Want to buy a M4 style gun ... election pre-ban jitters...


PDA






wacki
October 25, 2008, 09:56 PM
I don't own any scary black rifles and I'd like to get one before something like HR1022 gets critical mass.

Basically I am investigating 5.56 carbine/M4 style weapons. If kits are available then I'm willing to assemble it. I have a sub MOA bolt action .308 as a tack driver and a shotgun. Now it's time for me to get a CQB/SHTF rifle.

I don't really have a budget. I'd rather spend $1,000 and have two $500 sub MOA Savage 10FP's than spend $700 on a Remington 700 of similar performance characteristics. I can easily drop $1K on a M4 style carbine. I'd just prefer to have a quality gun for a reasonable price. I'll spend the extra cash on boolits, mags, etc or even a clone of the same gun.

I'm willing to construct something from a kit or something to go. Right now this is topping my list:
http://www.del-ton.com/Rifle_Kit_p/rkt100.htm

But I'll be honest. I don't know squat about M4 brands. Any advice?

If you enjoyed reading about "Want to buy a M4 style gun ... election pre-ban jitters..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
janobles14
October 25, 2008, 10:33 PM
just bought a bushmaster post ban M4 and love it! cant believe i ever hesitated before. got a great deal on it for $750 NIB but i would have paid $1000 knowing what i know now.

every bit as good as a colt but dont have to pay for the expensive rocking horse.

Gord
October 25, 2008, 10:38 PM
I'm going with a Del-Ton kit, too, due to funds (already bought a Yugo underfolder and converted a Saiga, so my AK needs are met - but it took a good chunk of money out of the EBR budget to do so). Just be aware that Del-Ton is generally regarded in the low-midgrade range as far as ARs go. Colt, Noveske and LMT seem to be the pinnacle of ARs by contemporary opinion.

I couldn't tell you what that actually means, since no one seems to have ever actually taken a Del-Ton to a carbine class or a three-gun match, so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume that they're "good enough."

If money's no object, though, no one seems to have bad things to say about LMTs.

wacki
October 25, 2008, 11:06 PM
Tactical Ninja,

What stripped lower are you getting? I assume I get a Del-Ton upper kit and a stripped lower and I'm set? Just two purchases?

wacki
October 25, 2008, 11:10 PM
every bit as good as a colt but dont have to pay for the expensive rocking horse.

Rocking horse? You mean the bolt?

7.62shooter
October 25, 2008, 11:11 PM
The best thing you could do is head over to M4carbine.net. Its the BEST site regarding the black rifle. Lots of military and law enforcement professionals as well as manufacturers. As far as your question the top m4 rifles right now are Colt 6920-$12-1400, Noveske N4 light reece-$1450, Lewis Machine and Tool-$1250, and BCM. BCM only builds uppers and bolts, etc. One of the best thnigs now is to combine a BCM upper with a Lewis Machine and Tool lower. A superub match and it makes one HELL of a fighting rifle. These are all military grade and strenuously tested. They have alot higher tolerances then bushmaster, dpms...etc. As far as builing one all you need to do is get a complete lower, complete upper, hanguards, bolt carrier group and iron sight or an optic. Check out GandRtactical.com and Bravocompanyusa.com. These companies are top of the line and will take care of you... I would skip the Delton build by the way. I hope this helps and good luck in your quest! ;)

Gord
October 25, 2008, 11:14 PM
Wacki,

Yeah. The rifle kits are a complete upper reciver, and a lower parts kit (LPK). You buy a stripped lower receiver, which is the serialized "firearm" part of the equation, build that up with the lower parts kit, and then snap the upper and lower receivers together. Presto, done.

As for stripped lowers, they generally run around $100-120 and they're all pretty much the same; buy whatever brand has the coolest-looking logo on it, or whatever your local shop has in stock (but stay away from Vulcan/Hesse - applies to any firearm, not just ARs ;)). Mine has been getting Aero Precision (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Aero_Precision_AP15_AR15_Multi_Caliber_Lower_Receiver.html) lowers in every now and then, so that's what I'll be going with. They look really nice to me as far as machining goes, and I prefer the bullet markings over fire/safe markings.

Midlength gas systems are generally considered to be more reliable than M4-length gas systems in 16" barrels, so I'm going with the midlength kit. I think the M4 barrel profile and the length of the barrel past the front sight base look goofy, anyway. Not gonna be mounting a grenade launcher anytime soon... :)

Rocking horse? You mean the bolt?

