damn, another common sense post....
Bushmaster bashing
- Thread starter SpeedAKL
- Start date
- Status
Joe Demko
Member
I'd like to see some kind of numbers rather than anecdotal evidence. "We see brand x fail in classes," while it is not entirely useless, is also not giving us much information.
MPI and shot-peened are "better." How much better? What's the difference in failure rates for getting/not getting those processes?
Is there a gunskul where they keep records of which guns their students use from each cohort? I'd like to know not only how many of brand x failed, but how many of brand x did not fail, and over what length of time/round count.
I acknowledge that, if money is no object, "better is better" may be all the convincing you need to buy one brand over another. It's your money, spend it however you like. This is still America.
MPI and shot-peened are "better." How much better? What's the difference in failure rates for getting/not getting those processes?
Is there a gunskul where they keep records of which guns their students use from each cohort? I'd like to know not only how many of brand x failed, but how many of brand x did not fail, and over what length of time/round count.
I acknowledge that, if money is no object, "better is better" may be all the convincing you need to buy one brand over another. It's your money, spend it however you like. This is still America.
Zerodefect
member
Oh sure I'll buy every single bushmaster and test them........then record results.
The numbers just get fudged anyway.
Plenty of low grade AR's from many manufacturers out there. I know because theres allways some momo that holds up the entire carbine class because his mass produced M4replica has broken down again.
At $200 a day for decent carbine training. You can be certain I know what brands of rifles stink, because they hold up my training repeatedly. Thankfully some classes recommend bringing two rifles now...........though that hasn't helped much because some folks still bring TWO pos AR's.
Please for petes sake! Don't bring Shrubbery, Oly, d PMS, RRA, to a $500 class please!
The numbers just get fudged anyway.
Plenty of low grade AR's from many manufacturers out there. I know because theres allways some momo that holds up the entire carbine class because his mass produced M4replica has broken down again.
At $200 a day for decent carbine training. You can be certain I know what brands of rifles stink, because they hold up my training repeatedly. Thankfully some classes recommend bringing two rifles now...........though that hasn't helped much because some folks still bring TWO pos AR's.
Please for petes sake! Don't bring Shrubbery, Oly, d PMS, RRA, to a $500 class please!
Joe Demko
Member
Didn't say you needed to buy anything, so just calm down. All I wanted was some numbers from student data. If you don't keep such numbers, okay. I'm having trouble understanding from your post, though, whether you take a lot of classes or you teach classes.
Last edited:
One thing Bushmaster has done is focus a little more on accuracy. They have V-Match uppers and nice stuff like that which will out shoot an M4 from Colt or anyone else. With that overall accuracy awareness I like a Bushmaster barrel over the others including Colt. My uncle had a Colt rifle and it went "SPROING" under your face, had a loose handguard and a mediocre trigger just like all the others. Nothing special. The Bushmaster ORC I bought for 759 pre Obama was better. Dead assed reliable. The only thing I liked better than shooting it was watching the blonde chick on youtube showing me ever so smoothly how to take it apart and put it back together. It reminded me of why its good to know the best way to insert your bolt.
Izzy77
Member
Funny, and it make you think of relative worth...
MisterPX
Member
The current bash fest is primarily due to Bushy's handling of then ACR. They want $2500 for a rifle designed and projected for teh $1300 range.
“Spaghetti is way more likely to make you bald then eggplant parmesan. I know this because everyone I see who is balding (most the time), are eating spaghetti and eggplant parmesan is made if vegetables… and vegetables are healthy.”
See? ^ We can apply unproven, un-substantiated data on stuff all day long.
Zerodefect, what I am saying here is that without any factual numbers for “per capita” failures, the logical assumption here for most people would be…
“There are way more BM’s out there then LMT’s, so wouldn’t it make sense that there are more rifles that also fail with BM’s rollmark then LMT’s?”
Per-capita is the tail of the tape for reliability, and weather or not brand X is more or less likely to break then brand Y. Without any evidence to back up your claim (which would mean across the board stress testing examples of several different manufacturers products buy a uninterested third party (like let's say Oracles APT facility in Colorado) your making a “guess”.
My retort to you is how many people bring DPMS, BM, OLY, STAG, vs. the higher end AR’s to your training course? And then what percentage of AR’s do you see vs. what is in the hands of consumers worldwide and is it a high enough percentage to give accurate data?
If LMT has a failure rate of 1% and they make 5000 rifles a year. Then about a 500 rifles are likely to have failures.
