New FN 15 Carbine vs Colt LE6920

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems they just decided to toss out another overpriced commercial-spec AR.
Click to expand...


Yup.

We have a local "AR Specialist" shop here in Southern Wisconsin who flipped out when he saw the local Wal-Mart was now carrying S&W, DPMS, Wyndham, etc. in stock, and all less than $800. He literally cursed out the guy at the sporting goods counter!

He "builds" ARs with say a DPMS lower, bolts on a couple of hoyty toyty named options, and tags it with a $1500-2000 dollar tag.

Now that I know the FN is basically just an M&P, re-badged, I can stick with my Colts anyway. :D
 
Do we know that the M&P specs are clearly inferior to Colt's
Click to expand...

4140 Barrel steel, barrel not HPT or MPI, 1:9 twist, carbine buffer, and I believe the receiver extension is 6061 aluminum, and not extruded T7075.
 
FN's weapons should be comparable to Colt, so if people have legitimate evidence to the contrary, then it is sad to see them pull this kind of nonsense.

It's not too expensive to make a mil-spec or mostly mil-spec rifle nowadays, given market saturation. If Del-Ton kits can offer what it does now for just an extra $35, then a reputable military supplier should be able to do more than that without a problem.

Has anyone found any detailed specs on the FN rifles yet?
 
Buy want YOU want to buy, shoot the living snot out of it, and don't give a rats butt about what the internet experts tell you:D

I do find it amusing when a manufacturer gets a government contract for product they're selling to the government, people assume that product has to be the best. Kind of like mil spec.
 
Last edited:
I do find it amusing when a manufacturer gets a government contract for product they're selling to the government, people assume that product has to be the best. Kind of like mil spec.
Click to expand...

I don't think people necessarily believe mil spec is "the best." It is simply a known standard that you can trust in and know what you are getting. I wouldn't read into it so much.
 
the features for mil-spec are what are important.

Some of them are just convenient. Some are only good depending on the ammo or purpose of the gun. Others are going to make a decent long-term effect on parts life. And some are just a good idea so your rifle doesn't get busted over something stupid (gas key popping off, extension coming loose, etc.)

Unless you're doing Beta-mag dumps back-to-back-to-back almost any decent AR will last longer than the money you spend running it into the ground.

I had a Del-Ton that I ran into the ground with several 1000-rd cases of .223 Wolf ammo. Never had to replace a single part; no bolt shered lugs, no extractor problems, etc. But I have a fullspec'd AR now that offers more peace of mind.

It depends on how subjective you think price-vs-quality assurance is.
 
Most of the AR's around now, even the really good ones, aren't actually Mil-spec.

For instance, the barrel length of any civilian AR has to be longer than an M-4 to be legal. Even with the 14.5 inch barrels, the flash hider has to be permanently attached. That's a deviation from the TDP. They could also deviate by using a semi-auto bolt carrier instead of an FA carrier. Aren't FN's barrels already using chrome lining that's twice as thick as required by Mil-spec?

I'm not a lawyer or a manufacturer, but I think a creative company could come up with a lot of ways to get around the TDP issue and still crank out a great quality rifle. I hope that's what FN ends up doing.
 
There's lots of things in the AR world that, in theory, are "better" than Mil-Spec. The problem is, there's not a pool of data to support it, so it remains theoretical.

CHF barrels have the theoretical advantage of being stronger than Mil-Spec because of the resultant grain structure of the steel. Does that really matter? It's a nice talking point, but I don't know that it's necessarily "better" in real world use.

Double chrome lining... This is the old argument of "If one is good, then two is REAL good!" I don't expect us to find that double-chrome lined barrels have a huge benefit in an AR15. For the sake of consistency in the chrome lining, I think it's a good thing. Throat erosion is what kills rifle barrels; does double chrome do anything to slow down this process? My opinion is that it cannot, but maybe someone has data that it does. In my opinion, it's not necessarily "better" than Mil-Spec.

In the case of these FN rifles, the ones shown at SHOT show are reported as being commercial spec rifles; certainly they're not "better than Mil-Spec."

When a company goes out of its way to build a Mil-Spec gun, they make sure to tell you about it. They want you to know where your money is going. When someone hides the details, its beause they have details to hide...

FN 15 "Specs"
 
I do have to laugh a little about how highly regarded mil spec has become in the AR world.

Technically, no civilian has a true mil spec AR unless he has a license to own one.

I'm old enough to remember when Bushmaster was considered equal to or better than a Colt (and Cold did have their share of issues in the past, which I'm scratching my head on if they're all "true" mil spec rifles), and my, how those days have changed. Interesting enough, back in the late 90's and coming into this century, no one gave a flying a flip about a staked castle nut. Now, if a AR's castle nut isn't staked, somehow it's inferior. It's not hard to stake a castle nut;)

Don't get me wrong, mil spec isn't a bad base guideline to go by, but 20 years ago there were only a handful of AR manufacturers, and you knew which ones to stay away from, mil spec or not.

As previously mentioned by others, some very "high end" AR's being sold in the marketplace today aren't even true mil spec.

I have no doubt that if FN is selling a AR in the civilian marketplace, it has to be a decent product.

Heck, my old late 90's Bushmaster which had thousand upon thousands of rounds through it before I sold it NEVER gave me any problems.

Buy what YOU want, shoot the living snot out of it, and don't worry about what the internet experts say:D

One of my most favorite 5.56 rifles isn't even carried by the US military, I know it's not mil spec, yet over 3k of steel ammo has been through it without any hiccups.

Please don't take my posts as trying to be argumentative, I'm only trying to convey that no matter what gun you buy, you run the chance that you can have problems. That said, if you buy the gun from a reputable manufacturer who stands behind their work (customer service and pride in workmanship IMO trumps "mil spec" any time of the day IMHO), you should have a reliable weapon that should give you years of service.
 
Last edited:
Until FN publishes detailed specs and materials on these rifles, this is all a bunch of conjecture. I sure wouldn't buy one without knowing those things, though. Besides, I'm not really into 16 inchers with carbine gas, or gov't profile barrels. When you have companies like DD, BCM, and PSA making pencil profile middys and who are transparent about the materials and testing that goes into them, I don't see any reason to shell out the kind of money FN wants for an M4gery of unknown quality.
 
henschman said:
When you have companies like DD, BCM, and PSA making pencil profile middys and who are transparent about the materials and testing that goes into them, I don't see any reason to shell out the kind of money FN wants for an M4gery of unknown quality.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. I've used FN weapons in service and wouldn't mind a close to mil-spec or better FN AR of some variation, but not until I know they're at least as good as comparable rifles from Colt or BCM in the same price range.

Mil-spec isn't the end-all, but it at least ensures that quality components and attention to critical areas goes into the rifle.
 
If FN would stamp the Winchester riding cowboy logo on their ARs they'd sell like hotcakes no matter the "mil-spec/TDP" situation.
 
I do have to laugh a little about how highly regarded mil spec has become in the AR world.

Technically, no civilian has a true mil spec AR unless he has a license to own one.
Click to expand...

Most of the AR's around now, even the really good ones, aren't actually Mil-spec.
Click to expand...

a different barrel length, different diameter buffer tube, etc. aren't the reason people harp on how great TDP-quality rifles are. Again, parts life.

Heat dissipation, bolt life, resilience to cracking or shearing, extraction consistency/ejection consistency during fast and rapid fire, and making sure your parts were tested for any flaws that could result in a catastrophic or premature failure/breakage are why people care.

I'm not a lawyer or a manufacturer, but I think a creative company could come up with a lot of ways to get around the TDP issue and still crank out a great quality rifle.
Click to expand...

This is something else to think about, definitely. A lot of people forget that the M4 is overbuilt compared to other guns it is fighting alongside or against. Even civvie M4's can hold up to a lot of abuse, despite being made of lower-quality or batch-tested parts that just have warranty backing (a nice feature, but it's better to not have to cash one of those when your buttocks is on the line in a gunfight).

I'd say decisively that 99% of any brand is good-to-go to hump around in Iraq in a prolonged firefight, and that there is no single civilian or cop or soldier that would need to worry about the TDP if they just didn't know about it. But if money is no object, and if it is a feature that could help you just another couple shots through a situation, or through a carbine course, or range session, it's generally worth the extra minimal amount of cash.
 
a different barrel length, different diameter buffer tube, etc. aren't the reason people harp on how great TDP-quality rifles are. Again, parts life.

Heat dissipation, bolt life, resilience to cracking or shearing, extraction consistency/ejection consistency during fast and rapid fire, and making sure your parts were tested for any flaws that could result in a catastrophic or premature failure/breakage are why people care.
Click to expand...

We have this variable called people, and they tend to screw things up.

In 40 years of shooting, lost count of how many rounds I let go down range exlcuding the military, and never had a premature failure/breakage of any sort (I take that back, but ironically enough, that was a gun uncle same lent me, ironic isn't it LMAO) That said, I tend to stay away from new American made Sig rifles and let others be the guina pigs:D
 
Last edited:
RP88 said:
a different barrel length, different diameter buffer tube, etc. aren't the reason people harp on how great TDP-quality rifles are. Again, parts life.

