I see a lot of people hold the Colt AR15's in high regard but never see any mention of Armalite AR15's. Isn't the quality of both brands the same or are there issues with the Armalite's quality?

Armalite is fine, just not as popular as Colt

In my opinion, the current Armalite is a fairly high quality commercial class gun.

The owner, Mark Westrom was a former Ordnance Officer in the Army and ran Eagle Arms.  

It's important to note that the current Armalite is not the same Armalite as the original ArmaLite division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Company that originally built the prototypes for the AR15, but rather it was the name and some assets purchased from a Philippine holding company, which Westrom used to launch production of complete rifles manufactured by Eagle Arms.

While with the Army, Westrom had been one of the strong proponents of the 1/9 barrel twist for the M16A2, and to this day, insists on 1/9 as the standard for production rifles.  He was, in large part, responsible for the "must have" status of the 1/9 barrel in the early commercial AR market.  

More than that - the major contribution of Eagle Arms/Armalite was the development of what is now considered the "industry standard" for midlength gas systems in the mid nineties.

From what I've seen, their QA and QC is good, and they market to the civilian consumer market heavily.  Much like Stag - whose quality is very high and consistent, but their standard for parts are not necessarily as high as those marketed primarily towards military and/or Law Enforcement use which many civilian consumers have begun to demand.  Very possibly in the last couple of years with many newer competitors offering "higher standard" parts, they may have upped their game - I have not followed this closely.

However, from what I have seen - despite the extremely tenuous connection with ArmaLite of Hollywood, who, by the way, did not retain any rights or technical data for the AR15 - having sold a handful of prototypes, all the technical data, and patents to Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company in 1959, who matured the prototype designs into a viable production gun - they do trade very heavily on the recognition of the "Armalite" name, and consequently tend to be a little bit more expensive than other commercial brands.  

~Augee

Armalite is so 1998.  They were the cool kid on the block once.  Arfcom moved on.

Colt holds the mil contract.

I like FN parts as well

Good information.
Thanks, Augee

My one and only AR is the ArmaLite M15 A4.  Since I got it, I've been reading everything I could.  While the current ArmaLite company isn't the same one who started it all, NEITHER  IS  COLT  STILL THE  SAME  COLT!!!!!!  If fact, careful study reveals that NOT  ONE  SINGLE  major manufacturer is still the original company.

How can that possibly matter?

What certainly does matter is that ArmaLite continues to mature and innovate.  In the M15 and AR10 series, they have a proprietary bolt that is compatible with other BCG's (in the M15/AR15 platform)  but is designed differently, to better distribute the recoil force more equally over all of the lugs.
Their M15 A4 carbine is the only AR carbine I know of that does not have the grenade launcher cut-out, just because it makes sense.
ArmaLite recently released the AR30 A1 rifle, which was purposely designed to be the most accurate production rifle ever made, anywhere on earth.
In every spec I've studied, ArmaLite simply uses the very best obtainable materials and production methods that are equal or superior to Mil Spec.
Prices are NOT as Augee says.  Before the panic, they were squarely in the same price niche as Bushmaster, PSA, and the like.  I'll never buy one more tiny thing from Cheaper than Dirt, but when I got this rifle, the selling price was below $900.  On the ArmaLite site, they claim that accuracy for my rifle is 1.5~2 MOA.  Mine consistently holds 1 MOA out to 300 yards with any of my hand loads.
The 1 in 9 twist is a personal preference for many, including me.  I hold that the Sierra 65 gr. Game King is the optimum bullet for caliber, because it's the most efficient weight, within the real working range of .223/5.56.  Beyond 300 yards, the caliber has just plain run out of killing power.  1 in 9 is the optimum twist for that bullet.
There is a HUGE amount of info available on the Industry forum about ArmaLite.  No matter what you read, or learn, or actually "know", ArmaLite is entirely above reproach.  They use real live gunsmiths to build their firearms.  Colt uses United Auto Workers.
Colt has, in the past, VERY aggressively worked with the antis to compromise the 2nd. amendment, believing that their butt was covered by Gov't. contracts.  ArmaLite has always been pro Constitution.  My money goes to ArmaLite.

