AR-15s - Armalite vs Bushmaster vs Rock River Arms


PDA






Anthony
December 22, 2005, 01:51 PM
Hello Everyone,

Looking to buy another AR-15, but I haven't been in the market for over a decade. So I have little experience with the current brands beyond Colt, but I have narrowed my choice down to three companies.

Who makes the best AR-15 for "serious social purposes"? Armalite? Bushmaster? Rock River Arms?

Why did you pick the company you did?

Thanks for the input.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15s - Armalite vs Bushmaster vs Rock River Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnRov
December 22, 2005, 03:14 PM
Hello Everyone,

Looking to buy another AR-15, but I haven't been in the market for over a decade. So I have little experience with the current brands beyond Colt, but I have narrowed my choice down to three companies.

Who makes the best AR-15 for "serious social purposes"? Armalite? Bushmaster? Rock River Arms?

Why did you pick the company you did?

Thanks for the input.

I am buying a RRA on the recommendation of my brother-in-law. He's a full-time SWAT officer and highly recommnded them over every other brand in that price range based on his experience and feedback from his peers.

dakotasin
December 22, 2005, 04:03 PM
armalite is good folks w/ quality products. that's why i went armalite.

Father Knows Best
December 22, 2005, 04:06 PM
What about Colt?

Bartholomew Roberts
December 22, 2005, 04:19 PM
All three companies make mostly quality products with the occasional lemon. The best way to buy ARs is to decide on what options you want on the rifle and then buy from the company that offers you most of those options. If more than one company offers those options, then you can start comparing specific models or just go with the lowest bidder.

poortrader
December 22, 2005, 04:33 PM
I just got a RRA Entry Tactical. I think that RRA has the best options for the prices. Check out the 2 stage national match trigger that comes standard with the RRA's.

Mulliga
December 22, 2005, 04:33 PM
I voted Bushmaster because I've had good experiences with mine. I wouldn't hesitate to use any of those brands for self-defense - like Bartholomew Roberts said, it's way, WAY more important to make sure the AR you eventually do get works (that is, isn't a lemon) than it is to quibble about which brand or what neat whiz-bang feature your AR has.

GoRon
December 22, 2005, 09:03 PM
Done with Rock River Arms (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=38&t=148813)

I vote Bushmaster. While I love my RRA my next complete rifle will be a Bushy.

The above thread is from the industry forum at ARFCOM. It was surprising how many people chimed in with negative comments. The RRA employee that moderates the RRA forum shut it down so it wouldn't turn into a "thirteen page flamefest".
Before I made the post I didn't think you could find enough people unhappy with RRA to fill two pages.

Of course there are plenty of people complaining about every brand so YMMV.

DMK
December 22, 2005, 11:06 PM
I think Bushmaster makes a great rifle. I love their barrels and built two homebuilt ARs around Bushy barrels. However, I like RRA's trigger components better than Bushmaster. The receivers themselves and furniture are equal, but Bushmaster's are overpriced. I'd buy a Bushmaster upper, an RRA bolt assembly, an RRA lower and put them together.

longhorngunman
December 22, 2005, 11:06 PM
RRA all the way! BTW I stop at Arfcom a lot and hardly ever hear anything bad about RRA. Sounds to me a bunch of snakes and pony worshippers are trying to gang up on the new kid on the block.:p And yes you probably won't go wrong with any of them unless it says Hesse on it.

colt.45
December 23, 2005, 12:23 AM
i dont know but what about colt, my dad has one and it is pretty cool. on the other hand you could get a bushmaster CAR-15 from academy for $800, that is a steal and in the future i will probably get one.

Onslaught
December 23, 2005, 12:47 AM
I've owned all three.

Bushmaster has the best barrels with the most options. You can get TRUE M4, HBAR, fluted, and superlight, 11.5", 14.5", 16", 20", and 24", all chrome lined.

RRA only has Bull, HBAR and HBAR with m4 cutout. Chrome lining is available on a couple of barrels, but at a higher cost than a comparable Bushmaster. RRA does however offer mid-length, while Bushmaster does not. I have a RRA chrome lined mid-length, but it was so heavy I had to have it profiled and fluted to get down the weight.