He means the Colt "rampant pony" logo:

http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08436/8953.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs432&d=08436&f=8953.jpg)

7.62shooter
October 25, 2008, 11:19 PM
O and as far as bushmaster being just as good as colt without the horse... Thats BS. I thought that too when i first got into black rifles. Now i am not knocking bushmaster AT ALL. I have one and it is great. Dead accurate and never failed on me. That being said bushmaster and alot of other companies dont go through alot of the processes that COLT, noveske, LMT and BCM do. Bushmaster does not properly stake the gas key, if at all. Bushmaster does not stake the castle nut either. Of course these are easily fixable but the extra you pay for COLT or any of the other mentioned brands is WELL worth the money. Go to this link and check out the thread listed on this page. It well help point you in the right ditection. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7355

janobles14
October 25, 2008, 11:23 PM
wow thats some in depth stuff!

but if one rifle fires as well, lasts as long, and is just as accurate then why not get it if its less?

Gord
October 25, 2008, 11:35 PM
then why not get it if its less?

You're paying for the extra margin in reliability. Lower-cost manufacturers cut certain processes out (like staking the gas key or magnetically inspecting the barrel and/or bolt), which may or may not result in that gun failing under stress more quickly or more easily than one made by a different manufacturer that didn't cut those processes.

I'm sure someone will post "the chart" soon enough.

7.62shooter
October 25, 2008, 11:47 PM
You make a good point, but this is where you have to decide what you will be using the rifle for. Yes my bushmaster shoots just as well as my BCM/LMT build but as far as lasting as long i do not think so. But it depends on the situation.. If i were a casual shooter that enjoys goin to the range and did not compete or run my rifle hard or put it in adverse conditions the Bushmaster would be fine. But if i were a soldier, or contractor etc and my life depended on my rifle i would definatly fork out the extra for one of the other brands. As i said there is alot more that goes into these rifles from proper staking to barrel steel hardness etc. You got a great deal on your Bushmaster for 750. Mine was 850 out the door. I do plan to upgrade my bushmaster Bolt carrier group to a BCM one because the bolt is the most likely thing to fail. Sorry to ramble on and again I AM NOT dissing anybodies rifles. Im just trying to give the best info i can. So to recap if you plan to use your rifle for range work, plinking, etc. and you can get a bushmaster around the 800 dollar range go for it. But most new bushasters cost about 1000. For just a bit more you can get one of the other rifles. So if your rifle will be run hard(competion, training, etc.) or if your life of the lives or your loved one may depend on it, price should be the last thing on your mind.

wacki
October 26, 2008, 12:11 AM
Tactical Ninja,

Thanks for all the info. You've been a great help. You stated this:

Midlength gas systems are generally considered to be more reliable than M4-length gas systems in 16" barrels, so I'm going with the midlength kit.

So what you are saying is that of these choices:

http://www.del-ton.com/AR_15_Rifle_Kits_16_s/57.htm

The most reliable option is the bottom one:

http://www.del-ton.com/Rifle_Kit_p/rkt104.htm

??????

All the barrels seem to be the same length. 16"

Your reliability comments have me wondering if I should upgrade to a LMT.

7.62shooter, thankyou for the links. Looks like I will be doing lots of reading over the next few days.

maniak
October 26, 2008, 01:17 AM
an M4 configuration in .308 and w/out direct-gas impingement.
suits the budget.
cheap mags.
well made.
fun to shoot.
black.
http://www.ptr91.com/product_pages/ptr91kfm4.html
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/beta/storeproduct462.aspx

RockyMtnTactical
October 26, 2008, 01:17 AM
I wouldn't buy a cheap AR15. You would likely have to spend close to $750-800 to have a halfway decent AR15.

Gord
October 26, 2008, 01:24 AM
wacki,

I don't know just how much "more" reliable a midlength gas system is over an M4 length, but that is the conventional wisdom. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people out there with M4-length systems that run just fine.

As for Del-Ton vs. LMT, etc., that all depends on your current needs, your perceived needs and your budget. The usual line is thus: if you're planning to use your AR for plinking, hunting or other general "light duty" use, you should be good to go with pretty much any manufacturer out there. If you're planning to shoot three-gun matches, take it to carbine courses and otherwise beat the crap out of it and push it to the limit, you'd be better served spending the extra money on a "known good" brand like LMT, Noveske, Colt, etcetera - assuming you have the budget.