If BM makes 50,000 and their failure rate is the same your going to see 5,000 failures in a given batch; more or less what LMT even makes…
If DPMS produces another 40,000 AR’s in a year and have the same failure rate, then there is another 4,000 rifles that are not LMT's that are going to fail…
If Oly makes 25,000 rifles in a year with the same failure rate then there is another 2,500 failures…
And then if there are 500,000 AR's in the hands of people.... see what I am getting at?
We need statistical data to back up our arguments so that we can get a actual baseline. Now I am not saying you are wrong, you may very well be right. But what I am saying is that from what I have seen here so far, NO ONE seems to actually have any statistical evidence to prove reliability either way… at least not enough for anyone here to have a passionate debate about it.
Even then, if the percentage is different, will it be different enough to justify a 30-80% or better price increase?
My guess, is no.
Last edited:
shadowalker
Member
I think the point is that it doesn't matter how many total are out there.
In classes where AR-15's go down it is more often Bushmaster and other low tier AR-15's than LMT, Colt, Daniel Defense, Sabre etc.
In those classes people that are serious about training run top tier guns so Bushmaster is probably under represented yet fails more.
In classes where AR-15's go down it is more often Bushmaster and other low tier AR-15's than LMT, Colt, Daniel Defense, Sabre etc.
In those classes people that are serious about training run top tier guns so Bushmaster is probably under represented yet fails more.
Joe Demko
Member
How much more often?
And what percentage of AR-15's that are in the market do you see? Is it also possible that guys running higher end gear are also taking better care of it? You see that alot in the auto industry...
It would be interesting to see some of the larger carbine courses actually have a third party collect data on every rifle that goes through, and accurately record failures AND those failures most likley culprits.
But that would still be a far cry from actual hard science based research and failure testing. Honestly, you would think this would have already been done by someone...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I know Pat Rogers posts AARs of all of his classes (though not here) and often discusses specific gear failure issues in those AARs. I think he may also send out a more detailed version to EAG Tactical alums on his mailing list.
In any case, something like that is probably the closest thing you will find to what you are looking for. I think part of the problem is that very few people who see a decent sample size are collecting that information and of the few who are, they don't always disseminate it widely.
Look at rob_s's Chart for a great example of why. The Chart is just a simple collection of facts, confirmed with the manufacturers. There isn't a shred of opinion on it - either a gas key is staked according to TDP or it isn't. Yet despite that, look at all the nasty comments out there regarding the Chart and the person who made it.
Joe Demko
Member
I'm not disputing anything on the chart and I don't know the guy who made it. All I am saying is that the checklist that forms the chart would be orders of magnitude more useful if each "x" had some quantified measure of how much "better" it is to have that feature than to not have it.
Last edited:
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
I think there are two issues at play here
a) How "mil spec" the rifle is (hence the relevance of the M4 chart).
b) How good a company's Quality Control measures are at the plant.
Two two are broadly related, but not the same.
I bought Bushmasters fully knowing they were not mil-spec. I've even called out vendors for touting that "Bushies were the same as Colt, your just not paying for the Colt name".
I do have a concern over Bushmasters QC. From what I have experienced and observed, most problems with the Bushmasters relate to things that should have been caught at the factory before the rifle was put into the box. Over torquing the barrel for example.
I also have a concern over Sig Sauer QC (rifles and pistols). And over several other big brands. It's not just Bushmaster - there seems to be a sloppyness in many leading brands over the past few years.
However, I have taken care of my rifles, upgraded parts as I need to, or feel advised to ... and will certainly bring my Shrubbery to whatever match, event or class I feel like, thank you very much.
a) How "mil spec" the rifle is (hence the relevance of the M4 chart).
b) How good a company's Quality Control measures are at the plant.
Two two are broadly related, but not the same.
I bought Bushmasters fully knowing they were not mil-spec. I've even called out vendors for touting that "Bushies were the same as Colt, your just not paying for the Colt name".
I do have a concern over Bushmasters QC. From what I have experienced and observed, most problems with the Bushmasters relate to things that should have been caught at the factory before the rifle was put into the box. Over torquing the barrel for example.
I also have a concern over Sig Sauer QC (rifles and pistols). And over several other big brands. It's not just Bushmaster - there seems to be a sloppyness in many leading brands over the past few years.
