Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/17/2004 12:06:38 PM EST
In light of the recent Colt bashing threads, I pose this question to you...

Why would Bushmaster have the following posted on their site?

"Our V-Match (flattop) receivers will accept the Colt carry handles - however, the Colt barrel as installed on their upper has a front sight that is about .040" higher than mil-spec. This can cause an elevation problem when using mis-matched parts. The Colt handle will only work with a Colt match barrel. The Carry Handle that we are introducing will work with anyone's barrels (except the Colt Match barrel). Call us at 1-800-998-SWAT to order the new Bushmaster Carry Handle. "

The taller sight arrangement *is* mil-spec on both the M4 and M16A4 rifles. Using the shorter sight arrangement on a flat-top is certainly not mil-spec.

Why would Bushmaster create a shorter sight system that complicates the use of mil-spec carry handles and aftermarket sights?

Upon realizing the potential issues, why create a taller front pin that still leaves the post above the sight ears as opposed to adopting the mil-spec FSB?

So you can use a Bushmaster carry handle on a Colt, but you can't use a Colt carry handle on a Bushmaster?

Is this why reverse engineering typically doesn't work?

And finally, why blame this foolishness on Colt?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:26:11 PM EST
Maybe Colt TMed it and will sue anyone else that might use it???
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:29:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By 556Cliff:
Maybe Colt TMed it and will sue anyone else that might use it???



That's a good possiblilty, but why try to make it look as though Colt isn't mil-spec?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:42:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 12:43:31 PM EST by Iceshark03]
They're not. Bushmaster is trying to be more universal so that they can cover more of the market. Why make something that only works on two guns as opposed to the majority of them? I thought popular opinion on this site was that mil-spec was a BS industry term anyway?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:43:11 PM EST
My guess is so they can sell more rifles then Colt.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:48:48 PM EST
It's my understanding (and please..some one correct me it this is wrong) that Colt has two specific size FSB's, one for the full size rifles and one for the M-4 carbines. As I understand it, Bushmaster only uses One size (full size rifle) FSB and uses it for both rifles and Carbines and that is why a higher front sight post is sometimes needed.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:54:41 PM EST
Car A uses tire X exclusively.
Car B can use tire X, but also Y (works better with Y).
Cars C-H use Y.

Tire X is available through Car A's stores.
Tire Y is available from everyone else.

Why go with Car A? Because it has a fancy name steeped in history and tradition, even though its been sold off to the highest bidder?

I've got nothing against Colt: honestly, I don't. They make some quality firearms. I've used their weapons while in the Corps and they served me well, but since I have a choice in which product I buy, I assure you that Colt will not be on my list of candidates when/if I ever buy a complete rifle again. I choose to not support a company that I believe chooses to not support the shooters.

Oh... and as for "milspec," unless you're purchasing your weapons for a military contract, we all know that milspec means nothing. It's a standard for similarity, not an end-all/be-all determining factor for quality.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:56:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Iceshark03:
They're not. Bushmaster is trying to be more universal so that they can cover more of the market. Why make something that only works on two guns as opposed to the majority of them? I thought popular opinion on this site was that mil-spec was a BS industry term anyway?



Perhaps you missed this part of their quote...

"however, the Colt barrel as installed on their upper has a front sight that is about .040" higher than mil-spec"

They are claiming that Colt is not mil-spec.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:58:22 PM EST
Colt uses the taller front sights for both the flat top rifle and the flat top carbine. I have seen a picture here of a Colt M16A4 with a taller "F" marked front sight base.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:00:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Edge767:
Car A uses tire X exclusively.
Car B can use tire X, but also Y (works better with Y).
Cars C-H use Y.

Tire X is available through Car A's stores.
Tire Y is available from everyone else.

Why go with Car A? Because it has a fancy name steeped in history and tradition, even though its been sold off to the highest bidder?

I've got nothing against Colt: honestly, I don't. They make some quality firearms. I've used their weapons while in the Corps and they served me well, but since I have a choice in which product I buy, I assure you that Colt will not be on my list of candidates when/if I ever buy a complete rifle again. I choose to not support a company that I believe chooses to not support the shooters.

