AR's - Windham?

[Quentin]

I should definitely start doing some research. I just wonder where to start...

I'm not totally against the Windham, but the things I've learned have given me pause. I'm not looking for anything fancy, iron sights will do fine for now, I can always upgrade accessories later.

Still, I have read good reviews about it, but the differing dimensions of some parts seems to be a problem. Are there better ARs for about $800?

Building is a great way to force yourself to put in the research. You start by finding a milspec stripped lower of your choice. You want it to say S&W, fine, buy that one. You want a spider, buy Spikes. You want ArmaLite or PSA, look for those roll marks. (The thing is you didn't have to research the whole rifle, just one part. Now you do have to know your end game somewhat but you're free to make changes on the next parts.) Now research LPKs, triggers and stock kits or individual parts to complete the lower. This process can take as long as you want and a well stocked garage might have the tools you need.

Now shift you research to uppers. Odds are you can find one factory assembled to your specs which will save money to buy tools that are less likely in your garage. It really depends whether you like to tinker. Building also lets you pay as you go instead of dropping $1-2K on the credit card.

In answer to your question, Windham is all right but there are better ARs in the price range, Spikes, PSA and your own build if you put in your homework. Last year I did a PSA midlength upper with BCM BCG on an ArmaLite stripped lower using Lots of Magpul that humbles any Windham yet cost about the same. Up to you...

 

[dos0711]

Get the Windham and enjoy upgrading parts over the years.

 

[jim243]

Tough choice. Depending on what you want the rifle to do for you will determine which one you buy. If you are going to shoot in competition I would keep looking and spend the extra money for a DD. If it is just for plinking and HD then the Windham will do fine as would the M&P 15. (not a fan of the Sport)

With the cost of 223/5.56 ammo these days, I doubt that anyone that does not reload will be putting a lot of rounds through their AR's. I also doubt that the State Department will be lifting the ban on importation of cheap surplus ammo any time soon or the DOD dumping their surplus ammo on the market. So you are looking at spending any where from $0.50 to $1.25 per round if you can even find any for sale. At that rate you will be spending more on ammo than the cost of the rifle.

I consider the 223 as I would the 22 LR a plinking round with limited use for small game or soft skinned targets (everyone can keep their flame throwers holstered). But if I were considering another AR, it would be an AR-10 in .308 that can be used for hunting as well as SD. (but that's just my opinion).

The AR-15 was designed for the 55 grain 5.56 round and a 1:9 twist rate barrel is more than sufficient to stabilize that bullet. A 1:7 twist rate will work with the larger bullets (75 - 77 grain bullets), but why spend the extra money just for plinking. (extra cost for the barrel and extra cost for the ammo).

If this is truly going to be your one and only AR (I doubt it) then seriously consider getting yourself an AR-10 in a more effective caliber.

Just my 2 cents.
Jim

 

[kimberkid]

Teach a man to fish,
The best, most accurate, usually-preferred-for-defense 5.56/.223 rounds will usually have 75-77gr bullets, and a 1:9 twist rate may not be what you want for those. A 1:7 (or 1:8) would be better here. When in doubt, get the 1:7. It is the "best" single choice for most people.

Back in the day, before the 1/7 barrels were available I shot service rifle matches with 1/9 like most everyone else, and there were a lot of sub-moa shooters ... so while the heavier bullets may be preferred for self defense by some, keep in mind not all the heavier bullets are designed for self defense and the most commonly available bullets are 55 grain.

The 55's will yaw & tumble inside the body making huge wound cavities while heavier bullets like 75 grain Hornady's and 77 grain Sierra's just drive through ... Specialty self defense ammo is usually expensive and could raise serious questions in court if it ever comes to that.

 

[Warp]

The 55's will yaw & tumble inside the body making huge wound cavities while heavier bullets like 75 grain Hornady's and 77 grain Sierra's just drive through ...

Negative, Ghostrider.

