The AR-15 all famous m4 "Chart" that some swear by.


PDA






helz_mcfugly
December 13, 2008, 01:38 AM
THis chart that keeps popping up in many people posts is the opinion and a little research of ONE man (rob_s) http://www.tacticalyellowvisor.net. not any company standard chart. just his opinion of the AR15 M4 rifles he has tested. which are inaccurate in some ways. I have a bushy and his chart says it doesnt have a properly staked gas key which I compaired with a friends colt to be identical. some people on this forum swear by this chart with no hands on expierence with more then one or two of the rifles on the list. One guy one here named Tim says Colt is the golden standard, everything else is crap. yet my "crap" out shoots the golden standards every weekend at the benchrest range. Go with what you know or have had your hands on, or what feels good in your hands, and most of all what You really want, not what some chart made up by one guy tells you is the best AR.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/chart.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "The AR-15 all famous m4 "Chart" that some swear by." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KW
December 13, 2008, 01:50 AM
The guys who put this together hangs out on M4carbine.net. It was put together to make it easier for people to determine which brands and models had the features they wanted. If you feel some part of it is inaccurate, go on there and correct them. Much like scientific research, the way it improves is if more people contribute to correct errors in the existing information.

ugaarguy
December 13, 2008, 01:53 AM
not what some chart made up by one guy tells you is the best AR.
The chart doesn't tell you what the best AR is. The chart is a quick reference as to what is standard on each brand's M4 type AR which they market as a fighting gun.

Please see the google document here - http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA&hl=en - which explains the significance of each feature.
which are inaccurate in some ways. I have a bushy and his chart says it doesnt have a properly staked gas key which I compaired with a friends colt to be identical.
The issue is consistency. Every maker occasionally stakes a carrier key properly, but companies like Colt, LMT, Noveske, and Sabre do it right every time.
yet my "crap" out shoots the golden standards every weekend at the benchrest range
Rob's chart isn't about benchrest guns; it's about fighting M4s. Fighting M4s and benchrest AR-15s have nothing in common.

Please also read the thread on M4 carbine.net where the chart was originally posted:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6642
1) If this is your first time visiting this thread, please read the WHOLE thread. Chances are we have already addressed whatever questions, comments, or concerns you may have

2) If you believe there are incorrect items, inconsistencies, or adjustments that should be made to The Chart, please see #1 above and then be prepared to provide DOCUMENTATION (photographic greatly preferred) of your issue and have first-hand knowledge of same.

3) I do not mind you re-posting The Chart elsewhere. However, please contact me and at least go through the motions of asking if it's OK and give me a link to where you posted it. Please also make sure to include a link back to this thread wherever else you post The Chart.

Special thanks to Randall, Robb and Grant for helping me out with brands I don't have access too.

The credit for this goes collectively to all of m4carbine.net and not to me. I am just the secretary that is trying to record all of the information.

Ridgerunner665
December 13, 2008, 02:11 AM
A BIG +1 to the above post...

Rob's chart is about fighting guns that you bet your life on....not target guns.

If a combat M4 (AR 15) fails...soldiers and LEO's may pay the ultimate price for that failure.

Guys that know...do not go to war with "off the shelf" Bushmasters.

If your Bushy has a properly staked gas key...you are one of the lucky ones...I've handled a few AR's, most Bushy's are not staked at all...let alone done properly.

Kind of Blued
December 13, 2008, 04:15 AM
It is what it is. I'd bet 99.9% of all AR owners wouldn't ever be let down by a Bushmaster, but if they have some extra money, they may want to put it into a gun with some more stringent quality control procedure.

I keep an AR in my trunk, and another one close by for home defense. That means that no matter how horrible things get, I can rely on an AR being within a couple hundred yards of me at any second. I still don't worry about most of the things included in the chart. I don't think it would do me any good to worry about all (or any) of them either.

rob_s
December 13, 2008, 07:35 AM
This should be interesting.

You can also pick up a copy of the Chart and the Explanation of Features and the history of both in the current issue of "Surefire Presents: Guns & Ammo Combat Tactics". Here's a picture of the cover for those that might be interested.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/chart%20article/01-Cover-1024.jpg

cracked butt
December 13, 2008, 08:48 AM
The way I see it, its usually used by the colt kool-aid drinkers to justiy spending $400 more on a carbine that does the same thing as a Bushie carbine.


Rob's chart is about fighting guns that you bet your life on....not target guns.

If a combat M4 (AR 15) fails...soldiers and LEO's may pay the ultimate price for that failure

And isn't the biggest argument against the AR series rifles for combat is that they aren't reliable enough? Aren't most of those rifles that fail under combat conditions colts?;)

But but but... Colts have MPI tested bolts and proofed barrels! There are 10s of thousands of non-colt AR-15s shot every weekend in Highpower matches across the country- I've never heard of a bolt or barrel failing except for in te cases of poorly executed handloads. Yes, yes, not combat conditions, but the rifle doesn't care if its in Iraq or Iowa, it does the same thing when the trigger is pulled.

