bushmaster or m&p ar-15
- Thread starter jonfish
- Start date
- Status
kwelz
Member
M&P hands down. It is a much better gun all around.
txman321
Member
I have a bushmaster it's pretty good, those m&p15 are very nice rifles I wouldn't mind having one
Z-Michigan
Member
They're both good, and I have a Bushmaster that has been 100%. However, a trainer I know and respect has stated that M&Ps have been tops in his classes and his personal use, and he uses pretty much any/all quality brands you have heard of. Plus the M&P often seems to sell for a bit less. For same price I'd get the M&P. If the M&P were $100 more I would get the Bushmaster.
FlyinBryan
Member
i do believe the m&p uses 4140 barrel steel, and i shoot quite a bit.
even if they were priced the same, i would stick with whats worked for me, which has been the bushmaster. (i had a colt, but i dont have one now) lol, sometimes folks will rag on it just for the sake of ragging. if its a subject they are not too sure of they swing for the fences and ask questions later.
honestly, they are probably very close. the super, i used to be a gun dealer, experts will tell you you shouldnt choose either if you ever plan to have to defend yourself with one.
a notion i find rediculous.
even if they were priced the same, i would stick with whats worked for me, which has been the bushmaster. (i had a colt, but i dont have one now) lol, sometimes folks will rag on it just for the sake of ragging. if its a subject they are not too sure of they swing for the fences and ask questions later.
honestly, they are probably very close. the super, i used to be a gun dealer, experts will tell you you shouldnt choose either if you ever plan to have to defend yourself with one.
a notion i find rediculous.
Last edited:
FlyinBryan
Member
what about all around the barrel azizza? is 4140 an all around better barrel steel than 4150?
Steve in PA
Member
Two years with a Bushmaster..............zero issues. M&P is a johnny come lately.......
jojo200517
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 580
No one gonna suggest the new gas piston Sig? I have seen and shot one and it was very nice but my gosh they are pricey. I got a friend that has a good bushmaster, no real issues. Another friend has a colt ar15 and it has been quiet problematic, and I was always told they were the best. Guess ya can get a lemon in anything tho.
kwelz
Member
While it does bother me that S&W does not use better steel they do a number of other things right that BM does not. For instance they Shot peen their bolts and properly test bolts and barrels, they also have consistent 5.56 Chambers. A number of BMs have to be reamed out strait from the factory. S&W also uses M4 feedramps whereas BM does on some but not on others.
Another factor to consider that is minor to some but annoying as hell is that you are going to need to replace the Front sight post on a BM to be able to use it with any normal BUIS.
I think there are a number of things that S&W needs to improve upon still, however they do a number of things right as well that Bushmaster doesn't yet.
Another factor to consider that is minor to some but annoying as hell is that you are going to need to replace the Front sight post on a BM to be able to use it with any normal BUIS.
I think there are a number of things that S&W needs to improve upon still, however they do a number of things right as well that Bushmaster doesn't yet.
Z-Michigan
Member
4140 is not quite as good as true mil-spec CrMoV barrel steel which is often referred to shorthand as 4150 but is in fact a much more detailed spec than just being a 4150 steel. And 4140 is used in the overwhelming majority of US-made firearms of all kinds and has been for decades. The mil-spec CrMoV is superior in extreme heat conditions like you'd get from full auto fire. Unless your main shooting activity is doing 20 mag dumps in a row as fast as you can pull the trigger, the difference in the steel types is not likely to have much practical effect with a semi-auto AR.
And Bushmaster is not 100% clear on whether they are using the mil-spec CrMoV steel or just some sort of 4150 steel. If it's not the mil-spec CrMoV, a generic 4150 is not meaningfully better than a generic 4140.
Armalite also uses 4140 steel, FWIW.
If you want a genuinely superior barrel than the common types for ARs, look no further than Noveske and POF-USA. And look at their prices.
True but irrelevant. The AR-15 design is so well proven at this point that even the infamous drunken monkeys can put one together. And Smith & Wesson is not exactly a newcomer to firearms. If Bushmaster started assembling a 1911, would it matter that they hadn't been making them for 98 years? Is FN Herstal unable to properly build the M16 (they have the only current military contract for them) since they didn't invent it or build it from the 1960's onward? It's not rocket science.
