Glock Talk banner

The new chart is out...

19K views 188 replies 61 participants last post by  bmoore 
#1 ·
#102 · (Edited)
I'm a hobbyist. I go to and participate in tactical carbine matches and drills and paractice with handguns as well. I don't plan on my firearms being offensive weapons, but I will use them to defend my family and myself if the need arises. I want my firearms to be as durable and trouble free as possible, just like many other products I purchase.

When I plan on purchasing products such as a car, power tool, major appliance, electronics, etc. I try to do some research to determine which brands and models may best suit my needs, and will be the most reliable, trouble free, and cost effective over time. I use the internet and other sources to do this and usually have to go to many sites to get the information I need.

To me, mil-spec seems to be a standard the government came up with based on years of experience, testing and research. I believe the purpose is to put a quality product in the hands of our military that will be less likely to fail them at a critical moment if properly maintained. For instance, testing of bolts is intended to discover flaws that may cause a critical failure. Proper stakeing is so that a screw doesn't back out and cause a jam at a critical moment. The information in "the chart" consolidates a lot of quality control and other information in one place.

I hope I'm never in a situation where a failure of my firearm will have dire consequences. But the standards in the chart can help me buy a better product at a more reasonable price, one that will last longer and need replacement parts only when scheduled for maintenance, and not upon breakage. I therefore used the original chart as a kind of guideline in determining what AR style rifle to purchase.

Personally, I thank the author of "the chart" for all the time and effort he put in to publishing the original chart, and now this follow-up. I believe he only intended it as an aid to consumers on all levels. I believe he gave all the manufacturerd an oportunity to participate if they wanted to. If the manufactureres want the consumers to know what they use to put their products together, they participate. I don't understand the animosity and acrimony that "the chart" stirs up. Buy whatever brand of AR you choose and be happy with it. If you feel the information on "the chart" is of value, use it in your decision, if not, don't.
 
#103 ·
djegators
No hyperboil! Thats what been said over there about DPMS rifles and others! Like I said If it is one of there covetted Chart rifles thats the crap you here!

Eurodriver
And I've seen pics of the Chart rifles do the same thing and your point is? Parts break ! Do you have the round count on that bolt? Link to the original thread? I'd like to read that one!
 
#104 ·
This is why the folks really knowledgeable about the AR15 platform and its proper use avoid this site like the plague. And I wouldn't be surprised if the couple that do stop by on occasion where seriously considering not doing so anymore.
Lots of truth here.

Not to lump myself into any category of knowledgeable persons but I find myself visiting less, posting less and have considered moving on completely. I have a genuine interest in helping new shooters or people who may be new to this platform to become educated owners and help better this hobby / sport etc... The sad thing is that there are those who post here who are doing no justice to this concept. Also the flat out spite or hate for other sites with a preponderance of industry / shooting professionals is overwhelming and the amount of sheer ignorance on this weapon in this forum is also overwhelming at times and this thread is a prime example of some members who don't know what they don't know, or refusing to learn out of pure spite.

The chart is what it is, to use or not use.

Most acknowledge that for a plinker there are many suitable choices that are not on the list that will give the owner a lifetime of pleasure.

Most will say that there are a few not on the list that can be suitable for self defense / duty use, but when your life is on the line, there are better choices for the same or perhaps less cost.

The majority of parts / testing procedures that meets Mil-Spec standards costs a company more money to produce that product. So what does that say about a company who charges as much or even more money for a product that uses lower quality parts and doesn't have the same quality of testing procedures? Who cares if you don't run your rifle hard enough for that to matter, but why spend more with a company that is just sticking it to their customers by having a much greater profit margin for lower quality parts and lower testing standards? That just sounds like stupidity to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with snobbery either, just pure common sense.

Rifle costs and quality of materials aside, some companies flat out suck with their customer service and being known for rifles having basic "issues" out of the box which could have been easily solved from the manufacturer standpoint during manufacture or quality control process.