I only owned one Armalite, and it was used. It's also the only AR I've ever had malfunction. But like I said, it was used, and it was the only Armalite I've ever owned, so I'm not saying Armalite is going to malfunction any more frequently than the other two. I will say that fit and finish were VERY nice. Armalite barrels are chrome lined, but they offer the LEAST barrel options. Basically either 16" or 20" in a medium-light profile, or 24" heavy.

Choose the one that offers what you want most, and be confident that all three should serve you very well.

chopinbloc
December 23, 2005, 02:02 AM
i own three ars one is all colt one is armalite lower with stag upper (okay, it's really my lady's) and one is bushy lower and rra upper. i think all three companies offer quality products but i think the rra is priced most closely to what it's worth. as above, they offer more options. my rra upper is VERY accurate for a standard 16" car style but it took forever to get it. i had to wait about 60 days or so to get it where the stag arms upper took less than a week. all in all, i went rra.

chakup
December 23, 2005, 02:17 PM
I have a bushy correnlty and am building up an RRA varminter. I'm impressed so far with the RRA lower I have and future purchases will try to stay with RRA.

MechAg94
December 23, 2005, 03:09 PM
I have an Armalite flat top. I like it a lot. Shoots good for me. I recently picked up a RRA rail mount with irons to sit my EOTech on. The only trouble I ever had with it was with crappy ammo I got at a gun show in little plastic bags. I thought it would make good break in ammo to blow through, but a few of them came apart on me. One got a little piece of brass stuck in the bolt. I found it eats Wolf ammo fine so I don't need to buy that crap anymore. The only thing I don't like is I bought it during the AWB and it has no bayonet lug.

My Dad has a Colt sp1 carbine. It is a good little gun also.

BushyGuy
May 15, 2009, 07:23 PM
i have a Bushmaster XM15 11.5" hbar with 5.5" flash hider , its a very accurate rifle i fired 300 rounds thru it so far not one jam ,i want to buy another Bushmaster with a longer barrel for longer range maybe next year after i stock up on some more ammo.

ramis
May 15, 2009, 08:42 PM
Holy zombie thread batman!

marineman
May 15, 2009, 08:59 PM
Roll the die. You will not be disappointed with any of the choices you have listed. They are all solid and accurate choices. I like RRA because you can have RRA customize them for you. The Bushmasters are inexpensive, but shoot just as well if not better than higher priced competitors. The Armalites are just as good as RRA and Bushmaster. I have shot all three and have no complaints.

People will claim that one type of AR is superior to another type. That may be true about a specific item such as fit and finish, accuracy, etc. However, AR's are all of the same basic design and will perform the same task regardless of whether it is an Armalite, Bushmaster, or RRA. The hundereds of dollars that separate certain AR's from another are not justified. Most problems associated with AR's are ammo, magazine, or cleaning related, not because one make is any inferior to another.

FlyinBryan
May 16, 2009, 12:32 AM
ya, prolly pretty much what marine said.

i cant speak for armalite because ive never messed with one.

i think bushmasters prolly have a little better barrels, and rra prolly has a little better triggers.

i think both can be fantastic rifles.

ive only owned bushmaster and colt.

the colt was a model 6700c and the bushmasters are 16" hbar models.

i will say it again. i actually like my bushmasters better than i liked my colt. i get blasted sometimes for saying the bushys i have are better rifles than the colt i had but i swear its the truth.

there is a chart that suggests some things on them are under par like the gas key staking so i posted this poll to see what people thought about it without telling anyone immediatly that is was a bushmaster and you can see the results for yourself.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=446662

i think the explanations of the shortcomings of models like bushmaster, rra, dpms, and others sometimes go a bit overboard.

cant speak for the others but my bushys are true m.o.a. accurate. they each have almost 8000 rounds with absolutely zero malfunctions of any kind (is that "ak reliable?",,,dont know but it cant get any better than zero probs)

despite being called an idiot, if i were to buy another ar, it would be a bushmaster, and it wouldnt matter if i had 1000 bux to spend, or 3000, its just the one i would buy, if mine keep running like they do.


like marine said, they are all 3 good rifles.

sarduy
May 16, 2009, 12:55 AM
i voted RRA because...

