Quoted: Two questions, from a 'semi-informed" novice who's still trying to learn: (1)  What are T-numbers? (2) What constitutes a "true" M4 profile?  Do Busmaster's M4's comply with this profile? (Note:  Guess that was three questions.)

1) T-numbers are the markings you'll see on the rails on flattop uppers and on forends.  They are supposed to be there so that you can remember where your accessories are mounted.  You might want to remember that your aimpoint is mounted in a certain spot so that theoretically it will return to zero when you remove it and reinstall it.

2) Bushmaster has sold barrels in the past that were HBARs under the handguards and just had the M203 cutout on the exposed portion of the barrel.  I believe that Rock River may have done the same thing at one time.

Quoted: 2) Bushmaster has sold barrels in the past that were HBARs under the handguards and just had the M203 cutout on the exposed portion of the barrel.  I believe that Rock River may have done the same thing at one time.

RRA still does that on factory guns and barrels.  Places like ADCO offer the turn down service because they know there is no reason to have an M4 barrel if it is still heavy under the handguards.  I believe the only reason RRA does this is because they don't turn their own barrels.  They get theirs from Wilson.  Places like J&T and Del-Ton also sell their M4 barrels like this because that is the way they come from the Wilson Arms factory.  

Quoted: Quoted: Two questions, from a 'semi-informed" novice who's still trying to learn: (1)  What are T-numbers? (2) What constitutes a "true" M4 profile?  Do Busmaster's M4's comply with this profile? (Note:  Guess that was three questions.) 1) T-numbers are the markings you'll see on the rails on flattop uppers and on forends.  They are supposed to be there so that you can remember where your accessories are mounted.  You might want to remember that your aimpoint is mounted in a certain spot so that theoretically it will return to zero when you remove it and reinstall it. 2) Bushmaster has sold barrels in the past that were HBARs under the handguards and just had the M203 cutout on the exposed portion of the barrel.  I believe that Rock River may have done the same thing at one time.

Appreciate you answering that.  Regarding the BM M4 profile question; I've never removed my handguards to look.  But the BM catalog shows a M4 profile for their 16" bbl, Patrolman's Carbine version, that clearly shows the area under the handguards is turned down.  I'm assuming mine is configured accordingly.  Mine is basically a range rifle so I've never really considered it necessary to remove the HG.  Should I occasionally do this for maintenance purposes?  I don't have a HG removal tool; is this something I can do myself or do I need the tool?  BTW, I live in Colorado which for the most part is pretty bone dry; just a light wipe down with CLP or Sheath and I've never had rust on any blued steel firearm.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Two questions, from a 'semi-informed" novice who's still trying to learn: (1)  What are T-numbers? (2) What constitutes a "true" M4 profile?  Do Busmaster's M4's comply with this profile? (Note:  Guess that was three questions.) 1) T-numbers are the markings you'll see on the rails on flattop uppers and on forends.  They are supposed to be there so that you can remember where your accessories are mounted.  You might want to remember that your aimpoint is mounted in a certain spot so that theoretically it will return to zero when you remove it and reinstall it. 2) Bushmaster has sold barrels in the past that were HBARs under the handguards and just had the M203 cutout on the exposed portion of the barrel.  I believe that Rock River may have done the same thing at one time. Appreciate you answering that.  Regarding the BM M4 profile question; I've never removed my handguards to look.  But the BM catalog shows a M4 profile for their 16" bbl, Patrolman's Carbine version, that clearly shows the area under the handguards is turned down.  I'm assuming mine is configured accordingly.  Mine is basically a range rifle so I've never really considered it necessary to remove the HG.  Should I occasionally do this for maintenance purposes?  I don't have a HG removal tool; is this something I can do myself or do I need the tool?  BTW, I live in Colorado which for the most part is pretty bone dry; just a light wipe down with CLP or Sheath and I've never had rust on any blued steel firearm.

If BM did have HBAR'd M4 barrels, then it was probably waaaaay back, so it's safe to assume you have a barrel that is skinny under the handguards.  If you don't have a problem with rust, then it's not imperative that you lube under the handguards.  Of course that depends wholly on how anal you are.  Although lubing it once in a blue moon does go a long way in rust prevention over the long term.  Removing the handguard without a tool or a second pair of hands is doable, but a real pain in the butt.  The delta rign has been known to really loosen over time, making it easier, but if the rifle is relatively new and the handguards haven't been taken off at all then it will probably be too tight to do easily.  Get a friend to help or invest in a handguard tool if you are thinking about doing it often.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Two questions, from a 'semi-informed" novice who's still trying to learn: (1)  What are T-numbers? (2) What constitutes a "true" M4 profile?  Do Busmaster's M4's comply with this profile? (Note:  Guess that was three questions.) 1) T-numbers are the markings you'll see on the rails on flattop uppers and on forends.  They are supposed to be there so that you can remember where your accessories are mounted.  You might want to remember that your aimpoint is mounted in a certain spot so that theoretically it will return to zero when you remove it and reinstall it. 2) Bushmaster has sold barrels in the past that were HBARs under the handguards and just had the M203 cutout on the exposed portion of the barrel.  I believe that Rock River may have done the same thing at one time. Appreciate you answering that.  Regarding the BM M4 profile question; I've never removed my handguards to look.  But the BM catalog shows a M4 profile for their 16" bbl, Patrolman's Carbine version, that clearly shows the area under the handguards is turned down.  I'm assuming mine is configured accordingly.  Mine is basically a range rifle so I've never really considered it necessary to remove the HG.  Should I occasionally do this for maintenance purposes?  I don't have a HG removal tool; is this something I can do myself or do I need the tool?  BTW, I live in Colorado which for the most part is pretty bone dry; just a light wipe down with CLP or Sheath and I've never had rust on any blued steel firearm. Get a friend to help or invest in a handguard tool if you are thinking about doing it often.

Roger that.

LMT's first and most important role is to make money, otherwise they would be donating their uppers to the gubment and selling them at cost to us (which cost is substantially less than the MRP of $475).  Colt and FN are much more important to arming our troops, and FN sells no AR components to the public.  LMT is not pumping out high priced and high hyped parts to help us, or because they love us, they are doing it to make money.  And yes, they are doing a great job at that.  I would also think that if your LMT could not make it through 160 rounds of Wolf without farting or a hiccup, then you would have a POS.  Before you wrap LMT in the flag and start praising them, go into your closet  and praise that light bulb made by GE, or your GE microwave, because GE loves us too, and GE is performing a vastly more "important role in this great nation" than LMT ever will.  And here's a shocker:  GE is in it for the money too!

Quoted: LMT's first and most important roll in this great nation is to arm our armed forces. If you think others are pressed after the assault weapons ban ended to supply our appitite for AR15's. Think about LMT. I belive they are doing a grate job. I to was worried after some posts with LMT problems. After I got my LMT lower I thought WOW. I like it. Then I got my upper in. WOW WOW WOW. I love it! Then I shot it. OH BABY! After running 160 or 180 perfectly flawless rounds of "SO CALLED" under powerd & filthy 55gr WOLF through her for brake in. Most if not all of the empty cases flew around 12 FT to my 4:30 to 5:00 possition. Over all I am more than very pleased with my LMT.

Just for the record, LMT has or is making parts for KAC and Colt

Can you elaborate on that? What, if anything has a NSN?

Quoted: Just for the record, LMT has or is making parts for KAC and Colt Can you elaborate on that? What, if anything has a NSN?

Well, for one example, I believe KAC just produced a large batch of 10.5" URX(?) uppers for one Gov't entity using LMT 10.5" barrels.

That's interesting. I had heard they have done stuff for KAC before but never heard anything about Colt. That's what I am more curious about.

Quoted: That's interesting. I had heard they have done stuff for KAC before but never heard anything about Colt. That's what I am more curious about.

Actually, I'd like to hear about LMT producing stuff for Colt as well.  I've heard a lot of conjecture, but have nver heard anyone make a definite statement about it.  

Exactly.  Is that part of the hype or fact?  If my factual observations are going to be questioned then let's not accept hints of gubment contracts and NSN numbers.  A gubment contract like this should be public record and should have a contract number.  I wouldnt' doubt it if LMT had official gubment contracts to produce things.  Lots of companies do.
www.usdoj.gov/jmd/pe/contractlist.htm

Quoted: Quoted: That's interesting. I had heard they have done stuff for KAC before but never heard anything about Colt. That's what I am more curious about. Actually, I'd like to hear about LMT producing stuff for Colt as well.  I've heard a lot of conjecture, but have nver heard anyone make a definite statement about it.

I've seen a picture on their website.  Check out the gubment contract lists and they machine alot more things than AR uppers.   Given that, their concern for the civvy market is likely small, which minimal concern shows in the attention to detail on the receivers I've handled and used.  Armalite, Colt, Bushmaster and RRA on the otherhand, do nothing but make AR's and sell to civvies.  We are more important to them (save for socialist Colt) and their attention to detail shows.  My point is not that they do or do not have gubment contracts, nor is it that their factory is large or small.  My point is that from my personal observations and in hand comparison of three (3) LMT uppers to probably ten RRA's, many Bushmasters, and many Colts, that LMT makes an OK, decent, upper that operates like any other upper, is not finished any better (and usually worse) than the others mentioned, and is not special other than for an M4 extension and ramps, if that even means anything.  I'm sure you guys will say "I'm a dealer and I see [insert big number here] receivers and LMT is great."  Well, how many LMT receivers do I have to buy before I get that mythical great one you refer to?  When MotorTrend rates an auto, do they buy 20 of them and average the test results?  Nope, they do like I do and examine an example off the line.  Why?  Because a company dedicated to QC and great products tries to see to it that EVERY single example is a great product.  

The LMT hype is overblown and simply a fad that sweeps through the AR15 community every six months or so.  There's nothing wrong with that, I have an LMT upper, am waiting on a lower, and will keep my LMT and shoot it.  But the machining is at best average, the fit and finish is at best average, the upper is nothing special, and LMT has more complaints given their small runs for the civvy market than any other (serious) maker I've seen reported here.  When you have to resort to flag waving, and "LMT's are for operators who don't have safe queens and aren't concerned with cosmetics" then you are on weak ground and conceding problems.  Equipment, especially machined equipment, is judged on how it functions and the quality of the machining.  This has been so since the first machinist made anything.  This is why certain firearms cost more than others and are regarded more highly.  LMT receivers work, but they are not, IMHO, a premium product.  LMT receivers are no better in function, cost more, and exhibit less attention to detail and finishing, than competing products from Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, and RRA.  I'd probably buy another LMT if they would bring their work up to the level of their price, or reduce their price to the level of their work, which should happen as soon as the fad dies down.

Quoted: Quoted: Exactly.  Is that part of the hype or fact?  If my factual observations are going to be questioned then let's not accept hints of gubment contracts and NSN numbers.  A gubment contract like this should be public record and should have a contract number.  I wouldnt' doubt it if LMT had official gubment contracts to produce things.  Lots of companies do. www.usdoj.gov/jmd/pe/contractlist.htm Quoted: Quoted: That's interesting. I had heard they have done stuff for KAC before but never heard anything about Colt. That's what I am more curious about. Actually, I'd like to hear about LMT producing stuff for Colt as well.  I've heard a lot of conjecture, but have nver heard anyone make a definite statement about it.   Have you ever seen hte LMT factory? It is very large to say the least. The CIVY market has just become aware of them within the last year or two. Where do you think all their money and work comes from?? Their CIVY sales BARELY even registers on the chart! C4

I anticipated that one Grant  And no offense, but do you rely upon the sale of LMT products?  Do they bring more or less margin?  I'm sure you like their features.  I'm not impressed, and I am a consumer, just as the gent who started this thread.  I'm more impressed with Colt (but they cost more), and certainly more impressed with RRA (given the cost), and even prefer Bushmaster.  If these latter two did the M4 extension and ramps, I'd have no need for an LMT and that scrawled logo.