Oh... and as for "milspec," unless you're purchasing your weapons for a military contract, we all know that milspec means nothing. It's a standard for similarity, not an end-all/be-all determining factor for quality.



My question is simply two-fold:

1. Why not just build the system correctly in the first place instead of trying to be "universal", figuring out it doesn't work, then giving consumers a solution that leaves their front sight pin unprotected?

2. Why use false advertising to sell a gun?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:34:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 1:45:37 PM EST by Iceshark03]

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
Perhaps you missed this part of their quote...



I was under the impression they were only referring to Colt's match barrel. I don't know how many different barrels Colt offers or if that is their most popular one.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:41:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Iceshark03:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
Perhaps you missed this part of their quote...



I was under the impression they were only referring to Colt's match barrel. I don't know how many different barrels Colt offers or if that is their most popular one.



What Bushmaster is saying is erroneous regardless of the Colt barrel being referred to because the mil-spec is that the FSB will be .040" taller for flat-top rifles and carbines. Their FSB hasn't been mil-spec since active procurement of the M16A2.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:53:48 PM EST
Jesus Christ. Can't we all just get along? If you don't want to buy a Colt, don't. If you don't want to buy a Bushmaster, don't.

But please, for the love of God and the sanity of this board, quit posting various new topics concerning either the bashing of Colt or Bushmaster or whatever.

Grow the fuck up.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 2:45:38 PM EST
I second that motion mattld. I'm new here and this bashing is getting old allready. There is nothing wrong with either gun, and if all anyone can nit pick on bushy is a FSB thats trying to be universal, thats downright petty. My step brother introduced me to the ar15 line with his colt hbar. It was a decent rifle, but is in no way shape or form BETTER than a bushy or many other rifles out there. The trigger was extremely rough, and as far as accuracy, it was lucky to get 4" groups. While this might not be indicative of colt peformance, it certainly doen't make a good impression on a newbie. As for bushmaster, they are over priced as well though not as bad as Colt, but are certainly just as good if not better. For me, I think anyone out there who buys either one is a little whacked, as any of the ameetec/RRA/mega/etc hybrids can be made to run circles around any out of the box colt or bushys for a hell of alot less $$$. (i guess i do have a bushy barrel, lol) but that just cause they had what I wanted at the time.

Now little girls, quit your squabbling and do something constructive
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 2:57:00 PM EST
All colt flattop rifles and flattop carbines have a taller front sight base.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:21:44 PM EST
My question is why has Colt sold rifles with sear blocks, .311" front pins, screw pivots instead of push pins, plastic butt plates, plastic buffers, unchromed bores, large diameter fire control pins, nuetered bayo lugs, etc? And now for the clencher, THEY REFUSE TO SELL NO BAN WEAPONS TO US MERE PEASANTS!!! What more do you pony worshipers need? BUSHMASTER RULES!!!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:57:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
My question is why has Colt sold rifles with sear blocks, .311" front pins, screw pivots instead of push pins, plastic butt plates, plastic buffers, unchromed bores, large diameter fire control pins, nuetered bayo lugs, etc? And now for the clencher, THEY REFUSE TO SELL NO BAN WEAPONS TO US MERE PEASANTS!!! What more do you pony worshipers need? BUSHMASTER RULES!!!



The same reason Bushmaster has sold rifles with non-standard carbine buffer tubes that only fit their stocks, non-standard FSB's that only work with their rear sights, improperly staked carrier keys, overtorqued barrels, tight magwells, improperly sized gas ports, sparkly parkerized barrels, purple finishes, 1/9 barrels, no M4 feedramps, and unshielded carbine handguards.

My Colt LE6920 has mil-spec pushpins, an LMT sopmod buttstock (which can't be used with a Bushmaster buffer tube, btw), an aluminum buffer, chrome bore and chamber, bayo lug, Vortex flash suppressor, and came from a Colt dealer. In fact, short of being select fire, it's closer to an M4 than anything Bushmaster makes...next.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 11:35:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
next.



