound.
ETA: PMs traded. My issue was getting hung-up on Colt's M4 TDP, the many that erroneously claim to have it, and worse the ones who might call attention to the significance of M197 being the only option. We see and submit variance requests/approvals all the time at our shop but even when granted do not typically make a permanent change to the formal spec. My point was that for Colt's M4 data pack, you won't see such a variance. Just because a military contractor has been granted one for another platform doesn't change the as-specified requirement. Likewise, it doesn't mean the variance is somehow inferior or less significant, it's just another option. Besides, when it comes to proof rounds I'm partial to Black Hills any damn way.
As I mentioned to Paul, and hopefully he won't mind me repeating here, his professionalism, service, and reputation mean so much more than simple documents offered to pacify the naysayers. It's just that the tiny details, when not presented accurately, can cause credibility issues even when there's no need.
I have no idea what you're talking about concerning SBRs but I'd be happy to discuss theory anytime, just not in this thread. Send me a link via PM and we can discuss in the relevant place.
ETA: SBR Thread https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=3637 regarding legal comments from 4(!) years ago (well before ATF consolidated rulings/opinions on their website), along with my knowledge base explained via PM.
To answer Austin_Nichols question, the answer is simple. One of the current .Mil Contract holders does NOT use the M197 load. There is variant that is allowed. This is why BCM does not use it either.
C4
The real issue here isn't technical. Some people simply refuse to believe that the time and effort people like Paul at Bravo Co. put into their product will ever manifest itself. We can talk about performance all day long and they'll just rationalize or stick fingers in their ears.