AR's - Windham?

[ObsceneJesster]

Yes but you make it sound as if rifles built to mil-spec are heavier than commercial spec rifles. I'd like to know what type of facts or specifications you are basing this statement off of. At this point, I'm not quite sure you even know what it means for a black rifle to be considered mil-spec since you speak of "light non-mil spec adjustable stocks". Those of us who care about military specification parts never talk about the type of stock a certain rifle may use. Why? Because it's a non vital part.

I'm just curious as to why you think Mil-Spec rifles are generally heavier. What makes them heavier?

Here is a Mil-Spec Rifle made by BCM


Here is a non-mil spec rifle made by Battle Rifle Company



Guess which one is heavier.

 

[Cornhusker77]

I'm fairly new to ARs, so I'm confused about the buffer tube
I have a Windham, so I have the commercial tube. Is this prone to breakage or what?
I don't plan on joining a team of mercenaries or clubbing commies with it, but do I have to worry about it breaking off in 10 years?
Or is there another reason the larger tube is preferred?

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I'm fairly new to ARs, so I'm confused about the buffer tube
I have a Windham, so I have the commercial tube. Is this prone to breakage or what?
I don't plan on joining a team of mercenaries or clubbing commies with it, but do I have to worry about it breaking off in 10 years?
Or is there another reason the larger tube is preferred?

I had a similar question, and I get the impression that a mil-spec buffer tube is smoother, so there's less friction, which leads to better reliability. It also has better threading, which means that it's stronger.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, the comments here have me considering a Colt. Wal-Mart has 6920s for $1097. From what I understand, they're great rifles, all mil-spec, but aren't I also paying for the name-brand that goes along with Colt? Are there any rifles with the same specs made by a company without such a prestigious name brand and the advertising costs that go along? And since the Colt is all mil-spec, what differentiates it from a Daniel Defense or BCM?

 

[savanahsdad]

@obscenejesster: I think you miss my point , and I thought I got long winded, and repeated my self , ...................................I"ll try one more time,, you can buy a very heavy non-milspec AR like I did or a milspec wieght gun mil or not (as you seem to have) but if you want a supper , very light AR then you buy something other than a milspec, and again nothing wrong with any of them , I'm not picking sides , what's best for him may not be best for you,, and whats best for me may not be best for him,

I had a light polly AR in my hands last month, not for me , yuck... but it might be something the OP would like , and it is not milspec , far from it

hope this clears things up ,

 

[MaterDei]

You should know which type of buffer tube you have so that you buy the correct stock for your rifle. The mil spec tubes are more expensive to manufacture because the threads are a greater diameter than the rest of the tube which is harder to make than a tube which matches the diameter of the threads.

I cannot imagine that one version is 'better' than another, just different. I have three ARs, two are mil-spec and one commercial. The size of the buffer tube had zero consideration in my buying decision.

I spent 11 years in the Army and saw enough broken down rifles that nobody can convince me that mil-sec is better. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat states that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

 

[basicblur]

I ain't even going to wade into the debate, but here are a few tidbits I've picked up during a lot of research:

1. Milspec is a good starting point - not the do all, be all that some make it out to be.
2. I saw one maker of "high end" AR parts (too expensive for me, but I do have one of their cleaning rod guides) asked if his rifles / parts were Milspec - He replied "God, I hope not!"
3. The quote a few posts ago about no one not in the military having true Milspec comes from one of Patrick Sweeney's Gun Digest Book of the AR-15 (not sure which volume).
4. I've seen one quote from an ammo maker that stated unless you're fully automatic, M4 feed ramps are not really needed, and can actually cause problems with bullet feeding (I think he was talking 'bout the ramps possibly affecting the seating of the bullet, which would affect accuracy).
5. From what I understand, Milspec buffer tubes have rolled threads - Commercial tubes have cut threads (thus the different diameters of the tubes proper). I asked a retired industrial mechanic I used to work with (a pretty sharp, detailed fellow) which was stronger, and he said he thought cut threads would be stronger. I've done a bit of research online - not so much on the buffer tube per se, but more of an engineering question - Rolled threads vs. cut threads - there appear to be as many opinions in the engineering community as there are folks giving opinions!?
6. THE CHART (I'll pause while you stand up and salute), while interesting, has never been correct, and I feel it probably reflected brand / personal bias.