You forgot to address why the PC police at Colt won't sell them to us mere "civilians"...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 11:43:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
next.



You forgot to address why the PC police at Colt won't sell them to us mere "civilians"...



None of us works for Colt so it's impossible for anyone to say with any credibility why Colt is doing what they are doing, but here are some pretty good thoughts from another thread...

"Let me get this straight - the AWB has sunset, all is right with the world, ding, dong, the Wicked Witch is dead! It's all back to sunny business as usual, is it? Colt is dis'in me man! Really? How childish and shortsighted can you guys be.

You are WAY Premature in calling the AWB dead. The monster may roar back to life in November.

It looks like to me, according to last nights Cable News Channels, that Bush's convention Bounce has dropped to 1% - in some polls - while Kerry/Edwards is out gathering up and registering every 18yr old and above College Kid and is targeting select groups - like 18-33 yr old women, minorities, old people, etc for personal visits from door to door agents to get out the vote. Don't I remember Bush winning the first time by 500 votes? And a lot can happen - like a Terrorist Attack on American Soil, in the next 45 days. The AWB is not dead yet. And if Kerry/Edwards get in, you will have Edwards sponsoring US Govt Lawsuits against the gunmakers, a Supreme Court (for life) made up of Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, and Feinstein, etc. And if Congress goes Democratic with them (do you know how slim the margin is in the Senate?) the current version of the AWB that Kerry voted for says TURN THEM ALL IN FOR DESTRUCTION or become a Federal Felon. Think about these implications for a moment. Are you guys really too shallow to think this through yourselves?

Colt is quite rightly content to wait 45 days to find out if they are just going to have to reverse all the effort it would take to put out the guns you want. Hell, most of the anti-Colt complainers tell us their loyalties are already with other brands, so why should Colt bother? I'm sure if anyone in Colt management is reading your words it proves to them "The Civilian Market is wacked and already against us - why bother to cater to them? Building the best AR isn't enough, obviously"

As for not selling LEO marked guns to non-LEOs, do you have any idea how THAT LAWSUIT will look to a jury when someone kills someone with a Colt LEO marked weapon that Colt KNOWINGLY allowed to be sold to the public. Draw up that courtroom vision for us, Frank. The award would be 500 million dollars.

Get real, fellows - you are coming off like a bunch of shallow minded simpletons. If you really care about your RIGHTS and permanently doing something about them you will quit wasting wind attacking a company that REALLY DOES SUPPLY OUR MILITARY AND THE FREE WORLD, quit looking stupid, and exert that energy where it is needed - working to defeat the Dem/Liberals in discussions with your family, co-workers, social groups and anywhere else you can. It ain't over til' it's over.

Warmly, Col. Colt

PS - Sorry if anyone takes offense, but it's really easy to pound your chest and act like a hairy chested n*t scratcher when YOU aren't responsible for hundreds of jobs and the preservation of a business that is an American Heritage over 160 years old. You want to be the one to blow it up - or do you want to be prudent and wait 45 days? The small time operators can take any risks they want - bigger firms have to use their heads."
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:05:41 PM EST
Who really gives a cold fart? I guess "small-time" guys like little old Bushy, et al, will have to forget about your advice and just take that HUGE RISK of NOT treating 99.9% of law-abiding American citizens like yesterday's DOG SHIT. Wait until the patents expire on those beloved features of yours, and then tell me what you have to say about Colt. They made some great contributions to the Armalite design, for which I am grateful. But alas, they are a dinosaur, and on the way to extinction in the civilian (and military?) AR market.,

I hope I'm wrong, and that they someday change their elitist, sniveling bitch attitude. Until then, I'm not willing to deal with their bullshit, just for the great honor and privilege of having one of their pony-stamped, over-priced, status-symbol, boom sticks.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:06:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
My question is why has Colt sold rifles with sear blocks, .311" front pins, screw pivots instead of push pins, plastic butt plates, plastic buffers, unchromed bores, large diameter fire control pins, nuetered bayo lugs, etc? And now for the clencher, THEY REFUSE TO SELL NO BAN WEAPONS TO US MERE PEASANTS!!! What more do you pony worshipers need? BUSHMASTER RULES!!!



