Cavalry
member
If you were to take a survey on the quality and accuracy all out satisfaction what would you check as the best AR-15 Prototype manufacture ? Support your answer.
AR-15 .223 Prototype
- Thread starter Cavalry
- Start date
- Status
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
Bushmaster has 4150 barrel steel and chromelineing
Considering that they produce the greatest quantity of civilian AR15s,
BFI sets the economy of scale price point that others match by cutting corners.
The fact that they parkerize the barrel assembly and leave bare steel under the FSB earns them a demerit.
Colt has the better overall build quality,
but i have issues with their larger push pins and politically correct build outs.
Considering that they produce the greatest quantity of civilian AR15s,
BFI sets the economy of scale price point that others match by cutting corners.
The fact that they parkerize the barrel assembly and leave bare steel under the FSB earns them a demerit.
Colt has the better overall build quality,
but i have issues with their larger push pins and politically correct build outs.
Gotta call BS on that one. BFI, also like Colt, is also marking up prices based on the fact that it is BFI and it has name recognition.
The ecomony of scale of BFI is easily matched by LMT and CMT who supply uppers and lowers to much of the rest of the market. Likewise with barrel manufacture from Shaw and Douglas.
Most of the other small parts are outsourced by BFI as well.
BFI does produce a good firearm but to say the others are cutting corners means you have drunk way too much BFI coolaide.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
Nice graph, but it doesn't prove your point about cutting corners.
It is not as simple an equation as you seem to think it is.
Economy of scale is not linear but exponential. Since things like machine time and human labor costs are fixed per item, and that the human labor content on an AR-15 is very high since they are all assembled by hand you also have a huge amount of cost that is fixed and not changed by economy of scale.
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the economies of scale in the AR-15 market are that significant.
Now if BFI produced 20 times more then the rest then savings through increased automation reducing the labor cost and more capable CNC machining centers (which have a much higher captial cost intially requireing much larger production runs to get the ecomony of scale in the first place) then you could convince me.
But for 2 or 3 times the LMT production run when LMT gets other economies of scale on its machine time since it is a machine shop only, I don't think so. With these quantities on a AR-15 I'd be really surprised to see any more than a couple of percent on the price difference. Business practices will have more effect than cost of production.
If you do find a way for this to be true write a business plan, form a machining company and I'll invest. I would certainly speed my retirement plans along.
Frankly today all the major AR producers turn out a good product and all of them turn out a few lemons.
It is not as simple an equation as you seem to think it is.
Economy of scale is not linear but exponential. Since things like machine time and human labor costs are fixed per item, and that the human labor content on an AR-15 is very high since they are all assembled by hand you also have a huge amount of cost that is fixed and not changed by economy of scale.
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the economies of scale in the AR-15 market are that significant.
Now if BFI produced 20 times more then the rest then savings through increased automation reducing the labor cost and more capable CNC machining centers (which have a much higher captial cost intially requireing much larger production runs to get the ecomony of scale in the first place) then you could convince me.
But for 2 or 3 times the LMT production run when LMT gets other economies of scale on its machine time since it is a machine shop only, I don't think so. With these quantities on a AR-15 I'd be really surprised to see any more than a couple of percent on the price difference. Business practices will have more effect than cost of production.
If you do find a way for this to be true write a business plan, form a machining company and I'll invest. I would certainly speed my retirement plans along.
Frankly today all the major AR producers turn out a good product and all of them turn out a few lemons.
Armalite, Bushie and RRA all seem to be top quality. Both of my ARs are mutts with the above all contributing. RRA seems to be slightly less expensive and/or faster to ship than the others (e.g., Armalite wanted 4 months just to ship me a bolt ass'y). I don't know anything about the Oly's, but I've heard people talking down the DPMS.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
I wouldn't say that other mfgs are cutting corners. They do a lot of selling among themselves. Witness when Olympic Arms had that big fire years ago. All the other makers sold them parts to get started again. They also buy from the same subcontractors who make those parts too. Then again, it pays to buy from reputable dealers. I heard some things come from Taiwan, but better to ask the Arfcom gang as they're really into it.
Slowworm -
I'm not sure how you put LMT and CMT in the same basket... cuz every AR15 I've ever seen with the letters "LMT" laser engraved on it has been MORE expensive than a Bushmaster...
I do see both points... on the one hand, RRA uses non-chrome lined, 4140 steel barrels to outdo pricing on the Bushy 4150 chrome lining, and LMT charges MORE (from what I've seen) for their barrels made of similar materials, BUT on the other hand, I don't consider RRA as a "corner cutter" and in fact do own one RRA manufactured AR15.
