Do you TRULY want a good AR-15 or do you want crap?

[Timjoebillybob]

HPT is a destructive test for non MIL-SPEC parts like barrel and bolt! After HPT comes MPI, which decides if the part met the spec, or was destroyed/didn't meet spec! If a company proof tests, they should also MPI according to MIL-STD-1949(a huge document outlining ALL the details of HPT/MPI testing). There are also other specs, and drawings that need to be referred to for EVERY part in the weapon system as to whether they meet spec or not. Moral of the story, HPT/proof testing is destructive to non-spec parts! Ok I lied again and was back...but, buy what you want, I will no longer offer advice, nor opinion on this subject, as there are many more eggsperts out there who've never even seen the actual MIL-SPEC for this particular family of weapon system.(even though it's available online). Hell, I'd go out on a limb and say most INGO builders don't know what the 23&P is?

That is not destructive testing. Again by definition in destructive testing the test part is destroyed. It literally means testing to destruction. Here are some examples. Destructive testing for pressure vessels may include pressurizing until rupture, or for cars how many hrs straight the engine can run before failure, or for rifles how many rounds it can fire before breakage, or shear strength for metal alloys. What you described is pass/fail testing.

 

[churchmouse]

Well, I see things are getting a bit edgy in here.
If we can not make our points with out sticking it to each other lets just not make them.

A lot of good info in here.
A lot of opinions as well.

 

[Trigger Time]

That's why the people postin facts are countering the opinioneers. This was supposed to be a facts thread but then people's feelings got hurt so it turned into a bs thread

 

[churchmouse]

That's why the people postin facts are countering the opinioneers. This was supposed to be a facts thread but then people's feelings got hurt so it turned into a bs thread

Yeah I see that.
Folks have a process. Some are driven by facts. Some by budget. Some both. We all defend our process.
Politics/religion/firearms........all 3 are tough to discuss sometimes.

 

[boman]

yes part of this is true. One of the owners of Anderson told me directly that they used to make colts receivers then they decided hey let's make our own.
But make no mistake. They made colts receivers to colts contract standards with the government. Andersons are not colts. Not even close.
Now anderson does have a couple different options. One is their receivers that claim to not need lube because of their proprietary coating. You're a sucker if you believe that. Also they cost a lot more

Anderson's contract was with Colt manufacturing(specifically the 6920/6940 series of rifles) so Colt's were not Colt's. what Colt manufacturing spec were/are I do not know. the difference between a new Anderson and one they made for Colt is only speculation on your part. Colt Defense has/had the m-4 contract. two different companies. Colt has been in financial trouble off and on and they split into a civilain division---Colt manufacturing---and a defense contractor---Colt Defense back in 2005/2008?? can't remember exactly when. Colt Defense just last year filed for bankruptcy although I believe they still have a yr or two on the m-4 contract. Fn just got the new one.

Steve

 

[Vigilant]

Anderson's contract was with Colt manufacturing(specifically the 6920/6940 series of rifles) so Colt's were not Colt's. what Colt manufacturing spec were/are I do not know. the difference between a new Anderson and one they made for Colt is only speculation on your part. Colt Defense has/had the m-4 contract. two different companies. Colt has been in financial trouble off and on and they split into a civilain division---Colt manufacturing---and a defense contractor---Colt Defense back in 2005/2008?? can't remember exactly when. Colt Defense just last year filed for bankruptcy although I believe they still have a yr or two on the m-4 contract. Fn just got the new one.

Steve

Colt Defense makes the 6920 as well, not just the military M4?

 

[boman]

I recently saw some Anderson uppers and lowers with the Cerra Keyhole stamp on them.
Apparently Anderson has someone else build them parts on occasion.

All manfacturers use either a forging or billet for upper or lower to start with---both of which have to be cut. here's an old list I cut/saved way back when that was posted on arfcom. It's out of date because neither Anderson or Aero are listed)as to who cuts for who, forge stampings etc. Anderson is a cutter/manufacturer.
My whole point in this discussion is don't get hung up on a brand name when buying a rifle, do your homework.

