Page 11 of 42 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 416

Thread: Status of NEW Comparison Chart of Commercial M4-pattern carbines

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    940
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Salad0892 View Post
    Rob?

    Are you still surveying for basic M4 pattern (IE: Colt 6920/21) carbines, or ''speciality carbines'' as well?

    IE: Next Generation Arms X7, SR-15, LMT MRP, etc.

    I will assume that piston carbines will be excluded due to lack of true milspec.
    Without a TDP against them and all their proprietary components, adding carbines that are not M4-pattern would muddy the waters quite substantially.
    "I have your number. Consider yourself warned."

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVAN View Post
    I think a two year hiatus should be about right. If anyone else would like to join Lawdog, please let me know. I'm here all week.

    You are in for a long night. You might want to scan the forum.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,547
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sabrefan View Post
    For the love of God Man!!!! What are you trying to do, get banned for life! Piston carbines!!!! WTF is wrogn (wrong, sorry i've been drinking) Dammit man, come to the light, come to the light, come to the light. You know, BTW, Piston carbines are not Mil-Spec, right????

    I Hate Pistons. Really. Please. I don't know this guy. I'll be good. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell NO!!!!
    I'm going to go out on a limb and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being sarcastic because I'm praying you're not that stupid

    That being said, whether stupid or sarcastic you need to remember that this is a tech forum so let's keep goofy bullshit to a minimum. This is not your first post of this nature and it is getting old.
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    19
    Feedback Score
    0
    I can understand a bit of humor, but the last thing anyone needs is a DI/piston debate....again.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Merry Hill, NC
    Posts
    98
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I am very thankful for the chart. When I first came across the chart I had just sold my only AR. I was looking at getting another AR and I wanted I better AR than what I had. I used the chart as a baseline to start with then started doing my research. I decided on the kind of set-up I wanted then went through the brands until I found a AR that fit my criteria. If it wasn't for the chart it would of taken me a lot longer to make my decision than it did. I could of also come up with a different AR than I did as well.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I started this thread to:
    1. Keep people updated on the progress of the new version
    2. Get feedback on my theory that the Chart fosters laziness
    3. Get an idea of how people have used the Chart to help themselves or others



    I have really enjoyed most of the discussion. However, if our recent influx of Romper Room members can't keep their fingers in their butts or mouths where they spend 99% of their time then I'll ask that it be locked and go about my business privately.

    The research on the Chart is progressing, and more and more manufacturers are coming into the fold by answering the questionnaire. Generally speaking I am leaning towards re-publishing when it is done (the Consumer Reports example a few pages back was the most compelling argument for that, BTW). But this thread doesn't need to exist for that to happen. Hopefully if it continues to get out of hand a benevolent mod will sanitize it rather than nuke it.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,861
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I have two more that returned my emails now.

    That makes the total so far:
    6 respondents
    3 pending
    2 no-replies

    I'll have to seek out better contacts at Bushmaster and DSA, although with the upheaval I'm not sure what to expect from the former.
    Hope you don't mind me re-posting, but
    ...as far as accountability, are you posting the specific source or have any credential requirements? I know I have been given false information from CS reps, often out of ignorance (most notable Sig CS telling me their red dots have a "bulb" with a life span much shorter than the battery...)

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal24k View Post
    Hope you don't mind me re-posting, but
    ...as far as accountability, are you posting the specific source or have any credential requirements? I know I have been given false information from CS reps, often out of ignorance (most notable Sig CS telling me their red dots have a "bulb" with a life span much shorter than the battery...)
    It's a valid concern.

    so far all of the respondents are either presidents/CEOs/owners or very well vetted. In the case of some of the pending responses, the CS guy that thought he could answer the question has had to go find someone else (which to me indicates we're asking the right questions).

    All respondents are required to enter their name, email address, and company title. This information is for my use only, and will not be publicly shared. It is both for record-keeping and vetting as well as covering my own ass later on when someone at one company or another doesn't like the answers his person gave.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,861
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Thanks for the reply, sounds like you are taking a great approach.

    I think the fact that Presidients/CEOs/Owners/etc are answering questions it says a lot about the company and about you (the guy getting the answers).





    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    It's a valid concern.

    so far all of the respondents are either presidents/CEOs/owners or very well vetted. In the case of some of the pending responses, the CS guy that thought he could answer the question has had to go find someone else (which to me indicates we're asking the right questions).

    All respondents are required to enter their name, email address, and company title. This information is for my use only, and will not be publicly shared. It is both for record-keeping and vetting as well as covering my own ass later on when someone at one company or another doesn't like the answers his person gave.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal24k View Post
    Hope you don't mind me re-posting, but
    ...as far as accountability, are you posting the specific source or have any credential requirements? I know I have been given false information from CS reps, often out of ignorance (most notable Sig CS telling me their red dots have a "bulb" with a life span much shorter than the battery...)
    This is a valid concern and one that I have expressed to Rob before.

    My concern isn't that a company will INTENTIONALLY lie, but that they will UNINTENTIONALLY lie. WTF does that mean you ask?

    Scenario for you. Company A orders barrels from a barrel manufacturer. They ask for barrels that meet the 11595E spec set forth by the US Govt. They get their barrels and list them as CMV. What they actually get is 4150 ORD. The CMV is a harder steel and is considered the best of the three steel options.

    When comparing company A to company B, it would appear that they are the same quality, but are not. Did company A intend to mislead the consumer? No. Did they still do it? Yes.

    There are also MANY loopholes with the whole HPT/MPI process that most companies just have no idea about, but list that the items as being done.

    While the chart will give you guidelines to follow, it is still up to the consumer to do their own research. There are some indications that you can key in on to figure out who is telling the truth and who isn't. One of the big ones would be cost. The AR market is HIGHLY competitive and no one wants to be the most expensive one. So if one company says that they sell a product equivalent to Colt, but is priced like a DPMS, that is what is known as a CLUE! There is no way for them to do that, make money and still turn out the same product.

    Don't be afraid to contact manufacturers and ask for proof that they do what they claim! If you do not know what questions to ask or what to look for, please read this thread: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 03-08-11 at 10:16.

Page 11 of 42 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •