Does anyone have experience with the FNH AR's (FN-15)?

[valleyforge.1777]

I was thinking about getting one of the FNH AR's that they are now selling, FN-15. I think that FNH is making the M4's for the U.S. military now, is that correct? Anyway, does anyone have any experience or first hand info about their AR's? thanks

 

[Tirod]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/new-fnh-usa-fn-15-modern-sporting-rifles/

One caveat is that they won't be making them on the same line or with the same machines, in order to prevent full auto parts or guns getting mixed up.

No reason to think Colt is doing that, either. The lower is a different CNC program, and nobody wants full auto trigger parts to go out the door in a civilian gun.

But, you can't install them anyway, it takes another pin for them, so the concern is a bit overstated. We get to use full auto carriers and full auto hammers anyway. If anything, Colt bent over backwards with their semi auto parts, even going so far as using two different sized takedown pins, which the ATF seemingly cares less about.

All in all, another milspec maker offering a near issue firearm, and likely just as good if not better than the 6920. What's not to like, FN has been making military issue rifles for quite a while. My issue rifle in the '90s was a FN. Other than the rollmark, I saw nothing different than the others. The A-series was more important than the makers.

Until we get thousands of them in the hands of shooters who stress them, there won't be anything really known, and likely it will just add to the marketplace with another well made carbine.

What will be fun is reading the future threads titled "FN-15 or 6920?" There will be a lot of talk not backed up with facts, and then the truth will come out about what parts are supplied in common, what one makes vs the other, etc.

Then the "milspec" contestants will line up justifying one complies more, as if we need that minimum standard. We can do better.

More fodder for the forums.

Good luck with your endeavor, we need someone to "beta" test them.

 

[HOOfan_1]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/new-fnh-usa-fn-15-modern-sporting-rifles/

from that article

Word on the street is that the guns won’t be made on the same machines or even in the same area as the original full auto versions, since putting the wrong trigger pack in one of these guns and shipping it out the door would require more than a little ‘splainin’ to the ATF.

The word on the street I heard is that they can't make it on the same equipment or with the same design plans because the government's agreements with Colt on the Techincal Data Package.

No one will know until someone buys one and publishes an in depth review of them.

FN doesn't give many specs for it on their web site.

 

[Fishbed77]

No one will know until someone buys one and publishes an in depth review of them.

FN doesn't give many specs for it on their web site.

A member over at M4carbine.net purchased one and has a photo comparison of it versus a Colt. Apparently the FN-15 does not measure up.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Do you have a link? My googlefu is finding nothing

Edit found it
Http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?150908-Colt-AR15A4-and-FN15-Side-by-Side-Picture-Comparison

 

[Robert]

The only thing I took from that thread was the roll marks were a hair off, he likes ambi controls, and the heat shields were a tick off. I'd not say that it doesn't measure up, that seems a bit of a stretch. Personally I don't need ambi controls, roll mars do not make the rifle any less accurate and the hand guards would have been off in favor of a float tube about 5 mins after I took it out of the box.

So until we see a range report or start seeing some positive or truly negative feed back I'd just wait and see.

 

[HorseSoldier]

My first issue rifle in '93 (in basic) was a brand new FN made M16A2 -- seemed to get the job done well enough (as did the rest of the FN built stuff I was issued at various times in the next 20 years).

 

[Tirod]

I don't dispute that the milspec parts made in house have to be kept separate. The TDP is specific to the issue guns, tho.

Making a different gun - say, a carbine with midlength gas - it's no longer milspec. Which requires deviations in the TDP to do it right, not milspec. The TDP requires the gun to be made exactly a certain way to meet specs, if you put on a different barrel length, good gunsmithing requires follow on changes to get the firearm to operate correctly. Any and all of those changes might or might not conform to the TDP.

Forcing the gun to follow the TDP when it shouldn't would be the less intelligent method of manufacture. And forcing the assembly of the gun to have only milspec parts might mean less expensive parts with less accuracy or durability would be imposed.

There is no guarantee the TDP or military specifications are the better way to do things when you are building a carbine or rifle - and it should be obvious in just that comparison. The carbine does not use 100% of the rifle milspec parts, and vice versa. Two separate and not equal situations, any interchange could possibly even cause malfunctions.

Better the civilian guns get their separate line, but it doesn't mean they can't share some of the same parts. If you are already ordering actions springs by the 10,000's, another 10,000 could step up your volume discount.

With cost efficiencies like that, why take down production of a non critical part on the TDP just to make a non TDP part. Not every detail in the gun is a controlled copyrighted item.

This is really the same situation at Colt - which means the 6920 can't be built on the same line either . . . goes to the suggestion that there is going to be a lot of discovery and new information about both, and some aren't going to be happy about it.