I'm not sure how you put LMT and CMT in the same basket... cuz every AR15 I've ever seen with the letters "LMT" laser engraved on it has been MORE expensive than a Bushmaster...
I do see both points... on the one hand, RRA uses non-chrome lined, 4140 steel barrels to outdo pricing on the Bushy 4150 chrome lining, and LMT charges MORE (from what I've seen) for their barrels made of similar materials, BUT on the other hand, I don't consider RRA as a "corner cutter" and in fact do own one RRA manufactured AR15.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Am I missing something here that others are getting? 
A prototype? Considering I've never seen an AR-15 prototype from any given company, let alone hold one and fire a prototype rifle, I don't see how I can make a decision on a knowledgebase of zero.
Might not apply to others but I can't make a vote based on knowing nothing.
A prototype? Considering I've never seen an AR-15 prototype from any given company, let alone hold one and fire a prototype rifle, I don't see how I can make a decision on a knowledgebase of zero.
Might not apply to others but I can't make a vote based on knowing nothing.
Cavalry
member
Get a dictionary and look up the word prototype, that should answer you stupid question.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Gee, aren't you polite.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Mmm someone wasn’t very popular on the playground as a child, were they?
Your definition of prototype and my definition of prototype differ. Mine is based off manufacturing jargon, and since you apply it to a product, it would be more logical to apply the manufacturing jargon than generic jargon. It is my pet peeve when people mix up generic definitions to area-specific definitions (ie lumping general context of “theory” the same as the scientific definition of “theory”)
If by prototype rifle, you mean “production” rifle, then it would make more sense to hold a poll based on this. A prototype is considered the first working, full-scale functional model of a given product that is to be manufactured as a production model. A proto tests its functionality, feasibility, and works out any bugs before you finalize the tooling and start on your production run. It’s usually built to test functionality and not finished to the completion or standards of a production model. You don’t produce and sell prototypes en masse.
Production runs are built under a strict adherence to fabrication standards, tolerance specifics, and industry standards and are the final form that the end user will receive. Prototypes are one of the last steps in the R&D process before production begins. Afterwards, sometimes you get what they call 1st generation or “first production run” models which will get revised after the customer base gives feedback on any given issues that weren’t resolved in the prototyping and testing stages.
You develop proto tooling, proto PCBs, proto firearms before you ever move to production tooling, production PCBs, or production firearms. Having experience in prototyping PCB designs with a PCB fabricating company, I’ll tell you that prototyping and production runs are completely different (and price reflects that too).
In that case, most people have never fired and compared prototype AR15s from different companies, unless you are Reed Knight .
Your definition of prototype and my definition of prototype differ. Mine is based off manufacturing jargon, and since you apply it to a product, it would be more logical to apply the manufacturing jargon than generic jargon. It is my pet peeve when people mix up generic definitions to area-specific definitions (ie lumping general context of “theory” the same as the scientific definition of “theory”)
If by prototype rifle, you mean “production” rifle, then it would make more sense to hold a poll based on this. A prototype is considered the first working, full-scale functional model of a given product that is to be manufactured as a production model. A proto tests its functionality, feasibility, and works out any bugs before you finalize the tooling and start on your production run. It’s usually built to test functionality and not finished to the completion or standards of a production model. You don’t produce and sell prototypes en masse.
Production runs are built under a strict adherence to fabrication standards, tolerance specifics, and industry standards and are the final form that the end user will receive. Prototypes are one of the last steps in the R&D process before production begins. Afterwards, sometimes you get what they call 1st generation or “first production run” models which will get revised after the customer base gives feedback on any given issues that weren’t resolved in the prototyping and testing stages.
You develop proto tooling, proto PCBs, proto firearms before you ever move to production tooling, production PCBs, or production firearms. Having experience in prototyping PCB designs with a PCB fabricating company, I’ll tell you that prototyping and production runs are completely different (and price reflects that too).
In that case, most people have never fired and compared prototype AR15s from different companies, unless you are Reed Knight .
Cavalry
member
Ok now that you have thrown the topic into left field can we get on with the poll, please stop trolling
Cesiumsponge
Member
Cavalry:
I didn't derail the thread. I simply asked for some clarification, indicated by a sentance terminated by a question mark. That way, I could respond properly and cast my vote accordingly.