I have a couple of Colts and couple of RRAs. Neither has ever given me problems, but the RRA seems to better AFA fit / finish, and probably accuracy.

There are things in life that are greater than the sum of their parts - I think when it comes to ARs, there are probably some that fit into this category, but if you rely solely on THE CHART (I'll pause while you stand up and salute again) you'll never discover so!?

 

[ObsceneJesster]

@monotonous_iterancy....The 6920 is a great rifle. It's your standard mil-spec set up. Yes you are paying a little bit more for the Colt name but not as much that it makes a huge difference. You are paying for a rifle that you know was built with quality in mind. You got to understand that it takes a lot of money to build an empire and maintain a brand synonymous with quality. The other two companies you mentioned (BCM and DD) have done the same. Their rifles have been battle tested and they climbed their way to the top of the pack by producing and building quality parts and rifles. Since the beginning of their existence they have been known for good customer service and top notch QC. They only use parts they know will last.


Once you get to the price of a standard mil spec AR such as the 6920, any cost after that is usually due to the add-on features such as free floating quad rails and higher priced parts such as better triggers.

For instance, the same exact rifle is going to be more expensive if it's sporting a Centurion Arms C4 Handguard than it would be if it was sporting a Magpul MOE Handguard. The same rifle sporting a Geissele Super Dynamic trigger is going to cost more than if it were sporting a standard trigger. The list goes on and the customization of the platform is nearly endless. Stick with the reputable companies and I can assure you that you're going to get what you pay for and nothing less.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to spend $750 on a Windham and upgrade later with a mil-spec stock and buffer tube and whatever other parts I want. On the other hand, a $1000 Colt will probably cost what it would cost to upgrade a Windham.

Also, all these rifles seem to be 16 inch carbines. If I ever wanted a 21' rifle or something, could I just swap barrels?

 

[ObsceneJesster]

Sorry if I wasn't clear when talking about military specifications but they are by no means the end all be all. They are simply a standard set forth after years of R&D. All companies building AR's should at least strive to meet this standard but by no means should they just stop once they hit this standard. The "great" companies exceed the standards set forth by military specifications. I don't think I need to name all of the companies who are known for exceeding these standards but we all know who they are. It's why these brands hold their value so well. When someone buys them, they know what kind of quality they are getting.


@basicblur...The comment about M4 feed ramps causing reliability issues in the semi auto platform is a joke and it couldn't be more wrong. I guess BCM, Noveski, DD and all of the other high end AR manufactures have been doing it wrong after all these years and DPMS has been doing it right? Whether a rifle is semi-auto, full auto or burst fire, the M4 feed ramps make them much more reliable. The cheap AR's without them are known for failure to feed issues. I would love for this comment to be backed up by facts. In the end, whether you're shooting a M4 or an AR-15, the mechanics for chambering the next round is completely the same. There is nothing different. The next round is being chambered just as fast on a semi automatic platform than it is on a full auto platform. Yes, you can get more rounds to feed on full auto over the same period of time but the mechanical process of doing so is exactly the same.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

@monotonous_iterancy....If you want to upgrade the Windham over time then the buffer tube would probably be the last thing I'd worry about upgrading. I'd be more worried about upgrading the BCG since it's probably the most vital part in the gun. The BCG is definitely one part I don't believe in skimping on. A quality BCG will probably cost you anywhere between $150 and $240.

 

[basicblur]

The comment about M4 feed ramps causing reliability issues in the semi auto platform is a joke and it couldn't be more wrong.