The 55 grain (M193) and 62 grain penetrator (M855) might yaw, tumble, and fragment inside the body. Or they might not. Consistency is severely lacking. There is a reason these are not generally used in combat by our armed forces, but have been replaced (I'm not sure the 55gr M193 was ever used in combat) with newer bullet designs, such as mk318 and mk262.

Example:


A post by Doc Roberts, quoting Fackler (you won't find a more knowledgeable and experienced combination than these two, I'll wager)

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26905

"For those folks who think the 55 gr M193 FMJ is a great 5.56 mm load for self-defense, the following quote was written by Dr. Martin Fackler, the man who has done more research on the M193 than anyone else on this planet:

Quote:
“In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly. The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.”

Fackler, ML: “Literature Review”. Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001"



Further, a 77gr SMK will not just plow through. Neither will the 75 grain Horndy bullets. They are quite good at reliably tumbling/fragmenting, unlike the M193/M855 rounds.


Here is another thread of interest on this subject:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881

 

[jim243]

Warp

Why are we talking about wound cavities on soft skin targets, monotonous_iterancy was asking which AR to get. I doubt that he will be going into combat with it and I do like the performance of the M855, my AR is very accurate with that bullet (wish I had purchased more of them) And who in their right mind would use military ammo for SD all my SD rounds are hollow points which the military can not use. So it is a mute point as to effectiveness of military ammo unless you are talking about what the military SHOULD use. I still stand with my statement that one should consider the AR-10 in .308 or at least an AR-15 in 6.8 or 6.5 when considering a new AR purchase. We are not shooting our rifles in full auto mode, which is the reason the military does not use the M-14 any more except as a long distance single shot sniper rifle. If it is good enough for them, I do not see the down side for us civilians.

If all we are going to do is talk about the effectiveness of the AR-15 in killing humans then maybe the anti's are correct about banning the "Assault Rifles" instead of letting us use them for target shooting and hunting.

Let us take The High Road and stop all this dribble.
Jim

And yes I am pissed about you trying to high jack this thread.

 

[kimberkid]

Never mind ...

 

[Warp]

Warp

Why are we talking about wound cavities on soft skin targets, monotonous_iterancy was asking which AR to get. I doubt that he will be going into combat with it and I do like the performance of the M855, my AR is very accurate with that bullet (wish I had purchased more of them) And who in their right mind would use military ammo for SD all my SD rounds are hollow points which the military can not use. So it is a mute point as to effectiveness of military ammo unless you are talking about what the military SHOULD use. I still stand with my statement that one should consider the AR-10 in .308 or at least an AR-15 in 6.8 or 6.5 when considering a new AR purchase. We are not shooting our rifles in full auto mode, which is the reason the military does not use the M-14 any more except as a long distance single shot sniper rifle. If it is good enough for them, I do not see the down side for us civilians.

If all we are going to do is talk about the effectiveness of the AR-15 in killing humans then maybe the anti's are correct about banning the "Assault Rifles" instead of letting us use them for target shooting and hunting.

Let us take The High Road and stop all this dribble.
Jim

And yes I am pissed about you trying to high jack this thread.

Self defense isn't about killing, it is about stopping the threat. Yes, there is a difference.

The effectiveness of a firearm in stopping a human threat is valid, and your comment about the antis being correct about banning them because we take self defense into consideration is asinine.

The military isn't really shooting their M4's in auto either, they almost exclusively use semi.

Even if all you are interested in is target shooting, the most accurate rounds tend to be 69-80 grain BTHP/OTM projectiles. (80's are a specialty, for most people consider it 69-77gr)

If the one and only use you are taking into consideration is target shooting, what makes an AR-10 more effective?

 

[Warp]

Specialty self defense ammo is usually expensive and could raise serious questions in court if it ever comes to that.

I don't think we need to discuss that in this thread and it doesn't seem to play a role in rifle/parts/component selection though (ammo designed for defense comes in many different bullet weights/lengths), but, for the record, I disagree with the implication that using ammo designed for defense "could raise serious questions in court".