"I'm sure you guys will say "I'm a dealer and I see [insert big number here] receivers and LMT is great." Well, how many LMT receivers do I have to buy before I get that mythical great one you refer to? When MotorTrend rates an auto, do they buy 20 of them and average the test results? Nope, they do like I do and examine an example off the line. Why? Because a company dedicated to QC and great products tries to see to it that EVERY single example is a great product."

Quoted: airbiscuit, my experience is the exact opposite of yours and view the LMT uppers to be of higher quality than than most of the other AR's I have sold, used and owned and I see A LOT more uppers than you do! C4

Well, how many LMT receivers do I have to buy before I get that mythical great one you refer to?

In my case that would be TWO. The first one required 22 clicks windage to zero, and didn't run with known good mags and ammo. The replacement is much better in both respects.

And believe or not, their QC department did not seem to be familiar with the accuracy requirements
layed out in the TM's and the M4 milspec. I base that observation on that fact that I wasn't offered an RGA on Upper #1 until I pointed them to the relevant documents, as well as email correspondance that I had from received from Bushmaster who clearly DID know what consitutes excessive windage. After Bushmasters canted FSB debacle, they learned to boresight their uppers.

Am I happy with #2? Jeah, it runs like a raped ape and zero'd up fine, within specs. Am I happy with their customer service. For the most part yes. Am I happy that I had to RGA a brand new product? No, not really.

YMMV obviously, because there are a LOT of people who do like their LMT products, and so far we have limited data about the 'dogs'.  Time will tell the whole story I suppose.

Would I buy LMT again? Probably.

Well, hey, at least they made it right for you JLM.  That's a good thing and they are to be commended.  

Quoted: Well, how many LMT receivers do I have to buy before I get that mythical great one you refer to? In my case that would be TWO. The first one required 22 clicks windage to zero, and didn't run with known good mags and ammo. The replacement is much better in both respects. And believe or not, their QC department did not seem to be familiar with the accuracy requirements layed out in the TM's and the M4 milspec. I base that observation on that fact that I wasn't offered an RGA on Upper #1 until I pointed them to the relevant documents, as well as email correspondance that I had from received from Bushmaster who clearly DID know what consitutes excessive windage. After Bushmasters canted FSB debacle, they learned to boresight their uppers. Am I happy with #2? Jeah, it runs like a raped ape and zero'd up fine, within specs. Am I happy with their customer service. For the most part yes. Am I happy that I had to RGA a brand new product? No, not really. YMMV obviously, because there are a LOT of people who do like their LMT products, and so far we have limited data about the 'dogs'.  Time will tell the whole story I suppose. Would I buy LMT again? Probably.

I just purchased a complete LMT M4 from Denny. I've recieved the upper and the fit and finish looks great. It looks better than Colt MForgery that I sold. I've owned several different AR's but I have always liked the Colts better just because they never gave me any trouble. The fit, finish and performance were great on the Colts. So far I'm impressed with the fit and finish on the LMT upper that I got. Hopefully I will be able to get the lower this Monday and take it to the range and I'll be able to tell you about the performance. If the lower has the same fit and finish as the upper and shoots flawless than I will be happy about spending $900+.  

Does LMT make their own barrels or are they a subbed out item?

Reason for the question: the 16's are not marked MP, most of the 14.5's are, and it would seem the recent runs of the 14.5's are NOT marked. LMT says they are ALL MP inspected. So, I don't understand
the completely inconsistent marking scheme.

I do remember seeing a post from Wes in the EE, about LMT being short of barrels, so that makes me wonder if the 14.5's that I have seen pictured here recently were purchased from another vendor
to cover their barrel shortage. And hence the lack of MP markings.

Perhaps Wes can clarify.

Nice rig Grant.  Why doesn't Bushmaster and/or RRA make an M4 ramped upper w/M4 extension?  I guess one could do that, but a factory offering would sell.

Quoted: LMT's first and most important role is to make money, otherwise they would be donating their uppers to the gubment and selling them at cost to us (which cost is substantially less than the MRP of $475).  Colt and FN are much more important to arming our troops, and FN sells no AR components to the public.  LMT is not pumping out high priced and high hyped parts to help us, or because they love us, they are doing it to make money.  And yes, they are doing a great job at that.  I would also think that if your LMT could not make it through 160 rounds of Wolf without farting or a hiccup, then you would have a POS.  Before you wrap LMT in the flag and start praising them, go into your closet  and praise that light bulb made by GE, or your GE microwave, because GE loves us too, and GE is performing a vastly more "important role in this great nation" than LMT ever will.  And here's a shocker:  GE is in it for the money too! Quoted: LMT's first and most important roll in this great nation is to arm our armed forces. If you think others are pressed after the assault weapons ban ended to supply our appitite for AR15's. Think about LMT. I belive they are doing a grate job. I to was worried after some posts with LMT problems. After I got my LMT lower I thought WOW. I like it. Then I got my upper in. WOW WOW WOW. I love it! Then I shot it. OH BABY! After running 160 or 180 perfectly flawless rounds of "SO CALLED" under powerd & filthy 55gr WOLF through her for brake in. Most if not all of the empty cases flew around 12 FT to my 4:30 to 5:00 possition. Over all I am more than very pleased with my LMT.

airbiscuit: Im not tring to stoke peoples negitivity. I am tring to give a helpfull responce to ASR's post. I am giving "my honest first hand comparison" of the LMT product I received. Yes I would love to have another LMT product when "MONEY" permits it. Businesses usualy are out to make money. However LMT has a "contract" to supply the GOV with their product. I was pointing out the demand on them is high. Especialy at this time of war. You seem to be a bit up tight. If you see Im happy with my LMT. Please do not lash out at me with some lame economics spanking. If you have some beaf with LMT let it out.

EDITED to add your first sign of tention. Directed at my contentness.
I forget to mention this in my description of LMT upper mediocrity but if you mean that fine machining is visible lathe and mill marks, then my 14.5 is "finely machined". The LMT barrel on my upper is not comparable to Colt or Bushmaster. From what I've seen, all this LMT hype is reminiscent of the hype surrounding the Randall .45 ("The .45 for the next Century!").



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
Well I Love mine. It shoots perfectly flawless. The machining on the BBL is of the finest I have ever seen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All due respect, but if I'm uptight, then you are too delicate and sensitive regarding responses to your posts.  I don't give LMT a pass because they have gubment contracts, just as I don't give GE a pass if my GE dishwasher is mediocre.  You seem more emotionally involved with your LMT than I am, obviously.  It's a piece of gear and I compare it to other similar pieces of gear.  LMT doesn't "WOW WOW WOW" me.  It barely makes me have any reaction other than to factually state what my eyes see.  I think that's the point.  Over-hype.  Some people have higher standards than you and for them, "WOW WOW WOW" means superlative.  The LMT's I've seen are OK to pretty good, but not superlative.  You gush about your LMT, I'm OK with mine but unimpressed.  I respect your opinion, but will respond to it as you posted publicly in discussion forum. So, lighten up.

Quoted: Quoted: LMT's first and most important role is to make money, otherwise they would be donating their uppers to the gubment and selling them at cost to us (which cost is substantially less than the MRP of $475).  Colt and FN are much more important to arming our troops, and FN sells no AR components to the public.  LMT is not pumping out high priced and high hyped parts to help us, or because they love us, they are doing it to make money.  And yes, they are doing a great job at that.  I would also think that if your LMT could not make it through 160 rounds of Wolf without farting or a hiccup, then you would have a POS.  Before you wrap LMT in the flag and start praising them, go into your closet  and praise that light bulb made by GE, or your GE microwave, because GE loves us too, and GE is performing a vastly more "important role in this great nation" than LMT ever will.  And here's a shocker:  GE is in it for the money too! Quoted: LMT's first and most important roll in this great nation is to arm our armed forces. If you think others are pressed after the assault weapons ban ended to supply our appitite for AR15's. Think about LMT. I belive they are doing a grate job. I to was worried after some posts with LMT problems. After I got my LMT lower I thought WOW. I like it. Then I got my upper in. WOW WOW WOW. I love it! Then I shot it. OH BABY! After running 160 or 180 perfectly flawless rounds of "SO CALLED" under powerd & filthy 55gr WOLF through her for brake in. Most if not all of the empty cases flew around 12 FT to my 4:30 to 5:00 possition. Over all I am more than very pleased with my LMT. airbiscuit: Im not tring to stoke peoples negitivity. I am tring to give a helpfull responce to ASR's post. I am giving "my honest first hand comparison" of the LMT product I received. Yes I would love to have another LMT product when "MONEY" permits it. Businesses usualy are out to make money. However LMT has a "contract" to supply the GOV with their product. I was pointing out the demand on them is high. Especialy at this time of war. You seem to be a bit up tight. If you see Im happy with my LMT. Please do not lash out at me with some lame economics spanking. If you have some beaf with LMT let it out. EDITED to add your first sign of tention. Directed at my contentness. I forget to mention this in my description of LMT upper mediocrity but if you mean that fine machining is visible lathe and mill marks, then my 14.5 is "finely machined". The LMT barrel on my upper is not comparable to Colt or Bushmaster. From what I've seen, all this LMT hype is reminiscent of the hype surrounding the Randall .45 ("The .45 for the next Century!"). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Well I Love mine. It shoots perfectly flawless. The machining on the BBL is of the finest I have ever seen. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: airbiscuit, my experience is the exact opposite of yours and view the LMT uppers to be of higher quality than than most of the other AR's I have sold, used and owned and I see A LOT more uppers than you do! C4 I guess the point that your are missing is that there are three levels of AR's (IMHO). Top shelf (COLT), Mid-Level (BM) and bottom (OLY/Eagle/whatever you want). Colt's are a lot more money than BM, but Colt gives you true mil-spec barrels, M4 feed ramps, T-Markings, etc.. People complained about the price of Colt and don't think those extra features are worth the higher dollar amount. Along comes LMT. They give you same features as Colt, but for hundreds less. So my personal opinion is that LMT fills a nitch that was left between Colt and BM. I keep one AR next to me at night to protect my family and my home. It isn't a Colt and it isn't a BM! C4

C4, all of my bed side "friends" have Ponys - Colt (AR & 1911). ALL LMT uppers I have run as reliable as the Colt's I have (which is many) albiet they run Colt BCGs as I previously posted. The "cosmetic" comparison of a Colt upper to LMT is mute. The custom uppers I have that have LMT receivers look as good as any of the Colts. Which I expect with a custom upper. For a true working (or hard used) gun, shit get scratched, dinged, & worn. I expect my custom uppers will have this same "abused" look shortly ( I don't give a shit about pretty, does it run 100% ). As I previously posted, the bone of contention appears to be with what I will call rack grade LMT uppers, including BCG. Again as I previously posted, I am now going to get a rack grade LMT 16" upper/BCG & try and beat the HELL out of it and see what happens. Damn, I love it when people give MORE reasons for me to get large amounts of range time & rounds down range.

Quoted: Does LMT make their own barrels or are they a subbed out item? Reason for the question: the 16's are not marked MP, most of the 14.5's are, and it would seem the recent runs of the 14.5's are NOT marked. LMT says they are ALL MP inspected. So, I don't understand the completely inconsistent marking scheme. I do remember seeing a post from Wes in the EE, about LMT being short of barrels, so that makes me wonder if the 14.5's that I have seen pictured here recently were purchased from another vendor to cover their barrel shortage. And hence the lack of MP markings. Perhaps Wes can clarify.

My guess as to the reason the 14.5's are marked this way is that these are bought as replacement components by the DOD.  Colt marks them to show they have been tested, so the same is expected of LMT.  I don't know why they wouldn't just mark the 16s the same, perhaps it is to prevent any 16s from being shipped as 14.5s and vice versa?  Sort of a second visual inspection method in case you can't eyeball the length.  

Order has been placed. I will post pics when its received and during and after testing. I will use only Mil-Spec ammo. No Wolf crap, so don't expect it and don't ask about it. I refuse to run it in any weapon.

Did paperwork on my LMT lower today (thanks Denny) The guys at the gun shop and I compared the lower to a Rock River and a Bushmaster

Identical to the Rock River except the LMT was way better looking finish wise, I mean WAY better,
He said that LMT makes the recievers for RRA, I myself dont know for a fact but they are identical so who knows.
The Bushmaster was nowhere near the same, Bushmaster looking as if it were machined by a lazy machinist, the corners were not as sharp, the radius's were not as detailed, just seemed like they were in a hurry and wanting to save time on the machining process.
LMT even looks better or as good as the 5 Colts I have,

I'm liking these guys

Well, maybe all these manufacturers are inconsistent because your observations are the same as mine, just substitute LMT for RRA.  The same lazy Bushmaster machinist must have made this LMT upper as it exhibits the identical issues as the Bushmaster you mentioned. My RRA uppers (3) and lowers (2) are crisp, no machine marks, even finish.  I have an early Bushmaster flattop upper that is cruder than those, and is about the same as the LMT, which is obviously not as finely finished as the others.  The Colts (uppers and lowers) are easily nicer than all but maybe the RRA's.   Of my seven weapons, the LMT is about second to last, in finish.  Please note the the LMT is not unacceptable and unsightly, just not on par with the others, and not remotely close to the Colts, and even less than the RRA's.  Maybe the LMT I own, and the two that I have had and fired were made on bad days, and everything else wasnt.  Would I feel afraid to stake my life on the LMT upper?  Nope, not after I've fired it alot like my others.  But I guess I got unlucky and the LMT's I've seen and the one I own are not finished as nicely as the aforementioned  RRA's, Bushmasters, and Colts.  Fact is, I would, and will, buy additional RRA, Bushmaster, and maybe Colt, but not LMT unless I can hold their gear in my hands before hand.

Quoted: Did paperwork on my LMT lower today (thanks Denny) The guys at the gun shop and I compared the lower to a Rock River and a Bushmaster Identical to the Rock River except the LMT was way better looking finish wise, I mean WAY better, He said that LMT makes the recievers for RRA, I myself dont know for a fact but they are identical so who knows. The Bushmaster was nowhere near the same, Bushmaster looking as if it were machined by a lazy machinist, the corners were not as sharp, the radius's were not as detailed, just seemed like they were in a hurry and wanting to save time on the machining process. LMT even looks better or as good as the 5 Colts I have, I'm liking these guys

So that tells me that Colt and LMT are using the same parts from the same manufactures.

Could be. Does that mean that LMT subjects the parts to the same rigorous QC process that Colt does?
No, not necessarily.

My guess as to the reason the 14.5's are marked this way is that these are bought as replacement components by the DOD. Colt marks them to show they have been tested, so the same is expected of LMT.

K1, there have been 14.5's seen recently that are NOT marked, so that would probably invalidate your theory.

He said that LMT makes the recievers for RRA

Continental Machine in CT makes Rock River lowers. I don't know if Continental is the only manufacturer RRA uses however. If the serial number of your RRA begins with "CM" then Continental made the lower.

Quoted: My guess as to the reason the 14.5's are marked this way is that these are bought as replacement components by the DOD. Colt marks them to show they have been tested, so the same is expected of LMT. K1, there have been 14.5's seen recently that are NOT marked, so that would probably invalidate your theory.

Eh, crap.  Maybe the 14.5s that had no MP markings were from earlier runs before there were 16s being produced?  Just grasping at straws. I know you said they were recently seen, but perhaps they were just recently noticed or had been sitting in a warehouse and were released because of the ban expiring.  I know Wes said a couple of weeks ago that he had gotten a shipment of 14.5s as a sruprise as he had been informed trhat the 16s weret going to be delayed for a few weeks and assumed the 14.5s were going to be delayed as well.  Perhaps these had been in storage from an wearlier run and had been releases due to the post sunset rush.  Once again, grasping at straws.  

Has anyone ever gotten a straight answer from LMT about the matter?  Perhaps one of the vendors can ask and get a clearer answer about it.

Quoted: Quoted: That's interesting. I had heard they have done stuff for KAC before but never heard anything about Colt. That's what I am more curious about. Actually, I'd like to hear about LMT producing stuff for Colt as well.  I've heard a lot of conjecture, but have nver heard anyone make a definite statement about it.

have also heard a lot of companies don't like LMT announcing that they produce components for them.  I'm sure LMT wouldn't want to risk contracts just to prove they actually supply other large companies.  It isn't worth the trouble to prove it as very few people just have to know.  Others, like myself, have had great experiences with LMT products and are only curous about it.  As long as the parts work and work as well as any part can, LMT is fine in my book.

Yeah but does it stand up to theARMALITE

I did that Grant, and the dealer did that.  Again, the upper is not a total dog (otherwise LMT would be getting it back), but it is easily and obviously second to last in quality to all the others I have, yet second only to the Colts in cost.  The only one worse being a very early Bushmaster.  All the LMT hype (such as WOW WOW WOW) had me expecting a superior product.   I got an SPR upper that was assembled by this same dealer on an RRA upper and it is crisp and flawless in machine work.  On the LMT I'm not talking about scratches, which every weapon gets with use.  I'm talking about poor machine work and machine finishing.  Has anyone gotten a straight answer from LMT re the barrel marking?  When I get the lower with it and run alot of ammunition through it I'll report back.  I think LMT is in a hurry to get saleable product to the civilian market (to make money of course, not as a favor), hence these issues.  There is obviously a noticeable range in LMT quality, otherwise one would not be able to cherry pick between LMT uppers for one visibly nicer in fit and finish (such service is appreciated BTW Grant and I may take you up on it if I ever buy another LMT product).  Such range should exist as between manufacturers, not within the same manufacturer.  That leads to an interesting questions re who is making what.

Quoted:
If you want to get a perfect looking LMT, just ask one of the LMT dealers on this board to pick you out the very best one. At any one time, I have at least 5  16", 5 14.5" and 5 10.5" uppers in stock and would be happy to go through them all to get the VERY best looking one for you...

If you have your roll stamps all set up to mark MP, why change roll stamps just to differentiate gubment 14.5 from civilian 14.5?  Will the gubment be mad if they learn some civilians are getting MP tested barrel?  Should we be getting any more or less quality barrel than the gubment?  No other manufacturer differentiates their production, so why go to the extra step to do so?  It would be a shame if LMT was MP testing gubment barrels and not the ones marketted and sold to the civilian market, though I doubt LMT would do something like this.  I believe the gubment spec REQUIRES MP testing and REQUIRES that the barrels be so marked.  So why not mark ours the same way with the same roll stamps if ours are MP tested too?

Quoted: My guess as to the reason the 14.5's are marked this way is that these are bought as replacement components by the DOD.  Colt marks them to show they have been tested, so the same is expected of LMT.  I don't know why they wouldn't just mark the 16s the same, perhaps it is to prevent any 16s from being shipped as 14.5s and vice versa?  Sort of a second visual inspection method in case you can't eyeball the length.

I believe the gubment spec REQUIRES MP testing and REQUIRES that the barrels be so marked. So why not mark ours the same way with the same roll stamps if ours are MP tested too?

Indeed it does:

http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/m4a1milspec.pdf

4.74 High Pressure Resistane test. This test shall beperformed during individual carbine testing in accordance with TABLE III, using a fixture for holding the bolt and barrel assembly per drawing 11837944. 4.7.4.1 Test cartridqe. One (1) high-pressure test cartridge (see 3.4.4) shall be fired in each bolt and barrel assembly. Unless otherwise specified, the bolt and barrel assembly shall be tested concurrently. After proof firing, cartridge cases shell be examined for bulges, splits, rings and other defects caused by defective chambers of the barrel assembly. 4.7.4.2 Barrel inspection. The barrel assembly shall be magnetic particle inspected in accordance with MIL-STD-1949 utilizing a current of 400 to 500 amperes for circular continuous magnetization. The barrel assembly shall be examined for evidence of cracks, seams and other injurious defects. 4.7.4.3 Bolt inspection. The bolt shall be magnetic particle inspected in accordance with MIL-STD-1949 utilizing standard five turn magnetizing coil with a current of 200 to 300 amperes. Both circular and longitudinal continuous magnetization with wet fluorescent solution shall be used. The bolts shall be examined for evidence of cracks, seams and other injurious defects. 4.7.4.4 Proof Markings. Proof marks and Magnetic Particle Inspection Marks shall be applied on barrel assemblies and bolts that have passed this test

Not marked, seems to mean not milspec. However (and I am guessing here) that wouldn't preculde
COTS purchases by 'secret squirrel' units provided they were confident in the product based
on its performance in the field.



And, yes indeed, why not mark them? Its hard to argue that stamping an additional couple letters
is going to drive up costs after all.

Let's review, since some appear to still be confused as to why people are excited about and enthusiastic about LMT.

M4 feedramps on reciever and barrel extension
T-markings
True M4 profile barrel
1:7 rifling
4150 steel barrel
chrome lined barrel

To be able to get these things in a functional package that doesn't come from Colt at a price less than the Colt is exactly what many of us are excited about.  Since some are so fond of pointing out the economics, why on earth WOULDN'T a company charge what they can for a product?  If you were making a car that performed as well as a Corvette in every single way, and had every single functional feature of the Corvette, but didn't have the Corvette name, don't you think that you'd charge as much as you could for being the only other manufacturer doing so?

My upper looks fine, but as I said in the thread about the idiot that painted his bushmaster logo, I don't care what it looks like as long as it works.

Building your own (or having it built) is cheap and easy.  Observe:
M4 feedramps on reciever and barrel extension- Extension is about $15, a dremel job is $20
T-markings- You can get RRA uppers with them for about $90
True M4 profile barrel- BM, which is also MP tested (and so marked), complete, $229.
1:7 rifling- see above.
4150 steel barrel- see above.
chrome lined barrel- see above.

Total = $350 for a complete upper in the configuration you stated.  Total for LMT (MRP) = $485
Diff. = $135 (or almost 40% more) for a scrawled LMT logo.  That extra 40% markup is for hype.  And if they don't MP our barrels to milspec then I've got a problem with overpaying.  I'm frankly unimpressed with what LMT does at their factory now for our market, given the posts and pics of misaligned FSPs, misaligned feed ramps and barrel extensions, mystery MP (do they or don't they for us, and if they do, why the marking difference?  My vote is they don't), problems with finishing, problems with BC's, etc.  Some people are excited by hype and a 40% markup.  I'm not.  I want to see what my money is getting.  I have no reason to knock LMT. I have one.  But I'm far from excited.