There is nothing magical about Colts- they are what the troops use because they've been around the longest and have well entrenched lobbyists.

vanfunk
December 13, 2008, 09:46 AM
I have a bushy and his chart says it doesnt have a properly staked gas key which I compaired with a friends colt to be identical.

That's excellent, but it is far from the norm for Bushmaster. I have had four Bushmasters, of various vintages from 1998-2004, and all of them suffered from the same maladies: improperly staked gas keys and overtorqued barrels. The quality of the parts Bushmaster uses seems to be fine, but their assembly skills and overall quality control are poor, IMO. After having owned a number of rifles and carbines made by Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, and Rock River, I have found no meaningful difference in build quality beween them, with this singular exception: Colts are made better, of better materials, and they have demonstrated greater reliability for me under the broadest array of circumstances. They have not been the most accurate, but that is of secondary concern to me for a "fighting gun", as the difference between a 1.5" shooter and a 2" shooter is of negligible consequence.

The chart is an accurate quick reference guide so buyers can make an informed choice; it's really that simple. It is not an unwarranted characterization to say that Bushmaster has, and continues to have, problems staking the carrier key. That doesn't mean that there aren't examples out there like yours that are staked properly, though I have not encountered one. What the chart doesn't say (though many erroneously conclude otherwise) is "Colt is the best, all other brands suck". All other brands don't suck, in fact, most commercial ARs are perfectly fine. Some makers put more into their builds, and have better QA/QC protocols, which necessarily cost more money. The chart articulates many of the features or qualities that the TDP specifies for a combat weapon; whether those features are necessary for your use is a personal decision, and has nothing to do with anything else. Some ARs are made better than others; that is a fact - whether those differences are "worth" it to you is an entirely different subject.

vanfunk

RockyMtnTactical
December 13, 2008, 09:49 AM
Guys that know...do not go to war with "off the shelf" Bushmasters.

If you are "going to war", you probably don't have much of a choice what you go with...

H2O MAN
December 13, 2008, 09:50 AM
This comparison chart is very handy and has helped many enthusiast understand the differences between brands.

I've owned many Bushmaster ARs and a Colt LE 6920.
I now own a NOVESKE upper on a POF lower with Colt parts in both... This combo meets my wants and needs.

Rob, thank you the time and effort you put into compiling and updating this list... Keep up the good work :)

flyboy1788
December 13, 2008, 09:56 AM
+1 to ugaarguy.

mljdeckard
December 13, 2008, 10:01 AM
What difference does it make if the BC has the M-16 cut or not?

proven
December 13, 2008, 10:24 AM
it's interesting how many feel the need to defend their choice in ARs against this chart. especially the ones that talk about high power matches and bench rest shooting. those people seem to miss the whole point of the chart to begin with.

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 10:26 AM
As was said, that chart is addressing the features present on the guns made by the major makers, with an eye towards the features that should be on a fighting rifle or carbine. The fact that a gun that lacks an MPI'ed bolt or some other feature outshoots a Colt (or any other gun) is a red herring. The chart is not giving information necessary for extreme benchrest accuracy. Very probably, the best benchrest guns would make lousy fighting rifles, and the best fighting rifles would be dreadful benchrest guns. I don't expect a Hum-vee to win the Indy 500, and I sure don't expect a Formula One car to fare well in Fallujah.

The thing is, "Tim" (from the OP) is as wrong-headed as the OP, assumng they're talking about the same thing. Colt may well be the gold standard for a fighting rifle (debatable, but they're certainly top tier), but if the point is benchrest accuracy, the advantages Colt offers are moot. Your bolt fails. Drop in a new bolt. Simple, as long as you're on a range, and not under fire outside Kabul. The OP, however, is on a range, and is shooting recreationally, and likes the tight groupings offered by his HBAR varminter (I imagine). that same gun woudl be a lousy performer in Iraq, but he's not in Iraq.

The point is that The Chart is intended to address something other than the OP finds important. And there's nothing wrong with that. For his purposes, he does not need an MPIed bolt, parkerizing under the FSB, an F-marked FSB, etc etc etc.

This doesn't change the fact that people who fight with their rifles, or train hard with their rifles (LEOs, soldiers, Marines, citizens preparing for the worst, etc) do need those things.

Mike

ArmedBear
December 13, 2008, 10:26 AM
If you are "going to war", you probably don't have much of a choice what you go with...

LOL. Direct hit, RMT.:)

Of course, when I was reading Soldier of Fortune...

Ridgerunner665
December 13, 2008, 10:59 AM
OK...bad choice of words...it was late.

But I think you know what I meant.

carbine85
December 13, 2008, 11:02 AM
The original chart was made up over 2-3 years ago. Things change and manufacturers change to. I think the chart was accurate at the time it was
1st published. I think most of the changes can be seen in some of the lower cost rifles. I noticed on the first chart I saw that the information on Rock River wasn't accurate.

Ridgerunner665
December 13, 2008, 11:06 AM
It has been revised at least twice that I know of.