The same reason Bushmaster has sold rifles with non-standard carbine buffer tubes that only fit their stocks, non-standard FSB's that only work with their rear sights, improperly staked carrier keys, overtorqued barrels, tight magwells, improperly sized gas ports, sparkly parkerized barrels, purple finishes, 1/9 barrels, no M4 feedramps, and unshielded carbine handguards.

My Colt LE6920 has mil-spec pushpins, an LMT sopmod buttstock (which can't be used with a Bushmaster buffer tube, btw), an aluminum buffer, chrome bore and chamber, bayo lug, Vortex flash suppressor, and came from a Colt dealer. In fact, short of being select fire, it's closer to an M4 than anything Bushmaster makes...next.



Damn! This argument is a good one.

Both sides have valid points, yet no one has a checkmate on the other - although the last point (Colt won't sell to us lowly civilians) is pretty close.

That is why I have both the Bushy and the Colt. Maybe the RR will be next.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:19:35 PM EST
I guess I'm just not understanding why people get so upset about this. There are hundreds of manufacturers that produce goods for the military and don't sell any of it to civilians. FN and AM General are two examples. Why do people get so bent out of shape because Colt chooses to have a business model that caters primarily to LE/military? If you had the oportunity to get your hands on an M1 Abrams, would you refuse it because of General Dynamics lack of support for the civilian marketplace?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:27:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 12:37:44 PM EST by Tweak]
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:33:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:39:12 PM EST
Bushmaster is like the name brand cologn you can buy at the swap meet.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:58:01 PM EST
If you put an ARMS 40 BUIS on a Bushmaster you also have to put a .040 front sight post on their front sight tower.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 1:07:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY:
If you put an ARMS 40 BUIS on a Bushmaster you also have to put a .040 front sight post on their front sight tower.


This is true. I have a no-name (but quality) detachable carry handle that requires the same FSP as well.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:52:53 PM EST
Just for the record, I own both brands. My opinion is, ROCK ON BUSHMASTER!!!

I prefer 1x9 to 1x7, haven't had any of the "problems" Bradd seems determined to believe Bushmaster is saddled with. Bradd, do you own a Bushmaster?

Bushmaster is a quality rifle made by people who believe in our 2nd Ammedment rights. That's why I'll buy from them again. The LE6920 is a great rifle too. Unless I'm mistaken, it still has the sear block (to keep cops from commiting felonies?) and possibly the large fire control pins. It also has the lifetime liability "For Law Enforcement and Military Use Only" witten all over the lower. It's made by a company that doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the 2nd Ammendment.

Your choice.

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:59:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 5:01:05 PM EST by rockytherotty]
I own both Bushmaster and Colt AR's Not one of them is better than the other. They are both high quality weapons that function perfectly whenever I need them. The one difference that I see, is that Colt's generally have a better re-sale value than any other brand.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:13:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 5:14:33 PM EST by Bradd_D]

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Just for the record, I own both brands. My opinion is, ROCK ON BUSHMASTER!!!

I prefer 1x9 to 1x7, haven't had any of the "problems" Bradd seems determined to believe Bushmaster is saddled with. Bradd, do you own a Bushmaster?



I've owned several. I've also seen first hand the issues with loose carrier keys and excessive windage. To deny these things exist is naive. Like I said before, Bushmaster's goal is to put as many rifles in the street as possible and to generate revenue. They are ok with and have the service resources set up to handle the QC issues.


Unless I'm mistaken, it still has the sear block (to keep cops from commiting felonies?)


At $10.000 a pop, I don't plan on getting an RDIAS anytime soon.


and possibly the large fire control pins.


I don't plan on putting a match trigger in my combat weapon. Have you ever seen a hmmer/trigger pin break?


It also has the lifetime liability "For Law Enforcement and Military Use Only" witten all over the lower.


Would never hold up in a court of law as these weapons are perfectly legal to own by civilians.


It's made by a company that doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the 2nd Ammendment.


