Which M4A3?

[joey93turbo]

I think my next rifle purchase is going to be an M4A3. I've been looking at the different models but I'm not sure which is best. I'd like one with some trick options if they don't add much to the cost, like a fluted barrel for $50 or whatever. Let me know what you guys think.

 

[borderguy]

I bought 2 M-4 rifles this year. A Colt 6920 and a Colt 6400c. Both exceded my expectations. Bushmaster also makes a fine M-4 type rifle. If you decide to get a fluted barrel, you won't have an M-4 as the barrel with the grenade launcher notch is part of what defines a rifle as an M-4.

 

[NMshooter]

If you are looking at Bushmaster, consider what they call the "superlight carbine". 16" pencil barrel. With A2 birdcage it is about 1/2" longer than a 14.5" barrel with long flashhider. Very light and handy.

 

[Jeff White]

First off, there is no such thing as an M4A3. There is an M4 and an M4A1.

That said, I've had a Colt R6920 for several years and I think it's the best of the semi auto M4 clones. Now that they are available to everyone, I'd go for it...

Jeff

 

[dmftoy1]

I've got a Bushy and I'm tickled to death. (of course it's my first AR so I have nothing to compare it against )

Have a good one,
Dave

 

[cgv69]

Well if you want a true M4 clone and you say you want the best, a Colt LE6920 is as close to perfect as you can get from any factory. The only thing is, good luck finding one in stock for less then $1300.

You next best bet would be a Bushmaster. The only thing you loose is the M4 feed ramps, 1/9 twist (instead of the 1/7 twist of the Colt) and certain parts like the bolt and hand guards are not as nice as on the Colt. The upside is a BM M4gery can usually be had for less than $900 and you will probably have better luck finding one. This is probably your better bet for a casual shooter.

As mentioned above, if you get a relative authentic M4gery, there will be no need for barrel fluting. Good options\upgrades to have would be lots of magazines and ammo!

 

[KW]

If you are willing to buy a seperate upper and lower you could get one of CMMG's M4 uppers (4150 steel, M4 profile, 1/7 twist, 5.56 chamber, feed ramps, T numbered upper) and attach it to the lower of your choice. This will get you a gun with all the "true M4" features for about $700-800.

 

[cgv69]

Yes, the CMMG upper is another option but it’s not really saving you much of anything over the BM money wise. The BM usually can be had for $850-$900. The CMMG upper will cost your $500 and a built lower with a retractable stock will generally cost you around $300 (totaling $800) but to be fair, the BM comes with a case, sling and a couple of magazines and a warranty. If you compare apples to apples, they are not that different price wise. The CMMG route can be a little cheaper if he builds the lower himself but he seems to be looking to buy, not build.

The CMMG does have the M4 feed cuts but last time I checked it also had a cast FSB. Given the choice, I would be more concerned by that then not having M4 feedcuts (which is the BM’s so-called shortcoming)

 

[Onmilo]

All major assembler rifles are excellent.
Don't buy a cheapee because the price is attractive.
Most use Mil-Spec parts, some use their own production parts and these can actually exceed the quality of Mil-Spec and some use the cheapest junk they can find.
You generally get what you pay for, remember that.
What the choice really boils down to is what color of finish and type of finish most appeals to you.
Most use Mil-Spec anodizing, some use "Polymar" finishes,(Translation, baked on plastic, or laquer paint).
Some builders use a grayer finish and some use finishing that runs from a matted to near gloss black in color.
The spiffy camoflage finishes are usually some form of baked on paint.

 

[joey93turbo]

I really, really want a 6920 but I just can't afford the $1300 price, nor could I justify it over the $900 Bushy. I think for me the best choice would probably be the Bushmaster since it's going to be my first AR-15. Like cgv said, it comes with a case, mags, and a warranty, all things important to me. What're the benefits of the M4 feed cuts? Can a gunsmith modify a Bush to include them? Any options I should look for when buyin one? besides mags and ammo

 

[cgv69]

M4 Feedcuts where designed for reliability in full auto M4's and even there, their usefulness is debatable. Don't get me wrong, they don't hurt and in some cases, they have corrected feeding issues but the vast majority of AR's and M16's do not have them and run just fine so it's not an issue. They can be added later with a dremel if needed. Dremeled cuts are not as nice as factory done work but effective if needed.

If you really want a Colt LE6920 but can't afford one at their current prices, one alternative would be to get a Colt MT6400C and just get the preban features added. 6400's should sell for between $950-$1050. You can get the muzzle device removed and barrel threaded with an A2 FH installed for $62. Then have the Bayo lug added for $55. You have a number of options for the stock but the cheapest I believe is unpinning the factory stock and then either replacing the ext. tube or drilling the correct holes in the tube that came with it.

Obviously the BM will still be cheaper and I think you will be perfectly fine with the BM but just wanted to let you know of an option if you really have your heart set on a Colt.

As far as accessories go, there are none that you need. A broken shell extractor might be a nice thing to have just in case. I prefer to clean my AR's barrels with an OTIS patch kit. After shooting it for a while you may decide to upgrade to things like a forward grip or some kind of electronic sight but you should probably hold off on that stuff at first.

 

[vanfunk]

I'd highly recommend the "postban" Colt Match Target 6400C as well. I have had the pleasure and displeasure of owning "M4"'s as made by Colt, Bushmaster and Armalite and would rate their quality and performance in that order. My Colt has outperformed its competition in areas of accuracy, reliability and overall quality of assembly. The Bushmaster and Armalite offerings were subpar in the sense that they suffered from nagging cycling problems and overtorqued barrels. In my opinion, the Colts are best for hard or serious use, and the other brands are absolutely fine for range/ranch/casual use. I like the added security of having a carbine who's bolt, carrier and barrel have been tested and inspected. A Colt MT6400 should run about $900 and, as already explained, its conversion to "no ban" configuration is straightforward and fairly inexpensive. I can't believe I actually considered the AR-series of rifles "unreliable" until I got into Colts. I've never had a malfunction with a Colt AR-15 despite my lazy attitude toward cleaning them.

 

[ny32182]

As far as AR carbines go, I've owned a Bushmaster Superlight (during the ban) that was excellent. There was supposedly a run of guns with overtorqued barrels a while back, but that problem was corrected before I bought mine, and even if you do somehow end up with one, they will fix it quickly. Mine was flawless in every way and ran like a champ. I sold it not long ago to help finance an FAL, but I'll probably be kicking myself for that someday.

I also have an almost all-LMT carbine. It is all LMT except for the RRA lower parts kit, and the upper was factory assembled. It has all the M4 features, and, IMO, is the best upper I've ever handled. I also got the LMT enhanced bolt and an LMT M16 carrier. The bolt is the best. Got to handle one to understand.

 

[kaferhaus]

I own 2 colts and a Bushmaster. I've owned one of the Colts for over 20yrs, the other 12yrs.

The Bushmaster I've had almost 4yrs. There's not a lick of difference in them...

The BM is more accurate than either of the Colt's have ever been and is just as reliable.

I've never had a malfunction out of any of them.

The Colt's are more valuable because it says "Colt" on the side of it... but it's not a better weapon.

As long as you stay with a reputable builder you'll be fine, stay away from the cheapo's as there's a reason they're cheap.....

 

[cgv69]

kaferhaus - I'm sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of what you wrote...

There's not a lick of difference in them

That is just flat out untrue. Colts are made using higher quality parts and are built closer to spec and go through a better QA process. This is fact, not opinion. Many of the qualities that make Colt AR higher quality are not always something you can visually see or functionally notice, especially for the weekend warrior or people who do not know what to look for.

The BM is more accurate than either of the Colt's have ever been and is just as reliable.

I've never had a malfunction out of any of them.

That very well might be true. Lower quality parts does not necessarily mean you will have issues nor does having the best parts guarantee you a perfect operating or more accurate weapon. There are too many other variables at work.

The Colt's are more valuable because it says "Colt" on the side of it

There is some truth to that but it's not completely Colt's fault. If you look at what Colt LE6920's sold for before the ban (Between $850 - $950) you would see it really wasn't any more expensive then a BM. Most dealers decided to take advantage of the situation after the AWB sunsetted and people hell bent on getting one right now bent over and paid the price. Too many people thought that 6920 for $1300 or $1400 was steal because during the AWB, the same gun would sell for between $2000-$3000 dollars.

but it's not a better weapon.

Well I guess that depends on how you define "better weapon". Colts are made closer to spec, using MP tested barrels and bolts and come with a much better warranty. That means a lot to some people. If by better you simply mean that is goes bang when you pull the trigger? Well then generally speaking, BM's and Colt's are pretty equal.

I hope nobody misreads what I am trying to write. Bushmaster generally makes a fine AR that will work perfectly for most people. The average shooter will not see or be affected by the differences between BM and Colt. I just wanted to point out that even though that is the case, that does not mean the two are equal. Colt does make the higher quality rifle but that doesn’t automatically mean they will function any better. For some people, the differences do not justify the added cost but for some other people, they do.

 

[ny32182]

All Bushmaster barrels (non SS or other special purpose at least) are MP tested. No one seems to know if their bolts/carriers are or not, but the point of MP testing is to look for invisible "weak spots" in the material used, correct? If you have pushed your Bushmaster to the limit and nothing broke, it is not likely that invisibile imperfections exist. Closer to spec? What spec? Bushmaster carriers are not milled as far back in the autosear engagement area as Colts are; Bushmaster uses 5.56mm chambered, 4150 steel, chrome lined bores/chamber barrels in all their rifles unless otherwise advertized. Their lowers don't have the block in them. They use normal pins, all the time. Can't say the same about Colt. I've even seen plastic buffers in some current Colts. I'm quite sure Colt makes fine rifles. They may even turn out fewer "problem" guns with some sort of assembly issue. But what are the chances you are going to get a problem gun from any of the top teir makes? With any serious semi-auto rifle I buy, I test it hard anyway, so I KNOW if it will function or not. There is no substitute for that.

 

[cgv69]

ttbadboy -

All Bushmaster barrels (non SS or other special purpose at least) are MP tested.

I use to think the same thing as all of their barrels are marked "MP" but I recently found out that is not the case. BM admitted they they only test a percentage of their barrel (10% I believe).

No one seems to know if their bolts/carriers are or not

Incorrect. Their bolts are not MP tested. It's not hard to get this information. Just call them. They are pretty open and honest as long as you get somebody who knows what they are talking about.

...the point of MP testing is to look for invisible "weak spots" in the material used, correct?

Yes

If you have pushed your Bushmaster to the limit and nothing broke, it is not likely that invisibile imperfections exist.

I can only say that while I don't really agree with your logic there I will say the MP testing is not the end all, be all. At least not for a barrel anyway. For a bolt though, only MP tested ones for me thank you. Only Colt and FN MP test all of their Bolts. There is some debate whether LMT does or not.

Closer to spec? What spec?

Military spec. What did you think I meant you silly

Bushmaster carriers are not milled as far back in the autosear engagement area as Colts are

Well that's true but that is not an issue on Semi Auto AR's. What is an real issue is until just recently, BM did not properly "stake" thier gas keys to their bolts. (They just bought the correct machine to do it about a month or two ago.) Have you ever seen what happens to an AR when the gas key comes loose?

Bushmaster uses 5.56mm chambered, 4150 steel, chrome lined bores/chamber barrels in all their rifles unless otherwise advertized.

Correct. I Like BM barrels regardless of the MP testing and the lack of M4 feedramps. I think they are very good barrels and are a much better value then Colt's in the "bang for your buck" catagory looking at it from a "build it yourself" viewpoint.

Their lowers don't have the block in them.

First off, Colt lowers don't have "blocks" in them any more either and haven't for a long while now. Secondly, you can't legally convert a AR lower to selective fire without a RDIAS anyway so what does it matter? Thirdly, BM doesn't make thier own lowers so depending one who made your BM's lower receiver this week, you would still need to have it milled out just like a Colt lower in order to accept an RDIAS. (assuming you have ~$8000 to buy a RDIAS and live in a state that will allow you to have it in the first place)

They use normal pins, all the time. Can't say the same about Colt. I've even seen plastic buffers in some current Colts.

Those two I'll give ya, especially the pin size thing. I think its stupid too. The plastic buffer thing only seems to be on some of thier "Match target" guns. All of their carbines (includeing the MT6400C) come with the correct "H" buffer. Something BM's don't have. Some other things that BM M4gery's don't have is...