Quoted: Let's review, since some appear to still be confused as to why people are excited about and enthusiastic about LMT. M4 feedramps on reciever and barrel extension T-markings True M4 profile barrel 1:7 rifling 4150 steel barrel chrome lined barrel To be able to get these things in a functional package that doesn't come from Colt at a price less than the Colt is exactly what many of us are excited about.  Since some are so fond of pointing out the economics, why on earth WOULDN'T a company charge what they can for a product?  If you were making a car that performed as well as a Corvette in every single way, and had every single functional feature of the Corvette, but didn't have the Corvette name, don't you think that you'd charge as much as you could for being the only other manufacturer doing so? My upper looks fine, but as I said in the thread about the idiot that painted his bushmaster logo, I don't care what it looks like as long as it works.

Thanks JLM.  That's what I thought.  Is LMT skimping on the civvy market because they can, and still charge full price due to hype?  How much does an MP test cost?  Seems like LMT may or may not know.  Wasn't there some confusion at LMT about their super duper BC's that don't function in regular non SBC civvy weapons?  Let's get an official pronouncement from LMT.  I know Colt and BM marks their barrels C MP and B MP.  Wilson does not.  Are we getting after market non milspec barrels?

Quoted: I believe the gubment spec REQUIRES MP testing and REQUIRES that the barrels be so marked. So why not mark ours the same way with the same roll stamps if ours are MP tested too? Indeed it does: http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/m4a1milspec.pdf 4.74 High Pressure Resistane test. This test shall beperformed during individual carbine testing in accordance with TABLE III, using a fixture for holding the bolt and barrel assembly per drawing 11837944. 4.7.4.1 Test cartridqe. One (1) high-pressure test cartridge (see 3.4.4) shall be fired in each bolt and barrel assembly. Unless otherwise specified, the bolt and barrel assembly shall be tested concurrently. After proof firing, cartridge cases shell be examined for bulges, splits, rings and other defects caused by defective chambers of the barrel assembly. 4.7.4.2 Barrel inspection. The barrel assembly shall be magnetic particle inspected in accordance with MIL-STD-1949 utilizing a current of 400 to 500 amperes for circular continuous magnetization. The barrel assembly shall be examined for evidence of cracks, seams and other injurious defects. 4.7.4.3 Bolt inspection. The bolt shall be magnetic particle inspected in accordance with MIL-STD-1949 utilizing standard five turn magnetizing coil with a current of 200 to 300 amperes. Both circular and longitudinal continuous magnetization with wet fluorescent solution shall be used. The bolts shall be examined for evidence of cracks, seams and other injurious defects. 4.7.4.4 Proof Markings. Proof marks and Magnetic Particle Inspection Marks shall be applied on barrel assemblies and bolts that have passed this test Not marked, seems to mean not milspec. However (and I am guessing here) that wouldn't preculde COTS purchases by 'secret squirrel' units provided they were confident in the product based on its performance in the field. And, yes indeed, why not mark them? Its hard to argue that stamping an additional couple letters is going to drive up costs after all.

BTW, if my "LMT" barrel is NOT MP tested, I'm sending the upper back to get one that is as that is the quality I paid for (i.e., milspec, super special operator, SOCOM, etc.) .  If LMT is slapping Wilson, etc. barrels on their uppers to get them out in the civvy market to meet demand, and not telling us, then that is unacceptable to me.  BTW, LMT says all of THEIR barrels are MP tested.  Well, what if the barrels they are putting in their uppers right now (those not marked MP per milspec) are not THEIR barrels?

Quoted: Building your own (or having it built) is cheap and easy.  Observe: M4 feedramps on reciever and barrel extension- Extension is about $15, a dremel job is $20 T-markings- You can get RRA uppers with them for about $90 True M4 profile barrel- BM, which is also MP tested (and so marked), complete, $229. 1:7 rifling- see above. 4150 steel barrel- see above. chrome lined barrel- see above. Total = $350 for a complete upper in the configuration you stated.  Total for LMT (MRP) = $485 Diff. = $135 (or almost 40% more) for a scrawled LMT logo.  I'm frankly unimpressed with LMT does at their factory now, given the posts and pics of misaligned FSPs, misaligned feed ramps and barrel extensions, mystery MP (do they or don't they for us, and if they do, why the marking difference?  My vote is they DONT), problems with finishing, problems with BC's, etc.

Nope, sorry.  First of all comparing a $20 dremel job to manufactured (and warranted) M4 feedramps isn't comparing apples to apples.

Second, not all BM barrels are MP tested.  There was an extensive thread about this on the Bushy board.

Third, my LMT upper set me back $485, shipped, including a $100+ PRI gasbuster charging handle, so the upper itself, completely assembled, with a warrantly from a company that is well known for taking care of problems, with a finish that isn't painted on (ala the RRA finish) for $35 more, including shipping, and with none of my time involved in assembly, or charges to a 'smith to assemble.

I think it's pretty clear what I'll choose.

Just for reference, I contacted CMMG about doing something similar.  Their M4 feedramps are machined into the barrels after assembly incidentally.  I was quoted $400 without bolt, charging handle, or carrier.

A complete RRA upper is around $565.  Deduct the $100 bolt/carrier and you're down to $465 without the feedramps, 4150, possibly the chrome lining, and possibly the lightened barrel under the handguards.


A complete Bushmaster M4 upper is $395, again without feedramps, and also without T-markings.

Of course you can self-assemble something from cobbled together parts for less.  Hell, Johnny Cash built himself a Cadillac for free.  Unfortunately for him it's a " It's a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56
'57, '58' 59' automobile. It's a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70 automobile".

What do you think an AR is?  A precision piece of equipment in the old world tradition of firearms manufacturing ?  Nope.  That's why we build so much cool stuff out of them.  You are quoting high retail to LMT MRP.  I can get the aforementioned upper ALL DAY for $350.  That gasbuster thingamabob is worth $100 just like the ceramic dalmation on the Wheel of Fortune is worth $400 (otherwise they wouldn't be giving it to you to buy the overpriced LMT upper).  