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 12:00 PM
What difference does it make if the BC has the M-16 cut or not?From the spreadsheet referenced by UGAARguyThe M16 bolt carrier serves two functions. The first is that the firing pin is fully shrouded so that the hammer is cocked by the carrier and not the firing pin itself. The second is that the M16 bold carrier is heavier and therefore increases "lock time" (or the amount of time that the empty case after the primer is struck by the firing pin) which aids in extraction. The heavier carrier also reduces the felt recoil impulse which in turn reduces wear and tear on the other internal parts of the carbine.It's a small difference, but small differences add up to increased reliability. For a range gun and a plinker, it's a non-issue.The way I see it, its usually used by the colt kool-aid drinkers to justiy spending $400 more on a carbine that does the same thing as a Bushie carbine.Depends. What is that "thing"? If that thing is being dragged to the range and shot a couple times a year, for a total of maybe 1k rounds, you're absolutely right. If that that thing is taking multiple carbine classes in a year and then being carried on the street by a LEO, I'm pretty sure most of the people who actually teach carbine classes, and who watch rifles choke, will tell you differently.And isn't the biggest argument against the AR series rifles for combat is that they aren't reliable enough? Aren't most of those rifles that fail under combat conditions colts?Drop a pallet of box-stock "Bushie carbines" into the procurement stream and send them to A-stan, and see what happens. Any individual Colt or FN rifle can fail, and any individual Bushmaster can be flawless, under the same conditions. What matters is the rate of failure, for a given level of use. I'll bet a kidney that the rate of failure for a non-milspec m4gery will be higher than the rate of failure for an M4. The question is whether or not the end user needs that level of reliability and durability. If you're a pinker, you don't. If you're a hard user, you probably do.

Mike

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 12:02 PM
And no, I don't own a Colt.

Mike

SHvar
December 13, 2008, 12:04 PM
Keep in mind the chart is about the M-4 models sold by these companies only.
The chart is inaccurate in some cases.
I would have to say that the chart could be inaccurate with all M-4 type rifles from all of the companies, from just looking at enough models of each.
Nothing against any of the manufacturers in particular, but you could find enough of each to prove the chart wrong in many categories.
Also most importantly, is the proof testing actually being done just because a company claims it? Is MP testing being done on every barrel and bolt, simply because a machine stamped it there?
Colt has simply been in bed with the US for so many years that both are comfortable. They make some great quality rifles, and some accurate rifles, but no more or less than any of the other companies.
Anyone with military experience knows that milspec doesnt mean better, stronger, tougher, more reliable, or anything. It just means that a spec was set down on paper by DOD officials that sit in an office and theorize all day, now that spec is set in stone and must be adhered to unless you jump through hoops for 8 years or more to prove that something is 100% without a doubt better. With colt getting almost every contract (minus a few) for rifles in almost 50 years, no one will change the specs.
If you get a model other than M-4 from several companies on that list you will see features that are not given credit for, and some that are given credit for.
Simply put, if you take any good example from anyone on that list. You maintain said example as you should according to the companies suggestions, and according to what the military trains its soldiers for weapon maintance, you will never see a failure period. Dont maintain them and you will see any model fail, bar none.
By the way many law enforcement departments dont buy new rifles, they buy used military surplus rifles, not new rifles, why, they can get used M-16s for $25-$100 each. In some cases new rifles are bought, but none in any single large contract, small budgets pay for them. The primary weapon of law enforcement is their sidearm, the rifle is always a "just in case" weapon, many will never be fired except at targets. In fact the biggest problem many LE weapons have is that they have fully loaded magazines for too long, and the magazine fails if it is needed.
If you went from one department to another, and piled up their rifles by manufacturer and model, you would have a huge hodge-podge of rifles that have little in common from all major manufacturers.

proven
December 13, 2008, 12:35 PM
Simply put, if you take any good example from anyone on that list. You maintain said example as you should according to the companies suggestions, and according to what the military trains its soldiers for weapon maintance, you will never see a failure period.

this simply isn't true.

as already stated some mfrs don't use an m16 BCG, therefor the firing pin is what cocks the hammer. how long will that firing pin hold up?

some mfrs don't properly stake gas keys on ANY sample of their m4.

yet again, some mfrs don't use proper extractor springs on ANY of their samples.


take one of these samples to a class and run it hard against any of the mfrs that follow the specs and see which breaks first.

AirPower
December 13, 2008, 12:37 PM
Where is Rock River Arms on the chart? That's one piece missing on the chart.

RRA makes some great rifles, they have contract with DEA and other DOJ groups for AR type firearms.

forquidder
December 13, 2008, 01:30 PM
"Where is Rock River Arms on the chart?"

Hmmm, good question.
Maybe they are sooo good that they're "off the Chart?" :D

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 01:49 PM
RRA is about on par with Bushmaster, in my limited experience. I own an RRA, and it runs well. Their fit and finish is superb, but IIRC they offer none of the bolt features, except the carrier keys I've seen have been properly staked. I dunno about the lowers. They offer some of the barrel features, but not all.

