Just to address a few points:
1) There is no judgement call in the chart. It is what it is, and if it's not then it's easily corrected. Unfortunately most of the people that say it's wrong simply sit on the sidelines and pout rather than contribute to getting it corrected.
2) I make no claims as to what is good for hipower, or varminting, etc. The features listed in the chart are, as you state, what most closely matches the TDP. IMHO these features are what are important to someone looking for a defensive firearm.
3) Can you give me some empirical data to support your "LMT is more accurate than Colt" claim?
4) As to the constantly evolving nature, I believe this says more about the lower quality makers than anything else. It exposes the fact that they do not hold to any standard, and change their specs like most of us change our underwear. You'll note that Colt, Noveske, and LMT rarely change. I think that since the inception of the chart the only thing that changed on these three is the Colt warranty.
5) The way to tell if you're seeing the most recent version is to follow the link to m4carbine.net which is where the most recent version is always posted.
6) I agree with you that many lower-quality firearms can be brought up to snuff very easily. Here are recommendations as to same.
Ultimately the whole Chart evolution has been interesting. It's has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but rarely does this emotional display translate to actual changes based on real fact. If you read through the thread on m4carbine.net you'll find a comedy of errors wherein people post "my Olympic does too have M4 feedramps" only to be politely corrected once they finally post a picture. The same happens, repeatedly, with regards to carrier key staking.
I would generally tend to agree with your assessment; I'd suggest Noveske first (and did) and LMT second. Charles Daly is coming on strong along for third, and has supplanted S&W IMHO. I do not understand your attachment to Stag at all, but they are certainly preferable to Bushmaster and generally even cost less so I suppose they do have a place.
Ultimately, and no matter how much I say this people just do not get it, the writeup that goes with The Chart, which explains what each feature is and why it is considered to be of value, is really the meat of the matter. If someone reads that and says "oh, ok, I don't really have a need for 1:7 twist or a 1.14" diameter receiver extension" then so be it. Quite different from simply looking at the chart and hollering "my RRA passed the DEA test! My RRA passed the DEA test!" all while firmly burying their head in the sand.
1) There is no judgement call in the chart. It is what it is, and if it's not then it's easily corrected. Unfortunately most of the people that say it's wrong simply sit on the sidelines and pout rather than contribute to getting it corrected.
2) I make no claims as to what is good for hipower, or varminting, etc. The features listed in the chart are, as you state, what most closely matches the TDP. IMHO these features are what are important to someone looking for a defensive firearm.
3) Can you give me some empirical data to support your "LMT is more accurate than Colt" claim?
4) As to the constantly evolving nature, I believe this says more about the lower quality makers than anything else. It exposes the fact that they do not hold to any standard, and change their specs like most of us change our underwear. You'll note that Colt, Noveske, and LMT rarely change. I think that since the inception of the chart the only thing that changed on these three is the Colt warranty.
5) The way to tell if you're seeing the most recent version is to follow the link to m4carbine.net which is where the most recent version is always posted.
6) I agree with you that many lower-quality firearms can be brought up to snuff very easily. Here are recommendations as to same.
Ultimately the whole Chart evolution has been interesting. It's has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but rarely does this emotional display translate to actual changes based on real fact. If you read through the thread on m4carbine.net you'll find a comedy of errors wherein people post "my Olympic does too have M4 feedramps" only to be politely corrected once they finally post a picture. The same happens, repeatedly, with regards to carrier key staking.
I would generally tend to agree with your assessment; I'd suggest Noveske first (and did) and LMT second. Charles Daly is coming on strong along for third, and has supplanted S&W IMHO. I do not understand your attachment to Stag at all, but they are certainly preferable to Bushmaster and generally even cost less so I suppose they do have a place.
Ultimately, and no matter how much I say this people just do not get it, the writeup that goes with The Chart, which explains what each feature is and why it is considered to be of value, is really the meat of the matter. If someone reads that and says "oh, ok, I don't really have a need for 1:7 twist or a 1.14" diameter receiver extension" then so be it. Quite different from simply looking at the chart and hollering "my RRA passed the DEA test! My RRA passed the DEA test!" all while firmly burying their head in the sand.