I'm no expert on ARs; I don't own one yet, and I've not even shot one before. All I know is what I've read and learned, so take it for what it's worth - I'm not speaking from experience, I'm just "passing it on."

Del-Ton has a great reputation and by all accounts everyone who owns one is more than happy with it. It will be reliable and accurate; I just wouldn't consider them "infantry-grade." Whether or not that matters to you for your purposes is for you to decide.

an M4 configuration in .308 and w/out direct-gas impingement.

Dude, it's just an HK91 with a six-pos buttstock bolted on. There's nothing "M4" about it. :scrutiny:

RP88
October 26, 2008, 01:41 AM
my Del-Ton build runs great. 400 rounds with very few problems. After sighting it in, I put a target at 25 yds, and had no problem putting a whole box through the bullseye. Mine also eats Wolf without a problem.

Del-Ton is great on a budget with easy customization and such, but if you want as close to milspec as possible as well as a rifle that will hold its value, Colt, LMT, and Nov are your top three by name.

wacki
October 26, 2008, 11:58 AM
I wouldn't buy a cheap AR15. You would likely have to spend close to $750-800 to have a halfway decent AR15.

If I have to drop $1K then I will drop $1K. My whole point is I don't mind having a millennium falcon style gun. Star wars movie quote: "that rusty bucket of bolts... she ain't pretty... but she [is the fastest ship in the fleet]"

I own a Savage 10FP. I can't brag about the name but it shoots sub MOA and I have no reservations in taking my rifle up against any other mass production rifle out there. The money I saved goes into other gun goodies.

I'd prefer to buy my carbine with a similar mentality.


That being said my priorities are:
Reliaibilty - High
Accuracy - I have a sniper rifle. If I can hit an apple w/ this CQB at 100 yards I'll be happy.
Price - Cheaper means I can buy more, but I'll spend what it takes.

Al Thompson
October 26, 2008, 12:46 PM
wacki, think about getting a couple or three lowers (the serial numbered part, I.E., the firearm) and assembling them into complete rifles as time allows.

wacki
October 26, 2008, 09:26 PM
Tactical Ninja,

Just got back from the gun show where I bought an unbadged LMT upper kit. Some guy was selling them third party and told me to call up the factory and verify it's validity. He told me if I wasn't satisfied after calling LMT I could return it. It took it home for $500.

SamG.
October 26, 2008, 09:39 PM
Nice buy! Do you have any idea on what kind of lower you want for it?

ugaarguy
October 26, 2008, 09:48 PM
Wacki, did your upper group come with the bolt carrier group? Make sure the bolt is marked "MP", and that the barrel is marked "MP 5.56 NATO 1/7 CB". If that's all there it sounds like you got a great buy on your upper.

Gord
October 26, 2008, 09:54 PM
Just got back from the gun show where I bought an unbadged LMT upper kit. Some guy was selling them third party and told me to call up the factory and verify it's validity. He told me if I wasn't satisfied after calling LMT I could return it. It took it home for $500.

Wacki,

Alarm bells started sounding in my head the moment I read that...
If it includes the bolt carrier group as uga mentioned, and more importantly, if it is indeed an LMT upper, good deal. I wouldn't be so quick to trust some gun-show guy (on either point - that it's an LMT uppe,r or that he'll accept a return) but I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

If it's a kit, i.e. not an assembled upper, you're going to need some tools and know-how to put everything together, and describing those is outside the scope of my AR knowledge.

SpeedAKL
October 26, 2008, 10:16 PM
My Bushmaster runs fine so long as decent ammo is used; then again I have never run it really hard such as taken it to a carbine course. Your AR decision all depends on what features you want and your budget. Most of the well-known brands are reputable, and some of the higher-end shops like Noveske, Sabre, or LWRC are outstanding if you can swing the $$$.

wacki
October 27, 2008, 12:07 AM
Tactical Ninja:

http://www.mapartsinc.com/faq.asp#count_16

That's who i got it from. You tell me if i need to try to return it. I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is.

Alarm bells started sounding in my head the moment I read that...