1. you didn't have CMMG as an Option
2. i only have experience with CMMG
3. if i had to make a choice between those three... i would pic a RRA (the other are just as good)

UnTainted
May 16, 2009, 03:12 AM
totally armalite for me

Eschaton
May 16, 2009, 03:46 AM
Everyone else has extolled the virtues of Bushmaster already, so I'll just say why I bought it.

It was the easiest one for me to afford :p

longdayjake
May 16, 2009, 07:25 AM
I said RRA. I happen do disagree with those claiming that bushmaster has a better barrel. The wylde chamber in the RRA is a sweet feature. Though they may be a heavier barrel, we all know that heavier barrels maintain POI longer than thinner barrels durning extended firings. My RRA can maintain 1" groups with 20 rounds. Plus midlengths are cooler than carbines. ;)

Mr. Bojangles
May 16, 2009, 07:36 AM
It's kind of like asking what color you want your new Corvette to be. You really can't go wrong with any of these choices. I do love my Bushmaster. :evil:

kwelz
May 16, 2009, 10:03 AM
None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

Javelin
May 16, 2009, 10:08 AM
All are good rifles and will serve you well. But of those three the Armalite is going to be on average a better product. If you look at the machining, fit, and finish is just going to be a little better. Before you buy go ahead and hold and get the feel of all three before purchasing. As far as accuracy they will all probably be about the same with the 16" chrome lined barrels.

None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"


Not sure what Serious Social Work is exactly..... but you don't need a Colt or Noveske to have a seriously reliable firearm. Of course a Noveske would be my ideal build..... LOL

I own five ARs, everything from DPMS to Noveske and will contest that Armalite builds a solid carbine:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=288&pictureid=1333

:)

vanfunk
May 16, 2009, 11:01 AM
I have owned examples of all three brands and wouldn't favor any one over the others. If this is going to be a "range" gun, then buy the first one you find with the features you want, at the price you can tolerate. For duty or defense, I'd recommend other brands.

vanfunk

Glockman17366
May 16, 2009, 11:55 AM
I looked at a Stag (only AR builder to make a LH rifle), Bushmaster and RRA. The RRA was of a higher quality fit and finish compared to the Stag (at that time, although I'd heard nothing but good things about Stag rifles). The Bushy was a used rifle and I don't have any good reason for selecting the RRA over the Bushy.
I went with the RRA (an Entry Tactical) and have been quite happy with it. So, I can recommend RRA. But all AR builder make a decent quality rifle.

None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

I'm not sure why this statement was made, unless it's gun snobbery. There are some folks who push some manufacturers because the rifles are built and tested "mil-spec". Mil-spec doesn't mean better built or more durable. I've worked in Quality Assurance/Control for 30 years and dealt with mil-specs for quite a while. Most folks have no clue what mil-spec entails...but manufacturers using claims of being mil-spec in their advertisements have caught some rifle buyers as the Holy Grail. Then, the manufacturers charge a higher price some and some buyers pay that price. That's the buyers' choice, of course.

Anyway, any AR will work quite well for any "social" work one can imagine or envision. Of course, virtually any rifle will fulfill that function in capable hands.
And, yes, I've handled and shot Colts. First AR I looked at was a Colt Sporter Hbar in the mid-1980's. It was a real jam-o-matic (so I gave up the idea of an AR for a few years). Colt has a name and had a heritage at one time. Before the 1994 AWB, they were not the civilian gun owners' friend. The owner of Colt (at that time...he's long gone) was one of those pushing for the AWB. Decent rifles? Probably...but not worth the extra money demanded for them.

JohnBT
May 16, 2009, 12:17 PM
This poll was posted in 2005.

JT

kwelz
May 16, 2009, 12:18 PM
It has nothing to do with Gun Snobbery. It has to do with using the right tools for the right job.
The abovre Rifles are fine for the range, etc.

Serious Social work to me however means S.W.A.T./S.O.R.T./Military/etc. And this is what the OP asked about.

And for those you are going to want to use a firearm that has good QC, is tested properly, etc.

I would want a gun that is in Spec and meets at least the minimum requirements set forward by military if I have any chance of using that firearm in an actual combat setting. RRA, BM, etc do not meet the minimum requirements, Period.

JohnBT, I just saw that! One hell of a thread Rez!