What are the usual Bushmaster issues? My recently purchased M4gery has proper gas key staking, everything else is good, and it has been reliable in use so far.
NOT TRUE! This is one of those internet rumors that gets repeated on and on. I have two Bushmaster flat-top uppers (one came as part of a complete Bushmaster rifle, the other I purchased as an upper) and both have the correct height of front sight base to match up with a mil-spec carry handle rear sight. The Bushmaster front sight base on their flat-top rifles is not marked with the "F" that people covet, but it is in fact the correct height and type of sight base to match up with standard height rear sights like the carry handle.
Z-Michigan
Member
AKs all depend on what brand and style of AK you're talking about. Quality ranges from excellent to terrible. Many threads to search on AK options.
FlyinBryan
Member
bushmaster dont headspace their stuff now.
lol, wow!!!!
just,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wow.
kwelz
Member
FlyinBryan, one of the posters over on M4C is an armorer for a PMC. They buy mostly BMs and he has documented all the problems with the rifles. One of the problems he has ran into is inconsistent chambers. I don't pull this stuff out of my rear. It is based off of either my personal experiences or the experiences of people whom I trust.
Z-Michigan, my bushmaster is less than a year old and did not have the correct height front sight base. I confirmed this with a call to Bushmaster and had to buy a replacement post that was slightly taller. I am not saying they don't offer it or that some rifles don't come with it. But the M4 I purchased did not have it.
Z-Michigan, my bushmaster is less than a year old and did not have the correct height front sight base. I confirmed this with a call to Bushmaster and had to buy a replacement post that was slightly taller. I am not saying they don't offer it or that some rifles don't come with it. But the M4 I purchased did not have it.
After reviewing the chart, according to it the S&W comes up short on these features.
S&W
No M-16 FA bolt carrier
No HP testing barrel
No MP testing barrel
not milspec barrel steel
not 1:7 rifling
no double handguard shields
no heavy buffer
After reviewing the chart and correcting what BM has or offers on some M4 models these are the only features minus.
Bushmaster M4
No black extractor spring insert
no 1:7 rifling
no finish under FSB
no milspec reciever extension
no staked reciever end plate
no heavy buffer
But what does this mean for anyone who buys either, absolutely nothing. If you want an H-buffer, they cost about $12 or so.
Its not hard to stake anything if you do it right, and its free.
The commercial extension tube is thicker, made of the same materials, and stronger, the stocks are all available for it as well milspec tubes.
After many many years the lack of finish under a FSB leaves no damage, and causes no ill effects.
1:7 rifling twist is only needed for stabilizing heavier bullets, but is not needed for 55gr or 62 gr bullets, even heavier. 1:7 rifling may cause more rapid wear to the barrel compared to 1:9.
M-16 FA bolt carrier, you dont need it for use on a semiauto AR, but if you wish to buy one they cost the same as the SA AR15 carrier does.
HP testing barrel
MP testing barrel
milspec barrel steel
These features are not specifically better, or more durable for a semiauto AR rifle.
Remember milspec only means the minimum standard for a military contract, right now the companies with military contracts for these rifles are not even included in the chart, colts contract ran out.
Heres a Bushmaster FA bolt carrier for an M4 rifle (the left carrier), so it is standard on one model of M4.
The carrier on the right is a standard DPMS AR semiauto bolt carrier.
S&W
No M-16 FA bolt carrier
No HP testing barrel
No MP testing barrel
not milspec barrel steel
not 1:7 rifling
no double handguard shields
no heavy buffer
After reviewing the chart and correcting what BM has or offers on some M4 models these are the only features minus.
Bushmaster M4
No black extractor spring insert
no 1:7 rifling
no finish under FSB
no milspec reciever extension
no staked reciever end plate
no heavy buffer
But what does this mean for anyone who buys either, absolutely nothing. If you want an H-buffer, they cost about $12 or so.
Its not hard to stake anything if you do it right, and its free.
The commercial extension tube is thicker, made of the same materials, and stronger, the stocks are all available for it as well milspec tubes.
After many many years the lack of finish under a FSB leaves no damage, and causes no ill effects.
1:7 rifling twist is only needed for stabilizing heavier bullets, but is not needed for 55gr or 62 gr bullets, even heavier. 1:7 rifling may cause more rapid wear to the barrel compared to 1:9.