However, I have taken care of my rifles, upgraded parts as I need to, or feel advised to ... and will certainly bring my Shrubbery to whatever match, event or class I feel like, thank you very much.
Last edited:
Well put sir. And I would have no problems taking my DPMS to a class. I guess we would just have to kill time after our weapons exploded by making fun of eachothers craptaculer weapons. ;-)
I think alot of the current sloppyness might have something to do with peoples willingness to buy every "evil rifle" they could get their hands on for the last year.
And I think the chart is great for showing exatly what you are getting. It simply does not actually answer any reliablity questions, and that seems to be the basis for most people arguments either for, or against Bushmaster/DPMS/Oly.
Zerodefect
member
I don't like eggplant. But I'll try it if it'll keep hair off my back. LOL.
I have to actually hide my BCG lately!
I don't mind lending out springs, pins, extractor, mags, etc. Don't ask for my bolt. You can shoot my back up Ps90 for the rest of class if you don't mind buying my ammo. Truely, I am being extra hard on the gardeners for what they did to my ACR.
I have to actually hide my BCG lately!
I don't mind lending out springs, pins, extractor, mags, etc. Don't ask for my bolt. You can shoot my back up Ps90 for the rest of class if you don't mind buying my ammo. Truely, I am being extra hard on the gardeners for what they did to my ACR.
LOL! I hear that man, my old man has some mean back hair... and for me it feels like the clock is ticking ;-)... one day I'll wake up and BAM!... I'll never feel the cotton of a shirt on my skin again....
I will say this though, I just started posting on this board recently (my normal board is down for repairs right now), and over all, I am impressed at the intelligent debate and membership here. SO I think I'll hang around, even after my normal board comes back!
Well done on both sides! Where do you teach a carbine class Zero? And do people also take 20" guns through your course ever? Cause I really do prefer the 20" on AR's... but I also have an 11/5.5'" A1 Carbine that I want to SBR as my KISS rifle.
I normally carry a back up bolt, gas rings, extractor and springs, sear, et-cetra in my but stock just in case, cause you never know. I havn't needed them yet... but still better to be safe then sorry...
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
Could well be, but Bushmaster QC issues go back over a decade. IMHO, Bushmaster parts are good, but the assemblage leaves something to be desired (for me in 1 of 3 cases). My Bushmaster Patrolman from 2008 was very well assembled, and that came out in the midst of the black rifle crazyness. My 1997 rifle came out during a relative market lull, and that's the one that had a problem.
Again, as a comparison, Sig Sauer (Exeter NH, not Germany) has been demonstrating QC issues for several years now, and has done strange things like substituting plastic guide rods for metal. And I've been very vocal with their CS reps about that. And with their 556 rifles, i think they rushed them to market, and had some QC issues on many of the early ones. Hopefully they will have learned for the Sig 516, but I'm not overly optimistic.
Back to Bushmaster, I point this out because the QC issue is addressable by management (or their Cerberus masters), or should be. It's a good brand, with a good mid-tier product, and they could easily avoid additional tarnish with a little corrective action on the factory floor -- as well more than likely up in the executive offices as well.
Now, I skipped lunch, and all this talk of eggplant and spagetti is making my tummy growl
wrc
Member
Xs in the top half are the most important.
Here's a useful document, MIL-C-70599A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890325/Army-M4-Carbine-556MM
You can cross-reference that (and later supplements) with the "m4 spreadsheet". Each "x" is a component of the specification.
Each empty cell is a place where a corner was cut. Some of that probably doesn't matter. A commercial buffer tube vs. spec, for example. Cheaper barrel steels may function just as well, especially without the punishment of automatic fire. With modern QA techniques, batch-testing barrels and bolts will probably catch widespread defects.
However, once you start leaving out the specified feedramps, or playing fast and loose with the gas/bolt/carrier/extractor/ejector system, you begin to impact section 3.4.7 -- Endurance.
If you use garbage front sight towers, or don't torque everything to spec and test it, you end up with gross violations of 3.4.6 -- Targeting and Accuracy.
In the end, the X's matter more on the top than the bottom. If you accept what Pat Rogers observes in his classes, the most important parts are the extractor, extractor spring, and O-ring. After that, it's staked gas keys and a properly-made bolt that won't split.
Subjectively, and this is just my opinion, the more corners a manufacturer cuts, the less faith I have in the parts that aren't immediately visible to be right or wrong. If they can't consistently stake the gas key, are they even checking to make sure the triggers and hammers they source or make are properly case-hardened?