Maybe, maybe not - I might have stated incorrectly, but I don't think the ammo maker said anything about reliability - he stated that the M4 style feed ramps could affect the bullet seating as it fed. If you're shooting fully auto, you're probably not that interested in accuracy, but more in feeding reliability.
If you're shooting semi-auto only, you probably don't have to overcome problems that can arise when putting rounds through the gun at a much higher rate.

Whether a rifle is semi-auto, full auto or burst fire, the M4 feed ramps make them much more reliable. The cheap AR's without them are known for failure to feed issues.

Guess one would have to define "much more reliable"?
You also make the leap from M4 feed ramps to no feed ramps - some guns do not have "proper" M4 feed ramps, but they do have feed ramps.
My RRA probably doesn't have proper M4 feed ramps (been so long since I looked, and it makes no difference), but so far it's never failed to go bang every time I've pulled the trigger (never a FTF, FTE).
Since it always works, do I really care if my feed ramps are "proper", or are on somebody's chart?

In the end, whether you're shooting a M4 or an AR-15, the mechanics for chambering the next round is completely the same.

Maybe, maybe not. Even if the mechanics are the same, the physics may not be.
I'm sure there are different considerations to be taken into account when comparing a full auto with a semi-auto due to the difference in cycle rates.

Well I'm outta this one...

As back during my old apprentice years, I learned I can really PO some folks just by asking a few questions or giving them something to ponder...

 

[jim243]

Too bad AR's don't have stickers on them like cars telling you when the rifle was built. While I don't want a car made on a Monday or Friday, and yes they have stickers on them showing when the car was completed.

Since all AR's are like tinker toys and parts can be changed out by the owner, what are the critical components in the rifle and which are not. For one, the milling and cutting of the barrel and chamber is important. The use of chrome for the barrel and bolt carrier group is important for extended life. The quality of the recoil spring and buffer is important. The quality of the upper receiver and fitting of the fire control group is important. The alignment and staking of the gas port is important. How the bolt carrier group is made is important. Everything else is cosmetic and depending on how much you want to spend will affect the cost of the rifle. Do you need a free floated hand guard, not unless you shoot for small groups in competition. Do you need expensive battle sights, not unless you plan to be in battle. Do you need a quad rail, not unless you want to look cool and hang a lot of junk on the rifle and make it heavier.

You can go from basic to extreme the choice is yours, and Windham are good basic rifles.

Jim

 

[basicblur]

If you want to upgrade the Windham over time then the buffer tube would probably be the last thing I'd worry about upgrading.

True.

If he's worried 'bout his BCG, instead of automatically thinking it needs replacing, maybe he could buy one o' them MOACKs instead?

The biggest complaint with BCGs seems to be over staking - if he had a MOACKS he could stake to his hearts desire, and maybe recover some of the tool costs by charging a few bucks to do others' ARs?

 

[Quentin]

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to spend $750 on a Windham and upgrade later with a mil-spec stock and buffer tube and whatever other parts I want. On the other hand, a $1000 Colt will probably cost what it would cost to upgrade a Windham.

Also, all these rifles seem to be 16 inch carbines. If I ever wanted a 21' rifle or something, could I just swap barrels?

What happened to "I want to keep my rifle the rest of my life"? Maybe it's time to reread your thread (especially about Spikes and PSA milspec ARs at the same price point as Windham and Bushamster)! This thread's so convoluted now my head is spinning.

Probably better to buy another upper than swap out barrels (unless it's shot out). Why a 21" barrel, how about 20"?

 

[Quentin]

Yes but you make it sound as if rifles built to mil-spec are heavier than commercial spec rifles. I'd like to know what type of facts or specifications you are basing this statement off of. At this point, I'm not quite sure you even know what it means for a black rifle to be considered mil-spec since you speak of "light non-mil spec adjustable stocks". Those of us who care about military specification parts never talk about the type of stock a certain rifle may use. Why? Because it's a non vital part.

I'm just curious as to why you think Mil-Spec rifles are generally heavier. What makes them heavier?

Here is a Mil-Spec Rifle made by BCM


Here is a non-mil spec rifle made by Battle Rifle Company



Guess which one is heavier.