Steve



For all those of you out there who are wondering here are the facts. There are only a few actual companies that completely mill there own stuff and all the rest are subcontracted- period. I know because I am one of the actual machinists that mill the receivers and I Own the company. I have attached a list of who mills for who so you guys dont get confused.

LMT- mills for
Lauer, DS arms, PWA, Eagle, Armalite, Knights Armament, And Barrett

CMT- mills for
Stag, Rock River Arms, High standard, Noveski, Century, Global tactical, CLE, S & W, MGI, Wilson Tactical, Grenadier, Precision, Colt

LAR- mills for
Bushmaster, Ameetec, DPMS, CMMG, Double star, Fulton Armory, Spikes tactical

JVP- mills for
Double star, LRB

Mega Machine- mills for
GSE, Dalphon, POF, Alexander Arms

Olympic- mills for
SGW, Tromix, Palmetto, Dalphon, Frankford, Century

Sun devil was designed by TKS engeneering

Superior arms mills for superior.



UPPER Receiver Markings

A (splintered) = Anchor Harvey Aluminum
AF = Alcoa Forge
C AF = Colt Alco Forge
C MB = Colt / Mueller Brass
Cardinal (stylized) = Cardinal Forge
CH = Colt Harvey Aluminum
Circle/Crosshairs w/"AR" = ArmaLite
CK = Colt / Kaiser Aluminum
CM = Colt / Martin Marietta
D (stylized) = Diemaco
DK = Diemaco / Kaiser Aluminum
E = Emco
EK = EMCO/Kaiser
E MB = EMCO/Mueller Brass
F keyhole = FNMI / Cerro Forge
FA = FNMI / Anchor Harvey
FK = FNMI / Kaiser Aluminum
FM = FN/Martin Marietta
FMB = FNMI / Mueller Brass
Keyhole = Cerro Forge
L = Lewis Machine & Tool
LK = LAR / Kaiser Aluminum
LM = LAR / Martin Marietta
M (under diamond) = Mueller Industries
PA = Capco / Anchor Harvey
PM = Capco / Martin Marietta

 

[Trigger Time]

Anderson's contract was with Colt manufacturing(specifically the 6920/6940 series of rifles) so Colt's were not Colt's. what Colt manufacturing spec were/are I do not know. the difference between a new Anderson and one they made for Colt is only speculation on your part. Colt Defense has/had the m-4 contract. two different companies. Colt has been in financial trouble off and on and they split into a civilain division---Colt manufacturing---and a defense contractor---Colt Defense back in 2005/2008?? can't remember exactly when. Colt Defense just last year filed for bankruptcy although I believe they still have a yr or two on the m-4 contract. Fn just got the new one.

Steve

no it is not just speculation it's physically working on the guns and seeing the difference. Especially on out of speq lowers made by Anderson. Why are you copyin and pasting all of your posts here from other sites?

 

[boman]

Colt Defense makes the 6920 as well, not just the military M4?

Could be and would make sense. you're missing my point I think. Colt(Colt manufacturing), BCM, Rock River, PSA, Spikes, etc. etc. are all brand names, some more so than others, and I don't shop or judge the quality of a rifle on a brand name. Like I said---start with a quality (milspec if you want) and a quality (milspec if you want) bolt carrier group and go from there according to your budget.

Steve

 

[Trigger Time]

Could be and would make sense. you're missing my point I think. Colt(Colt manufacturing), BCM, Rock River, PSA, Spikes, etc. etc. are all brand names, some more so than others, and I don't shop or judge the quality of a rifle on a brand name. Like I said---start with a quality (milspec if you want) and a quality (milspec if you want) bolt carrier group and go from there according to your budget.

Steve

are all lowers and uppers made from the same aluminum? Take your time, I'll wait for you to search arfcom and other sites if you need to

 

[boman]

no it is not just speculation it's physically working on the guns and seeing the difference. Especially on out of speq lowers made by Anderson. Why are you copyin and pasting all of your posts here from other sites?

