mljdeckard
Member
Most rifles will work for most shooters most of the time under most conditions. Most shooters will never drive a rifle hard enough to expose quality differences like those shown on 'the chart'. All machines fail eventually.
Windham weaponry ar 15
- Thread starter chaddy
- Start date
- Status
My experience says the same.
Although if firing NATO spec 5.56 ammo there might be an occasional light primer strike with some of the more 'commercial' spec rifles out there. Not a big deal at all for most shooters most (nearly all) of the time
Skylerbone
Member
There you go again with the assumptions and name calling. Either I'm ignorant or a liar based on what you implied about what I actually said...let's do stick to the facts, and here's what I did say:
I also said a straw man would be along shortly to call me names for having no interest in the chart. Is that you or a fallacy of reasoning on my part?
Now, lets hear about those real world tests. Bestow enlightenment on this ignorant liar...and please confess to owning a Glock, please! It would simply make my day.
The differences between commercial and mil spec receiver extensions go far beyond diamter.
The mil spec will be 7075 T6, which is stronger (and more expensive) than the 6061 you are probably going to see in the commercial extensions.
The threads on the mil spec are probably rolled and the threads on the commercial are probably cut, which again makes the mil spec item stronger.
Decide for yourself if the extra strength is worth the extra cost.
If I said anything about the answer to that question in this thread, I didn't realize it and didn't mean to. I'm just making sure everybody realizes what the differences actually are so they can make an informed, rational decision of their own.
The mil spec will be 7075 T6, which is stronger (and more expensive) than the 6061 you are probably going to see in the commercial extensions.
The threads on the mil spec are probably rolled and the threads on the commercial are probably cut, which again makes the mil spec item stronger.
Decide for yourself if the extra strength is worth the extra cost.
If I said anything about the answer to that question in this thread, I didn't realize it and didn't mean to. I'm just making sure everybody realizes what the differences actually are so they can make an informed, rational decision of their own.
Skylerbone
Member
Ahh, now we're getting facts. Here's another. The 6000 Series of alloy are more corrosion resistant than the 7000 Series. Why does that matter? Well, corrosion decreases strength and what is a buffer tube except a giant recepticle for water to sit in during hard use. Any scratch in the coating will be an opportunity for failure. In the real world of course these failures simply aren't common place with either type. Run them both over with a truck and you'll be buying one of each diameter replacement. So I do concur that if it's made of 7075 T6 initial strength will be greater than a commercial tube that might be made of 6000 Series and that if the mil spec comes with rolled threads it will be stronger than a commercial buffer that might use cut threads. I might also prefer if my buffer tube gave out rather than twisting my lower receiver into an unusable pretzel, but individuals will need to make their own call on including weak link parts.
Chaddy, that would be one WAG on anyone's part. Windham does have a toll free number to call for information on lead times. You might consider looking for other local dealers if Walmart doesn't pan out. The 3 I saw were in a gun shop somewhere off the beaten path, town population well under 1,000. I was trading in deer hides and wound up buying a 10/22 TD for my son. If he had been a year or two older the Windham would have followed me home.
Actually, I covered that fact in my very first post in this thread. Post 18 back on page #1.
Skylerbone
Member
So you're purposely misleading. If your "mil spec" (sized) tube is 7075 and roll formed vs. If your commercial (sized) tube is 6061 and also cut...Got it.
Waiting on even anecdotal evidence on those catastrophic failures due to substandard buffer tubes. I did look at your previous posts and I knew it! You own a Glock! Hardly mil spec...
I'm going to copy and paste my previous posts as it seems that you have missed them.
Correct.
mil spec means the specific specification at hand.
In order to make any kind of judgement call on the 'quality', effectiveness, or applicability to your application of the specification, you have to understand WHAT the specification calls for, and what the advantages/disadvantages of the specification are relative to other choices.
mil spec may be perfect for what you want to do. It may be mediocre. It may be bad.
Understanding the fundamentals of it is what makes you an informed and formidable consumer.
---
The differences between commercial and mil spec receiver extensions go far beyond diamter.
The mil spec will be 7075 T6, which is stronger (and more expensive) than the 6061 you are probably going to see in the commercial extensions.
The threads on the mil spec are probably rolled and the threads on the commercial are probably cut, which again makes the mil spec item stronger.