The dual heat sheilded M4 handgaurds. Correct height FSB. 1/7 twist rate barrels (you can get them special order though BM but not stock on a factory built gun), M4 feed ramps and a FSB mounted side sling adaptor.

Look I don't have any interest in getting into a pissing match about BM vs. Colt. As I said, the BM's are generally fine weapons but they are not equal to Colt feature wise. If you've spent much time reading about both guns, you would also see that historically, BM's have a higher failure rate. You don't have to take my word on this, go to the troubleshooting forum on AR15.com and spend some time reading. It shouldn't take too long to see that BM owners spend more time asking questions there than do Colt owners.

In all honesty though, BM does sell more rifles to the civilan market and I would be willing to bet that there are more Colt owners who never shoot their rifles than BM owners. Too many damm people buying Colt's as "Collectors" which is one of the reasons why they cost so damn much!

 

[kaferhaus]

That is just flat out untrue. Colts are made using higher quality parts and are built closer to spec and go through a better QA process. This is fact, not opinion. Many of the qualities that make Colt AR higher quality are not always something you can visually see or functionally notice, especially for the weekend warrior or people who do not know what to look for.

Your statements are pure speculation, they are your opinion. Colt doesn't even manufacture all their own parts... did you know that? Obviously not.

Colt ARs are built to military spec. standards which assures you of some level of quality. That's a given. As I said in my prior post the Colt is a Quality rifle.

Which colt part is made closer to spec and how can YOU prove it? Colt doesn't even claim that no one else builds as good an AR as they do...

Which Bushmaster or Armalite parts are substandard and how do you prove that?

I spent 30yrs in your Army and carried an M16 for 22 of them. I don't think I've been promoted to "weekend warrior" yet.

I love my 2 colt ARs or I wouldn't have kept them around so long, but they're not the cat's meow as you'd have a "newbie" believe.

I've seen brand new ones that were loose as a goose and I've seen some of them that were 100M pie plate guns accuracy wise... I've also seen some that would shoot 1.5" 100M groups with NATO ball ammo.

Now there's quality control for ya.

By they way, there's no such thing as "closer to spec", it either is or it isn't.

and speaking of "mil-spec" ... who supplies the US with M16s? Who makes the parts? The barrels?

There's a weekend warrior on this thread, but buddy it isn't me.

 

[ny32182]

Well. As far as the MP testing everyone raves about, I'm sure it is a fine thing to do, but I will say that I have never heard of any AR where the bolt/barrel/carrier has actually experienced a catastrophic failure (that the MP testing is designed to prevent). It has no doubt happened at some time or another... but I can't imagine the miniscule percentage of the time this is an issue. The former AR manufacturer employees I have spoken with agree that the reliability of an AR is made or broken essentially on the mating and correctness of the bolt and carrier movement together over other factors, and this only makes sense to me. I believe Colt does put out a *slightly* higher percentage of guns that are assembled correctly on the first try (than Bushmaster). There are a number of reasons that I prefer Bushmaster though (barrels, lowers, pins, buffers) especially on the 20" models. I wouldn't mind having an LE colt carbine, but it would only be for the name, as my Bushmaster Superlight was flawless under high rates of fire. My LMT post sunset carbine has about all the mil-specness that you can get in a semi-auto weapon, and it doesn't really perform any better... because it can't, both have been flawless. In order for it to BE better, it has to perform better. As long as you get a correctly assembled rifle, I can't find where it would be an issue.

 

[ny32182]

Another thing: The AR is the only platform I have experience with where this MP testing is even mentioned. You never hear it brought up in regard to any other rifle AFAIK. I've got to wonder why.

 

[kaferhaus]

Well. As far as the MP testing everyone raves about, I'm sure it is a fine thing to do, but I will say that I have never heard of any AR where the bolt/barrel/carrier has actually experienced a catastrophic failure (that the MP testing is designed to prevent). It has no doubt happened at some time or another

It has only happened when we performed "test to destruction" exercises. I personally know of 2 instances and both were in the early 70s. Both rifles that experienced failures were fired over 10,000 rounds without any unit level maintenace (other than isnpection). The other three rifles tested failed for other reasons, one was a "runaway" and the other two suffered extraction/ejection failures.

The way the mandatory MP testing came about had nothing to do with actual failures, Military inspectors would routinely "pull" parts and assemblies from different production runs for QC testing, during several of these tests, stress cracks were found and the entire "run" was rejected.