10-Ring
May 16, 2009, 01:09 PM
I voted RRA because I can't get the other 2 in my state :(

FlyinBryan
May 16, 2009, 10:05 PM
And, yes, I've handled and shot Colts. First AR I looked at was a Colt Sporter Hbar in the mid-1980's. It was a real jam-o-matic

actually, the first ar i owned was a colt model 6700. i wouldnt say it was a jam-o-matic, but it did malfunction 5-6 times in the time i owned it.

that was probably a half dozen or so jams in about 2500-3000 rounds.

i sold the rifle back in about 2005 and bought a bushmaster.

about 3000 rounds into that rifle, and absolutely zero malfunctions, i bought another ar (guess what kind?)

now both are at apprx. 8000 rounds and the malfunction count between the two totals exactly zero. and i mean 0 stops of any kind.

i just cant see holding out for "mil-spec" when it has been proven to me by the hardware itself that the term means nothing from a reliability stand point.

i can understand listening to reason and logic when it comes to the advantages of "mil spec" components, but i just cant ignore what ive learned from the rifles themselves.

(and they dont even speak english)

p.s. i am not saying that bushmaster is better than armalite or dpms, because ive never owned one, but its a more accurate, more reliable rifle than my mil spec colt was.

(if more reliable can be defined as less malfunctions, being zero vs not zero, and more accurate if that can be defined as smaller groups)

A-FIXER
May 17, 2009, 12:27 AM
I go where I spend my ben's I got a smith & wesson so far zero in all my shooting and do like the feed ramp grooves and chromed line barrel downside only a 1 yr warranty so I see how it goe's later down the road...

bkb0000
May 17, 2009, 04:00 AM
thank you, azizza... wholly ****in ****, privates- nobody is gonna actually help this guy out?

all three of those brands are what you call "home-owner models." none are for "serious" anything.

if you're looking for professional grade, you gotta go Colt, LMT, Noveske for the best, with BCM and Sabre closing fast and CMMG as a bare minimum.

bkb0000
May 17, 2009, 04:03 AM
This poll was posted in 2005.

JT

hahahaha... we all look dumb now. my argument still stands, however.

BIGRETIC
May 17, 2009, 04:39 AM
Old thread I know....but I own a Bushie and it's very reliable...with brass case ammo!I do have a 6920(which I have not shot yet) but the BM has done well so far!

Glockman17366
May 17, 2009, 08:19 AM
thank you, azizza... wholly ****in ****, privates- nobody is gonna actually help this guy out?

all three of those brands are what you call "home-owner models." none are for "serious" anything.

if you're looking for professional grade, you gotta go Colt, LMT, Noveske for the best, with BCM and Sabre closing fast and CMMG as a bare minimum.

RRA sells to the DEA....does that make them "professional grade"?

And, remember, contracts from government agencies most frequently go to the lowest bidder which may or may not be the best quality.

txgolfer45
May 17, 2009, 08:39 AM
All are fine examples. You ought to also consider S&W M&P15. I own one and it is well put together with quality parts. Probably a notch above the three you listed.

I just put together a RRA upper varminter 20" bull barrel free floated with a Spikes Tactical lower with an ACE ARFX skeleton stock.

Air,Land&Sea
May 17, 2009, 10:36 AM
They're all exactly the same. Mine's an Armalite. Just thought it looked slightly "cleaner" with slightly better fit & finish. So far so good, but I've never once met an AR I didn't like (to include ones from early on that have tons of mileage on them).

punkndisorderly
May 17, 2009, 01:09 PM
I own all three. To be honest, I can't really tell any quality difference between them. The Armalite seems to have a higher level of observable build quality, but the others function just as well. I really believe that any name brand factory built AR will do well for 99% of those who buy them. The other 1% are generally proffional operators or high level match shooters. If you were one of those, you'd likely not be asking the question.

As far as not being good for "serious social work" that may be your opinion. I don't really share it. My civilian rifles have exhibited better reliability and build quality than any issue rifle I saw in the Army.