Colt has passed through different ownership and managements as well - however - Colt has never sold off it's entire stake in the AR15, been completely dismantled, sold overseas (the actual manufacturing concern, not the financial backing), or languished in long periods of dormancy.  Colt has never  "gotten out" of the AR15 business, only to be resurrected and had their name stamped on a completely different manufacturing company with a different comany history and culture.  Colt has retained all of the proprietary and technical information about the manufacture of AR15s since 1959 - when ArmaLite gave it up entirely.

The current Colt has about the same relationship now as any major manufacturing company did with its 1959 counterpart, while Armalite is more akin to the current Springfield Armory - a defunct name producing no product slapped on a new companies products.  

In simplest terms - the crux of it is "continuous production" versus "no production between 1959 and 1994."  

Does it matter?  No, not really.  Many excellent companies have been around a lot shorter.  It's a question of making the relationship between one thing and another clear.  I like Springfield Armory products as well - but I will continue to point out that "the oldest name in American firearms" is misleading advertising at it implies that they have a direct relationship between the original Springfield Armory, which they do not.  The same with the "AR stands for Armalite" advertising.  Regardless, I prefer to evaluate products on their technical merits rather than their advertising.  

Several brands of carbines do not use the M203 clearance relief in their barrels - particularly when it comes to midlength barrels - and Armalite does sell an M4 barreled variant.  To quote:



Armalite has not interested me terribly in the past because when I got in to the AR market, they were using commercial parts with commercial standards of testing.  Newer companies like BCM, Spike's, LMT, PSA, DD who have gotten in to the AR manufacturing business in the last few of years have been a tremedous boon to the marketplace and forced many companies to change their standards in order to compete.  Colt lowered their MSRPs, while many commercial companies have begun to improve their standards.  I have not closely researched how Armalite has changed their specs in recent years, and admitted as much in my post, but when I first go in to the AR market - they were using an unstated bolt material (I beleive they are now using Carpenter 158), no MPI on any components, non-F marked FSBs/F height FSPs, commercial receiver extensions, 4140 barrel steel (though I know they've changed that).  If that information is dated, then it is dated, and you are free to correct it, as I honestly have not cared as much, given my access to products of known quantities to research it.  

When I worked for an FFL, the wholesale prices for Armalites was higher than that of Bushmasters, DPMS, ect.  Once again, this may have changed.  At the time, the MSRP of a Colt 6920 was around $1,300 as well.  Used re-sale, I've seen Armalites usually bring more than other commercial brands.  Once again, is it dated?  Perhaps.    

I'm not sure where you think I directed "reproach" at the current Armalite, as I said, they are a high quality gun.  I consider them commercial class because that is the niche they have carved out for themselves.  Stag is also a heavily commercial class gun that I think is extremely high quality - both due not to their "specs" but their quality of workmanship and QA/QC.  

1/9 is a personal opinion/preference - of yours, but more importantly, of Mark Westrom.  The politics, there are other forums for discussing in.  

As I said - Armalite is a company with high quality, good QA and QC, and devoted heavily to the civilian market and supporting the civilian market, and even designed the AR10 based on what magazines civilians could easily get during the AWB.  Oh by the way, they're not the same ArmaLite that designed the AR15 prototypes.  I don't like 1/9 twists.  I don't like lack of MPI.  I don't like non-F marked FSBs.  These are opinion matters, but the first limits my ammunition choices too strictly on the high end.  The other two are statistical issues - not MPIing and not using F marked FSBs is a built in failure rate higher than that of those companies that do and use such things.  And those are only the ones we know about and can guess at, what others are there?  Fact - some carbines without F marked FSBs can not be zeroed out of the box.  Colt discovered this in the sixties and began using taller FSPs.  The information is out there - commercial manufacturers know it - meaning that those that do not use F makred FSBs or taller FSPs in their production guns knowingly send out a proportion of rifles that literally cannot be zeroed.