Instead I was greeted by a personal attack made by you. Once I clarified what "prototype" was defined as from my understanding, you make another personal attack and call me a troll
I didn't derail the thread. I simply asked for some clarification, indicated by a sentance terminated by a question mark. That way, I could respond properly and cast my vote accordingly.
Instead I was greeted by a personal attack made by you. Once I clarified what "prototype" was defined as from my understanding, you make another personal attack and call me a troll
Cavalry
member
Just get on with the topic please, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, now im sure you will live
Onslaught,
LMTs own rifles are considered at the very high end and hence pricey.
But both LMT and CMT make a great number of uppers and lowers for other AR manufacturers that carry the roll mark of whoever ordered the part. So my comment is looking at LMT and CMT not as rifles builders but as a contract machine shop operation that machines parts for whoever orders them.
For example until DSA had their recent price rise you could get a DSA AR-15 stripped lower for $100 + shipping and transfer. LMT does nearly all the machining for DSA on both the AR and the FAL side of the business, so you could get an LMT machined receiver with the DSA roll mark for $100.
Today that same LMT lower has an MSRP of $140 against an MSRP of $184 for a BFI lower. No-one is going to convince me that the LMT lower is not as good quality as the BFI. Not when LMT has been providing milspec equipment to the likes of SOCOM, something BFI has not been doing.
That is what I was getting at.
LMTs own rifles are considered at the very high end and hence pricey.
But both LMT and CMT make a great number of uppers and lowers for other AR manufacturers that carry the roll mark of whoever ordered the part. So my comment is looking at LMT and CMT not as rifles builders but as a contract machine shop operation that machines parts for whoever orders them.
For example until DSA had their recent price rise you could get a DSA AR-15 stripped lower for $100 + shipping and transfer. LMT does nearly all the machining for DSA on both the AR and the FAL side of the business, so you could get an LMT machined receiver with the DSA roll mark for $100.
Today that same LMT lower has an MSRP of $140 against an MSRP of $184 for a BFI lower. No-one is going to convince me that the LMT lower is not as good quality as the BFI. Not when LMT has been providing milspec equipment to the likes of SOCOM, something BFI has not been doing.
That is what I was getting at.
I think for the purposes of this thread...
"Prototype" should be exchanged for "pattern".
Colt's sales numbers are somewhat misleading. True, their reported AR-15 sales lag compared to Bushmaster, but is Bushmaster also busy supplying government contracts with M16 and M4 variants?
"Prototype" should be exchanged for "pattern".
Colt's sales numbers are somewhat misleading. True, their reported AR-15 sales lag compared to Bushmaster, but is Bushmaster also busy supplying government contracts with M16 and M4 variants?
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
From Merriam Webster
Main Entry: pro·to·type
Pronunciation: 'prO-t&-"tIp
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Greek prOtotypon, from neuter of prOtotypos archetypal, from prOt- + typos type
1 : an original model on which something is patterned : ARCHETYPE
2 : an individual that exhibits the essential features of a later type
3 : a standard or typical example
4 : a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (as an airplane)
Main Entry: prot-
Variant(s): or proto-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Middle English protho-, from Middle French, from Late Latin proto-, from Greek prOt-, prOto-, from prOtos; akin to Greek pro before -- more at FOR
1 a : first in time <protohistory> b : beginning : giving rise to <protoplanet>
2 : parent substance of a (specified) substance <protactinium>
3 : first formed : primary <protoxylem>
4 capitalized : relating to or constituting the recorded or assumed language that is ancestral to a language or to a group of related languages or dialects <Proto-Indo-European>
Hmmm. Seems to me the only prototype in the running is the original Armalites.
Very smooth to be self-righteous about something when you are wrong Cavalry! Maybe you should check a dictionary to see just how stupid Cesiumsponge is.
I will check today, but I believe the M16 is not finished under the front sight block either. Phosphating leaves a fairly rough finish that would mess with the interference fit between the block and the barrel.
Main Entry: pro·to·type
Pronunciation: 'prO-t&-"tIp
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Greek prOtotypon, from neuter of prOtotypos archetypal, from prOt- + typos type
1 : an original model on which something is patterned : ARCHETYPE
2 : an individual that exhibits the essential features of a later type
3 : a standard or typical example
4 : a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (as an airplane)
Main Entry: prot-
Variant(s): or proto-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Middle English protho-, from Middle French, from Late Latin proto-, from Greek prOt-, prOto-, from prOtos; akin to Greek pro before -- more at FOR
1 a : first in time <protohistory> b : beginning : giving rise to <protoplanet>
2 : parent substance of a (specified) substance <protactinium>
3 : first formed : primary <protoxylem>
4 capitalized : relating to or constituting the recorded or assumed language that is ancestral to a language or to a group of related languages or dialects <Proto-Indo-European>
Hmmm. Seems to me the only prototype in the running is the original Armalites.