I liken the difference between a Mustang Cobra, Saleen Mustang, Roushe, etc. The differences in performance are pretty much academic for most real world driving. The real differences only show themselves on the track. Since 99% of drivers never put them on the track, the differences really don't amount to much. That doesn't mean that you can't get owners arguing endlessly about which is better.

kwelz
May 17, 2009, 01:17 PM
lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

Glockman17366
May 17, 2009, 06:07 PM
lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

OK, prove your statement....

rscalzo
May 17, 2009, 06:43 PM
I had an interesting conversation today with two students that are in the business of selling CNC machines in the New England area. As much of their business is with firearm's companies the topic flowed into AR15 production. I was surprised to learn that Bushmaster does not manufacture anything. Their entire rifle is subcontracted and only assembly takes place in the Maine facility.

S&W has turned the Thompson Center facility into a plant for producing the barrels for their M&P15 line. As the business is down at the plant I can see them moving other areas of production into that plant.

FlyinBryan
May 17, 2009, 07:44 PM
All are fine examples. You ought to also consider S&W M&P15. I own one and it is well put together with quality parts. Probably a notch above the three you listed.

but dont the three mentioned by the thread starter use 4150 barrel steel while the s&w uses the lower grade, 4140 i think it is?

woodfiend
May 18, 2009, 08:28 AM
Quote:
lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

OK, prove your statement....


Seriously. Show us the documentation that tells us this or it's BS

wickedsprint
May 18, 2009, 09:27 AM
None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

You must be a gun salesman.

My RRA has not jammed once, my issued Colt M4 has, and on more than one occasion. It was also new out of the crate so nothing can be blamed on the previous user.

I love how everyone preaches "mil-spec" for the Colt, but then slams the Beretta M9. Pick one side of the fence, either you trust the Military to evaluate a weapon and their final decision or you don't.

"Mil-Spec" is not always the best, it's the cheapest bidder that complied with the minimum specification.

Last I checked a Commercial Colt does not even have full parts compatibility with a military model.

BBstacker
May 18, 2009, 10:19 AM
Mil spec describes the phyical & or operation characteristics of a product. Meaning no commercialy produced AR 15 is a mil spec. If you have a receiver made of 6061 T6 aluminum it not mil spec. Mil spec would be 7075 T6. ARs are semi auto not full auto. Thay do not have wylde or .223 chambers and so on. As per military mil specs.

wickedsprint
May 18, 2009, 10:37 AM
Common misconception about the RRA chamber, not all of them are Wylde. All of the 16" non-stainless barrels are actually NATO chambers

Glockman17366
May 18, 2009, 06:22 PM
"Mil-Spec" is not always the best, it's the cheapest bidder that complied with the minimum specification.

Mil-spec is nothing more then a series of written requirements a supplier must adhere to when producing a product for the Department of Defense. The majority stem from the WW II era. Many are now obsolete having been superceded by various other specifications including ANSI (American National Standards Institute), ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) and ISO (a series of international standardization specifications).
Mil-Spec intent is to meet the product designer's requirements. Mil-Spec does not mean better quality or lower costs. It normally does mean there is more paperwork involved when submitting product for approval.
Being a mil-spec product does not mean a higher quality firearm. It just means the firearms were produced to specifications required by the government contract.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I've worked in Quality Assurance/Quality Control since 1977 (as a civilian..also worked QC while in the Navy). Most folks, including some of the responders to this thread, have no idea what mil-spec entails.

Any AR-15, except the cheapest POS you can buy, will likely hold up as well as any rifle built to a mil-spec. That's a subjective statement, but has every bit as much validity as anyone claiming Colt builds a better rifle.

BTW, automotive specs tend to be more stringent then mil-specs.

If you have a receiver made of 6061 T6 aluminum it not mil spec. Mil spec would be 7075 T6.

Wrong! If the design requires 6061-T6, it's built to mil-spec. If the design requires 6061-T6, that doesn't mean you can produce the receiver in 7075-T6.
6061-T6 is a tough alloy, so is 7075-T6. Both are used in aerospace, but 7075 has the edge for strength and toughness. It's also harder to machine (more tendency to crack).

wickedsprint
May 19, 2009, 01:33 AM
Who uses 6061 on their ARs? At least according to a quality review of RRA it was mentioned they used 7075 T6.

kwelz
May 19, 2009, 10:54 AM
For those talking about RRA "winning" the contract.
here are the numbers on that.
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003/07-July/04-Jul-2003/10-awd.htm

Notice they got the smallest portion of the contract yet they are the one screaming to the hills about how great it is they "won" this big DEA contract.

