Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 97

Thread: Reason #674 to not buy a Bushmaster

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    31
    Feedback Score
    0
    The extra money you save is in no way worth the headache!

    PA
    "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    62
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 3ACR_Scout View Post
    Some of the low end AR manufacturers definitely have a great ad campaign going, even if it's often just word-of-mouth. I've run into a number of people in the military who bought a Bushmaster or Rock River and never even heard of BCM, LMT, DD, etc. I was talking with my brother-in-law a couple months ago - he bought an M&P with Magpul furniture a few years back, and he told me "but what I really want is a Bushmaster." I spent a few minutes trying to fill him in on better brands, but I'm not sure it sunk in. I'm not sure where people learn about these brands, but I think part of the name recognition unfortunately comes from news stories about incidents like Sandy Hook.

    Dave
    I would be perfectly content with an AWB that banned all BMs and nothing else. Maybe it would help eliminate stupid and all of the rednecks out there that talk about how great their 223 Remington BM AR-15 is...since metric is too much for them to understand.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,070
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveL View Post
    There are two ways to look at this:

    1. That would be a waste of perfectly good Crazy Glue and duct tape.

    2. Including Crazy Glue and duct tape in this purchase would double the value.
    Don't you know duct tape fixes everything???

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,904
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by streck View Post
    Advertising.

    In every gun magazine that never says a negative thing about the companies paying big money to advertise in their rags....

    Holy poop, is that real???

    I don't read gun mags anymore, unless a friend has written an article in one. Does Bushy really have that ad campaign about man cards?

    I guess calling it a "drooling moron card", while accurate, might offend their customer base.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wet Side of Washington
    Posts
    1,305
    Feedback Score
    0
    I remember that marketing campaign and from a marketing standpoint it's actually brilliant for appealing to the male buyer of an AR type rifle. I've found that people who buy rifles, pistols and gear from most gun rag ads aren't doing a lot of research and the flashiest ad gets their dollar. Look at the BCM ads in the back of SWAT magazine then compare it to the Bushmaster, Kimber and DPMS ads in the same magazine, pretty boring with just gear and prices.
    Reads a lot, posts little.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,904
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Yep, you are definitely right. But it does make me shake my head....

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    Possibly because one was designed from the start to be made from polymer...
    I keep seeing this repeated over & over again, but that's not why the Glock frame worked. A Glock frame works because there's still steel in it where needed. Glock engineers actually started with a steel frame design and removed metal from places it wasn't needed and left it in place where it was, then molded a polymer frame to hold the steel pieces in place. If someone would do the same with an AR receiver, it would work just as well
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hampton Roads, VA
    Posts
    254
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    A Glock frame works because there's still steel in it where needed.
    Where would that be, other than the frame rails and locking block area?
    Last edited by jondoe297; 10-02-13 at 08:59.
    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    334
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Glock engineers actually started with a steel frame design and removed metal from places it wasn't needed and left it in place where it was, then molded a polymer frame to hold the steel pieces in place.
    So, they took a M1911A1 pistol frame and removed metal from places it wasn't needed, and left it in place where it was, and huzzah, they created the G17?
    Because that's essentially the argument you continue to use. I was talking about taking Eugene Stoner's design which has used aluminum for 50 years, with a center-fire rifle cartridge, and trying to adapt it to use polymer. A rifle design, with a thin receiver extension attachment point which has a disturbing tendency to break on polymer rifles, as shown by the OPs picture.
    We're not talking about a pistol designed from scratch to incorporate polymer, using a pistol cartridge, with no receiver extension.
    There is a significant difference between adapting general handgun engineering theory into a brand new design using new materials, and making a carbon-copy of an existing rifle design using wildly different materials, regardless of whether you add steel reinforcement points.

    You're making a logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization", which states that because X is true for A, and X is true for B, then X must be true for Z, without accounting for significant differences between A/B and Z.

    Glock (A) and Smith & Wesson (B) frames successfully use polymer, therefor AR receivers (Z) can successfully use polymer. This does not logically follow.

    (PS: carbon-copy, get it?)
    Last edited by CrazyFingers; 10-02-13 at 10:54.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    1,084
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    I keep seeing this repeated over & over again, but that's not why the Glock frame worked. A Glock frame works because there's still steel in it where needed. Glock engineers actually started with a steel frame design and removed metal from places it wasn't needed and left it in place where it was, then molded a polymer frame to hold the steel pieces in place. If someone would do the same with an AR receiver, it would work just as well
    There must have been a LOT of chips on the floor after they milled away everything but four small rail sections.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
    Up men! Up! And to your posts! Let no man forget today that he is from Old Virginia! - General George Pickett

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •