low end black rifle recommendations

[suzukisam]

I think Colt would be phenomenally surprised to learn this "fact."

many companies do outsource, even colt, but I think with a statement such as them coming from bushmaster some proof would be in order... the thing is that most likely bushmaster nor colt make their receivers.. they are probably cerro or cardinal. which is the whole point that receivers all come from that same place for the most part.. a few make their own but I know most of them still use a cerro or cardinal forging. the machining is very important, but the material quality and strength of the receiver is no different

 

[mc223]

This is a list of mfrs of receivers, not necessarily that finish them. The last I had read was that Colt was machining from forgings in their facility. Colt - Harvey has been used most lately.
Also Stag in their facility and Bushmaster in theirs, before the Maine plant closing.
Mega is a forge house and They machine for themselves.

From AR15.com

LMT = LMT, Lauer, DS Arms, PWA, Eagle, Knights Armament, Barrett, Bushmaster
CMT = Stag, RRA, High Standard, Noveske, Century Global Tactical, CLE, S&W, Wilson Tactical, Colt, Ratworx
LAR = Grizzly, Bushmaster, Ameetech, DPMS, CMMG, Double Star, Fulton, Spike's Tactical, Noveske
MMS = Mega, Gunsmoke, Dalphon, POF, Alexander Arms, Stinger, Spike's Tactical
JVP = Double Star, LRB
Olympic = Olypmic, SGW, Tromix, Palmetto, Dalphon,

This list is a bit dated but should be mostly OK.


Draw your own conclusions about who makes the BEST. Looks like they are all about the same to me.


Found this "on the internet". Can anyone confirm this?

Stag is the commercial retail outlet for Continental Machine and Tool which is a primary subcontractor for Colt so they *may* be MP testing their bolts and barrels for the Stag line but I'm not sure.

o

 

[suzukisam]

mc223- I found this here on the high road....

look what daddy found. hope is helps anyone else needing this info


Upper receiver forge markings:

Offset Square is: Brass Aluminum Forging
LMT is: No Forge Marks, but marked LMT or L is: LMT
AF is: Alcoa Forge
C AF is: Colt Alco Forge
A (splintered) = Anchor Harvey Aluminum
C MB is: Colt / Mueller Brass
Cardinal’s head (stylized bird head) is: Cardinal Forge
CH is: Colt Harvey Aluminum
Crosshairs w/"AR" is: ArmaLite
CK is: Colt / Kaiser Aluminum
CM is: Colt / Martin Marietta
D (stylized) is: Diemaco
DK is: Diemaco / Kaiser Aluminum
E is: Emco
EK is: EMCO/Kaiser
E MB is: EMCO/Mueller Brass
FA is: FNMI / Anchor Harvey
FK is: FNMI / Kaiser Aluminum
FM is: FN/Martin Marietta
FMB is: FNMI / Mueller Brass
LK is: LAR / Kaiser Aluminum
LM is: LAR / Martin Marietta
M "diamond" is: Mueller Industries
PA is: Capco / Anchor Harvey
PM is: Capco / Martin Marietta
Square (symbol) is: Brass Aluminum

M-16 markings:

CAF Colt / Alcoa Forge
CH Colt / Harvey Aluminum (1st Colt Forgings)
CM Colt / Martin Marietta
DK Diemaco / Kaiser
FK, FS, BK, DK, EK, FK, AF, CW, AA, FS Bushmaster
LK FN / Kaiser
LM LAR / Martin Marietta (Army Spares Contract)
“Splintered A” F: FNMI Anchor Harvey“Splintered A” F: FNMI Anchor Harvey
“Splintered A” C: Colt Anchor Harvey
Splintered A Olympic Arms? (Anchor Harvey)


My list of verified upper receiver forge markings used by AR-15 upper manufactuers/sellers