Also I have handled a number of RRA law enforcement carbine and 1 that was a DEA spec gun. They are very different from the civilian versions. Chrome Lined Barrels, Standard triggers(mainly because the 2 stage have been failing under hard use), they also seem to actually test the components before they send them out. Although honestly I don't know if they Batch or single test them.

So yes they are different from the rifles you or I would buy.

FlyinBryan
May 19, 2009, 11:29 AM
thats still 85 million dollars.

its not the biggest but its nothing to sneeze at either.

if i was a part of rock river i would be tickled pink, not to mention pretty proud of my accomplishment.


ps, i do not own a rock river.

So yes they are different from the rifles you or I would buy.

sometimes i think its possible this could be the case with my bushmasters.

immediately after the clinton ban expired i bought them from a man, still new, and he said they were built during the ban, and were for law enforcement use, but due to the ban being lifted, i could buy them.

i could be wrong, but it would help explain why they have been so good, as opposed to being as terrible as people seem to always say they are.

they do have "LE" stamped on the barrel.

SHvar
May 19, 2009, 12:03 PM
Like was mentioned, milspec is the minimum standards a product must meet to qualify for purchase in contract my the military, not at all better.
By the way if you look closely at what companies actually use 4140 barrel steel, alot more use it than what the chart says.
If you look at chrome lined chambers and barrels, alot more offer this or use it standard than the chart says.
If you look at properly staked gas keys, alot more have them than are given credit for, also alot that are not properly staked are given credit for it.
The list goes on and on. The chart is half right when it comes to accuracy in those features, so for those not given half of the credit for what they have, they must be just as good as thosae given credit for half of what they dont have.
I definitely wouldnt put Colt above some of those other manufacturers in comparison to quality. Milspec firearms sometimes have less attention to detail in their fit and finish as those sold to gunshops for the person who walks in and buys one.
How about H&K, and other brands not represented, they dont come close to milspec, but are supposed to be far better in everyway, and are built to hold up beyond milspec weapons.

kwelz
May 19, 2009, 01:26 PM
Agree or disagree with the importance of the issues on "the chart" but I have sold and worked on enough AR15 pattern guns to be able to vouch for its accuracy.

kwelz
May 19, 2009, 01:29 PM
And FB I agree with you. We both have Bushmasters that seem to break the normal pattern. Mine has been near perfect. But I have also owned and worked on a number of them that were very troublesome.

Glockman17366
May 19, 2009, 05:38 PM
For those talking about RRA "winning" the contract.
here are the numbers on that.
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003...003/10-awd.htm

Notice they got the smallest portion of the contract yet they are the one screaming to the hills about how great it is they "won" this big DEA contract.

Also I have handled a number of RRA law enforcement carbine and 1 that was a DEA spec gun. They are very different from the civilian versions. Chrome Lined Barrels, Standard triggers(mainly because the 2 stage have been failing under hard use), they also seem to actually test the components before they send them out. Although honestly I don't know if they Batch or single test them.

So yes they are different from the rifles you or I would buy.


Not really...my barrel is chrome lined. I do have the match trigger and haven't heard any negative comments about their durability. The standard trigger is cheaper, which is probably why the DEA bought them (triggers, I mean).
RRA tests their rifles using normal production controls as any quality manufacturer would...just to ensure they're making a good product...as any reputable manufacturer does.

RRA isn't a big company, so production capacity may have contributed more to their DEA contract then quality. Also, being involved with DOD procurement (on the supplier side), I know new suppliers often get a smaller "piece of the pie" until they've proven themselves. After some of the (paperwork) requirements, some suppliers don't want more government contracts. I've no idea where RRA stands on this.

So, Azizza...I just don't think you know what you're talking about...probably because you paid a few hundred extra for a rifle that isn't worth a few hundred extra.
Sorry, brother...that's the way it is.

Guns and more
May 19, 2009, 05:50 PM
Of the three choices, I call it a tie.
Not top of the line, or bottom either.