 

[mtrmn]

Boy this thread strayed from the High Road fast.
The Windhams are fine for anything short of full military use. If you don't have a job taking down drug dealers or Taliban you likely will not be disappointed in one. I've never heard a complaint from an actual Windham owner, just speculation on the internet about how much better those other brands are.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

AR-10s do have an appeal. 7.62x51 is actually somewhat available right now. Don't they cost a ton though? If we were getting into .308, then we'd have to throw the FAL and M1-A into consideration.

On the other hand, isn't part of the appeal of an AR that it's rounds are small and it's recoil is light?

 

[kimberkid]

Boy this thread strayed from the High Road fast.

Yes ... yes it did.

AR-10s do have an appeal. 7.62x51 is actually somewhat available right now. Don't they cost a ton though? If we were getting into .308, then we'd have to throw the FAL and M1-A into consideration.

On the other hand, isn't part of the appeal of an AR that it's rounds are small and it's recoil is light?

Yeah, the 308 is more expensive, especially now with the ammo hoarding still continuing, but with firearms that have been recently brought to market like the ACR and SCAR I wouldn't consider the FAL or M1A.

Lastly, I'd agree that a good part of the popularity of the AR is the soft recoil, but also it's inherent accuracy and until recently it was very inexpensive to plink with.

 

[Warp]

AR-10s do have an appeal. 7.62x51 is actually somewhat available right now. Don't they cost a ton though? If we were getting into .308, then we'd have to throw the FAL and M1-A into consideration.

On the other hand, isn't part of the appeal of an AR that it's rounds are small and it's recoil is light?

Yes, that is a big part of the popularity, and a big part of why the 5.56/.223 chambering is definitely the most common.

 

[benzy2]

They fall in the 'pass' category for me, though at $700 it would be a different story. Locally, they run $925. A colt LE6920 (if you have patience) comes in stock here for $1070. At that difference, I'll take the colt every time and never look back. Colt has all the features determined necessary for a reliable fighting rifle. Even if you don't plan to fight, those features tend to stack up to a rather reliable and certainly real world accurate rifle, maybe not a bench rest or high power winner, but good for everything else. There are some budget built rifles that I find a good deal (pre panic) but once you step into the $800-$950 range I don't see the point of skimping on features that are meaningful to just about any possible use, especially for a once in a lifetime type rifle.

I don't think you pay for the name in most tier 1 rifles. You get better materials held to better standards. Sometimes you are paying for materials and standards that possibly aren't important to you, but when you stack up parts lists and what they compromise, you would be very hard pressed to build a rifle with equal quality parts as say a LE6820 for near the same price (both pre panic) and then you have Colt standing behind it.

I know the chart gets touted as the be all end all and there are certainly features on it I don't care about, but its a good comparison. You can look at the parts of a rifle individually, compare them to others, and find the overall most appropriate rifle for your needs and desires.

 

[CSestp]

I think putting so much stock in "mil-spec" this or that is boarder line stupid. I wouldnt bat an eye at putting my bottom tier Ar against any colt at 500 meters with Mr franklen on the line. A "crappy" Ar will out shoot 85% of all shooters anyways.

If you take care of your cheep Ar it will last just as long as any other rifle that is properly taken care of. If you don't plan on taking the proper care of your rifle it doesn't matter if a cute little horsey or a fat turd is stamped on the side, both will fail. I say go for the cheep if you find a good deal.



Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Quentin]

I think putting so much stock in "mil-spec" this or that is boarder line stupid. I wouldnt bat an eye at putting my bottom tier Ar against any colt at 500 meters with Mr franklen on the line. A "crappy" Ar will out shoot 85% of all shooters anyways.

If you take care of your cheep Ar it will last just as long as any other rifle that is properly taken care of. If you don't plan on taking the proper care of your rifle it doesn't matter if a cute little horsey or a fat turd is stamped on the side, both will fail. I say go for the cheep if you find a good deal.



Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

So you're recommending it's wise for someone else to buy a (your words) bottom tier AR just because you have one? Even if the price is comparable to something better?