While attempting to replicate or exceed Mil-Spec or TDP standards does not guarantee anything, it does show a commitment by a company to attempt to put out a high quality product and there is a huge likelihood that their product is indeed assembled better and will be a better performer over its lifespan. Anyone with a lick of knowledge about this weapon system understands the critical area's that can fail basically leaving you with a club. Not WILL fail but can fail. So any manufacturer that attempts to follow these standards are showing an attention to detail that can save the user their money or their life. This attention to detail generally equates to a company having their **** together as a company itself and that is the type of companies that I wish to support with my hard earned dollars.

I will also use the car example. A Kia and a Corvette will both get you from A to Z. But if they both cost the same or if the Kia costs more, I know which one I am buying every single time. PT Barnum understood the fool and his money concept all too well. Don't support the companies that would attempt to do the same to you.
 
#107 ·
Lots of truth here.

Not to lump myself into any category of knowledgeable persons but I find myself visiting less, posting less and have considered moving on completely. I have a genuine interest in helping new shooters or people who may be new to this platform to become educated owners and help better this hobby / sport etc... The sad thing is that there are those who post here who are doing no justice to this concept. Also the flat out spite or hate for other sites with a preponderance of industry / shooting professionals is overwhelming and the amount of sheer ignorance on this weapon in this forum is also overwhelming at times and this thread is a prime example of some members who don't know what they don't know, or refusing to learn out of pure spite.

The chart is what it is, to use or not use.

Most acknowledge that for a plinker there are many suitable choices that are not on the list that will give the owner a lifetime of pleasure.

Most will say that there are a few not on the list that can be suitable for self defense / duty use, but when your life is on the line, there are better choices for the same or perhaps less cost.

The majority of parts / testing procedures that meets Mil-Spec standards costs a company more money to produce that product. So what does that say about a company who charges as much or even more money for a product that uses lower quality parts and doesn't have the same quality of testing procedures? Who cares if you don't run your rifle hard enough for that to matter, but why spend more with a company that is just sticking it to their customers by having a much greater profit margin for lower quality parts and lower testing standards? That just sounds like stupidity to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with snobbery either, just pure common sense.

Rifle costs and quality of materials aside, some companies flat out suck with their customer service and being known for rifles having basic "issues" out of the box which could have been easily solved from the manufacturer standpoint during manufacture or quality control process.

While attempting to replicate or exceed Mil-Spec or TDP standards does not guarantee anything, it does show a commitment by a company to attempt to put out a high quality product and there is a huge likelihood that their product is indeed assembled better and will be a better performer over its lifespan. Anyone with a lick of knowledge about this weapon system understands the critical area's that can fail basically leaving you with a club. Not WILL fail but can fail. So any manufacturer that attempts to follow these standards are showing an attention to detail that can save the user their money or their life. This attention to detail generally equates to a company having their **** together as a company itself and that is the type of companies that I wish to support with my hard earned dollars.

I will also use the car example. A Kia and a Corvette will both get you from A to Z. But if they both cost the same or if the Kia costs more, I know which one I am buying every single time. PT Barnum understood the fool and his money concept all too well. Don't support the companies that would attempt to do the same to you.
There's alot more to GlockTalk than just the Black Rifle Forum. Check out some other sections. You might enjoy yourself more.:dunno: Personally, I find GlockTalk helpful AND entertaining.:supergrin:
 
#108 · (Edited)
Surf
Agreed if thats the standard you use to buy an AR, Thats fine for you! Good info and if people choose to buy according to the chart more power to them! But since a vast majority of AR ouwers are not have not and will not use there arms for "DUTY" it's an exspense they don't have to incur to enjoy the AR platform! As we have seen over the years if a company produces a crap AR they usually don't last long as the market takes care of them!:supergrin: Cause if I'm going to use a "Duty" rifle the government going to issue it anyway!
 
#109 ·
Yay! Time for people who don't shoot more than few times a year to get upset again because their rifle didn't rank well on the mil-spec comparison chart.

I still can't understand why someone satisfied with their rifle, for THEIR uses, seems to believe that's all everyone else needs. As if it were unfathomable that others may require a higher standard for their applications or want more for their money.