That to me says commercial grade gun - not because the FSB itself is important, but because it's acceptable to a company to knowingly ship product - 10-15% of which is known to fail to function properly on the gamble that too few consumers will actually notice it to justify the change in tooling.  My question is - if that's an acceptable failure rate, what else is?

Once again - that all sounds very alarmist and extremist - but it's not.  I'm neither saying "Armalite sucks" nor "don't buy Armalite."  I firmly and fully believe that Armalite has certain standards, and does a very good job of adhering to those standards with good QA/QC, will take care of you when you need it, they're a good company and they manufacture a good product.  It's not a "huge huge deal" that's a deal killer for Armalite, it just to me implies a commercial focus.  Which is not what I am looking for.  Not even necessarily because I need a piece of military equipment, but because I prefer to buy products that could be.      

Armalite produces a good product, and if it fits your needs, I would buy without concern.  You will most likely get an excellent product, and you will have the backing of a company willing to support it.  However, in my opinion, it is not correct to judge on the same spectrum and to the same standards a company firmly entrenched in the civilian/commercial market to a full-rate military producer that happens to sell commercial rifles as well.  Each company has its own niche, and the information is out there for the finding - and it is up to the individual to decide what to buy.  

~Augee

Of the brands that have been, and are, armalite probably has the least complaints ever (try to search). Augee has laid it out for you and personally I think armalite is a better company becuase its doesn't have to dick around with the mil spec bullshit. You read the TBs on their sight that they have introduced, plus all the prototyped stuff that makes their AR the better weapon.



"mil spec" is not "best spec". I like/own colts but their are better weapons. The only thing haters get their dick hard about is the 1/9, which shoots better over a wider range of bullets than 1/7 colt barrels.  BTW the armalite CL barrels are the most accurate I have in my colloection (CL barrels that is)





Of the old school ABCs, armalite is the only one to progress IMO.



 

I have Noveskes, BCMs, a LaRue, a Colt and an ArmaLite along with a few others. I would have no problem taking my ArmaLite as my grab and go weapon if I ever needed one. It is one of my favorite ARs. It runs 100% and has proven itself more accuate than some of my other "tier1" guns.

Can you point out any testing that proves their rifles are better, or is it all just speculation?

There is a reason Mil-Spec has not been replaced despite the attempts.

 They use real live gunsmiths to build their firearms.  Colt uses United Auto Workers.
those would be gun smiths who belong to the united auto workers and that is one of the reasons I own a colt . I scratch the back of those who scratch mine . Thats beside the point though . Im sure there are other brands of ar's out there that will run for ever and a grenade launcher cut or not , 1/9 vs 1/7 debate is all personal preference and not near as important as quality material and crafstmanship in putting the rifle together. I dont want great customer service I want a rifle that wont need customer service I have had that with colt I hope your luck is the same with armalite or what ever other manufacture a person buys.

I appreciate everybody's insight and experience with your replies. When I was a police officer (Tactical Unit, 1980's) we were all equipped with and trained excessively with Colt AR's. I was always confident with my armory. For many years afterwards, as a detective and no longer in uniform, I continued to shoot competively with handguns, PPC, IPSC, etc. (I retired from LE last year after 33 years).
In December, I managed to get a brand new Armalite AR15 SPR Mod 1 carbine before the craziness got into gear. For a mil-spec firearm, I am completely satisfied with it's quality and accuracy. (Aimpoint and Troy battlesights). I then found this site and have been reading and learning. It's just that after reading thousands (yes) of posts I hardly ever came across Armalite owners and that is why I posted my question.
Again, thanks y'all for the historical and technical information. I'm glad I found this site and am enjoying getting acquainted with everyone.

Rick from Lafayette

+1

Colt, FN, ArmaLite, and Noveske all are trouble free rifles.  I can't recall the last time I had a malfunction.

Oh no, A LarryG is going to get piss thread.

Both are good companies.

Incorrect. FN and Remington now hold the military contracts for the M16 and M4A1 respectively.





 

Only thing I disagree with you on is the highlighted part. Molon's tests showed 1/7 to be just as accurate (actually, more accurate in his tests) than 1/9 with 50 and 55 gr bullets. Do you have any testing that demonstrates that 1/9 is more accurate than 1/7 with bullets of any weight or length?