The m4 chart exists because there is a standard by which apples can be compared to apples.
Here's a useful document, MIL-C-70599A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890325/Army-M4-Carbine-556MM
You can cross-reference that (and later supplements) with the "m4 spreadsheet". Each "x" is a component of the specification.
Each empty cell is a place where a corner was cut. Some of that probably doesn't matter. A commercial buffer tube vs. spec, for example. Cheaper barrel steels may function just as well, especially without the punishment of automatic fire. With modern QA techniques, batch-testing barrels and bolts will probably catch widespread defects.
However, once you start leaving out the specified feedramps, or playing fast and loose with the gas/bolt/carrier/extractor/ejector system, you begin to impact section 3.4.7 -- Endurance.
If you use garbage front sight towers, or don't torque everything to spec and test it, you end up with gross violations of 3.4.6 -- Targeting and Accuracy.
In the end, the X's matter more on the top than the bottom. If you accept what Pat Rogers observes in his classes, the most important parts are the extractor, extractor spring, and O-ring. After that, it's staked gas keys and a properly-made bolt that won't split.
Subjectively, and this is just my opinion, the more corners a manufacturer cuts, the less faith I have in the parts that aren't immediately visible to be right or wrong. If they can't consistently stake the gas key, are they even checking to make sure the triggers and hammers they source or make are properly case-hardened?
The m4 chart exists because there is a standard by which apples can be compared to apples.
Zerodefect
member
20" AR's rock, as long as it's .gov profiile or a lite barrel. The heavy barrel Ar's are tough to throw around.
16 seems to be the new 20. Aimpoints and Eotechs have made the biggest difference for us.
16 seems to be the new 20. Aimpoints and Eotechs have made the biggest difference for us.
shadowalker
Member
For me the absolute minimum is a true 5.56 chamber, a properly staked fully shrouded MPI BCG, MPI chrome lined 1:7 twist barrel and mil spec receiver extension.
It is true not all the x's are of equal value, you must educate yourself to know how important each one is. Just counting x's and assigning a value to your rifle based off that is not how the chart is intended to be used. For me the BCG and barrel options are far more important than whether the barrel is parkerized under the FSB.
People that praise their rifle based on the chart with no understanding of what it actually means are just as bad as the people that bash / dismiss it without knowing what it means.
It is true not all the x's are of equal value, you must educate yourself to know how important each one is. Just counting x's and assigning a value to your rifle based off that is not how the chart is intended to be used. For me the BCG and barrel options are far more important than whether the barrel is parkerized under the FSB.
People that praise their rifle based on the chart with no understanding of what it actually means are just as bad as the people that bash / dismiss it without knowing what it means.
Actually commercial tubes have proven to have problems, they have a weaker connection to the receiver.
hillmillenia
Member
It's just the gun forums social club internet BS...There is nothing right/wrong with a Bushmaster product that there is or isn't with any other product potentially...I like to rag on Ruger and Smith & Wesson for being such pussies and knuckling under to the special interest litigators and slapping unneccessary safeties or regulating the sales of factory magazines to the public in spite of the second ammendment...like everyone is clamoring to lay thier hands on a mini 14. It's all propaganda and crap. IMHO
Welding Rod
Member
At 6'3" and a lean 230 I not only prefer the 20" Hbar, but have little trouble throwing it around ;-). I actually dig the eight and my follow up shots with my set up are not only accurate, but VERY fast due tot he lack of recoil. I am really considering doing a pencil profile BBL on my A1 though, that and an A1 butt stock and triangle guards.
Expertowgunner
Member
I recently got a guns and ammo mag that showed what mil spec really means and why there is NO ar on the market that is truly milspec. according to the guide it said the closest gun to mil spec was the le6920 colt and it was only 1 part off from mil spec due to milspec is for SELECT FIRE type guns. also why does rra get a bad rap from folks as a gun that was adopted by the dea doesnt seem to be such a bad gun imo. ive shot plenty of of rounds (read in excess of 3000 rounds in a year period) out my "shrubmaster" and only had 3 jams to my knowledge and that was due to wolf steel case stuff swelling in the chamber but this was only minor and was fixed in about 10 sec. The only gun i dont like is the olympic brand and that was out of multiple problems i had with it thank god i didnt have much in it and i got rid of it for a 400 dollar profit during the barackathon of late 08 and early 09. my rra entry tactical is equally good and i got that for free lol long story on that too
- Status