FlyinBryan
May 19, 2009, 06:27 PM
And FB I agree with you. We both have Bushmasters that seem to break the normal pattern. Mine has been near perfect. But I have also owned and worked on a number of them that were very troublesome.

yes, in fact we went out today with ours and had a great time.

each of mine have fired over 7000 rounds, all my own reloads (55g fmjbt, 22.4g of hodgdons h322, with a lee factory crimp, seated to the cannelure, with cci sr primers) and have still not ever had a single stop of any kind, period.

i honestly think i may have gotten lucky with mine, and they might be of slightly different construction than other bushmasters.

on the barrel is stamped the following:

"LE M MP NATO 5.56 HBAR 1/9"

they are identical and are actually serial numbered within 100 of each other (one ends with 1011, and the other ends with 0052) with the same numbers in front of that.

lol, maybe they are different from other bushys and thats why i get such reactions when i harp on them.

of course i could be wrong about the "law enforcement models"

i often am.

on a side note, my brother fired a five shot group today at 100yds that measure about .4"

i was hearing it all the way home

(they usually shoot just under an inch)

benEzra
May 19, 2009, 07:18 PM
Get whichever one you like; those three are comparable.

If you are seriously worried about "The Chart", save up some pennies and purchase a LMT bolt carrier assembly to throw in your RRA/Bushie/Armalite. That way you have most of the relevant stuff from "The Chart" to satisfy purists, and keep your old bolt carrier group for a spare.

CoRoMo
May 19, 2009, 07:21 PM
I'd flip the list upside down to get my opinion of quality from the top.

FlyinBryan
May 19, 2009, 08:03 PM
I'd flip the list upside down to get my opinion of quality from the top.

the vote count seems to agree

kwelz
May 19, 2009, 10:06 PM
Not really...my barrel is chrome lined. I do have the match trigger and haven't heard any negative comments about their durability. The standard trigger is cheaper, which is probably why the DEA bought them (triggers, I mean).
RRA tests their rifles using normal production controls as any quality manufacturer would...just to ensure they're making a good product...as any reputable manufacturer does.

RRA isn't a big company, so production capacity may have contributed more to their DEA contract then quality. Also, being involved with DOD procurement (on the supplier side), I know new suppliers often get a smaller "piece of the pie" until they've proven themselves. After some of the (paperwork) requirements, some suppliers don't want more government contracts. I've no idea where RRA stands on this.

So, Azizza...I just don't think you know what you're talking about...probably because you paid a few hundred extra for a rifle that isn't worth a few hundred extra.
Sorry, brother...that's the way it is.

Seriously do you want to go down that route? You want to act like a Jerk because you feel you have some greater knowledge of things and don't see the need for a higher level of QC in a firearm?
And you say I don't know what I am talking about?

RRA does not MP test their barrel or bolts. I am not talking about firing one or two rounds down range, I am talking about testing high stress components for imperfections that can cause them to fail prematurely.

Chrome lining is also not standard on RRA guns. This is easy enough to verify by calling them or checking the web site.

RRA 2 stage triggers don't last under heavy use. Period. Oh they don't outright fail. but they quickly become a single stage trigger.

And let me explain to you why I choose the rifles I do. I used to sell these to dealers and departments as well as use them. I have owned DPMS, RRA, Stag, Etc. I have sold off the others because of my personal experiences, and the feedback I got from my clients. So yes now I spend a little bit more for a firearms where I don't find the quality questionable. Just like I don't buy Cheap 1911s or Phoenix Arms firearms.

Maverick223
May 19, 2009, 10:48 PM
I would go with a Sig 556, since IT DIDN'T EVEN EXIST WHEN THE THREAD WAS POSTED!

FlyinBryan
May 19, 2009, 11:18 PM
what azizza is trying to say is that bushmaster is by far the best ar ever built.

the sooner you people listen to him, the better off i will be.

he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes, he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes, he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes.

sincerely, flyinbryan.

Glockman17366
May 20, 2009, 05:13 AM
RRA does not MP test their barrel or bolts. I am not talking about firing one or two rounds down range, I am talking about testing high stress components for imperfections that can cause them to fail prematurely.

Chrome lining is also not standard on RRA guns. This is easy enough to verify by calling them or checking the web site.

RRA 2 stage triggers don't last under heavy use. Period. Oh they don't outright fail. but they quickly become a single stage trigger.


