View Poll Results: Spike's or BCM?

Voters
509. You may not vote on this poll
  • Spike's

    115 22.59%
  • BCM

    346 67.98%
  • Other

    48 9.43%
Page 109 of 140 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1399

Thread: Official Spikes questions/comments thread (new Spikes posts go here)

  1. #1081
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nolacopusmc View Post
    You are correct in your assessment, but did it ever occur to you that I did not perceive or experience anything negative?

    The gun was run for about 2300 rounds during 6 days of training. there was one malfunction that quite honestly was more do to the lack of cleaning and the ammo used in my opinion....but I noted it.

    As far as the 22...again, I noted the failures and the one design flaw I personally perceived.

    Sooooo, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that nothing negative was said, given at least 3 separate incidents were noted.

    Was I supposed to just make something negative up so that there was something negative said? Sorry, I just do not work that way.

    The gun ran great. Everyone that shot it liked it. Sorry it did not meet your expectations of failure.

    As far as not cleaning....nothing scientific, I just like to see to what level a gun can foul before it starts experiencing malfunctions. My personal belief is that a fighting rifle should be able to eat any ammo available in it's caliber for at least 1k rounds with no issues. Not that most of us using a rifle for fighting would let it go to that level, it is a mild form of a torture test.

    I am more general use guy than a get down into the technical specifics of the metalurgy and such on firearms reviews. The technical aspect to that degree is not my strong suit admittedly.

    I wasn't talking about the .22LR. I think everyone knows or should know they are extremely hard to get reliable results with given the wide variety of ammo out there, and there is some real junk .22 ammo.

    Speaking of ammo do you think Colt and FN military contract guns are not fighting rifle worthy because they are unreliable with some ammo. There is a VERY good reason why US troops are not allowed to use British ammo in combat loads because their ammo is not made to our specifications, and causes malfunctions. Its training use only. I think a better validation of this should be that the gun should be able to fire ammo it was designed to use. Operating a gun outside of its design envelope doesn't really prove anything.

    I'd also like to mention many commercial makers are putting huge gas ports in their barrels so people can run low quality ammunition, and not encounter short-stroking. I don't know where this flawed quasi standard came about that an AR should be able to eat the shittiest of ammo, and still function fine makes for a quality gun came out. What happens when you shoot mil-spec pressure ammo is you get increased recoil, and quicker wear on the gun. Granted a proper sized gas port should still do ok with .223 spec ammo I wouldn't take it as a sure bet just like US mil is not allowed to use lower pressure NATO ammo from other countries like the UK because its unreliable for combat use. I shot a ton of that stuff up in Kuwait during our pre-Iraq training, and we didn't have too many issues with it but its still an issue.

    I think operating the gun dry falls into the same category of operating a gun outside of its design, and I wouldn't call a gun that malfunctions because its dry a bad gun. Just like I wouldn't go take a car for a test drive, drain the fluids, and then say its a shitty car because I got a mile down the road and the engine seized. Again the mil has done extensive tests, and guns should be operated wet. The TM also calls for lubrication to be used.

    If getting into the technicalities of a gun is over your head I think you should have mentioned that. I have a hard time taking a professional review seriously if the reviewer doesn't understand the technical aspects of an AR/M4/M16. Im no expert, and don't claim to be but Im not out there giving professional opinions on products, either. There are tons of people out there for whom their pinky fingers have forgotten more about guns than Ill ever know.

    Don't take any of this personally. Just asking questions, and maybe you can take something away with a new perspective. This board is dedicated to the technical aspects of firearms, and getting to the truth of issues not glossing over critical aspects in manufacturing, and calling it good.

  2. #1082
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    102
    Feedback Score
    0
    Here's my view on the issue (not that many care I'm sure). If prices were equal, I would still take Colt or BCM over Spikes. Colt has been doing it for a very long time at a higher volume than anyone else, have proven specific standards, and have proven themselves countless times. BCM, while newer to the scene, has shown repeatedly that they have a nearly unparalleled commitment to quality and have been proven to run by some of the top men in the industry.

    With that being said, Spikes seems to be making a high quality rifle for an unbelievable low price. Time will tell how well they hold up and some of this will be sorted out when the certifications are posted along with them HPT testing their bolts. I recently bought one of their rifles myself to test out and so far it's doing extremely well. Admittedly I only have a little more than 800 rounds down range in the last two months but will have a minimum of another 3k through it this summer.