Don't make too much of the bolt features, though. While the stuff on that list is important, you can also buy a good complete BCG done right and drop it in, or keep it as a backup should your original one fail. Make sure to add the cost of that to the rifle, though. You'll start inching up towards "Overpriced Colt" territory when you do.

I replaced my RRA BCG with a BravoCo complete M16 BCG, MPI'ed and shot-peened.

Mike

RP88
December 13, 2008, 01:52 PM
it's not so much a quality chart as it is a 'do they use mil-spec in this criteria' chart. That's all it is. If you're looking for a fighting rifle, then look at the chart. If you're looking for an accuracy rifle, then the chart shouldnt even be in the back of your mind.

Acera
December 13, 2008, 02:45 PM
Aren't a lot of the M-16s fielded now from FN? Where do the DPMS's fit in?

The major problems I've been told about from overseas seem to come from poor maintenance by the soldier, not from the bolt carrier not being staked properly, or the barrel not being pressure tested. We can drop the drama, some of you remind me of Nancy Grace on CNN, if your weapon fails, you don't immediately die. The chances may increase, but most soldiers will take cover, sort out the problem as the rest of the group continues the fight. There are differences today than there were in Viet Nam, where you had multiple weapons going down at the same time. From talking to family members who serve in the infantry, it seems to be a rare occurrence for their weapons to go down. They claim it is more of a pogue and fobit issue.

craig
December 13, 2008, 03:11 PM
after consulting the chart i bought my first ar, a dpms.

i just use it at the range/for plinking so i couldn't really see paying top dollar for a colt since i'm not going into battle.

for me, at least, the chart served a useful purpose and it'll probably help many others.

if it looks like i'll need a battle weapon i have 3 ak clones and a daewoo dr200 to choose from.:)

SCBradley
December 13, 2008, 03:47 PM
It seems that once every few days there's another thread where people are getting all butt hurt over rob_s's chart. Move on.

Maybe you guys could go to the autoloader forum and start "My Lorcin is just as good as a Glock".

proven
December 13, 2008, 03:55 PM
acera

The major problems I've been told about from overseas seem to come from poor maintenance by the soldier, not from the bolt carrier not being staked properly, or the barrel not being pressure tested.

that's because the ones fielded overseas are properly staked and the bbls are pressure tested. go figure.

if your weapon fails, you don't immediately die. The chances may increase, but most soldiers will take cover, sort out the problem

very true. what happens if their bolt breaks? same goes for anyone using an ar for home defense. their out of the fight. that's the reason behind tested bolts. carrying a spare is a good idea, but using a properly tested one to begin with is a better idea.

From talking to family members who serve in the infantry, it seems to be a rare occurrence for their weapons to go down.

again you're talking about weapons that have been built to mil spec and follow the TDP. ask some of the instructors of tactical carbine classes which weapons fail more often, ones that follow the TDP or ones that don't.

U.S.SFC_RET
December 13, 2008, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Simply put, if you take any good example from anyone on that list. You maintain said example as you should according to the companies suggestions, and according to what the military trains its soldiers for weapon maintance, you will never see a failure period.

this simply isn't true.

as already stated some mfrs don't use an m16 BCG, therefor the firing pin is what cocks the hammer. how long will that firing pin hold up?



I can't speak for the whole U.S.Army but I can speak for myself. My isued weapon never jammed during the entire 20 year timeframe I spent in the service. It was because I cleaned it.

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 06:11 PM
Hmm.The major problems I've been told about from overseas seem to come from poor maintenance by the soldier, not from the bolt carrier not being staked properly, or the barrel not being pressure tested.that's because the ones fielded overseas are properly staked and the bbls are pressure tested. go figure.WIN

12131
December 13, 2008, 06:20 PM
By SCBradley: It seems that once every few days there's another thread where people are getting all butt hurt over rob_s's chart. Move on.
WIN some more.:D

Loomis
December 13, 2008, 06:28 PM
Seems to me that colt isn't the only supplier of M16 rifles to the US military.

So what does that say about this infamous chart?

atlanticfire
December 13, 2008, 06:35 PM
ummm. its junk:rolleyes:

longdayjake
December 13, 2008, 06:40 PM
my 1944 garand and I will go to war against any of you and your ar 15s no matter what brand it is!!!:neener:

SCBradley
December 13, 2008, 07:02 PM
Loomis said:
Seems to me that colt isn't the only supplier of M16 rifles to the US military.

So what does that say about this infamous chart?

Seems to me the same TDP (what the chart uses as it's standard) has to be followed regardless of the supplier.

atlanticfire said:

ummm. its junk

I agree. Facts are stupid.

The differences between a DPMS Sportical with the requisite airsoft quality accessories, and an LMT M4 are meaningless in the "real world".

Only a fool would buy rails from Larue when you can get some that are "just as good" from UTG.

Kino74
December 13, 2008, 07:14 PM
So how many of you guys are 45 Bravos and 45 Kilos? I'm curious because last thread like this both a 4 5 Bravo and a 45 Bravo/Kilo were not too fond of the chart. Now why would that be?

