Does Smith & Wesson make a good AR15?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Windham Weaponry responded:
Let me try to answer as best I can your 6 points.

1. Carpenter 158 bolts YES
2. HP and MP tested bolts YES
3. 4150 Chrome Moly Vanadium steel YES
4. Mil Spec buffer tubes NO
Mil spec tubes use a smaller diameter tube than the actual diameter of the threads. This makes an extra process to turn the tube down to the mil-spec size rather than keeping it the same diameter all the way back. The walls of the commercial tube are therefore a little beefier. I've fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through AR15s and M16s with commercial spec tubes and have never had one fail. In the former company we all worked for (BFI), we had a test lower in the shooting room that we used for at least 10 years with the same commerical buffer tube on it. That lower probably had well over a million rounds through it without ever replacing the buffer tube. So in our experience there is no benefit to a mil spec buffer tube and is why we decided to go with the commercial spec tube. It's not as coslty to manufacture and is as strong or stronger than a mil spec tube.
5. F Marked front sight bases NO
We use standard front sight bases as this has become the "standard" really. The difference is only .040" and we have taller front sight posts in stock for those rifles that need more height on the front sight post. The majority of carry handles for flat tops are calibrated for standard front sight bases and that's the type of carry
handle we use. Any rear flip sight that needs a .040" taller sight can be easily accomodated with a taller post.
6. Staked locknuts on tele stocks NO
We would have more complaints if we did this than compliments. Some people want to be able to remove the stock if they want to install a different kind of endplate. Factory staking makes removal of the castle nut very difficult. Even without staking some people have a very hard time removing our tele stocks as we torque them on very tightly. Staking is a very easy process and takes 5 minutes to do. We leave this up to the customer to decide rather than making this decision for them. If someone buys one of our rifles and wants the lock nut staked we can do this for them if they so choose."

That is some good info. Here I was thinking I was going to have to deal with a integral front sight like on a AK, and thinking commercial buffer tubes were somehow inferior.
 
Smiths are Mil spec, they have earned a place on the chart right with the big boys.
 
commercial tubes ARE inferior. plenty of threads explaining the differences.

are they "strong enough" to spend ten years in the test firing room? looks that way, and no big surprise. heck, a wooden or plastic tube would probably survive that. are they something i'd want to bang around in the field? not really. but hey, they're half the price of mil-spec tubes.
 
taliv Commercial tubes are inferior. really!! Thats a broad and foolish remark and comeing from a mod!! . Milspec get throwed around to much. If it ain't going to war it ain't mil spec. It may be of the same level of steel and forgeings buy the same company but thats it. Even with barrels if a 4150 barrel was so great it would also be the standard for long range match grade barrels. It is not. Also with 4140 steel there are also sub grades that make for much better steels use in some barrels . Melonite has proven at the least as good a choice as chrome and is harder than chrome but there will allways be those to whine about that .

In the market we buy in the difference between what is a milspec full auto machine gun or selct fire m4's needs means nothing here. If someone want to spend for a lewis or stag or even a colt go for you. Some of us are more content with a lower cost quality rifles that have a tract record to of doing whats needed. I bought a m&p sport after reading some reviews done at Gunsites facillity wher to M&P 2 rifles ran true 170,000 rounds with no breakage . Lets stop all the mil spec this and that garbage and look more toward rifles real world value .
 
I just want to also point out S&W offers a chrome-lined version too. Mine is chrome-lined rather than melonite.

To answer your question, it is not difficult to swap buffer tubes and stocks, you just need to budget that into your purchase if it is important to you.
 
Taliv is spot on. 6061 is far softer than milspec tubes in 7075. You might not need it, but when you need it, you need it. The stock can take some abuse.

I only buy milspec. Maybe the occasional semi auto bolt carrier, but only good manufactuers when i do.
 
gwarg, replacing the tube wouldn't be worth the cost. the mil-spec tube by itself will run you $45 or so, then you'll need a new stock. you could keep the old one, but it will rattle a bit.

hardluk, i have no idea what you're talking about. do you realize we're discussing the receiver extension (aka buffer tube)? not the barrel steel or barrel treatment. statements like "If it ain't going to war it ain't mil spec." are so wildly nonsensical, i don't even know how to address them.