M-16 FA bolt carrier, you dont need it for use on a semiauto AR, but if you wish to buy one they cost the same as the SA AR15 carrier does.
HP testing barrel
MP testing barrel
milspec barrel steel
These features are not specifically better, or more durable for a semiauto AR rifle.
Remember milspec only means the minimum standard for a military contract, right now the companies with military contracts for these rifles are not even included in the chart, colts contract ran out.
Heres a Bushmaster FA bolt carrier for an M4 rifle (the left carrier), so it is standard on one model of M4.
The carrier on the right is a standard DPMS AR semiauto bolt carrier.
The difference? $$$
Like SHvar said, most of the differences can either be switched out, or make no difference to the average shooter. If you just want something to take out and shoot from time to time, most of the AR's will be the same.
Like SHvar said, most of the differences can either be switched out, or make no difference to the average shooter. If you just want something to take out and shoot from time to time, most of the AR's will be the same.
Z-Michigan
Member
Actually both of those are semi-auto-only carriers. The one on the right is how the BATFE originally required AR15 carriers to be setup to absolutely preclude any chance of conversion to full auto and to provide a really positive stop against a runaway gun if the disconnector fails. The one on the left is a more recent design that is also BATFE approved (since the late 1990's I think) but helps durability and wear because of the shroud over the firing pin. A true M16 carrier has the lower metal area in the carrier rear be a mirror image of the upper metal area.
Take a look at the CMT carriers sold at Bravo Company and see the difference between "auto" (M16) and "semi" (more recent AR-15 semiauto-only design):
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/AR-15-Upper-Receiver-Bolt-Carrier-Parts-s/2.htm
(note: the BCM carriers all have the M16 design, so scroll down to the CMT carriers)
A typical commercial tube is an extrusion. A proper mil-spec tube is a forging. While the commercial tube is thicker, it isn't stronger. The major important point is the threads, with the mil tube having rolled threads. The mil-spec tube is better, though it doesn't matter that much.
1:7 rifling twist is not a plus unless you plan to shoot M856 tracer or 75gr and heavier bullets. If you're going to shoot mostly 55gr and maybe some M855 like the vast majority of us, 1:9 is better for accuracy, durability, and possibly even velocity.
Azizza, all I can say is that maybe Bushmaster is not using consistent parts. I believe what you're saying is true for yours, but my two have a correct height FSB and zeroed easily with minimal elevation adjustments. I have read comments of others on here suggesting that it seems like Bushmaster has two parallel production lines, one making high quality and the other not as good. My two uppers are both in configurations that might be sold to LE and therefore perhaps came off the better line, if there really are two production lines in Bushmaster with differing quality standards.
kwelz
Member
SHvar why did you list S&W as not MP testing their barrels, etc and then leave put that BM doesn't do it either.
Actually it is incorrect to say that neither test their barrels. They do, however both only batch test. So while it is true that some testing is done, it only benefits you if you get that one out of the batch that was tested.
Either way I feel that both leave out a few things. However BM has a proven history of cutting corner and shoving rifles out the door while S&W has been trying to slowly improve their product.
Z-Michigan, i think you are correct. They do seem to be inconsistent. I grabbed mine from the LE guns we had in the shop and had to go through a couple of them to get one that was solid. It has been a good shooter once I corrected a couple issues with it. But from the factory it has a few problems.
I disagree with you slightly on barrel twist however. While most shooters won't notice a difference between 1/7 and 1/9, the one in 9 is nor more accurate and doesn't give you better velocity. You may get a couple hundred more rounds than a 1/7 twist but that is questionable. What it does do is have trouble with heavy bullets. I have even had trouble with 855 out of my BM so I stick to XM193.
Actually it is incorrect to say that neither test their barrels. They do, however both only batch test. So while it is true that some testing is done, it only benefits you if you get that one out of the batch that was tested.
Either way I feel that both leave out a few things. However BM has a proven history of cutting corner and shoving rifles out the door while S&W has been trying to slowly improve their product.
Z-Michigan, i think you are correct. They do seem to be inconsistent. I grabbed mine from the LE guns we had in the shop and had to go through a couple of them to get one that was solid. It has been a good shooter once I corrected a couple issues with it. But from the factory it has a few problems.