Seminole
December 13, 2008, 07:20 PM
The chart is a compilation of information. Information is a tool. Different people use tools in different ways and for different things. If you don't find this tool helpful, don't use it.

Berating the tool isn't helpful. Berating people who use the tool isn't helpful.

SCBradley
December 13, 2008, 07:21 PM
Kino74 said:
So how many of you guys are 45 Bravos and 45 Kilos? I'm curious because last thread like this both a 4 5 Bravo and a 45 Bravo/Kilo were not too fond of the chart. Now why would that be?

Hi ad hominem, nice to see you here!

Timradcliffe345
December 13, 2008, 07:21 PM
For the record: I believe that the Colt 6920 is the rifle to beat when it comes to a fighting AR15 carbine. I want to run my carbines hard, that is why I go with a Colt. I have three other AR brands, the Colt is my GTG.

The chart does a good job in pointing out what features are desirable in a fighting carbine. Does everybody need these features? No. Those that do pick a Colt. I personally want those features. It is apparent there are some people on here with DPMS/Bushie fetishes that obviously don't know what they are talking about when it comes to a fighting carbine. That would be you OP. God Bless America, and those that defend her.

Frog48
December 13, 2008, 07:39 PM
The chart does a good job in pointing out what features are desirable in a fighting carbine.

Rob's chart is about fighting guns that you bet your life on....not target guns.

But thats the funny thing... how many of these Chart-worshipping internet commandos have, or ever will, actually pull the trigger in a combat situtation?

*crickets chirping*

Yeah, thats what I thought.

SCBradley
December 13, 2008, 08:04 PM
Grant48 said:
Chart-worshipping internet commandos

Do people who subscribe to Consumer Reports piss you off this much as well?

Imagine, people who compare the features, quality, longevity, and price of everything they purchase.

Just the thought sends me into a rage.

Kino74
December 13, 2008, 08:10 PM
[QUOTE]The chart is a compilation of information. Information is a tool. Different people use tools in different ways and for different things. If you don't find this tool helpful, don't use it.

Berating the tool isn't helpful. Berating people who use the tool isn't helpful.


And berating those who don't use it is ok?

This chart is turning into a "you're not cool if you don't buy a gun like this."

My favorite part is half of those parts are then discarded for aftermarket parts like those cool $350 handguards to replace those double heat shielded handguards required for a fighthing rifle/carbine and $130 BUIS not to mention the flip up front sight to replace that F marked front post that too is required for a fighting rifle/carbine.

Joe Demko
December 13, 2008, 08:12 PM
Untested parts fail?
Do tested parts never fail?
Egos tied to guns.

SCBradley
December 13, 2008, 08:29 PM
Kino74 said:
And berating those who don't use it is ok?


What was the name of this thread and the OP's position again?

The chart usually only makes an appearance to show a prospective buyer that they could spend a couple hundred dollars more on a rifle made of vastly superior materials.

The berating is generally started by owners of brands the that chart doesn't favor.

"it's junk" "internet commandos" etc

PS:
Replacing in spec parts with aftermarket parts could be considered frivolous, but it doesn't make out of spec parts okay.

Lone_Gunman
December 13, 2008, 08:37 PM
OK, so could some wise person please tell me why I care if the barrel is finished under the front sight base? What difference could that possibly ever make???

Joe Demko
December 13, 2008, 08:41 PM
The chart usually only makes an appearance to show a prospective buyer that they could spend a couple hundred dollars more on a rifle made of vastly superior materials.

Barrel steel on chart.
No other materials.
Tests and dimensions.

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 08:45 PM
Untested parts fail?
Do tested parts never fail?Both fail. It's the failure rate that matters.

Mike

HorseSoldier
December 13, 2008, 08:48 PM
Aren't a lot of the M-16s fielded now from FN?

Yes, but FN built M16s aren't available to the public, so there's no point in putting them on the chart. FN M16 rifles built for US military contract are built using the approved TDP, and so would be identical in features to the Colt except where the features on the chart are M4-specific.

Seems to me that colt isn't the only supplier of M16 rifles to the US military.

So what does that say about this infamous chart?

The chart addresses civilian legal Colts (i.e. the 6920), not actual military issue M4s or M4A1s. Since neither of those weapons is legal for civilians to own it's kind of irrelevant. The point is that the 6920 is the closest weapon you can get to the M4 TDP.

rob_s
December 13, 2008, 08:59 PM
RE: milspec. No, it's not the be all end all. What's pathetically sad is how many makers can't even meet the milspec.

Joe Demko
December 13, 2008, 08:59 PM
Failure rate matters.
What are the numbers for each?
Stats trump conjecture.

Timradcliffe345
December 13, 2008, 09:02 PM
http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/1254/0/Internet_Soldier.ashx

Javelin
December 13, 2008, 09:09 PM
Having shot/carried military issued M4 through two tours of combat as Infantry and shot the civilian (LE) version Colt M4 (same damn thing)... This chart is based on Milspec which means nothing to me as Milspec is just standard GI Issue. And I hate to break it to anyone that thrives on this chart as it is outdated and many firearms manufacturers have upped their "standards" based on the .gov standard of what they feel a jamming jenny should look like.