FYI i agree it wasn't the smartest move and was an impulse buy... that i rarely do. I paid with credit card so hopefully it won't bite e too bad.

journeyman
October 28, 2008, 05:38 AM
I ran small arms repair shops for quite a few years in the Army. The Colt M-16s and M-4s that I worked on were only really Colts until something broke. The repair parts used to fix them came from a wide variety of vendors and seemed to work well for the most part. As long as good quality parts are used and they fit properly and are assembled correctly, an AR should work no matter who makes the parts. As far as AR15/M-4gery rifles go, I own a Colt, 3 DPMS and I recently built a Del-Ton, just for old time's sake. They all work reliably and are all more accurate than I can shoot them. I paid more for the Colt than I did for any of the others, but for GP use, I don't think it is any better than the others. The Army buys it's repair parts from the lowest bidder and they work if assembled and installed properly, so I don't see why that shouldn't work for me too.

rob_s
October 28, 2008, 06:58 AM
Do what the guy said, and call the factory. Personally, I think he's full of crap.

What was included for $500? To get a truly "complete" LMT upper you need
$485 barreled upper (many dealers throw in handguards and charging handle)
$130 Bolt/carrier group

rob_s
October 28, 2008, 07:00 AM
The Army buys it's repair parts from the lowest bidder

While that may be true, one assumes that those repair parts have to meet the same standards as the base weapon, no? I don't think they're going to replace a chrome-lined, 1:7, 5.56, milspec steel, HPT and MPI barrel with one that's ulined, 1:9, .223, 4140 and untested/inspected.

journeyman
October 28, 2008, 07:31 AM
The repair parts the Army uses are all Mil Spec, but you can't buy all mil spec parts for a civilian rifle in any case. The fact is that many parts on any AR-15 are not mil spec simply because the Army does not buy semi auto only rifles and does not write specs for the semi auto only parts. The hammer, trigger, carrier, disconnector, selector switch, lower reciever and other parts are different for military M-4/M-16s than they are for civilian rifles. No real mil spec versions of those parts exist for semi auto only rifles. The Mil Specs themselves change occasionally also, i.e., they used to specify chrome bolts in the M-16s and early M-16A1s and now they don't. The mil spec barrels were 1/14, 1/12 and 1/7. I do not like any of those twist rates for my rifles, so I do not sweat the whole mil specs thing too much. As long as the parts fit well and function as they are supposed to, I am happy.

rob_s
October 28, 2008, 07:44 AM
One wonders, outside of the physical shape, what "mil specs" there are for the fire control group. Since the shape, that leads to the FA or burst function, is the only restricted part, it stands to reason that all other aspects of the mil spec for these parts could easily be met. I wouldn't use a DPMS LPK, for example, as I've seen a couple (and pictures of several more) that had material missing from the casting process. That not only doesn't meet the mil spec, but indicates a complete lack of QC on their part.

Much like barrels. While a 16" barrel may not meet the length requirement of the mil spec, there are those available that meet it in all other ways.

I'm not saying, by any means, that on Colt parts are worth buying. I'm just saying that simply because a part is designed to function in the same way does not mean that it is of the same quality, and that I doubt that the Army is using parts of a lower standard/quality just because they got a good deal.

journeyman
October 28, 2008, 09:40 AM
Quote: "I doubt that the Army is using parts of a lower standard/quality just because they got a good deal."

It happens. I don't even know who made many of the parts that we used in the Army but I am willing to bet it was the lowest bidder in most cases and we had problems with some of the parts. I was just trying to say in my original post that the Army awards its contracts based largely on a firm meeting it's specs at the lowest cost. I try to do the same. I have repaired literally thousands of M-16s, M-231s and M4s. I know what to look for on these weapons. I have seen some bad Colt parts in my time, nobody's QC is 100%. Colt lost the M-16 contract to FN in 1988 due partly to QC issues, but that did not stop me from buying a Colt for my first AR-15. I have done reports of survey on small arms and I know that the Army pays around $600 for for an M16A2. I figure that if the Colt can build M-16s for the Army for $600 and still turn a profit than I don't see the point in spending $1200 for essentially the same rifle only with less features. I personally try to find a less costly rifle that does all I need it to do safely and reliably and is more in line with what it actually costs the vendor to build.

Toten Kopf
October 28, 2008, 12:01 PM
I have just finished putting together an M4 type Del-ton Upper with a Double Star lower and all the other parts were supplied by Del-ton.

And I didn't get the chromed lined barrel, no need for it. The carbine worked great, no problems at all. Total price...$575.00 The folks at Del-ton are great, they keep you informed about your purchase, provide tracking numbers and ship fast. AND, if you do call them, a human answers the phone!!!!

I have read posts of people spending $1000's on their ultra-cool super name brand rifle only to have it fail. The only good rifle/carbine is the one that works regardless of cost.