Decide for yourself if the extra strength is worth the extra cost.
If I said anything about the answer to that question in this thread, I didn't realize it and didn't mean to. I'm just making sure everybody realizes what the differences actually are so they can make an informed, rational decision of their own.
Grmlin
Member
Thread jacked
Skylerbone
Member
Warp, you're just a guy that wants to argue incessantly off topic that cannot seem to apply your brand of "logic" to other common use items in life. You cannot admit you have no experience with the rifle in question or its material composition. I doubt that you've ever fired another AR save your own. You have a poor attitude and demeanor and avoid any question that answers definitively what your experience level is. In short, you hide behind brand names and references to "hard use" for the sake of sounding like someone you are not.
I shall make great effort to avoid further discussion that involves you as it is clearly off topic and off point. Discuss Windham Weaponry in the thread or roll up your chart and move on. I'm quite certain the thread has tired of us both.
I shall make great effort to avoid further discussion that involves you as it is clearly off topic and off point. Discuss Windham Weaponry in the thread or roll up your chart and move on. I'm quite certain the thread has tired of us both.
You are grossly incorrect and mistaken.
I never mentioned even one single brand name in this thread.
You are doing a very good job of pulling this thread way off topic by attacking and insulting me at every turn, when I am merely posting straightforward, accurate, factual information without judgement or recommendation in order to help people reach their own conclusions. Congratulations on creating a urination match.
I'm out.
It should serve you well, and if you get it anytime somewhat reasonably soon, is well worth that price tag IMO.
I own a Bushy from before it got bought out (same as Windham).
Cheaper barrel steel w 1/9 twist (yes)
Improperly staked gas key (yes)
Non-F marked front sight base (yes)
Semi auto carrier (yes)
Commercial buffer tube (yes)
Overgassed (yes) definately
Carbine buffer (yes)
Receiver extension not staked (yes)
Basically everywhere they could cut corners, they have. That being said, it was my first AR, I've shot the hell out of it (~10K rounds) before I bought others.
There are better ARs available, many. Under normal circumstances, the extra quality in a Colt (DD, BCM, etc.) doesn't cost much more ($1100 vs. $800) and yes, it's worth the extra coin to ensure you'll have a rifle that'll last. That being said, for the use most ARs get, you'll probably be fine. I've shot my Bushy more than most ARs will ever see in their lives, and it ran until I could afford to buy something better and knew what better meant to me.
Quentin
Member
Excellent post, Mizer! I also started with a commercial grade AR (ArmaLite) and as I educated myself moved on to something better for me.
I think it's important to point out many of us said that chaddy (OP) likely will be happy with a Windham for his first AR. But he did ask how good are they which does require an honest answer. Windham does have a nice story but it's still not a Colt.
OilyPablo
Member
The price seems great! Windham should be a fine shooter. I think dependable enough for defending your tax office or plinking.
chris in va
Member
My LGS just got a bunch in. They're wanting $1100.
Skylerbone
Member
Yes Quentin, by that measure of honesty, no other AR is a Colt. When you say it is important to speak honestly I also agree. I do not however concur that only those rifles based on the chart "score" if you will can be adjudged not as good. If your sole criterion for judging quality of a product is the chart you will always draw the same conclusion.
With that honesty in mind it is no small surprise that you consider anyone not purchasing ARs that score to your liking on the chart as "noobs", "those who don't know", those who don't understand" and their associated ARs "the hobby version". Cherry picking criteria is not experience or truth which is the root of honesty. Dogma should never be claimed to be truth, only fact as you choose to define it. In this case, as in most you respond to, you neglect honesty with impunity because, well, the chart makes you "correct" by your own narrow definition.
If mil spec is so rigidly important, may I ask what percentage of your personal ARs are Colts of proper configuration?
henschman
Member
One good thing about Windham is that they use a chrome lined barrel, unlike many of the other commercial grade AR mfg's. That greatly increases barrel life, as well as helping with reliability and cleaning. They all come with a 1/9 twist barrel, which is best for 55-62 grain rounds. They generally don't do well with the heavier long range/home defense bullets like 69 and 77 grains, so keep that in mind. But if you're new to ARs, you will probably be shooting the much more common lighter weight loads, so hopefully it won't be a problem. Like others have said, Windham cuts some corners on the testing of their parts (they don't individually proof barrels and bolts), not using the highest grade steel on barrel and bolt, etc. This stuff doesn't mean it will be an unreliable rifle or anything... those are just features that ensure a high level of dependability, mostly of interest to people who plan on a lot of hard use and who want that extra guarantee of quality and long service life. It used to be that you could get those features for not too much extra dough if any, but in today's market, you did good finding any kind of AR for less than $1500. Count yourself lucky. I have no idea how long of a backlog they might have. A phone call to Windham would be a good idea, and would yield a more accurate answer than you're likely to get on here.