Quoted: Quoted: Building your own (or having it built) is cheap and easy.  Observe: M4 feedramps on reciever and barrel extension- Extension is about $15, a dremel job is $20 T-markings- You can get RRA uppers with them for about $90 True M4 profile barrel- BM, which is also MP tested (and so marked), complete, $229. 1:7 rifling- see above. 4150 steel barrel- see above. chrome lined barrel- see above. Total = $350 for a complete upper in the configuration you stated.  Total for LMT (MRP) = $485 Diff. = $135 (or almost 40% more) for a scrawled LMT logo.  I'm frankly unimpressed with LMT does at their factory now, given the posts and pics of misaligned FSPs, misaligned feed ramps and barrel extensions, mystery MP (do they or don't they for us, and if they do, why the marking difference?  My vote is they DONT), problems with finishing, problems with BC's, etc. Nope, sorry.  First of all comparing a $20 dremel job to manufactured (and warranted) M4 feedramps isn't comparing apples to apples. Second, not all BM barrels are MP tested.  There was an extensive thread about this on the Bushy board. Third, my LMT upper set me back $485, shipped, including a $100+ PRI gasbuster charging handle, so the upper itself, completely assembled, with a warrantly from a company that is well known for taking care of problems, with a finish that isn't painted on (ala the RRA finish) for $35 more, including shipping, and with none of my time involved in assembly, or charges to a 'smith to assemble. I think it's pretty clear what I'll choose. Just for reference, I contacted CMMG about doing something similar.  Their M4 feedramps are machined into the barrels after assembly incidentally.  I was quoted $400 without bolt, charging handle, or carrier. A complete RRA upper is around $565.  Deduct the $100 bolt/carrier and you're down to $465 without the feedramps, 4150, possibly the chrome lining, and possibly the lightened barrel under the handguards. www.rockriverarms.com/images/bblr4.gif A complete Bushmaster M4 upper is $395, again without feedramps, and also without T-markings. Of course you can self-assemble something from cobbled together parts for less.  Hell, Johnny Cash built himself a Cadillac for free.  Unfortunately for him it's a " It's a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56 '57, '58' 59' automobile. It's a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70 automobile".

BTW, LMT says all of THEIR barrels are MP tested. Well, what if the barrels they are putting in their uppers right now (those not marked MP per milspec) are not THEIR barrels?

That is indeed a good question. As I said before, some of the 14.5's are marked, some aren't, and none of the 16's (at least any that I have seen) are marked.

The other side of the coin is: I have never heard LMT claim that their stuff IS milspec, with the exception of the MP bolts/barrels. And just because they MP, they still doesn't mean it meets the
standards layed out in the above linked .pdf. I specifically emailed Karl Lewis about that, and never received a response. I have heard vendor's claim that LMT 'as close as you can get'
without buying a Colt, but not that it meets the MILSPEC per se.

What someone should ask them, is:

1. is everything MP inspected irrespective of the markings
2. on what standard is the inspection based
3. why the discrepencies in the marking

Assuming you give a shit

Dremeling or machining the M4 feed ramps after the receiver is finished will remove the anodizing.  The anodizing protects the aluminum by giving it a harder, wear resistant surface.  If you remove it, the aluminum will be subject to excess wear.

Dremeling or machining the M4 feed ramps after the receiver is finished will remove the anodizing

Indeed, that's bad juju, and not advisable.

What we now know for sure is that LMT barrels are NOT MILSPEC.  Colt is milspec (4150, 1/7, chrome, C MP), Bushmaster is milspec (4150, 1/7, chrome, and B MP).  LMT barrels NOT marked MP are NOT milspec.  If LMT is using non milspec barrels and not advertising as such, then that is BS.  Let's hear it from LMT.  I will be mighty irritated to hear that LMT is subbing Wilson or other knockoff non-milspec barrels to be sold to the civilian market.  The hype is milspec and that's what we pay for.  Milspec requires an MP mark.

Quoted: BTW, LMT says all of THEIR barrels are MP tested. Well, what if the barrels they are putting in their uppers right now (those not marked MP per milspec) are not THEIR barrels? That is indeed a good question. As I said before, some of the 14.5's are marked, some aren't, and none of the 16's (at least any that I have seen) are marked. The other side of the coin is: I have never heard LMT claim that their stuff IS milspec, with the exception of the MP bolts/barrels. And just because they MP, they still doesn't mean it meets the standards layed out in the above linked .pdf. I specifically emailed Karl Lewis about that, and never received a response. I have heard vendor's claim that LMT 'as close as you can get' without buying a Colt, but not that it meets the MILSPEC per se. What someone should ask them, is: 1. is everything MP inspected irrespective of the markings 2. on what standard is the inspection based 3. why the discrepencies in the marking Assuming you give a shit

Okay, I agree with you on some of your points airbiscuit. Here's the problem thou. I don't believe LMT has ever advertised that their parts meet the MILSPEC. Have they been hyped as 'milspec'. Perhaps.

But then again, so has Bushmaster. They like to throw the word 'milspec' around a lot.

I can't see anything on LMT's website that says 'Hey boys, our uppers meet the milspec'.

Let's assume for a minute that all bolts/barrels are indeed MP tested (irrespective of the marking issue).
For all we know they could be using a process that doesn't meet the milspec as layed out in the above referenced PDF file. Also, for all we know they could be using a process that EXCEEDS it.

The question about markings needs to be answered thou, one way or another.

I emailed Karl with a very specific question: namely do their bolts/barrels meet the specific requirements that I posted above, and didn't get an answer. He has told others that they do indeed MP their bolts/barrels. That still leaves you with the question: is their process in line with .mil requirements. A specific answer would be nice.