I expect this carbine to outlast me.:what:

journeyman
October 28, 2008, 12:17 PM
I did the same thing with a DS lower. I am happy with it. The only upgrade I did was the JP trigger. I have those in a couple of my other rifles and really like them, they are worth the money.

drgrenthum
October 28, 2008, 01:47 PM
+1 with an anvil arms lower. Dont drink the kool-aid. Get the delton it will serve you well and eat all types of ammo. Spend the extra money on your sights or rails or whatever else you need to complete your setup.

vanfunk
October 28, 2008, 01:56 PM
Colt lost the M-16 contract to FN in 1988 due partly to QC issues

This is an oft repeated fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless. Colt never "lost" the M-16 contract. Both FN and Colt (as recently as April 2008) have been contracted from time to time to produce M16A2 and M16A4 rifles (these are not open contracts, they are concluded when the contracted number of weapons is delivered). I have never uncovered a shred of information to suggest that the contract was laid open for bid due to QC issues as you state - do you have access to documents that assert otherwise?

Additionally, the "milspec" issue washes down to this distinction:

Military = TDP = standard
Commercial = no TDP = no standard but what the market will bear, and it'll bear alot.

vanfunk

acn001
October 28, 2008, 02:10 PM
What do you guys consider heavy use. I have used my m4a3 bushmaster for competitions. Never fired more than 60 rounds for any given round. The rifle is still dead on. Only approx. 3k rounds have been spent. No misfires or any other issues what so ever.

journeyman
October 28, 2008, 02:19 PM
Not a fallacy, a fact: Army Drops Colt as M16 Rifle Maker, story dated October 3, 1988 at the link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD9113AF930A35753C1A96E948260


Colt is now the sole source suppplier of M4 carbines. That contract expires sometime in 2009. The story behind that decision is pretty interesting also.

Gord
October 28, 2008, 02:25 PM
I'm kind of curious as to whether anyone's ever taken a Del-Ton to a carbine course or otherwise put it to hard use for any extended period of time. I suppose I'm asking for some actual anecdotes of lower-cost ARs failing.

taliv
October 28, 2008, 02:41 PM
i don't have any personal experience with del-tons, but I have seen many other low-cost ARs fail.

Gord
October 28, 2008, 03:23 PM
At a generally higher rate than high-dollar ARs?

I'm not trying to say that $700 rifles are every bit as good as $1500 rifles, just making the observation that for all the crowing about $$$ guns being closer to mil-spec, no one really seems to be keeping track of failures across price ranges or brands that I can see. It would be nice to be able to point to something of the sort and say "this is concrete evidence as to why you should buy a (rifle, BCG, whatever) from X manufacturer instead of this lower-cost one," especially for AR neophytes like me.

Obviously all these lower-cost, non-tested parts have the potential to fail earlier, I'm just wondering how much of a practical difference in longevity or durability there is - and again, I've just not seen anyone keeping track.

vanfunk
October 28, 2008, 04:04 PM
Not a fallacy, a fact: Army Drops Colt as M16 Rifle Maker, story dated October 3, 1988 at the link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A96E948260

That is a 20 year old article - The contract with Colt to produce M16A2 and M16A4 rifles has been renewed on multiple occasions since then, and again, as I said, as recently as April. You are correct that Colt remains the sole-source supplier of the M4 for now; it is very likely that FN will be awarded a contract to produce M4 carbines next year (as will Colt).

HTH,

vanfunk

RP88
October 28, 2008, 04:08 PM
well, that is the point of wanting a Colt or something like that. You put 1400 bucks down on a rifle that will be guaranteed for life, whereas a 700-dollar one will be backed up for maybe five years if you're lucky. Still doesnt mean that the rifle will explode by then, though. But at the same time, alot of your low-cost Ars like Olympic have lifetiime warranties, while more expensive companies like Bushmaster and S&W do not. Just because something isnt milspec doesnt mean it will break within your lifetime. And even then, five bucks says that it'll be something in the FCG or the bolt, which are not very expensive to replace anyway.

And I'm curious: how many other low-to-mid-cost ARs (from olympic to DPMS or Bushmaster) do you see in carbine courses or three-guns that take strenuous use?

acn001
October 28, 2008, 09:50 PM
You can count me as a bushmaster. It has spit out 1000 rounds in 2 days... no issues what so ever.

wacki
October 29, 2008, 12:20 AM
At a generally higher rate than high-dollar ARs?