Oh yeah, THIS is why I stopped coming to the Black Rifle forum.

Oh well, at least I get to shoot my Noveske more during the summer months.
Yep. Too many folks arguing emotion rather than science and math. Happens with all firearms, but it's tenfold with AR's.
 
#110 ·
Yay! Time for people who don't shoot more than few times a year to get upset again because their rifle didn't rank well on the mil-spec comparison chart.

I still can't understand why someone satisfied with their rifle, for THEIR uses, seems to believe that's all everyone else needs. As if it were unfathomable that others may require a higher standard for their applications or want more for their money.
Your observation works the same both ways. I think it's difficult for some AR aficionados to understand that most AR owners don't need mil-spec. They should get it, since usually it doesn't cost much more, but they really don't need it.

ARs are just another example in which purchase decisions need to be based on knowing what's out there and what's what.
 
#111 ·
I think some folks are missing the point. Yes lower end AR's are perfectly fine for the majority of enthusiasts. What is odd or funny or hard to understand is why would anyone choose between 2 guns that are the same price...but choose the one with lower quality parts or less features?

"key word...for the same price!!!!"

So let me wrap my brain around this... some guys here thinks its wise for me to spend $900 on an AR that doesnt have 4150CMV steel, no M4 feed ramps, 1/9 twist rate, commercial spec parts and parts batch tested?

Yes there are AR's out there that come with less and you pay more for it...I think that is the real issue here. Not gun snobery.
 
#112 · (Edited)
I think some folks are missing the point. Yes lower end AR's are perfectly fine for the majority of enthusiasts. What is odd or funny or hard to understand is why would anyone choose between 2 guns that are the same price...but choose the one with lower quality parts or less features?

"key word...for the same price!!!!"

So let me wrap my brain around this... some guys here thinks its wise for me to spend $900 on an AR that doesnt have 4150CMV steel, no M4 feed ramps, 1/9 twist rate, commercial spec parts and parts batch tested?

Yes there are AR's out there that come with less and you pay more for it...I think that is the real issue here. Not gun snobery.
...winning... :cool:


"Oh bother," said Pooh as he slapped another magazine into his AR-15.
 
#113 ·
Surf and a few others have some excellents points and posts on the forum. I like the chart as it gives a side by side comparison for the buyer. Some like LMT some like BCM, etc......
I personally bought a newer version Bushmaster Carbon 15. I like it but I only go shooting with it every couple of months (1 jam on steel ammo-never again). Now that being said, I have done some additional research and really have come to like BCM. I purchased a few of their products and are very happy with them and their customer service. I plan on buying some more of their products in the future.
 
#114 ·
I understand what you're saying surf, but one thing that goes hand in hand with that and that most people seem to overlook is that just because a company does not MP test every single bolt or barrel, etc, does not mean the part is inferior.

Much of the "mil-spec" standard has to do with testing, not necessarily the actual quality of the part. A company can easily make a part as good as or better than those in "mil-spec" rifles, but if they do not test every single one or follow the military testing procedure, its not on the list as "mil-spec."

This is the one danger in the chart and why some might not want to participate. The fact that someone does not meet the "mil-spec" standard gives the impression of an inferior product. While some may be, there may be others that are equal, or even superior, and that can get lost in the chart.

I'm not defending any particular brand or even discounting the chart, I'm just saying that the entire story is not told by a chart. Looking at a chart and calling that your research is just as irresponsible as not doing any research because there is so much more to the story than just whether your gun is "mil-spec" or not.

While I'll give you the fact that companies trying to adhere to "mil-spec" generally produce a quality weapon, there are other companies out there that might not adhere to the specific "mil-spec" standards that can still produce high quality weapons as well.