"Even with barrels if a 4150 barrel was so great it would also be the standard for long range match grade barrels."
that isn't even close to accurate. chrome lined 4150CMV is a horrible choice for long range match barrels. and the stainless steel that we make our match grade barrels from would be a horrible choice for issued M4s/M16s. 4140 is better than neither and the only reason to use it is to save money, WHICH IS PERFECTLY OK as long as it's not misrepresented as "just as good as".

regarding the buffer tubes, if you want to save $20, get the commercial tube. i don't care. but if you want to convince us that commercial tubes are superior to mil-spec tubes in some way besides price, please provide a fact-based argument, not some grammatically challenged rant.

chrome lining has been "proven". it's been in use for decades. "melonite" is a relatively new barrel treatment. Years from now, the whole world may accept that it's better than chrome, but for now, it's still climbing towards the peak of the hype. remember when everybody was hot and bothered about "moly coating" a few years back? it wasn't until several years after that people started discovering the 'downsides'. now a few people still use it in a few applications. maybe melonite is the next sliced bread. maybe a few years from now, nobody will be using it. time will tell.

559px-Gartner_Hype_Cycle.svg.png
 
Smith and Wesson is the new top tier AR.
Superior rifling and accuracy too thanks to Thompson.
 
So uh.. which has the better barrel.. the Windham or the Smith and Wesson?

They both seem like good guns, but the Windham has a lifetime warranty..

The Smith.. 1 year full and lifetime repair, pretty much the same..


So.. now we're down to the barrel..
 
What does the US military buy? Get one for yourself. You won't have to wonder if it is mil spec. Colt 6920. You'll thank me later.
OK call the fire dept...flames coming!
 
Do S&W or Windham really MAKE AR's or do they just assemble them from outsourced parts like many other companies do?
 
What does the US military buy? Get one for yourself. You won't have to wonder if it is mil spec. Colt 6920. You'll thank me later.

For the jump in price, would I be getting a better gun or warranty?
 
OK, here's the deal breaker.

Bacon cooks much more evenly on a Smith than any other brand out there.

/s

It's not rocket science guys. Just get one and go shoot. You'll be happy, happy, happy.
 
Neither gun is mil-spec. (S&W or Windham). Both have 1/9 barrels and batch test no f marked front post carbine buffer etc. That being said I have a Windham SRC and its an excellent rifle. I also have a colt 6920 and this gun is mil-spec all the way. Get a 6920 and be done with it.
 
To answer Owen Sparks question, yes S&W makes their own lowers and uppers, but not just that they forge the castings too. There are a handful of upper/lower forge manufacturers.

To comment on the milspec thing, I know I am about to get flamed but here goes. NO, AR without a tax stamp is true mil-spec. The lowers are milled to accept the FCG. The barrels are 14.5" and the two I used(Uncle Sams)had a different buffer than a standard AR. But to say that, some use the same parts( other than the lowers,BCG, & barrels) such as Colt,DD,Noveske, etc. I cannot find a single difference in the parts in my M&P or my DDV4, all mic the same and are interchangable. Who knows what the difference is. Either way, a Windham or a M&P would most likely handle anything you could ever throw at it that a DD or Colt would.
 
Milspec is more than dimensions. It is material, finish and a number of other things. It is true that no commercially available gun is true milspec, but some are more milspec than others. A Colt 6920 is milspec except the length of the barrel. I would call the 6920 milspec and so would any other reasonable AR enthusiast.

Milspec ensures specifications that have been vetted.
 
Neither gun is mil-spec. (S&W or Windham). Both have 1/9 barrels and batch test no f marked front post carbine buffer etc. That being said I have a Windham SRC and its an excellent rifle. I also have a colt 6920 and this gun is mil-spec all the way. Get a 6920 and be done with it.
The M&P Sport barrel is 1/8 twist.
 
Milspec ensures specifications that have been vetted.
And one must not take that out of context, or assume that "mil-spec" automatically equals "better". How can we distrust the government to handle our money and our health care but surrender to them when it comes to choosing a rifle? NEVER choose ANYTHING simply because the government did.
 
Today if you want a mill spec contact m4 you have to go remington!! All this mil spec stuff is so stupid.

The question was does S&W build a good AR15 , heck yes.
 
Exactly Hardluk1...... It just seems like no matter what someone asks about AR's, it becomes a pissing contest. But sir, you are correct. To answer the OP's original post, yes, S&W makes a very good black rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top