 

Do you have a link? Last I heard GAO upheld Colt's protest and it was pending a recompete.

All my armalites shoot better than my colts, psa, etc 1/7 barrels.

As to to the testing the bolt lug upgrade and midlenght you can read the TBs on armalite site.  Btw they are one of the few companies that do testing and release that info.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

This is not a AR10 thread so why would he?



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The reason milspec is not replaced is because of money and red tape, not because there is not better shit on the street.

Mil spec is min spec not best spec.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Wikipedia, but it's sourced.



So for right now, it's Remington. Colt has a chance to get the contract for the M4A1 back after the run of 24,000 carbines from Remington. But according to the sources, it's likely the military with award Remington the contract due to Colt's lawsuits.





 

What weight ammo? Do you have any groups to share? Sorry to be pedantic but having the data does matter a lot to me.



 

Logically, saying that because it's possible there's something better or that the mil-spec is the minimum they will accept and not the best, does not prove that Armalite or anyone elses' is a better spec. In order to prove that, there has to be some form of testing that proves it is superior or it has to be made from superior materials or superior craftsmanship/machining.



Also, even if you show the mil-spec is totally worthless and that many of the things in it don't actually improve the quality... You still haven't shown that any other spec is superior. Those are both strawman arguments to the real argument.



To prove the real argument, again, we would need testing or proof of some process that Armalite or any other company does that makes their product superior in function, design, or durability.



 

Wrong. Colt still holds an M4 contract, and Remington was awarded a very small contract for M4s.

Get both.

Possibly all that matters right there.... I will never purchase a Colt product.

Wikipedia's citation is for Military Times - the blind leading the blind, I'm afraid...

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/11/28/gao-denies-latest-colt-m4-protest-could-this-be-it/



It is pure speculation at this point and to my knowledge there has not yet been a re-awarding of the contract to Remington, Colt, or whomever.  When even Military Times qualifies it as a tenuous prediction... well, you know where I'm going with that...

D. E. Watters (dewatters) at Defense Industry Daily:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

Latest contracting activity:



The whole article actually should be required reading for those interested in the M4/M4A1 and its contracting history, IMHO.  

As of this moment - to my knowledge:

There has not been a re-compete for the original soliciation, nor does there appear to be much word on if, when, or how that is going to happen.  When it does - there is no guarantee that it means second sourcing for reasons already listed - Colt may very well be able to underbid Remington in a re-compete.  

The TDP has not been released to Remington Arms

~Augee

Interesting. Thank you for the thorough information, Augee.

then you can stop reading.




If you're one of those guys that must have "proof" then you will not find it w/o spending the money. There are a lot of things that don't need to be tested to know they are better. If you want to carry on like your from M4C.net and only believe in "tests" then you will miss out on a lot.





 

yes and even if I posted my results it would not mean shit because the test population would not provide a statistical meaning.



You can hold your breath for someone to spend thousands for a meaningful test, or read, test on your own, and broaden understanding  to get a different conclusion.



 

I think he was referring to grain of rounds, IE 40- 75 vs 53/55-77 grain.. Larger choice of rounds.. I could be wrong but I think thats his reasoning behind thee statement.

you know better, DPMS was never in the cool guy group

That is also when ABCD was practically all there was, now days we have DD, BCM, LMT, ect, ect.

I suppose I just don't believe things unless they are proven in some way, at least theoretically.



There has been a good deal of evidence showing there is no such thing as "over stabilization" of bullets. And I've shot even small varmint loads through 1:7 twist barrels with no noticeable problems or major degradation in accuracy.



*Shrugs* I will believe things as they are shown to be true. Without facts it's simply a belief. I respect your opinion though and will not try to change it.



 

Eh, what? You  certainly can over stabilize a light bullet (it'll explode in flight, just because you've never seen it doesn't mean its not true. Go lurk in the reloading section).