Your luck with Anderson has been different than mine and have you compared the lowers they made for Colt--could have been just as bad. I have assembled 6 Anderson lowers in the last 4 months (3 just in the last couple of weeks) and all were in perfect spec. In that same time I assembled 2 Stags and 4 Aeros' and they were also just fine.
You made the comment that i didn't know what i was talking about so I'm copying and pasting to show I have a knowledge base from published facts I have verified. not necessarily personal opinion. The only speculation on my part has been if BCM actually does their own testing/manufacturing and tests all their barrels. If they do that's fine but it doesn't justify the price in my opinion when I can buy the same quality else where. My opinoin based on facts and not advertising/marketing.



Steve

 

[boman]

are all lowers and uppers made from the same aluminum? Take your time, I'll wait for you to search arfcom and other sites if you need to

are you trying to make an argument or make a point?

Steve

 

[Trigger Time]

Your luck with Anderson has been different than mine and have you compared the lowers they made for Colt--could have been just as bad. I have assembled 6 Anderson lowers in the last 4 months (3 just in the last couple of weeks) and all were in perfect spec. In that same time I assembled 2 Stags and 4 Aeros' and they were also just fine.
You made the comment that i didn't know what i was talking about so I'm copying and pasting to show I have a knowledge base from published facts I have verified. not necessarily personal opinion. The only speculation on my part has been if BCM actually does their own testing/manufacturing and tests all their barrels. If they do that's fine but it doesn't justify the price in my opinion when I can buy the same quality else where. My opinoin based on facts and not advertising/marketing.



Steve

well you got a good batch I guess. I am an aero fan. I've only seen a couple issues with them. But seen issues with noveske and colt too. So **** happens. But I've seen many issues with Anderson after they became bombarded with demand after they because the lowest retailer for an AR lower. Some dealers even selling at or below costs to get people to buy other things with the lower. Quality slipped. Badly. Still even jn their prime their lowest value lower or full rifle rather can never compete with a BCM. Never. Sorry not gonna happen.
however I will state that the facts disprove your opinion on BCM being the same quality as others for the lower price. That's simply false and I'd be happy to be proved wrong on the range outdoors not only shooting them but also in speq comparisons to fit and finish. BCM has worked hard to build their reputation based on quality and not just false advertising.
It is my opinion that I can prove your opinion is wrong and do so based on facts that your facts are innacurate and also by introducing real facts in the form of testing.
and no im not trying to argue I'm trying to state with facts that you don't know what you are
talking about or are simply uneducated on the facts due to bad input.
My arguemebt isn't a personal one it is one pitting gun vs gun and facts based on those alone.

and believe me when I say I am a tight ass. Probably the biggest tight ass you'd ever meet when it comes to trying to squeeze a gold nugget out of an acorn. If it could be done I've tried it. But on some things there just is no substitution for the old saying you get what you pay for and if something is too low to be that good of a deal then It probably isn't the best deal. I've learned the hard way but also I've learned thankfully more off of others mistakes and fixing them for them hands on. And seeing and using good parts vs bad or just average parts. "Milspec" isn't a badge of excellence. It's the standard the govt set for the lowest bidder to achieve and many times the govt gets screwed. The low end Anderson rifle is not all mil-spec. BCM is milspec plus.
i am not a wordsmith like some on here or even in the gun industry. I'm simply a retired trigger puller that knows good and bad guns, I know how they should feel and look and act. Then when we start breaking them down I know what parts should be parkerized or chromed or not. Most people don't know what the "milspec" standard is for the section of barrel that is under their gas block that they probably will never see however one of the most important areas on an AR. Especially if it rusts and corrodes. Just for an example. Also what a true milspec bcg looks like compared to one that is a "premium" whatever that means. And a lot of people that just claim the only difference in their gun is the roll mark don't know what the differences in metal types and qualities mean for them.
also a forging mark will not tell you what metal was used. So I don't care if it has the same forging mark as a colt minus the "c", it deffinately does not mean it's the same quality as a colt upper or lower receiver for example. Most bad knowledge starts with people putting a bad opinion out on the internet and then it gets repeated several thousand times until it becomes internet law or something. That doesn't make it fact. It's still just an opinion unless it was based on facts to begin with.
That gentlemen was the whole point of this thread. Fact vs opinion of people who aren't in the know or opinion of people who are tight and want to believe their hard earned money they spent bought them the "best" rifle. I'm not debating the best rifle for individual uses. I'm debating the best rifle based on what is delivered for the money spent on it. The facts of what materials is put into said rifle and the specs those materials conform to. It's really a thread based on facts that somehow turned into who got butt hurt the most.
Like I said, if your cheaper rifle serves YOUR purpose then you got your money's worth and I'm happy for you.
A rifle running and running has nothing, nothing to do with what quality or specs that rifle is or was made to meet.

