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 129 of 140 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 1399

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

  1. #1281
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    I think if a manufacturer makes a claim they should have a means to provide proof. It's actually quite simple.

    Can't provide proof then don't make claim.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  2. #1282
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    In addition to what gotm4 stated. I could give a rats ass less. I don't buy their stuff nor do I recommend it. If someone else wants to do so, that is their prerogative. You seem to have a liking for them so why don't you ask them to put their money where their mouth is?

    Quote Originally Posted by justin_247 View Post
    Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sue them for false advertising?



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  3. #1283
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    I think if a manufacturer makes a claim they should have a means to provide proof. It's actually quite simple.

    Can't provide proof then don't make claim.
    I don't disagree, but Spike's is not the only manufacturer claiming certain barrel steel and testing, but there seems to be no hue and cry about any of the other manufacturers. Even if they are just batch testing, shouldn't we be then asking for their documentation as well? Shouldn't we be sending off barrel sections for testing for all the makers?
    (FWIW I started to try to do this but it gets complicated, and expensive, pretty quickly, and as Grant discovered all it really does is open up the door to more bullshit)

    And since the criteria for rejection of the MPI matters as much as whether or not they do it (or HPT), we'd need to see quite a bit of documentation I would think. And from there you run into the question of who's really qualified to read, understand, and interpret the documentation.

  4. #1284
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I don't disagree, but Spike's is not the only manufacturer claiming certain barrel steel and testing, but there seems to be no hue and cry about any of the other manufacturers. Even if they are just batch testing, shouldn't we be then asking for their documentation as well? Shouldn't we be sending off barrel sections for testing for all the makers?
    (FWIW I started to try to do this but it gets complicated, and expensive, pretty quickly, and as Grant discovered all it really does is open up the door to more bullshit)

    And since the criteria for rejection of the MPI matters as much as whether or not they do it (or HPT), we'd need to see quite a bit of documentation I would think. And from there you run into the question of who's really qualified to read, understand, and interpret the documentation.
    Yes if any manufacturer makes a claim they should be able to provide proof.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  5. #1285
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    I think if a manufacturer makes a claim they should have a means to provide proof. It's actually quite simple.

    Can't provide proof then don't make claim.
    I tend to side with Rob_S a bit here, we accept some manufacturers word, we should pass the same courtesy along to others, the issue becomes the pricing. When many mfg's prices are in line with each other for a complete carbine, we can conclude that they are competitively priced as they offer the exact same features. If someone comes along $200 under that price offering the same, a responsible customer should be skeptical. Dare I say that is a clue?

    I do however think it was stated very well when it was said, a few times here actually, that for $800 you are gonna have a hard time finding a gun much better. People just fail to keep perspective about their purchases. We all become attached to gear, even the most sound minds will.


    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    Yes if any manufacturer makes a claim they should be able to provide proof.
    While having the opinion that we can give some courtesy, I do know that I will have to have a damned good reason to not getting my next upper from a company who has backed their claims publicly.
    Last edited by orionz06; 08-12-10 at 07:11.

  6. #1286
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    While having the opinion that we can give some courtesy, I do know that I will have to have a damned good reason to not getting my next upper from a company who has backed their claims publicly.
    Good choice, most of my ARs are from that manufacturer.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  7. #1287
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    Let this serve as a WARNING Justin. The ice you're on is very thin.

    M4C is not here to sue companies and such. We're here to share knowledge and help inform consumers.
    I stand informed, however Iraqgunz should be similarly warned that he is spreading disinformation and accusing a company of illegal activities, of which he has absolutely no proof. If he has any modicum of decency, he will apologize.

  8. #1288
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    In addition to what gotm4 stated. I could give a rats ass less. I don't buy their stuff nor do I recommend it. If someone else wants to do so, that is their prerogative. You seem to have a liking for them so why don't you ask them to put their money where their mouth is?
    I only have lower receivers from Spike's and I have made no claims that they are superior to BCM, DD, Noveske, etc. You have absolutely no knowledge of their operations so all you are doing here is alleging illegal activities of which you have no proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I don't disagree, but Spike's is not the only manufacturer claiming certain barrel steel and testing, but there seems to be no hue and cry about any of the other manufacturers. Even if they are just batch testing, shouldn't we be then asking for their documentation as well? Shouldn't we be sending off barrel sections for testing for all the makers?
    (FWIW I started to try to do this but it gets complicated, and expensive, pretty quickly, and as Grant discovered all it really does is open up the door to more bullshit)

    And since the criteria for rejection of the MPI matters as much as whether or not they do it (or HPT), we'd need to see quite a bit of documentation I would think. And from there you run into the question of who's really qualified to read, understand, and interpret the documentation.
    I agree with these remarks 100%.

    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    I tend to side with Rob_S a bit here, we accept some manufacturers word, we should pass the same courtesy along to others, the issue becomes the pricing. When many mfg's prices are in line with each other for a complete carbine, we can conclude that they are competitively priced as they offer the exact same features. If someone comes along $200 under that price offering the same, a responsible customer should be skeptical. Dare I say that is a clue?
    No, this says nothing. If you look at Spike's regular ST-15 that sells for $999, you'll see it has a Daniel Defense barrel. For all ends and means, it has the same specs as the Daniel Defense XV and sells for around the same price. So obviously when they're using other vendors parts they're coming out to the same price as the said vendor. The only question at this point is how do they keep the cost of their own barrels down... obviously cutting HP testing from it has saved some money and perhaps using the DPMS parts kits saved a bit more, as well.
    Last edited by justin_247; 08-12-10 at 09:45.

  9. #1289
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by justin_247 View Post
    No, this says nothing. If you look at Spike's regular ST-15 that sells for $999, you'll see it has a Daniel Defense barrel. For all ends and means, it has the same specs as the Daniel Defense XV and sells for around the same price. So obviously when they're using other vendors parts they're coming out to the same price as the said vendor. The only question at this point is how do they keep the cost of their own barrels down... obviously cutting HP testing from it has saved some money and perhaps using the DPMS parts kits saved a bit more, as well.
    Their $800 is the topic of discussion, as at the $999 mark with the CHF DD barrel you are not getting a tested bolt either. Their $800 gun is the one in question, and you are correct on cutting out the HP and 2nd MPI is the reason for a reduction in price. But you then see the dilemma of adding a costly process and not increasing the price.

  10. #1290
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    Their $800 is the topic of discussion, as at the $999 mark with the CHF DD barrel you are not getting a tested bolt either. Their $800 gun is the one in question, and you are correct on cutting out the HP and 2nd MPI is the reason for a reduction in price. But you then see the dilemma of adding a costly process and not increasing the price.
    So you're actually getting an inferior gun for more money if you buy the ST-15 M4 as compared to a DDXV. Nice...

    There's no question that once they start MP testing their ST-15 M4LE model the price is going to have to go up, unless they decide to take a loss to get a better foothold on the market.

Page 129 of 140 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139 ... 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
  •