ObsceneJesster, I think you've made the best argument for milspec over comspec! I love that Battle Rifle's short rail! What's that little tube that's glowing red... Yeeeooowww!

 

[basicblur]

Jest wondering...my RRA's came with Hogue grips.
Now I'm conflicted - I love the grips, but I'm thinking since Hogue grips are probably not Milspec, should I:
1. Just put the RRAs in the trash.
2. Defile my Colts with the nicer Hogue grips.

Life is just so complicated.

I'd also be curious to know how many folks that think Milspec is "all that" are hanging Magpul components on their ARs?
Is all Magpul stuff Milspec?

 

[Fremmer]

The colt is a nice rifle, good QC and lots of experience making that rifle. If you can swing the extra cash, go for it.

But if you can't swing the extra cash, then go ahead and get the windham or another brand. You can upgrade parts if you feel so inclined, or leave it if it shoots well.
Or buy a colt later. However it works out for you. To an extent, the old saying that you shoot what ya brung applies. But don't think you have to have colt, bravo, or lmt, or else nothing at all.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Probably better to buy another upper than swap out barrels (unless it's shot out). Why a 21" barrel, how about 20"?

I just assumed that 21" was the standard length for a full-size AR.

Also, I assume BCG means bolt carrier group? I guess chrome plated is good to have. The thing that keeps me from just buying a Windham and upgrading the essentials is that some mil-spec parts won't fit without a new stock. What other parts have different dimensions besides the buffer tubes?

The biggest complaint with BCGs seems to be over staking - if he had a MOACKS he could stake to his hearts desire, and maybe recover some of the tool costs by charging a few bucks to do others' ARs?

I almost forgot to ask, what do you mean by "staking" and what is so great about MOACKS?

 

[Warp]

@Obscenejesster, drop something heavy on your foot , and then drop something light on your foot , see what hurts more lol, fact is heavy things hit harder , I was not trying to say it is ok to drop your light non-milspec gun, nore was I saying if you drop your milspec gun that it would brake because it weighs a bit more, , when I asked "are you looking for a real light gun?" I was thinking of some of the REAL light non-milspec AR's with floating hand gaurds, light non-mil adjustable stocks , maybe a polly gun (not for me but maybe for him) or a flat-top loaded up with light Magpul (non-milspec) parts on it , ect ect,, and trying to point out that just because it maybe lighter dosen't meen it wont hold up for years of use,

I understand there are some milspec spec's are the way to go , but not all and yes how there put together is a big deal, and nothing wrong with going with a full-out milspec, I was just pointing out to the OP that I wouldn't get hung up on milspec , or any one brandname , lots to pick from , and IF he is looking/wanting a light weight gun, then a full-out milspec is not the way to go, as of yet I/we dont know if weight is going to be a factor in what the OP wants , my first AR started life at 9.5lbs, after bipod, scope ,riser, rings, and larger loaded mags , it's a tank !! but that's what I wanted ,

What makes a mil-spec rifle heavier than one that is not?

Which mil-specs are the way to go, in your opinion, and which are not? Why?

 

[Warp]

You should know which type of buffer tube you have so that you buy the correct stock for your rifle. The mil spec tubes are more expensive to manufacture because the threads are a greater diameter than the rest of the tube which is harder to make than a tube which matches the diameter of the threads.

I cannot imagine that one version is 'better' than another, just different. I have three ARs, two are mil-spec and one commercial. The size of the buffer tube had zero consideration in my buying decision.

I spent 11 years in the Army and saw enough broken down rifles that nobody can convince me that mil-sec is better. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat states that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

The mil-spec tube is stronger. 7075 vs (typically) 6061. That's the easiest difference to notice/point out, and should be hard to miss. I mean, that's what the thing is made out of. The threads on the mil-spec are also, as per my understanding, stronger than the threads on the commercial. That's why the mil-spec threads are made that way, even though it's harder and more expensive. Because it's stronger.