DSA - Cardinal forge
Rock River - Cardinal forge
Delton - Cerro forge, square
DPMS - Cerro
Spikes Tactical - Cerro
Stag - Cardinal, Cerro
LWRC- splintered A
Para USA - ZM
Knight’s Armament - Cerro (keyhole)
Wilson Combat - splintered A
Double Star - Cerro
Smith &Wesson - Cerro
Daniel Defense - Cerro
Sabre Defense - Cerro?
Remington - Cerro
BCM - Cerro, square
Bushmaster - Cerro
Stag - splintered A, Cardinal
J&T Distributing (Doublestar) - Cerro, C
CMMG - Cerro
Colt M4 - Cerro (C keyhole), square, Cardinal (“C“ bird‘s head), C AF

so according to this information, colt receivers are from the ame source as bushy, delton , a dpms.... at least the upper.. probably many parts come out of one big "bin"... so to speak

 

[Zerodefect]

I can vouch that the Stag, CMT, Noveske, LMT, and BCM stripped upper and lower recievers are every bit as good as Colts.

And those reciever lists change frequently. I wouldn't bother following them at all.

 

[suzukisam]

those reciever lists change frequently. I wouldn't bother following them at all.

I don't think so much that who makes each one is specifically relevant, it's more of a broad example that quite a bit of brand mingling happens even among the "best" brands. BCG's are the same way. And none of the "best" brands have barrels that compare to a shilen, krieger, WOA, wilson..ect.. some companies may offer these barrels, but a factory colt or DD barrel doesn't hold up to one of the listed barrels.. again there is nothing wrong with the factory barrels, and for most shooters the difference may never be seen.. and that is the whole point of all this..

I hear a lot of words thrown around like "milspec, chrome lined, and proper staking" and from what I read most people don't even understand the purpose or relevance of these terms...

 

[Jefe73]

Shot a couple of AR's over the years while in service and since retiring.

In service, Colt, H&R and Hydromatic (GM) M-16's (M-16; XM-16E1; XM-177; M-16A1; M16A2 etc)- only the Hydromatics gave any recurrent problems- in early/mid 70's, they were already shot to sh...and the pin that holds the trigger would work out and make the trigger inop.

Since retiring, Bushmaster, DPMS and Colt. Used to shoot a bunch of tactical competition stuff. Many thousands of rounds. All worked with all types of ammo-wolf, barnaul, mil surplus from South Africa, S. Korea and US stuff. Never had a FTF that was not ammo related.

Never noticed a measureable difference between the brands.

My two cents.

 

[goon]

I hear a lot of words thrown around like "milspec, chrome lined, and proper staking" and from what I read most people don't even understand the purpose or relevance of these terms...

True enough, and I have probably misused it myself.
For instance, I'm now considering a mid-length and stated in another thread I'd like it made to "mil-spec" standards, eventhough I'm pretty sure that few if any mid-length systems are in use at all by any branch of the military.

But I think that overall, people associate "mil-spec" with a high quality rifle that hasn't had shortcuts taken on it.
Having said that, I owned an Olympic carbine once that ran better than several AK's I've owned (and shot much better).

 

[bkjeffrey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajfiE3iq78k&feature=related

 

[kwelz]

I prefer this one. Not sure who made it.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=US#/watch?v=Kc-NHwdRmx8

 

[Zerodefect]

True enough, and I have probably misused it myself.
For instance, I'm now considering a mid-length and stated in another thread I'd like it made to "mil-spec" standards, eventhough I'm pretty sure that few if any mid-length systems are in use at all by any branch of the military.

But I think that overall, people associate "mil-spec" with a high quality rifle that hasn't had shortcuts taken on it.
Having said that, I owned an Olympic carbine once that ran better than several AK's I've owned (and shot much better).

I think Mil-spec has genericly turned into slang for "As good or reliable as a cheap basic Colt 6920".

It's actaully a pretty easy spec to beat. BCM, Larue, Rainier all make rifles way beyond Mil-spec quality.