But aside from all the BS other things such as Switchblock availability, monolithic rails, double chrome lined M249 barrel, failure rate, suppressability all count and are no where on that chart (yes I am pointing to Noveske).

I will say that Noveske is a much better rifle than the Colt M4. Of course you pay the money to have one too but its worth it IMO and this chart is missleading. But whatever. Colts are decent I just want more and now that I am out of the Military I get to choose my own firearm.

:)

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 09:12 PM
But thats the funny thing... how many of these Chart-worshipping internet commandos have, or ever will, actually pull the trigger in a combat situtation?

*crickets chirping*

Yeah, thats what I thought.By the same logic, you don't need a defensive gun at all. You'll probably never be in a combat situation, so you don't need it.

I don't know about "chart worshipping", but I'm generally agreeing with the things that the chart says are good and bad for a combat rifle (it's not a big deal for a range toy), I'm not a xy Bravo anything, but I may very well be in a combat situation some day. Why? Well, beyond the obvious potential for self-defense shared with every person on the face of the planet, I'm a LEO. I carry a patrol rifle. Any rifle of mine that I expect to receive hard use, or that may be used defensively, gets parts that, for the most part, meet the specs listed in the chart.

Mike

Tarvis
December 13, 2008, 09:16 PM
yet my "crap" out shoots the golden standards every weekend at the benchrest range.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Accuracy is more dependent on the shooter and the rifle/ammo combination than who made the rifle. Grow up dude, you are far from enlightenment.

Coronach
December 13, 2008, 09:20 PM
Failure rate matters.
What are the numbers for each?
Stats trump conjecture.Which factor? I doubt there's any data out there on some of the features mentioned in The Chart, as they don't generate stats (parkerizing under FSB, for instance). Others do (bolt failure rates have been discussed quite a bit). I don't have the data in front of me, but if you're really interested, the search function should bring them up.

Mike

Timradcliffe345
December 13, 2008, 09:25 PM
Anyone know any dealers with 6920's in stock?

Jaybird78
December 13, 2008, 10:04 PM
Yes....Yes...Yes.......but can these rifles outclass a Glock or super custom 1911.

:neener:

Buy what you want....Ford vs. Chevy and Colt vs. Bushmaster


Yet again we regress to the childhood school yard.......and my dad can beat up your dad. :neener: :scrutiny:

innerpiece
December 13, 2008, 11:08 PM
agreed Jaybird.

Tim, on page 2 you said:

"For the record: I believe that the Colt 6920 is the rifle to beat when it comes to a fighting AR15 carbine. I want to run my carbines hard, that is why I go with a Colt. I have three other AR brands, the Colt is my GTG."

but a couple weeks back you were asking if they were even a "decent AR?!

"I am able to buy a NIB COlt 6920 for $1450, is that a fair price? I need to know soon whether or not I should push ahead with this. Is the 6920 a decent AR? Thanks."
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=409014

lol, anyway..
I dont care about that chart. it really dont mean anything to me.. as I dont have, nor intend, to get any of those rifles. it CERTAINLY does not apply to most folks, as its a mere few modles, and a couple brands.. accurate or not, if ya spout off with it on a conversation about anything other than one of the models represented, it has NO relevance... and that would kinda be "brand snobbish"

usefull or not, I dont know... but I do know its put into TOO many threads here at THR where it does NOT apply at all!

just my .02.

take it easy!

ip.

BIGRETIC
December 13, 2008, 11:09 PM
Hey...I have a Bushie...Great gun ,never failed me.If all the "chart" BS has got you down...buy a SA M1A.Better accuracy than the Colt,more reliable than the Colt,....and....much more knockdown power than the Colt.

I guess I am just tired of all the Colt vs. Bushmaster BS!!!

FlyinBryan
December 13, 2008, 11:10 PM
tim.

to be honest, i have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.

i see you say things like this:

I want to run my carbines hard, that is why I go with a Colt. I have three other AR brands, the Colt is my GTG.



but just a couple of weeks back you were saying this:


I am able to buy a NIB COlt 6920 for $1450, is that a fair price? I need to know soon whether or not I should push ahead with this. Is the 6920 a decent AR? Thanks.


then this was a reply by another member to your question about the colt.

the 6920 is considered by some to be the gold standard. it's right there with noveske and LMT.



does that sound familiar?
it should because this was your reply to someone elses question about a colt just a few days ago.


Buy a Colt, they're the gold standard.


keep in mind there are only a couple of weeks from the beginning of this till now,,,, so come on man.


see what i mean?

i think its great to give advice to folks, but really man, shouldnt it be from experience? thats not the high road i came to expect.


on a side note, it does make me feel better about when you called my ar junk the other day.

FlyinBryan
December 13, 2008, 11:11 PM
lol, innerpeace.

beat me to it, its become pretty obvious i guess.

innerpiece
December 13, 2008, 11:14 PM
yep..lol it is ;)

just hopin the mods get as tired of it as the members who actually contribute are...

either way, oh well. ya cant see the light without the dark :)

ip.