As with any large purchase, it's borderline stupid not to compare features and specs of competing brands at your price point. You'd do it for an HDTV, so why not for an AR? I'd rather lean my quality AR against my quality TV thank you.

 

[Warp]

I think putting so much stock in "mil-spec" this or that is boarder line stupid.

Which mil spec components do you believe are stupid?

Is there a better option? If so, what? And why is it better?

Or is there a cheaper but "as good as" option? If so, what/why?

 

[Tommygunn]

Which mil spec components do you believe are stupid?

Is there a better option? If so, what? And why is it better?

Or is there a cheaper but "as good as" option? If so, what/why?

They aren't "stupid" IMHO but there are some that are not necessarily vital. Continuing the bluing under the front sight (I know it isn't "bluing" but my memory fails me on the correct term) is not really important if you leave the sight alone.
Barrel twist ....1:7 is only really important if you plan only on using those rounds best applied to that twist.
Of all the "mil spec" items IMHO the most important are those pertaining to the guts - - the inside "action" parts like esp. the bolt. This part; yes it takes the "brunt" of the forces. Heat, pressure, friction. Having it made out of the right materials, quality inspected per bolt, not "batch" ....these things might make a big difference.
Things like the height of the front sight....nah. Not really. The only way they become important is when you start adding other options because you need to know if it's the right height....or do you want to change it out for the correct height post, an easy enough thing to do.
Also staking the gas key -- easy enough to do on your own. But important!
To be sure the last time I heard of one failing was on a real Colt M4 and the post was made by a soldier in Iraq. So even mil spec parts CAN go wrong.
That doesn't mean cheap ARs are equal to Colt or Noveske or BCM.

Now there are "mil spec" specs that are utterly useless. One is a full auto trigger group. We peons ain't gonna get that from a Wal Mart M4orgery.

 

[CSestp]

It's all a matter of context. If your eyesight is bad is the 10000 dollar tv going to be any better than the 600 dollar Walmart? If you make your living with your weapon then yea go balls out on it, but if your just a plinker the cheep Ar's will do everything you want to do with it. Most people who only see colts and other milspec as the only way to go normally can't take full advantage of the rifle. As stated earlier there are only a small percentage of people that can shoot as well as their rifle will allow.

Also the worst failure I've ever had was on the prone rapid fire at 300 with my service colt A4. Which was a double feed. Find me a failing Ar be it colt bushmaster or
whatever its the owners fault due to lack of care 99% of the time. Which no matter how milspec of milspec the components are they will fail. So yes for an extra 150 to 300 dollars for no real change in performance is stupid.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2



Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Warp]

It's all a matter of context. If your eyesight is bad is the 10000 dollar tv going to be any better than the 600 dollar Walmart? If you make your living with your weapon then yea go balls out on it, but if your just a plinker the cheep Ar's will do everything you want to do with it. Most people who only see colts and other milspec as the only way to go normally can't take full advantage of the rifle. As stated earlier there are only a small percentage of people that can shoot as well as their rifle will allow.

Also the worst failure I've ever had was on the prone rapid fire at 300 with my service colt A4. Which was a double feed. Find me a failing Ar be it colt bushmaster or
whatever its the owners fault due to lack of care 99% of the time. Which no matter how milspec of milspec the components are they will fail. So yes for an extra 150 to 300 dollars for no real change in performance is stupid.

Pro Tip: A feeding issue, like your double feed, is almost surely the fault of the magazine, not the rifle.

Which mil spec components do you feel are not worth the money for a plinker? Which ones you do you feel are?

How about a rifle that might be used defensively? Say the guys who keep their AR available for home defense. Which "mil spec" components do you think would be a stupid waste for them to pay for? Which ones worthwhile?

 

[wojownik]

Baaack to the OP's original question, I would not hesitate to consider the Windham for your first AR/plinking/HD rifle. I've put about 1500 rounds through mine (R15R4A4) so far, without fail (primarily using Fiocchi, WWB, and Federal .223). It has been reliable and accurate. In the same price band, you might also want to see if a PSA is available.