The danger of the chart is that it implies that its the gospel of buying an AR and those that follow it blindly tend to look down on those that dont. Wow, that sounds like a religion, no wonder there are constantly arguments over it. ;)
 
#116 · (Edited)
I will also use the car example. A Kia and a Corvette will both get you from A to Z. But if they both cost the same or if the Kia costs more, I know which one I am buying every single time. PT Barnum understood the fool and his money concept all too well. Don't support the companies that would attempt to do the same to you.
Using that logic and the chart then you shouldn't buy anything but a Spikes Tactical. It has all the boxes checked and is over $300 less then Colt of BCM.

If Spikes can do the same thing for $300 less why should anyone support Colt, BCM, or Noveske? Aren't they just playing us for fools and charging and extra $300 for the same thing?

My one big gripe about the chart is that it is based solely on a survey sent to a manufacturer. How do we know that Colt, BCM, or Spikes aren't lying to us?

I mean I could make a VaFish M4 and tell you that it meets all those specs, other then a few obvious ones like staking and extractor inserts how would you know?

Even if you want documentation you don't think I can come up with an image of a piece of paper that says at some point I bought some material that meets the specifications?

You pick up a bolt that has MPT stamped on it how do you know it's not some pot metal piece of crap from China?

When is someone going to start cutting these things up and doing an analysis of the metal?
 
#117 · (Edited)
I also noticed that some companies offset the lack of mil-spec specifications by offering "lifetime warranties".

While others have a documented history of incredible customer service yet they still dont publicly offer a "lifetime warranty" for some reason?

Sometimes that lifetime warranty can be what makes the difference between 2 guns that are the same in price and quality.
 
#118 ·
Using that logic and the chart then you shouldn't buy anything but a Spikes Tactical. It has all the boxes checked and is over $300 less then Colt of BCM.

If Spikes can do the same thing for $300 less why should anyone support Colt, BCM, or Noveske? Aren't they just playing us for fools and charging and extra $300 for the same thing?

My one big gripe about the chart is that it is based solely on a survey sent to a manufacturer. How do we know that Colt, BCM, or Spikes aren't lying to us?

I mean I could make a VaFish M4 and tell you that it meets all those specs, other then a few obvious ones like staking and extractor inserts how would you know?

Even if you want documentation you don't think I can come up with an image of a piece of paper that says at some point I bought some material that meets the specifications?

You pick up a bolt that has MPT stamped on it how do you know it's not some pot metal piece of crap from China?

When is someone going to start cutting these things up and doing an analysis of the metal?
This is one the issues I see with following the chart too closely or holding it up as the be all, end all. If it were paired with factory tours by Rob or independent testing of materials or sampling of various makers by going to the local gunstore and tearing apart the guns without tipping off the makers.

Rob likes to say trust but verify but are we getting good verification?

It's one thing to look at the BCG and see MPT on the bolt or staked screws or has an auto bolt vs full auto. Its another to look over the shoulder of the guy at the factory putting it together or watching the testing.
 
#119 ·
Durable eh?

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d13/drshame/BrokenBolt.jpg?t=1255360507



A few points:

Mil-spec doesn't mean lowest bidder, it doesn't mean its ****, it doesn't mean any of that. Milspec is an adherence to a standard. The standard being the TDP. Barrel and bolt steel, HP/MPI, 1:7 twist, h-buffers, etc. Anyone who thinks milspec is lowest bidder crap is an uneducated idiot. Period.

If a rifle is not "milspec", meaning they are not adhering to the same standards that has worked for the M16 rifle for 40 years....what standards ARE they using?

DPMS will work for any AR owner just fine if you go to the range and put a box or two of ammo through it before hunting season. No one can, nor should, argue that. However, no one should argue that a DPMS would handle large amounts of fire in a training environment either. They're just not built for that, it should be evidenced by their lack of gas key and castle nut staking alone.

Lastly, why the hell would anyone spend $1000 on a Bushmaster XM15-E2S when they could buy a complete LMT Defender 2000 Lower for $350 and a BCM upper for $650?