FlyinBryan
December 13, 2008, 11:23 PM
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Accuracy is more dependent on the shooter and the rifle/ammo combination than who made the rifle. Grow up dude, you are far from enlightenment.

im pretty sure your definition of "accuracy" differs greatly from his.

lately hes shooting quarter inch 5 shot groups.


100 yard,,,,,, 5 shot groups,,,,,, the size of an M&M,,,,,, are beyond what the finest marksman can do with less than superb equipment.

trust me.

it matters.

jaholder1971
December 14, 2008, 12:29 AM
Reading this list and watching those who take it as gospel has been entertaining.

The milspec standards were created by a bunch of ordnance officers who sat in a small room with an M16 and tried to figure out every possible way the rifle could fail and how to prevent it. There is nothing built by milspec that is guaranteed not to fail any more than a non-milspec is guaranteed to be a timebomb waiting to blow up.

I've yet to see any non-milspec bolt or barrel fail unless it was some sort of kaboom involved. This includes DCM across the course rifles that get up to 5,000-7,000 rounds/yr through them in all kind of locations and conditions. Is this combat conditions? No, but it's the closest example of hard use from non-milspec rifles.

I don't count kabooms, as every KB I've seen has been bad ammo and that will disassemble any rifle with extreme prejudice.

It's gonna take a lot of alcohol to convince me that the color of the extractor spring spacer means a damn thing.

I'd never have an M16 carrier on a civilian rifle, at least until there is some consistency in BATFE regulations.

A bolt carrier key should be staked IMHO. One probably won't come apart if torqued down well and red Loc Tite applied, but staking it leaves nothing to chance. With that said, that job's easily done yourself and it doesn't take much of a stake to guarantee that it ain't going anywhere.

I've never seen a loose FSB, period. Parkerizing under it is a red herring. I've seen plenty of M16's and M4's serving GI's in parts unknown missing most of the finish off the barrels and anodizing off the receivers yet the .gov didn't stop the war to refinish them.

Again, much ado about nothing, unless you're planning your own personal war and then I'd say you've got bigger issues to deal with.

Lonestar.45
December 14, 2008, 12:33 AM
I wish I would have run across that chart long before I started buying AR's. It should be required reading for any potential AR newbie. It would have saved me a ton of money. A lot of folks feel the same way. Like anything, take it with a grain of salt and do your own research, but I believe it is very helpful and cuts through a lot of the "buy ABC" and you can't go wrong nonsense.

Buy once cry once.

BIGRETIC
December 14, 2008, 12:35 AM
Hey...I have a Bushie...Great gun ,never failed me.If all the "chart" BS has got you down...buy a SA M1A.Better accuracy than the Colt,more reliable than the Colt,....and....much more knockdown power than the Colt.

Oh
i forgot to add...about the same price as a COLT!
I guess I am just tired of all the Colt vs. Bushmaster BS!!!

HorseSoldier
December 14, 2008, 01:36 AM
I've yet to see any non-milspec bolt or barrel fail unless it was some sort of kaboom involved.

I've seen two AR bolt failures, both complete seperations at the cam pin, that were not kB related. One was an Olympic bolt with an unknown (but likely pretty high) round count on it. The other was a Model 1 bolt that was bought new by a buddy of mine and that failed at less than 500 rounds.

All the various M4A1 bolt failures I've seen (in all cases I can think of, locking lugs sheared off at the extractor) have been ammo related.

A sample size of two failures isn't exactly statistically significant, but is meaningful enough to me personally that for a serious fighting rifle I'd limit myself to higher quality manufacturers for parts and components.

sublimaze41
December 14, 2008, 01:45 AM
I want me one of dem SA M1A.... in 5.56:rolleyes:

HorseSoldier
December 14, 2008, 01:56 AM
Until then, I stand by my statement...US military is supplied m16 rifles from more than just colt. Therefore you all can judge for yourself the merits of that stupidass chart.

It's not like who builds M4s and M16s for the US military is an unknowable mystery, and anyone who builds them for a .mil contract has to conform to the TDP for the weapon system in question. The chart only illustrates how close a given manufacturer comes to matching the TDP.

It is possible to produce a higher quality product than the TDP -- the LMT enhanced reliability bolt and bolt carrier seem like a good example of this.

It is also possible to cut corners to lower costs and produce a weapon that will not be as mechanically reliable or durable as a result. I'm not really sure how anyone can argue against that fact, unless they're letting their affinity for their personal AR or preferred manufacture color their thinking.

Many shooters who don't do anything but plinking may never see and real difference in performance. However, claiming there's no real difference in performance because a modest schedule of shooting doesn't reveal it is roughly on par with claiming your stock Honda Civic that gets you to work fine everyday is therefore suitable for police use in a protracted high speed freeway chase or that your Honda is ready to compete in NASCAR.

innerpiece
December 14, 2008, 02:57 AM
model specifc.... even if the chart IS accurate.

model specific. thats it.....

proven
December 14, 2008, 03:02 AM
If failure rates are so much more important than that stupidass chart, then why don't some geniuses here post some honest to goodness failure rates rather than that stupidass chart?