    People who say that Spikes is equal to BCM and Colt are jumping the gun way too fast and until Spikes proves itself over the next years, it can't be taken seriously. However, they are making a hell of a rifle at their price point and one that I would take in a heartbeat over anything else in it's price range (DPMS, Delton, RRA, Busmaster, Stag, etc). For someone new to ARs, I don't see a better deal. They can have very good quality without having to break the bank in the process. The vast majority of AR owners are range plinkers (nothing wrong with that) and would be well served to save some money for ammo/accessories without having to sacrifice much on quality. My Noveskes, Colt, BCM, and KACs are my primarily rifles but I have no problem purchasing or recommending Spikes.
    Last edited by Jeep297; 06-17-10 at 20:32.

  3. #1083
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    167
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont31R View Post
    I wasn't talking about the .22LR. I think everyone knows or should know they are extremely hard to get reliable results with given the wide variety of ammo out there, and there is some real junk .22 ammo.

    Speaking of ammo do you think Colt and FN military contract guns are not fighting rifle worthy because they are unreliable with some ammo. There is a VERY good reason why US troops are not allowed to use British ammo in combat loads because their ammo is not made to our specifications, and causes malfunctions. Its training use only. I think a better validation of this should be that the gun should be able to fire ammo it was designed to use. Operating a gun outside of its design envelope doesn't really prove anything.

    I'd also like to mention many commercial makers are putting huge gas ports in their barrels so people can run low quality ammunition, and not encounter short-stroking. I don't know where this flawed quasi standard came about that an AR should be able to eat the shittiest of ammo, and still function fine makes for a quality gun came out. What happens when you shoot mil-spec pressure ammo is you get increased recoil, and quicker wear on the gun. Granted a proper sized gas port should still do ok with .223 spec ammo I wouldn't take it as a sure bet just like US mil is not allowed to use lower pressure NATO ammo from other countries like the UK because its unreliable for combat use. I shot a ton of that stuff up in Kuwait during our pre-Iraq training, and we didn't have too many issues with it but its still an issue.

    I think operating the gun dry falls into the same category of operating a gun outside of its design, and I wouldn't call a gun that malfunctions because its dry a bad gun. Just like I wouldn't go take a car for a test drive, drain the fluids, and then say its a shitty car because I got a mile down the road and the engine seized. Again the mil has done extensive tests, and guns should be operated wet. The TM also calls for lubrication to be used.

    If getting into the technicalities of a gun is over your head I think you should have mentioned that. I have a hard time taking a professional review seriously if the reviewer doesn't understand the technical aspects of an AR/M4/M16. Im no expert, and don't claim to be but Im not out there giving professional opinions on products, either. There are tons of people out there for whom their pinky fingers have forgotten more about guns than Ill ever know.

    Don't take any of this personally. Just asking questions, and maybe you can take something away with a new perspective. This board is dedicated to the technical aspects of firearms, and getting to the truth of issues not glossing over critical aspects in manufacturing, and calling it good.
    Alright man, you obviously missed the point of everything I posted. Suffice it to say we will not agree on this since you are way out in left field on this, and perhaps I did not illustrate my point as sufficiently and specifically enough...my bad.

    If my review does not hold water with you, then so be it. You obviously are not able to see the review for what it is. It is not an all encompassing expose on the intricacies on every nut and bolt on the rifle. It is not an engineering breakdown, so your backhanded comment about my technical knowledge while wrong, baseless, and without merit, is not in keeping with the spirit of my original statement. I am not an engineer or metakurgist, so I do not argue the intricate details of those topics. The video was intended for the average end user.

    It is a report of my experience and opinions of that particular rifle as seen during my personal firing and witnessing others firing it. Also confirmed during the approximately additional 600 rounds fired over two days in Vicker's class.

    As the saying goes...YMMV.

    As far as the ammo thing goes, I understand your point, but once again, you missed the boat. All your talk of gas ports and manufactured ammunition is nice, but at the end of the day, military guys have rifles and ammo issued to them, so your point while technically accurate is moot to the topic at hand.

    I, Me, Brannon LeBouef, the guy who did the video and gave HIS opinion, which obviously means nothing to you, believes that a fighting carbine (perhaps I should have qualified with the statement non-military issued) should be able to reliably fire most ammunition available.

    Reason being, like I experienced during Katrina, you will not always have Black Hills or Hornady TAP to run through your Rolex rifle, so IN MY OPINION, I want MY rifles, and I feel it is a good standard for most of the audience who will be viewing my video, for rifles used for defense and patrol to be able to fire a variety of ammo. It is kinda the same logic that makes the AK platform so popular. If you want a race gun, buy one. I want a workhorse. To each their own.

    Once again, with the lube thing, if you do not agree, no hurt feelings. And I am pretty sure I did not fault the gun for having ONE MALFUNCTION that was ammo related after 1300 plus rounds of steel case lacquered ammo with no lube. I think it is more a testament to the positive for the gun and what it is capable of under harsh conditions.

