Status of NEW Comparison Chart of Commercial M4-pattern carbines

[The Cat]

But couldn't a manufacturer just lie, and say they individually test each barrel when it isn't something they do on a consistent basis?

That's a great question - BM's batch-testing barrels but marking them all MP comes to mind.

[MistoGators]

I'm waiting on it like a kid on Christmas morning...

[txpatriot]

Thanks for all your hard work on this chart.
i would like to see Spikes on the chart also if you can

[BufordTJustice]

Too cool. Thank you for the hard work, Rob.

[SeriousStudent]

Thank you, Rob. I am looking forward to reading it, and the associated notes.

[Whootsinator]

Awesome Rob, I can't wait to see the new stuff. I don't think it will really change much, but it will be interesting and great to read. Thank you for all the hours you've put it into your chart.

[rob_s]

i would like to see XYZ123 on the chart also if you can

I edited out the name of the company because that is not the point here. FWIW, the company you did ask about is already on the new Chart.

But here's the thing...

I don't understand these types of posts AT ALL. I never understood them before, and I still don't understand them now. Why do people lobby for this brand or that brand to be on the Chart? I only see three possible reasons.

The requester already owns one and wants to validate their purchase. This is not the purpose of the Chart, and is in fact counter to everything the Chart is supposed to be about. It's also juvenile, and pathetic.
The requester has an axe to grind with the requested manufacturer, and thinks that including them will expose their poor stats. Again, counter to everything the Chart is supposed to be about, and even more juvenile and pathetic.
The requester is considering making a purchase from said manufacturer and wants the scoop. While understandable, why doesn't the requester simply examine a sample for the obvious, and ask questions of the manufacturer about the less obvious?

I just have a quick question; I apologize if this has been answered in the past.

How do you ensure that the information being giving to you is accurate? Things like feed ramps, staking, etc. is pretty obvious just by looking at them. But couldn't a manufacturer just lie, and say they individually test each barrel when it isn't something they do on a consistent basis?

This is always a very real concern. I think that one thing the interweb drama that we've observed over the last few months shows that people are not unwilling to press the issues when they think someone is lying. Essentially this is how the old Chart worked, but in reverse, on perhaps concurrently. Last time around the process began by polling the user group and asking for photos, documentation, experiences, etc. The information from those like Grant and Robb who see a large quantity of guns on the retail side, and trainers like Pat Rogers who sees a large quantity of guns on the training side, were invaluable.

What we have this time around is an opportunity for the manufacturers to tell their side of the story first. I absolutely expect them to be honest, but I also absolutely expect the community to virtually lynch anyone they suspect of lying. The reverse of this process worked reasonably well last time around and I have no reason to think it won't work this way, this time.

Trust, but verify.

[TOrrock]

Trust, but verify.

Damn, I miss that old man.


Good job Rob, looking forward to seeing the revamped chart.

Thanks for your hard work.

[txpatriot]

Sorry Rob.
I was not trying to stir a hornests nest.
I love this site. and appreciate your hard work.

[rob_s]

Sorry Rob.
I was not trying to stir a hornests nest.
I love this site. and appreciate your hard work.

It's no problem, I'm just trying (again) to understand those kinds of requests. They happen more often than many may think, and I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding them or what. I just latched on to your post as an opportunity to try and see if anyone could give me some insight into this.