MP (Magnetic Particle) testing isn't uncommon...and not really too necessary on part components either. NDT was my Navy specialty and carried that over to my early civilian career. Other then weldments, I cannot recall a new component failing a MP test. However, I'm sure the DOD contract requires it for barrels intended for selective fire rifles (M16's)....Colt wouldn't spend the extra money otherwise. I'm also curious if this carries over to their civilian semi-auto rifles.
MP testing would be better done after several thousand rounds. That's when you could expect failures. Never read or heard of an AR barrel blowing up other then from a squib or overcharged round.

You are correct on chrome on standard RRA barrels. RRA feels chromed barrels do not have the ultimate MOA accuracy the non-chromed barrels has. I prefer chrome lined for ease of maintenance since I don't shoot 200+ yards. That's why my RRA has a chromed lined barrel. Rifles built for combat use may not see routine cleaning and MOA accuracy isn't required of them anyway.So, chrome lining depends on the intended use. Both chrome lined and non-chrome lined have advantages, but that doesn't make for a better rifle.

Not sure where you got the info on the two stage trigger failures...but even if they failed and went single stage, that's not a catastrophic event. I like mine, and read a lot more good then bad about them.

At this point, I think we're going around and around, so I don't see much point in continuing the debate. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you, so we're both wasting our time on this thread.

If the SHTF, I'm confident both your rifle (Colt, I asume) and my RRA will hold up fine and probably outlast both of us.

he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes, he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes, he is going to tell you the truth, no matter if it hurts some feelings, or leaves people angry, mad, and venting their frustrations with every other post, he is going to do what it takes to get you people to listen, no matter what it takes.

Anyway, I think FlyinBryan is getting bored responding to the posts...

BBstacker
May 20, 2009, 11:40 AM
Glockman17366 You are correct if mil-spec called for 6061 T6. But the point I was trying to make was if it was not in the specs then it is not a mil-spec. And there is a Co. by the name of L.A.R that makes A-2 recivers that uses 6061 T6 aluminum. And call it a Mill-spec. I saw this in my Brownells catalog #4 on AR15/M16

Maverick223
May 20, 2009, 12:48 PM
Unless it is select fire it is not mil-spec, as I am pretty sure that is in the specifications. Besides mil-spec is the cheapest version that works reliably, not simply the best reliability. That is why scandium is not added to the receivers for added durability, it may be better...but ultimately that doesn't matter because it is more expensive.

FlyinBryan
May 20, 2009, 01:12 PM
Anyway, I think FlyinBryan is getting bored responding to the posts...

lol, yes, its rediculous.

Glockman17366
May 20, 2009, 05:45 PM
Glockman17366 You are correct if mil-spec called for 6061 T6. But the point I was trying to make was if it was not in the specs then it is not a mil-spec. And there is a Co. by the name of L.A.R that makes A-2 recivers that uses 6061 T6 aluminum. And call it a Mill-spec. I saw this in my Brownells catalog #4 on AR15/M16

So, the real question is, are M16 receivers supposed to be 7075-T6 or 6061-T6?
Or, is L.A.R. just BS'ing?

Well, based upon some research, the receiver should be a 7075-T6 forging. I'm not 100% sure that's what the design calls for, but that what a couple manufacturers (neither was Colt, BTW) make them from.

Javelin
May 20, 2009, 07:48 PM
It amazes me how so many folks think that Armalite is on the bottom of the list and RRA ranks better. I am just going to have to think most folks here buy RRA.

Speaks volumes about the knowledge base regarding black rifles. I guess advertising works.

:)

Overlord007
March 24, 2011, 09:14 AM
Bushmaster is probably the best of those three, but in my opinion the best of all time would be PWA as they are the closest thing to military you could get when they were in business yet. High quality at reasonable prices. They are machined very presicely. Cannot go wrong if it is a Pre-ban!

kwelz
March 24, 2011, 09:36 AM
Thread necromancy much?

Quentin
March 24, 2011, 06:00 PM
This thread rose from the dead twice! :p

ArmaLite, of the three choices...

Art Eatman
March 24, 2011, 10:55 PM
Anthony started this thread in 2005. Who knows? He may have already bought an AR by now!

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15s - Armalite vs Bushmaster vs Rock River Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!