I'm sure that if the Army guys had (cheap, weaker) non-mil spec rifles, fewer would have been broken or worn out. I mean, that just makes sense. errr maybe not?

 

[jim243]

The commercial tube is larger (not by much) and should provide for more material to make it stronger, just not sure what material it is made from. Have not had a commercial tube brake on me. But I do not use it for a base ball bat either.

Jim

 

[ObsceneJesster]

Jest wondering...my RRA's came with Hogue grips.
Now I'm conflicted - I love the grips, but I'm thinking since Hogue grips are probably not Milspec, should I:
1. Just put the RRAs in the trash.
2. Defile my Colts with the nicer Hogue grips.

Life is just so complicated.

I'd also be curious to know how many folks that think Milspec is "all that" are hanging Magpul components on their ARs?
Is all Magpul stuff Milspec?

Why are you confusing the issue. Those of us who care our rifles to be built to a certain standard are not worried about cosmetic features being Mil-Spec. Accessories such as grips and stocks are pieces of polymer and rubber. They don't need to be Mil-Spec. Quite frankly I'm not even sure there is a military specification on AR grips. Use whatever grip feels comfortable to you. Companies like Hogue and Magpul have already proven they make good products that will stand up to combat. Soldiers love taking their own Pmags to war with them. Why, because the PMAG has proved itself to arguably be the most reliable magazine for the AR platform. Soldiers also take their own Lancer mags over seas as well. Why? Because they have proven themselves to arguably be the most reliable magazine for the AR platform. Not everything needs to be Mil-Spec. It just needs to prove itself to at least be as good or better. Your not ever going to see a soldier take his own Thermold magazines over seas. Why? Because they have the same structural integrity as paper mache and they have proven themselves to be unreliable.

Oh and by the way.... Yes your AR made by Rock River most likely has good M4 feed ramps.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ObsceneJesster]

True.

If he's worried 'bout his BCG, instead of automatically thinking it needs replacing, maybe he could buy one o' them MOACKs instead?

The biggest complaint with BCGs seems to be over staking - if he had a MOACKS he could stake to his hearts desire, and maybe recover some of the tool costs by charging a few bucks to do others' ARs?

Actually gas key staking should be the least of anyone's issue since it's easily fixed. Much larger issues are bolts cracking or bolt lugs shearing off because the bolt was made with 8620 rather than C-158 or 9310. Another major issue is the gas key screws shearing off below the head because someone decided to save pennies on cheaper screws not hardened to the proper military specification.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[taliv]

this thread is full of misinformation.

I spent 11 years in the Army and saw enough broken down rifles that nobody can convince me that mil-sec is better. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat states that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

this is wildly misleading. yes the weapon was made by the lowest bidder THAT MET THE MINIMUM STANDARD.

yes, mil-spec rifles break down. that should be obvious to anyone with a pulse. all machines break, especially when subjected to the abuse dispensed by soldiers and Marines.

HOWEVER, they are still much better that MOST of the complete crap that used to be sold by the mfg catering to civilians. fortunately, some of these are doing better than they used to.

the biggest complaint with BCGs is not OVER staking, it's lack of staking, and improperly tested bolts, and weak extractor springs.

People don't get PO'd when someone asks questions, but they do respond negatively to a combination of sarcasm and errors. feel free to be more specific about whatever it is you think makes the chart incorrect.

 

[MaterDei]

I'm sure that if the Army guys had (cheap, weaker) non-mil spec rifles, fewer would have been broken or worn out. I mean, that just makes sense. errr maybe not?

You seem to suggest that I've claimed that commercial tubes are stronger. I did not. You, on the other hand, have made unsubstantiated claims that the mil-spec tube is stronger. Worse, you are encouraging others to spend additional money on the mil-spec tube claiming that it is stronger.

If you have evidence that the commercial tubes are breaking at a higher rate than the mil-spec tubes are then produce it and I'll happily support your assertion. I'll also be happy because 2 of the 3 ARs that I own have Mil-spec tubes.