You're both right. Testing is absolutely needed to prove what is superior. That said, some technological advances are so clearly superior to mil-spec (like surface treatments better than parking, or tool steel two stage triggers) that only the ignorant would claim they aren't above mil-spec for all practical purposes.

I think you need to look up what those mean.





 

You enjoy responding in a trolling fashion, don't you? Since we were discussing testing based upon observable information, I figured we were talking scientific theory. Perhaps that was misunderstood?



A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."



Theories are proven to the best of our ability to prove them based on observable data. But they are called theories because it is the best we can do and it may not be completely 100% accurate. But it's close.



Would you consider the theory of gravity unproven?



But I can tell you don't respect anyone's opinion if they disagree with you, so I shall leave you to your own devices. Enjoy.



 

I may do that. Thanks for the information.



 

armalite over colt each and every time

+1 billion

+ zillion

Armalite is good to go.

I love all nine of my Armalites M15s. Fit, finish, and function are all good to go. Only had a couple minor issues with FSBs that were canted to the point the uppers needed 22-23 clicks of rear windage to zero, but you can find this occurrence with all the manufacturers. Whoever was manning the jig and drill probably just did not have everything quite lined up correctly.

Trying to convince myself I need a AR10.

I'm sorry - but are you saying that out of a presumably random sampling of rifles, at least two (based on your use of "a couple" and "uppers"), that is to say, over twenty percent, were delivered with canted front sight bases, and that this is supposed to be an endorsement of them?

Again, I think Armalite is a pretty good company - but "only twenty percent of the products I've bought from them were defective!" is not heady praise...  

~Augee

no plan  there    ar-10  is just like your girlfriend with  implants   it's just more of something good.....  every ar-15  needs an  ar-10 pal...   wouldn't want to have a lonely weapon,,,,

The uppers with canted FSB's were still functional and not defective. In the long term about the only problem that would have resulted would be wear on gas tube by gas key. Armalite did correct them. Like I said you can find examples of canted front sights on ANY of top manufacturers Noveske, Colt, BCM, Armalite, and DD. This does not mean these companies don't put out a quality product. You are going to find QC issues from time to time will all of them. What ever company you feel is top notch has had issues also I guarantee it. I actually have eleven Armalite uppers so 2 out of 11 uppers with a cant over 14 years is not a problem. Armalite makes a quality product.

Reading through this whole thread, I'm impressed to see that EVERYONE who has posted is literate, articulate, and for the most part, very well informed.  I do a LOT of reading on gun forums, and this is most unusual.
Augee - Please know that I have only respect for you and the info you present.  There are not very many long posts anywhere that I find to be worth reading, but you are always an exception.
It doesn't matter that you aren't interested in being impressed by a brand that you aren't inclined to.  It is true though that ArmaLite is more thorough than any other I've seen with the TB's and the info available in their section on this site.
As for accuracy claims for ArmaLite CL barrels, the most recent group that I fired with my 20" SPR was done with the 65 gr. Sierra GK at 300 measured yards.  6 of the 10 rounds went into less than 2", and the extreme measurements are 3.281" high and 3.812" wide.  At that, I couldn't care less if the 1 in 7" would do any better.

No true. The M4 when tested for its adoption far exceeded the Min Spec by 100-200%. Today with better extractor springs and a better understanding of the system it is more reliable than ever.

There is a reason people like Pat Rogers have 20+ rifles with 15,000+ rounds on them without any replacement parts...Man mil-spec really is minimum specs......I have yet to see any proof Armalite can get more rounds between bolt failure, same for any company really aside from KAC who wen a whole different route and made a brand new bolt design with different lugs.

For drop in Bolts I have yet to see any proof of any offering any tangible difference that is worth paying 2-3x the price of a standard bolt.

I will also mention the MK-16....we all saw how that went.

I think you're missing some logic there somewhere. You can bitch and whine all you want about testing but your not going to get it. Look at the SR15 and the M4, which is better? I guess since KAC wont release their testing its  not better than  per your logic.



Yes they have built a better rifle, yes it cost more, by your logic that means its not better



Now you've mixed in pricing to justify your "reasoning" but that's more BS. You want better quality, but at the same price