    Don't take any of this personally. Maybe you can take something away from this with a new perspective.

    I do appreciate your input, but it appears no matter what I say, you will find something to retort with. Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but this is the second time you make references to things that simply were not in the video, making me question if you even watched the whole thing.

    I have no desire to get into a pissing match with anyone over this. I do solicit and welcome advice on the video itself, but nothing I put in the video was untrue and nothing noteworthy was omitted....so I stand by my review.

    Thanks again for the comments.

  4. #1084
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nolacopusmc View Post
    Alright man, you obviously missed the point of everything I posted. Suffice it to say we will not agree on this since you are way out in left field on this, and perhaps I did not illustrate my point as sufficiently and specifically enough...my bad.

    If my review does not hold water with you, then so be it. You obviously are not able to see the review for what it is. It is not an all encompassing expose on the intricacies on every nut and bolt on the rifle. It is not an engineering breakdown, so your backhanded comment about my technical knowledge while wrong, baseless, and without merit, is not in keeping with the spirit of my original statement. I am not an engineer or metakurgist, so I do not argue the intricate details of those topics. The video was intended for the average end user.

    It is a report of my experience and opinions of that particular rifle as seen during my personal firing and witnessing others firing it. Also confirmed during the approximately additional 600 rounds fired over two days in Vicker's class.

    As the saying goes...YMMV.

    As far as the ammo thing goes, I understand your point, but once again, you missed the boat. All your talk of gas ports and manufactured ammunition is nice, but at the end of the day, military guys have rifles and ammo issued to them, so your point while technically accurate is moot to the topic at hand.

    I, Me, Brannon LeBouef, the guy who did the video and gave HIS opinion, which obviously means nothing to you, believes that a fighting carbine (perhaps I should have qualified with the statement non-military issued) should be able to reliably fire most ammunition available.

    Reason being, like I experienced during Katrina, you will not always have Black Hills or Hornady TAP to run through your Rolex rifle, so IN MY OPINION, I want MY rifles, and I feel it is a good standard for most of the audience who will be viewing my video, for rifles used for defense and patrol to be able to fire a variety of ammo. It is kinda the same logic that makes the AK platform so popular. If you want a race gun, buy one. I want a workhorse. To each their own.

    Once again, with the lube thing, if you do not agree, no hurt feelings. And I am pretty sure I did not fault the gun for having ONE MALFUNCTION that was ammo related after 1300 plus rounds of steel case lacquered ammo with no lube. I think it is more a testament to the positive for the gun and what it is capable of under harsh conditions.

    Don't take any of this personally. Maybe you can take something away from this with a new perspective.

    I do appreciate your input, but it appears no matter what I say, you will find something to retort with. Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but this is the second time you make references to things that simply were not in the video, making me question if you even watched the whole thing.

    I have no desire to get into a pissing match with anyone over this. I do solicit and welcome advice on the video itself, but nothing I put in the video was untrue and nothing noteworthy was omitted....so I stand by my review.

    Thanks again for the comments.

    I don't think many people here would disagree with me that the technical aspects of a gun are important, if not more important than a rather short exposure to a gun. This isn't TOS, and technical aspects are taken much more seriously here than there. You chose to gloss over that in your review, and call Spikes good to go for anything including military service omitting the fact they are not tested to military specifications.


    RE the ammo. Take the SR15 for instance, and they were designed and tuned to run with M855 ammo. I guess people didn't understand this or something when they bought the gun. They then whined and cried to KAC because they were having issues shooting weak ammo. What makes that gun so controllable in rapid fire, and so tame in recoil is the properly tuned gas port, and gas system length. So KAC had to open up the gas port to accommodate these people who were shooting the gun outside of its design envelope. The people who shoot mil spec pressure ammo out of their guns then suffer lower performance because some people feel the need to feed their gun low quality ammo.

    I train with cheaper stuff the same as anyone else but Im not going to blame the gun if it has an issue with it. All my go to ammo is 5.56 pressure stuff. If I have to "battlefield pickup" weak ammo Im pretty confident my guns will run it. They are just not tuned to run that ammo like commercial guns with oversize gas ports. Being issued ammo or not makes no difference since we all have access to same ammo. NATO troops often work close together in combat situations, and I think the odds of cross sharing ammo is more likely to occur in that situation than relying on a pickup during a hurricane.


    We're here to discuss shit right? Its only a pissing match if you let it be that way. I don't know about you but Im here to talk guns, and different aspects about them. If I want to get into a pissing match Ill go tell my wife she looks like she gained a few pounds.

