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

[rob_s]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[journeyman]

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]

+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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i don't have any personal experience with del-tons, but I have seen many other low-cost ARs fail.

 

[Gord]

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]

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]

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]

You can count me as a bushmaster. It has spit out 1000 rounds in 2 days... no issues what so ever.

 

[wacki]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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