Heat dissipation, bolt life, resilience to cracking or shearing, extraction consistency/ejection consistency during fast and rapid fire, and making sure your parts were tested for any flaws that could result in a catastrophic or premature failure/breakage are why people care.
Click to expand...

True, but an extra 1.5" of barrel does deviate from the TDP

"What? You suing me for violating the TDP agreement? I didn't violate no TDP agreement. My barrels are 2" longer... so ha!"

The deviations we have to have for the civilian world could (maybe) enable a company to work around the TDP agreement, because by definition, they can't sell a true military rifle to civilians.
 
Actually the differences in a commercial spec and a military spec AR are useful to some people. We used a batch of Bushmasters at work for a few years. At work we RUN our guns. The class to carry a rifle is four days and at least 3k rounds.

In my experience the Bushmasters had many many more problems than the Colts. I'm not talking about malfunctions as the Bushmasters tended to run reliably unless we shot 5.56. When running 5.56 many of the Bushmasters popped primers as the chambers weren't actually 5.56. The big problems that the Bushmasters had were parts breaking.
 
Actually the differences in a commercial spec and a military spec AR are useful to some people. We used a batch of Bushmasters at work for a few years. At work we RUN our guns. The class to carry a rifle is four days and at least 3k rounds.

In my experience the Bushmasters had many many more problems than the Colts. I'm not talking about malfunctions as the Bushmasters tended to run reliably unless we shot 5.56. When running 5.56 many of the Bushmasters popped primers as the chambers weren't actually 5.56. The big problems that the Bushmasters had were parts breaking.
Click to expand...

I've got to ask, how were the bushmaster's chambers NOT 5.56 and yet you were shooting 5.56 ammo through it?

Yes, I know the difference between 5.56 and .223, but I can't help but think you're confused because the Bushy's were probably marked 5.56/.223 because if you weren't confused, it'd be kind of dumb to run 5.56 thought a .223 chamber.
 
It's important to keep in mind that a specification, set by the military or some other entity, is just a specification, i.e., what the customer wants. It does NOT mean that the end item actually gets built to that spec.

What really matters is whether the builder really cranks out a quality product, faithful to the specs that matter to you.

For example, there are manufacturers out there who claim to sell milspec ARS, but their bolt gas keys aren't staked properly. Someone made an attempt to stake the nuts, but didn't do a good job. Or did a poor job chrome plating the barrel bore and the plating peels off or is grossly uneven.

So, trying to build to milspec or saying you do is not the same as actually doing it.

Even good companies, trying very hard to build to milspec can fail. As an example when GE was building the GAU-8 30mm gatling guns for the A-10 Warthog back in the late 70s,
I discovered chrome lining in those big barrels peeling off at the muzzle of a goodly percentage of barrels. They all had to be replaced by GE after they solved their process issue. They were working in good faith, to the milspec, but still had problems. And they fixed them. Not all companies react the same way.

Bottom line? Go with manufacturers with a proven track record of quality. Take care of and inspect your equipment. When you discover a problem caused by the builder, hold their feet ot the fire.
 
It's important to keep in mind that a specification, set by the military or some other entity, is just a specification, i.e., what the customer wants. It does NOT mean that the end item actually gets built to that spec.
Click to expand...

What people tend to forget is that the military is made up of men who are capable of the same fallacies of men in the civilian world, even more so at times due to the fact that the military really only has to only account for itself within it's own hierarchy.

Sometimes "mil spec" isn't set forth by the best engineering standards, but by who took who out to dinner and who resides in whom's political district.
 
Enough. It's mil spec, no it's not. Yes it is, no it's not, yes it is... OP, buy what suits your needs and shooting style best. Lots of great ARs out there are not mil spec. Honestly who cares. If you run a rifle hard or plan on taking a bunch of classes then it might be worth it to you. If not buy what makes you happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
PSA Mid vs carbine and FN vs wilson?
Replies
1
Views
364
Z-Michigan
Z
C
  • Locked
FN Herstal PBR XP?
Replies
1
Views
567
BsChoy
B
T
  • Locked
What makes an AR by Colt or FN any better than the AR kit I ordered?
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
6K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
S
  • Locked
FN's new FNAR and Precision Shooting Rifle
Replies
6
Views
3K
jeff-10
J
G
  • Locked
Colt LE6920
Replies
19
Views
2K
SilentScream
S
Back
Top