This is very expensive for a supplier to take. Thus the solution was to build the magnetic particle testing into the manufacturing process as it takes less than 2 minutes to perform this very simple test.

We do the same thing with ammo... if ammo pulled from a lot fails to meet spec, the entire lot is rejected.

 

[ny32182]

If it is so simple and easy, why wouldn't everyone do it, and why wouldn't it be esteemed on other rifles as well? Extra QC checks have to be a good thing; I just don't see the kind of failures that they are supposed to prevent, even on rifles that are known not to have it done.

 

[cgv69]

kaferhaus -

First off, relax. This is a discussion. No need to get pissy about it.

Colt doesn't even manufacture all their own parts... did you know that? Obviously not.

Apparently, its not so obvious as I did know that. I think almost everybody who knows anything about AR's (or guns in general) knows that no AR manufacturer makes all of their own parts. That said, Colt makes more of their own parts than does BM. Even parts that they buy from the same sub contractor are not necessarily of the same quality level. Did you know that? Each company specifies what they will and won't accept. Colt has a higher standards because they have to as because any one of the parts they buy could end up on a government contract weapon so it better be in spec. BM has no such concerns.

Which colt part is made closer to spec and how can YOU prove it?

Yes, very easily. Lets start with the M4 barrel shall we (considering this thread was started by somebody looking for an M4)? The military spec for an M4 barrel calls for it to have the "M4" barrel extension (AKA the M4 feedcut). Colt has it. BM doesn't. Mil. Spec for an M4 also calls for a 1/7 twist rate. Colt? yes. BM? no. Do I really need to continue?

By they way, there's no such thing as "closer to spec", it either is or it isn't.

Well you are kind of right there. A true military spec M4 would be a "select fire" weapon. Considering us Civies can't buy those new legally, we are forced to buying "close to spec". "Close to spec" refers to a weapon that has as many military specific features and specifications as possible. Best we can do considering the laws we are stuck with.

Actually, considering we are actually debating about AR15’s, there really isn’t any military spec what so ever. Mil Spec refers to M16’s and M4's not AR's. If there is any “spec†for a AR15, it’s what ever Colt says it is considering they own the name.

speaking of "mil-spec" ... who supplies the US with M16s? Who makes the parts? The barrels?

Yes I do but I'm guessing you don't by that question? First off, when refering to "in spec", we have been talking about M4's which you do realize is technically a different weapon than the M16 don't you? They are two different weapons, hence the difference names. All military M4's are built by Colt and always have been. Makes sense considering they "designed it" (the M4, not the M16) They own the name M4 and all feature considered unique to it. You may not be aware of this either but not too long ago, Colt filed a lawsuit against BM and HK for marketing "M4" type weapons. The suit is still pending.

To answer your question though, FN currently holds the main contract for supplying M16's to the military but in case you didn't know, Colt still supplies a healthy number of M16 to the military as well.

I never once stated that Colt was the end all, be all AR or that they are perfect in anyway. Please don’t put words in my mouth. To be honest. I not even that much of a Colt fan but facts are facts and saying "There's not a lick of difference in them" between BM and Colt is just pure BS.

This is my last post on this subject as it is clear where this thread is heading and I have no interest in taking part in another silly internet flame fest. Believe what ever you will and buy what ever makes you happy.

 

[kaferhaus]

.

If it is so simple and easy, why wouldn't everyone do it

Unless you're a military contractor, no one is gonna make you throw out tens of thousands of dollars worth of parts because they "might fail" long after the service life of the weapon is long over...

AND the capital equipment cost to perform this test quickly on a mass production scale is VERY expensive.

Some other countrys military's also require testing of critical high stress parts, Britain and Germany are two I know of for sure.

Also several other countries are licensed to manufacture the M16, none that I know of require Magnetic Particle testing of any component part.

 

[cottontoptexan]

M15A2 HBAR Armalite

Gentlement,
I am not expert on the M16 type of rifle . I own an Armalite M15A2 HBar purchased around 2001. I have had no problems with it other than a U.S.A. mag i purchased which caused feeding problems. I use Colt and Armalite mags in this gun since that time with no problems. Any comments on the quality of Armalite i would appreciate.