When you say "mil spec", what do you mean?
When you say "proper configuration", what does that mean?
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
"The truth about Mil-Spec
Mil-Specs are a convenience for the federal government when sending out bid solicitations. The do not denote a higher quality, merely the minimum acceptable level of quality and/or performance. There are Mil-Specs on nearly everything the government buys - from powdered eggs, ice cream, and chocolate to aircraft parts.
Mil-Specs are just a convenient way for the federal government to purchase things that are guaranteed to meet the minimum acceptable quality or performance level - they're a way to specify something without the need to write a complete specification every time because the Mil-Spec is the specification.
So, when buying a weapon you intend to use for defense, I hope you'll remember that Mil-Spec is just another way for the government to spend less of your tax dollars for the minimally acceptable product - not necessarily the best product."
(I found this quote above on another site and thought it was we fit in situations like this)
I have seen S&W's, Stag Arms, & Bushmasters put through more abuse than I ever did my M4, and they are still going... $700 for a Windham is a great deal, enjoy it when you get it.
People get in a tizzy over mil-spec or not, the truth is, most I have met would not know the difference. I am not saying there isn't a difference or that there are not people who could look at a rifle and tell. I just think the average shooter would be well served with either.
Colt is still the bar for AR-15's, they are the standard. There are some that are better than Colt and some that aren't as good.
Mil-Specs are a convenience for the federal government when sending out bid solicitations. The do not denote a higher quality, merely the minimum acceptable level of quality and/or performance. There are Mil-Specs on nearly everything the government buys - from powdered eggs, ice cream, and chocolate to aircraft parts.
Mil-Specs are just a convenient way for the federal government to purchase things that are guaranteed to meet the minimum acceptable quality or performance level - they're a way to specify something without the need to write a complete specification every time because the Mil-Spec is the specification.
So, when buying a weapon you intend to use for defense, I hope you'll remember that Mil-Spec is just another way for the government to spend less of your tax dollars for the minimally acceptable product - not necessarily the best product."
(I found this quote above on another site and thought it was we fit in situations like this)
I have seen S&W's, Stag Arms, & Bushmasters put through more abuse than I ever did my M4, and they are still going... $700 for a Windham is a great deal, enjoy it when you get it.
People get in a tizzy over mil-spec or not, the truth is, most I have met would not know the difference. I am not saying there isn't a difference or that there are not people who could look at a rifle and tell. I just think the average shooter would be well served with either.
Colt is still the bar for AR-15's, they are the standard. There are some that are better than Colt and some that aren't as good.
Last edited:
Your assumption that the pre buyout Bushy you have is the same as the current Windham isn't valid.
My father-in-law's Windham has:
4150 Chrome Moly Vanadium 11595E Steel, Chrome Lined, button rifled 1 turn in 9 inches - right hand twist (every bit as good as 95% of the barrels being used on retail AR's by dozens of manufacturers)
Properly staked gas key
Commercial buffer tube (so what?)
A4 feed ramps properly machined and aligned
Receiver extension staked
Carbine buffer (why not, it's a carbine length DI gun)
Overgassed?, not any more than my PSA of my friends Colt
Honestly, I believe it's one of the best under $1000 AR's on the market. Better in many ways then S&W, CMMG, Spikes, etc........
$700 for a Windham is a GREAT price, you should be very happy with it for many many years.
BTW, I read all this bluster and chest pounding about "mil-spec" and "the list" and wonder how many here actually use their AR's in a combat or tactical situation where all those supposedly "superior" parts are going to make one darn bit of difference?
My PSA, my Father-in-law's Windham and my wife's "frankengun" I built from various parts all have many thousands of rounds through them without any problems I didn't cause (I'm an incessant tinkerer).
- Status