I'm not trying to say that $700 rifles are every bit as good as $1500 rifles, just making the observation that for all the crowing about $$$ guns being closer to mil-spec, no one really seems to be keeping track of failures across price ranges or brands that I can see. It would be nice to be able to point to something of the sort and say "this is concrete evidence as to why you should buy a (rifle, BCG, whatever) from X manufacturer instead of this lower-cost one," especially for AR neophytes like me.

Obviously all these lower-cost, non-tested parts have the potential to fail earlier, I'm just wondering how much of a practical difference in longevity or durability there is - and again, I've just not seen anyone keeping track.

I agree. It would be very nice is someone did reliability and accuracy testing on various arms. That would be very expensive though. I'm still wondering if I did ok with my purchase. Seems lots of people on AR15 like the MAParts:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=401604

So I think I did ok. I will call LMT and post an update.

RP88
October 29, 2008, 11:15 AM
well, for reliability testing, we just need people with different brands to run 500 rounds through their AR hard and fast and tell us what happens.

I'm at 400 rounds on mine in three trips and can attribute my limited extraction jams to the crappy Wolf that has been shot exclusively through my AR, give or take a couple boxes of PMC brass.

journeyman
October 29, 2008, 01:30 PM
Quote: "That is a 20 year old article"

That is because Colt lost the M-16 rifle contract 20 years ago and it is now 20 year old news. Colt has not built an M-16 for the Army in about 20 years now as far as I know. My job was fixing weapons in the Army for over 20 years. I was very good at my job and I tried to stay as informed about it as possible until I retired in 2004. I did manage to pick up a little bit of info here and there during that time. I have not seen any new Colt M-16s (only M-4s) for a very long while. The new rifles I saw in the last 15 years or so were ALL FNs, every one of them. I remember hearing that Sabre Defense also made some but I never saw any of those. This link contains an article that covers some interetsing information about this subject.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

This quote is from the Article cited above:
"FN Manufacturing LLC writes in to say that they have won “the vast majority of M16A2, A3 and A4 contracts as well as spare parts contracts for these systems since 1989” through “full and open competition.” Having said that: ”...never was FN Manufacturing LLC, or any other small arms manufacturer, awarded M4 contracts. The M4 cannot be competed and always has been awarded sole source to Colt because of licensing rights restricting full and open competition until 2009.”

shuvelrider
October 29, 2008, 03:59 PM
FWIW,alot of the AR,s out there are made well as a product, many companies have jumped on the AR craze for the profit margin and cut some corners in the process. Some of these rifles have met some or all the criteria for mil-standard, you cant really say mil-spec on AR clones if they have not been inspected by the military so I,ll go with mil-standard. That said, its up to the buyer to do his homework before the purchase to find an AR clone that meets their needs, if you want all the mil-standard features then keep looking . Personally, I have a Charles Daly CDD-15 M4 that shoots great with any factory ammo, wolf steelcase, and my reloads. Knock it if you want, I have 18 years in the army and still serving and thats my practice gun. In all that time I,ve yet to shoot a Colt at the range, the army contracts for the best price in the end. Just buy it and shoot it. (alot )

vanfunk
October 29, 2008, 04:29 PM
Colt has not built an M-16 for the Army in about 20 years now as far as I know

Dec 26/07: Colt Defense in Hartford, CT received a $15.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for M16A3 and M16A4 Rifles to support the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Hartford, CT and is expected to be complete by Dec 13/10. Web bids were solicited on Sept 10/07, and 9 bids were received. by TACOM LCMC in Rock Island, IL (W52H09-08-D-0122).

The most recent M16A4 production activities have been carried out by two different contractors, Colt and FN. The government originally announced its intent "to issue a 100 percent small business set-aside solicitation resulting in a 5-year indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The item to procure is the M16A4 rifle, NSN 1005-01-383-2872, PN 12973001." With minimum guaranteed quantity of 6,857 weapons and contract maximum of 58,500 weapons, the procurement strategy soon evolved into "set-aside" and "non-set-aside" portions.

The above are but two contracts out of many, placed and filled over the past twenty years. It's not terribly hard to find this information, which is why it has always stunned me that untruths like "Colt hasn't made an M16(A2, A4, A4) in 20 years" persist. I have no axe to grind, nor a dog in the fight, but I do get a little wrangled by all the misinformation out there.

HTH,

vanfunk

If you enjoyed reading about "Want to buy a M4 style gun ... election pre-ban jitters..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!