so I've tried my hardest to understand some opinions in this thread and some I get. Others I might have to stand on my head and not shower for a couple days to understand and still might not but still even if I did it's not about opinion. So in my last post in my own thread I hope I've finaly made that clear. Facts vs facts is what this thread was always about. And those don't come from opinions they come from tests and material specs and build specs. Period

 

[Vigilant]

Could be and would make sense. you're missing my point I think. Colt(Colt manufacturing), BCM, Rock River, PSA, Spikes, etc. etc. are all brand names, some more so than others, and I don't shop or judge the quality of a rifle on a brand name. Like I said---start with a quality (milspec if you want) and a quality (milspec if you want) bolt carrier group and go from there according to your budget.

Steve

In essence, I do not disagree with you on the brand name thing, the DIFFERENCE in the BRANDS, is the spec they hold the actual forge to! Receivers, as well as small parts are made by several different places for ALL the BRANDS. When you actually put together a few hundred, or more, you WILL notice the difference between them! I can have a barstool I buy off the internet that was made in CHINA shipped to my door by Sunday for $50 including shipping. I can also get that VERY SAME factory to make a barstool that LOOKS the same, but built to MY specs, shipped to me a few days later. That one will cost me $100 plus shipping. Prove all you want about there are only a few places that make the actual product, but PROVE me wrong, that there aren't different specs the BRANDS hold their suppliers to? My argument t, or position, is, that parts, no matter from whence they came are NOT parts. BCM, LMT, Noveske, Colt, etc. etc. ad nauseum ALL have a QC spec, and the aforementioned manufacturers in general, HOLD the suppliers to that spec! The bargain basement, cheap Charlie companies want whatever they can get the fastest and cheapest, as do the last several years of buyers.

 

[KG1]

I would agree that there are well established companies of which whom demand better quality spec parts that they choose to put their name on and the price reflects that and then there are others that are looking to cash in with less for quantity consumption. It's up to the individual consumer to do the research and make the choice.

 

[Fordtough25]

Speaking of good at parts, I'm trying to decide between a Colt socom 14.5" upper or a bcm socom 14.5" upper. What say you? It's going on a Colt 6920 lower. I can't decide!!!

 

[Vigilant]

Speaking of good at parts, I'm trying to decide between a Colt socom 14.5" upper or a bcm socom 14.5" upper. What say you? It's going on a Colt 6920 lower. I can't decide!!!

Either would be an excellent choice, I would choose Colt, because you already have a Colt lower, and no other reason. The BCM will serve you fine as well

 

[Expat]

Either would be an excellent choice, I would choose Colt, because you already have a Colt lower, and no other reason. The BCM will serve you fine as well

Pretty much this. I would like the matching set personally.

 

[Ggreen]

I like turtles

 

[Expat]

I like turtles

The candy... yes, they are tasty. There is a candy shop in town that makes the most excellent ones, the Olympia Candy Kitchen.