Windham does not give you a 4150 steel barrels, C158 bolts (though they do claim MP/HP testing). But it appeared properly staked to me. The commercial specs didn't bother me at all. And if I develop a need for a mil spec BCG, then I can always go hunt one down.

FWIW, the Windham has definitely outshone my older three Bushmasters, and holds its own with my Colt in terms of fit, finish, reliability and accuracy.

Also FWIW, just for humor, a younger pup at the range began extolling the virtues of the pure milspec rifle to me. As he noted, if your gonna be dropping your rifle and slamming it down on the ground, your gonna want milspec. I chuckled, and told him ... son ...I learned the hard way a long, long time ago ... through many, many pushups ... to never drop or mistreat your rifle.

Windham, PSA or Colt ... if you take care of your rifle, it will give you a lifetime of service.

Just ramblings from someone who's finally reached "that stage of life"...

 

[silicosys4]

Pro Tip: A feeding issue, like your double feed, is almost surely the fault of the magazine, not the rifle.

Which mil spec components do you feel are not worth the money for a plinker? Which ones you do you feel are?

How about a rifle that might be used defensively? Say the guys who keep their AR available for home defense. Which "mil spec" components do you think would be a stupid waste for them to pay for? Which ones worthwhile?

My brother in law has a vulcan x-15, a full polymer ar-15. It is about as far from milspec as you can get. If you saw it I'm sure you would recoil in horror and disgust.
It has however been everything he has wanted in a plinker, it has been reliable for the 1000+ rounds he has put through it, and he is quiet satisfied.

You need to see this rifle to believe it.... how many corners were cut.....Once you do, you realize how many "milspec" features are unnecessary for many peoples needs.
In his case, every single milspec feature would have been wasted money, since his rifle has gone bang every single time without fail for the 1000+ rounds he's put through it.
But its an acknowledged plinker.
Not every AR MUST ABSOLUTELY BE OPERATOR STATUS.

I would say Windham is as good a brand as most for 90% of what most people are going to do with it, up to and including home defense.

 

[Warp]

My brother in law has a vulcan x-15, a full polymer ar-15. It is about as far from milspec as you can get. If you saw it I'm sure you would recoil in horror and disgust.
It has however been everything he has wanted in a plinker, it has been reliable for the 1000+ rounds he has put through it, and he is quiet satisfied.

For him, every single milspec feature would have been a waste of money.

If all you want is a low round count weekend toy you may not notice much of a difference.

 

[silicosys4]

If all you want is a low round count weekend toy you may not notice much of a difference.

And that is just what 90% of people who buy ar's want, and 99.9% of what AR owners need. I feel you vastly overestimate the value that "milspec" components have to the average civilian ar15 owner.

I feel I could correct that quote for you.

"If all you want is a basic, fun, reliable rifle, its almost guaranteed you won't notice much of a difference unless you have an outspoken friend with a milspec fetish."

 

[Warp]

And that is just what 90% of people who buy ar's want, and 99.9% of what AR owners need. I feel you vastly overestimate the value that "milspec" components have to the average civilian ar15 owner.

I feel I could correct that quote for you.

"If all you want is a basic, fun, reliable rifle, its almost guaranteed you won't notice much of a difference unless you have an outspoken friend with a milspec fetish."

I think greater than 10% want more than that.

In my experience the cheap rifles are not as reliable, either.

It seems to me that a different category of person is the one that is outspoken here.

It seems to me a different category of person is the one who has a fetish about the term 'mil spec', and is out on the warpath about it.

Let me take you back to one of the very first things I said:

If not, you need to do more research so that you can look at the specifications of the rifles, know what's different, know what those differences mean, and make your own decision.

PS: IME, a lot of the guys who go on the warpath against "mil spec" don't even know what it actually entails. I have asked questions about specifics and have not received any answers. Usually when this happens, it is because the other guy doesn't actually know what all of the specifications are, and what differences they make.

That is my experience.