Very smooth to be self-righteous about something when you are wrong Cavalry! Maybe you should check a dictionary to see just how stupid Cesiumsponge is.
I will check today, but I believe the M16 is not finished under the front sight block either. Phosphating leaves a fairly rough finish that would mess with the interference fit between the block and the barrel.
El Rojo
Member
I voted Armalite because they were the only ones with a protype AR-15 rifle. What kind of poll only has one answer? I guess this is a good example of how the anti-gunners get the poll numbers they do on the popularity of the assault weapons ban.
Well personally, I hate making blanket statements about one company being "best" or "better" then another and because of that, I did not vote.
Every company you listed makes some nice products and some not-so-nice products. To do a somewhat fair comparison you need to compare one specific model against another (comparable) specific model.
4150 is a higher grade steel than 4140 but no weekend warrior shooting a semi-auto AR is ever going to see the difference. RRA and DPMS offer chrome lining, etc...
Selling more rifles doesn't mean anything to me either. I'm sure Chevy sells a lot more cars then Mercedes but they sure as hell do not make the better car.
If you really want the best AR your money can buy, you need to go the custom build route. Every AR maker takes a least one or two shortcuts from what I would consider the "best" AR. The only way to get an AR using only highest quality parts and have it configured exactly they way you want it is to build it yourself
All that said, If I had to pick from your list, I would pick BM simply because they have more models that I would be interested in, that are closer to the way I would want them.
Just my $.02...YMMV
Every company you listed makes some nice products and some not-so-nice products. To do a somewhat fair comparison you need to compare one specific model against another (comparable) specific model.
4150 is a higher grade steel than 4140 but no weekend warrior shooting a semi-auto AR is ever going to see the difference. RRA and DPMS offer chrome lining, etc...
Selling more rifles doesn't mean anything to me either. I'm sure Chevy sells a lot more cars then Mercedes but they sure as hell do not make the better car.
If you really want the best AR your money can buy, you need to go the custom build route. Every AR maker takes a least one or two shortcuts from what I would consider the "best" AR. The only way to get an AR using only highest quality parts and have it configured exactly they way you want it is to build it yourself
All that said, If I had to pick from your list, I would pick BM simply because they have more models that I would be interested in, that are closer to the way I would want them.
Just my $.02...YMMV
Moderator hat on:
Cav, you need to chill out. Go back and reread the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined THR. Your definition was wrong. It was pointed out. You freaked. Deal with it. We don't tolerate personal insults between members and we don't tolerate boorish behavior.
Cav, you need to chill out. Go back and reread the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined THR. Your definition was wrong. It was pointed out. You freaked. Deal with it. We don't tolerate personal insults between members and we don't tolerate boorish behavior.
As Cesium and others pointed out, the only answer to your question possible is Armalite, since they are the only holder of the AR15 "prototype". Anyone who voted other than Armalite is per se incorrect. Hey, I knew what you meant, but if you're going to be an arse to those who would correct your mistake, then that changes things.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,841
I just want to say that this is what I appreciate most about THR-those with differing opinions are free to express them, but those with boorish behavior are corrected promptly and appropriately.
I have seen many other boards where moderation was immoderate, indeed, and that is almost never the case here.
Kudos.
Larry
I have seen many other boards where moderation was immoderate, indeed, and that is almost never the case here.
Kudos.
Larry
Well actually that is not correct either. The company we know as "Armalite" today is not the same company that developed the AR\M16. The company named Armalite that developed the platform is no longer and Colt owns all the original drawings, patents and "prototype(s)". The company named Armalite today simply bought the name.
So for your example, the correct answer would be Colt. All other answers would be incorrect.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Nah, cvg69, it's still Armalite. If I was to buy the prototype guns from Colt's, you wouldn't say "Owen builds the best AR-15 prototype."
Although, it would be a nice rumor for you to spread...
My history is a little fuzzy, but IIRC the AR-15 was around for almost 10 years before Colt's bought it.
Although, it would be a nice rumor for you to spread...
My history is a little fuzzy, but IIRC the AR-15 was around for almost 10 years before Colt's bought it.
- Status
Similar threads