Put up or shutup, stupidasses.

Until then, I stand by my statement...US military is supplied m16 rifles from more than just colt. Therefore you all can judge for yourself the merits of that stupidass chart.

wow. how old are you?

please enlighten us as to who supplies the us military with m16s.

BIGRETIC
December 14, 2008, 03:30 AM
Colt and Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing Inc.

innerpiece
December 14, 2008, 03:37 AM
see what Egos do to conversation?!
Im right and yer not! you must be young, or dont own a gun. or I like my gun cause its the one I have, or the one I want to have.
mostly uneducated internet commandos who get threads closed or off topic.....

tho I kinda agree with Loomis, but he was also overly harsh, and he will learn overly open opinion is not welcom at THR. because we all wear tux's ;) and callin people "stupidasses" more than once every 30 words will get yer post edited.

this thread will now self distruct..
5.4.3.2.1.

rob_s
December 14, 2008, 04:03 AM
I have to wonder if some of you people read the explanation of features or if you just see that your pet gun doesn't have as many Xs as you'd like and roll back to hysteria.

There's all kinds of comical posts in this thread like "who needs a black insert" and "what difference does it make if there's parkerizing under the FSB or not". READ the explanation of features and decide if you need these features or not.

The problem with the Chat is simply that most people can't read it objectively. Some see it and find that their pet rifle has a lot of Xs and use it to justify their purchase. Some see it and find that their pet rifle doesn't have a lot of Xs and think it means the chart is "bunk".

The Chart is a collection of facts. If you don't understand, or don't care, what those facts are and/or how they relate to your needs in a firearm then ignore it. But that doesn't change the facts.

And I'll say one more time, since people continue to go on about how "milspec doesn't mean anything". Milspec is the BASE standard for rifles of this type. Now go back and look at the Chart and look at how few makers even come close to meeting that standard.

hobgob
December 14, 2008, 04:05 AM
I personally hate that chart and all that it stands for!

ugaarguy
December 14, 2008, 05:28 AM
I've yet to see any non-milspec bolt or barrel fail unless it was some sort of kaboom involved. This includes DCM across the course rifles that get up to 5,000-7,000 rounds/yr through them in all kind of locations and conditions. Is this combat conditions? No, but it's the closest example of hard use from non-milspec rifles.
In a good carbine course you'll run 1,000 to 1,300 rounds of ammo through the rifle in two days. It's much harder use than DCM competition. Call any major school / instructor and they'll tell you what works and what fails. Remember, we're also talking about 16" barrel defensive carbines, not 20" barrel DCM rifles. The shorter gas system leads to more force and higher velocity on the bolt during extraction, which is why the QC/QA processes on the bolt are so important.
It's gonna take a lot of alcohol to convince me that the color of the extractor spring spacer means a damn thing.
The TDP doesn't call for beefed up extractor springs and inserts on rifles. See above comments on bolt velocity and force with carbine length gas systems. The color of the insert is merely a quick visual reference to make sure the right insert is in carbine bolts.
I'd never have an M16 carrier on a civilian rifle, at least until there is some consistency in BATFE regulations.
Again, more violent extraction on carbines. M16 carriers both cock on the carrier (protecting the firing pin), and add weight (slightly slowing BCG velocity). Combined with an H buffer they help tame the recoil impulse and smooth extraction on carbines.
A bolt carrier key should be staked IMHO. One probably won't come apart if torqued down well and red Loc Tite applied, but staking it leaves nothing to chance.
With the volume of fire done in a good carbine course you'll easily overheat red loctite.
With that said, that job's easily done yourself and it doesn't take much of a stake to guarantee that it ain't going anywhere.
The point is that you shouldn't have to do it yourself. It's a known reliability issue. If the company is too lazy, cheap, or indifferent to perform this essential task at the factory, then it tells me they're a cheap assembler, not a real manufacturer.

Go back and read the explanation of features. As has already been said, this is a compilation of data -nothing more, nothing less. Bartholomew Roberts wrote about all these corner cutting procedures in the thread "34 Ways To Cut Corners When Manufacturing an AR-15", which is stickied in the THR Rifle Forum Reading Library. Rob just put the data into chart that's a quick reference showing which makers do what. He's said all along to simply understand the features and only pay for as much rifle as you want or need.

Last, for those who want to start calling names - Quit! It isn't high road, it's against forum rules - remember attack the argument, not the person. The name calling and cussing detracts from a heated, but otherwise civil, discussion. We can strongly disagree and still be polite about it. Cussing and calling each other names ends discussion and starts a yelling match.

XavierBreath
December 14, 2008, 06:32 AM
If you are unable to debate a subject without namecalling and irrationality, expect your thread to be closed and PMs to be sent.

If you enjoyed reading about "The AR-15 all famous m4 "Chart" that some swear by." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!