  5. #1085
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpiper View Post
    Yeah, when will we be seeing that review? It's been several weeks now since you visited their shop and ran a class with one of their carbines. I have really been looking foward to seeing it.
    It will be coming out in an upcoming publication. Can't give the milk away for free or nobody will buy the cow.

  6. #1086
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    167
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont31R View Post
    I don't think many people here would disagree with me that the technical aspects of a gun are important, if not more important than a rather short exposure to a gun. This isn't TOS, and technical aspects are taken much more seriously here than there. You chose to gloss over that in your review, and call Spikes good to go for anything including military service omitting the fact they are not tested to military specifications.


    RE the ammo. Take the SR15 for instance, and they were designed and tuned to run with M855 ammo. I guess people didn't understand this or something when they bought the gun. They then whined and cried to KAC because they were having issues shooting weak ammo. What makes that gun so controllable in rapid fire, and so tame in recoil is the properly tuned gas port, and gas system length. So KAC had to open up the gas port to accommodate these people who were shooting the gun outside of its design envelope. The people who shoot mil spec pressure ammo out of their guns then suffer lower performance because some people feel the need to feed their gun low quality ammo.

    I train with cheaper stuff the same as anyone else but Im not going to blame the gun if it has an issue with it. All my go to ammo is 5.56 pressure stuff. If I have to "battlefield pickup" weak ammo Im pretty confident my guns will run it. They are just not tuned to run that ammo like commercial guns with oversize gas ports. Being issued ammo or not makes no difference since we all have access to same ammo. NATO troops often work close together in combat situations, and I think the odds of cross sharing ammo is more likely to occur in that situation than relying on a pickup during a hurricane.


    We're here to discuss shit right? Its only a pissing match if you let it be that way. I don't know about you but Im here to talk guns, and different aspects about them. If I want to get into a pissing match Ill go tell my wife she looks like she gained a few pounds.
    LOL. Fair enough.

  7. #1087
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nolacopusmc View Post
    I can definitely appreciate that logic. I disagree though that it necessarily creates a bias. I believe that depends on the integrity of the reviewer; although I can definitely agree it makes the slope a little more slippery.

    I am very clear and state upfront in no uncertain terms my intentions before embarking on these reviews. I have spoken with several people who do this professionally, and that was the one common piece of advice to maintain integrity.
    and I think that every single one of them I've come across has lost, at least a little bit, some of that integrity. It is impossible not to, and it eventually comes across in everything that they write.

    I firmly and absolutely believe that it causes, at least to some extent, a bias.

    I am also aware that this opinion is entirely unpopular with those that are benefiting from these kinds of arrangements. I consider this a clue.

  8. #1088
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nolacopusmc View Post
    As far as the ammo thing goes, I understand your point, but once again, you missed the boat. All your talk of gas ports and manufactured ammunition is nice, but at the end of the day, military guys have rifles and ammo issued to them, so your point while technically accurate is moot to the topic at hand.

    I, Me, Brannon LeBouef, the guy who did the video and gave HIS opinion, which obviously means nothing to you, believes that a fighting carbine (perhaps I should have qualified with the statement non-military issued) should be able to reliably fire most ammunition available.

    Reason being, like I experienced during Katrina, you will not always have Black Hills or Hornady TAP to run through your Rolex rifle, so IN MY OPINION, I want MY rifles, and I feel it is a good standard for most of the audience who will be viewing my video, for rifles used for defense and patrol to be able to fire a variety of ammo. It is kinda the same logic that makes the AK platform so popular. If you want a race gun, buy one. I want a workhorse. To each their own.
    I am quoting this because I'll want to revisit it once my article is out. I agree with you, but wonder what you would be saying if your free gun didn't meet this standard.

  9. #1089
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    167
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I am quoting this because I'll want to revisit it once my article is out. I agree with you, but wonder what you would be saying if your free gun didn't meet this standard.
    Alright, that is the second post in a row where you make a backhand comment appearing to slight my character and/or integrity. Seeing as how you do not know me, and I am pretty sure your non-free rifle will or has met similar results, I do not understand why you are doing this.

    For the record, if it did not meet that standard, I would say so. Unless you have credible information about my integrity, please refrain from calling it into question. It is completely uncalled for.

  10. #1090
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Think of it how you will. I haven't watched your video. Does it start out with "Spike's gave me a free gun and this is my video about it"?

    This is my issue. Being someone who also does what you're trying to do with reviews it's a major sticking point for me, not just with you but with many others in the internet gear review "business".
    Last edited by rob_s; 06-17-10 at 21:46.

Page 109 of 140 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... 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
  •