I hope to not actually see a poster who says that Bushmaster is better quality than BCM. If its not, why wouldn't you get the best?
First, I am not a "average" recreational shooter. I have put quite a few rounds down range, with LMT, BCM, OLY and DPMS. Bushmaster as well. That isnt any bolt out of my rifles. Once when I didnt pay for ammo, I (and 3 others) put about 3000 rounds each downrange in DPMS A2 rifles w/ Gov't profile barrels. Not once did they malf in any way with the M-193 we were issued. My first was an OLY Plinker. Still running tru and reliable thousands of rounds later.

Point I was making in this thread is the snobbery when one supposively owns a "chart" gun. It is really rearing it's ugly head, both here and the other forums and it turns away potential first time buyers who just may become a powerfull ally in the fight for our rights.

Mil-Spec doesn't mean better, but sure does mean $$$ for some gun makers.
 
#120 ·
since when has a goverment standard been a good thing. i have a hard time thinking that the spec's that the goverment wants are the best. i mean over all they screw everything else up, so why should this be any different when it comes to rifles.
 
#121 ·
Well since you can't even discuss any AR that doesn't meet their MIL SPEC dream requirements on M4.net If you do they will suspend you ASAP ! The closest "Mil Spec" Comercial AR you can buy is a Colt! Everyone else is a Posser! And your paying for the Name! :wavey:
I agreed I was banned for life for calling a Marine a Devil Dog, what a joke of a forum and what close minded people to not accept other points of view on firearms. M4 is the furthest thing from information anyone can recieve.
 
#122 ·
Yay! Time for people who don't shoot more than few times a year to get upset again because their rifle didn't rank well on the mil-spec comparison chart.

I still can't understand why someone satisfied with their rifle, for THEIR uses, seems to believe that's all everyone else needs. As if it were unfathomable that others may require a higher standard for their applications or want more for their money.



Yep. Too many folks arguing emotion rather than science and math. Happens with all firearms, but it's tenfold with AR's.
+1 smartest thing I have read yet!
 
#123 · (Edited)
I agreed I was banned for life for calling a Marine a Devil Dog, what a joke of a forum and what close minded people to not accept other points of view on firearms. M4 is the furthest thing from information anyone can recieve.
That's because DD is typically used when addressing someone junior to you, and when they screwed up.

I never saw someone junior refer to a senior as DD. They'd likely get smoked for it.

The only time DD is used with spirit nowadays is when celebrating something Corps related. Or the occasional Gunny who referred to EVERYONE (junior) as DD.

From my own experience, take it or leave it.
 
#124 ·
rich52us
Mil-Spec is a standard used to be able to sell a product to the Government under a certain contract! In the case of the M16/M4 contract the TDP! Thats all it is nothing more nothing less! Dosen't mean the product are better then normal commercial grade parts just that it meets the contracted spec's! I don't know or have ever heard of any firearm manufacture making substandard parts for firearms! Good way to catch a lawsuit and be put out of business! Have bad parts been sold -yep. Will Milspec parts fail yep seen it all the time in the Aircraft repair industry . I can't count the number of bad Mil-Spec parts that I seen bad right from the factory in 24 years in the USAF!:whistling:
 
#125 · (Edited)
rich52us
Mil-Spec is a standard used to be able to sell a product to the Government under a certain contract! In the case of the M16/M4 contract the TDP! Thats all it is nothing more nothing less! Dosen't mean the product are better then normal commercial grade parts just that it meets the contracted spec's! I don't know or have ever heard of any firearm manufacture making substandard parts for firearms! Good way to catch a lawsuit and be put out of business! Have bad parts been sold -yep. Will Milspec parts fail yep seen it all the time in the Aircraft repair industry . I can't count the number of bad Mil-Spec parts that I seen bad right from the factory in 24 years in the USAF!:whistling:
What is your experience w/ failures of commercial grade M4s/AR15s as compared to mil-spec M4s/AR15s? Have you found one is more prone to failure than the other?
 
#126 ·
mjkeat
Nope both of my Commercial grade AR's have been just a good as my Gov issued M16/M4's that I have used! In fact the only firearms I had break were my Win 45 LC '94 and a Marlin 357 mag '94. The Win I broke the carrier with a heavy loading! And the Marlin I had the loading gate screw broke! :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top