I disagree with you slightly on barrel twist however. While most shooters won't notice a difference between 1/7 and 1/9, the one in 9 is nor more accurate and doesn't give you better velocity. You may get a couple hundred more rounds than a 1/7 twist but that is questionable. What it does do is have trouble with heavy bullets. I have even had trouble with 855 out of my BM so I stick to XM193.
I stand corrected on the bolt carrier, here are some examples.
The bolt carrier in my photo is a reinforced semiauto carrier made for use in a gas piston rifle.
When seeking a new stock for my DPMS I asked around and did a bit of research, the commercial extension tube was originally a military contract mistake in cutting materials. Both are made the same way, but the commercial tube is thicker, both made on the same production lines by the same companies.
The commercial tube is a bit longer also.
The large delivery of out of spec extension tubes were sold as commercial spec because the milspec stock would not fit on it. Eventually manufacturers made a separate line of stocks as commercial to make use of the thicker tubes so plentiful, now they are sold on many rifles, and made on purpose to this thickness by the same manufacturers.
Its one of those "old wives tails", or rumors that the 2 tubes are made of different materials.
Actually Bushmaster makes rifles for different purposes, the military/LE models are most probably made in the same line or location, the target/ hunting models may be made elsewhere.
The bolt carrier in my photo is a reinforced semiauto carrier made for use in a gas piston rifle.
When seeking a new stock for my DPMS I asked around and did a bit of research, the commercial extension tube was originally a military contract mistake in cutting materials. Both are made the same way, but the commercial tube is thicker, both made on the same production lines by the same companies.
The commercial tube is a bit longer also.
The large delivery of out of spec extension tubes were sold as commercial spec because the milspec stock would not fit on it. Eventually manufacturers made a separate line of stocks as commercial to make use of the thicker tubes so plentiful, now they are sold on many rifles, and made on purpose to this thickness by the same manufacturers.
Its one of those "old wives tails", or rumors that the 2 tubes are made of different materials.
Actually Bushmaster makes rifles for different purposes, the military/LE models are most probably made in the same line or location, the target/ hunting models may be made elsewhere.
"SHvar why did you list S&W as not MP testing their barrels, etc and then leave put that BM doesn't do it either."
Why, because it stands to reason that if the markings indicate it was done on that barrel, it must have been done. Does S&W indicate on their barrels that the testing was done? Maybe S&W is testing the same, so the chart again is wrong.
So who determined that these companies arent testing every barrel? Is there someone working for both companies that says they arent testing them? Or is it someone wishing outloud that they dont?
Who determined that any company is testing each and every barrel, again someone expressing their brand favorites?
Unless someone verifies that either company is not testing each and every barrel then the markings indicating the testing is done are good enough.
In other words if someone can prove that each and every barrel or bolt is not tested then by all means do so. If they are not testing all, then sue them and correct the problem.
For someone allege without proof that testing not being true to publish the opinion as fact is by law slander.
So heres s list of differences that actually make a difference, and are accurate.
S&W
not milspec barrel steel (4140 opposed to milspec 4150)
not 1:7 rifling
no double handguard shields
no heavy buffer
Bushmaster M4
no 1:7 rifling
no finish under FSB
no heavy buffer
Why, because it stands to reason that if the markings indicate it was done on that barrel, it must have been done. Does S&W indicate on their barrels that the testing was done? Maybe S&W is testing the same, so the chart again is wrong.
So who determined that these companies arent testing every barrel? Is there someone working for both companies that says they arent testing them? Or is it someone wishing outloud that they dont?
Who determined that any company is testing each and every barrel, again someone expressing their brand favorites?
Unless someone verifies that either company is not testing each and every barrel then the markings indicating the testing is done are good enough.
In other words if someone can prove that each and every barrel or bolt is not tested then by all means do so. If they are not testing all, then sue them and correct the problem.
For someone allege without proof that testing not being true to publish the opinion as fact is by law slander.
So heres s list of differences that actually make a difference, and are accurate.
S&W
not milspec barrel steel (4140 opposed to milspec 4150)
not 1:7 rifling
no double handguard shields
no heavy buffer
Bushmaster M4
no 1:7 rifling
no finish under FSB
no heavy buffer
- Status