Colt builds rifles for the men and women defending the amendment you like to toss around so much. I'd say that's the ultimate contribution.


Your choice.


My choice is Colt.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:24:06 PM EST
So be it. I guess we just need to agree to disagree.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:27:34 PM EST


... and here I was wondering what everyone on the boards would discuss when the AWB finally died and now I know...

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:30:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By DarkStar:

... and here I was wondering what everyone on the boards would discuss when the AWB finally died and now I know...




The issue for me isn't nearly as much rifle vs rifle as it is company vs company.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:36:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

Originally Posted By DarkStar:

... and here I was wondering what everyone on the boards would discuss when the AWB finally died and now I know...




The issue for me isn't nearly as much rifle vs rifle as it is company vs company.



And therein lies the problem in most cases...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:48:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

The issue for me isn't nearly as much rifle vs rifle as it is company vs company.




I agree... Colt parts are great, and Colt's complete ARs are like Bushmaster's ARs... most are perfect, but occasionally some are a bit questionable in materials and workmanship. Colt ARs are not the omnipotent be all and end all that the Horsey Hypnotized would have you believe any more than Bushmaster ARs are all the junk some people claim...

Colt as a company is a complete train wreck and this is the reason many people have no interest in a Colt AR. Their perpetual PC behavior leaves me with no interest in an AR with a Pony on the side, it's nothing to do with Colt quality... But either way, it's unfortunate to see so much trolling on both sides of this issue...

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:51:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 5:51:37 PM EST by AGC]

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
My Colt LE6920 has mil-spec pushpins, an LMT sopmod buttstock (which can't be used with a Bushmaster buffer tube, btw), an aluminum buffer, chrome bore and chamber, bayo lug, Vortex flash suppressor, and came from a Colt dealer. In fact, short of being select fire, it's closer to an M4 than anything Bushmaster makes...next.




Did it come with Colt's M4-special improperly torqued barrel nut?

Still in denial, I see...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:02:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By AGC:
Did it come with Colt's M4-special improperly torqued barrel nut?



Ironically, no, but it did come with a properly staked gas key as well as a properly aligned barrel. In fact, it only took 3 clicks of windage to zero which is something I can't say for the Bushmasters I have owned.


Still in denial, I see...


Not really...just dispelling rumors with facts. You should try it sometime.

I s'pose these guys are in denial too, huh?

Losers without a clue?

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:12:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:

Originally Posted By AGC:
Did it come with Colt's M4-special improperly torqued barrel nut?



Ironically, no, but it did come with a properly staked gas key as well as a properly aligned barrel. In fact, it only took 3 clicks of windage to zero which is something I can't say for the Bushmasters I have owned.


Still in denial, I see...


Not really...just dispelling rumors with facts. You should try it sometime.

I s'pose these guys are in denial too, huh?

Losers without a clue?





Gee, _still_ having trouble with the reading comprehension, I see... That's what happens when someone lets wishful thinking and prejudice overcome their ability to observe reality.

Did you even bother to read that thread? You know, all the way through, to the part where several folks---including Pat Rodgers---said they'd witnessed problems like loose barrel nuts with Colts?

Nah, they're not in denial. But you certainly are. Thanks for yet another demonstration of the malady.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:24:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 6:25:10 PM EST by Bradd_D]

Originally Posted By AGC:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:

Originally Posted By AGC:
Did it come with Colt's M4-special improperly torqued barrel nut?



Ironically, no, but it did come with a properly staked gas key as well as a properly aligned barrel. In fact, it only took 3 clicks of windage to zero which is something I can't say for the Bushmasters I have owned.


Still in denial, I see...


Not really...just dispelling rumors with facts. You should try it sometime.

I s'pose these guys are in denial too, huh?

Losers without a clue?





Gee, _still_ having trouble with the reading comprehension, I see... That's what happens when someone lets wishful thinking and prejudice overcome their ability to observe reality.

Did you even bother to read that thread? You know, all the way through, to the part where several folks---including Pat Rodgers---said they'd witnessed problems like loose barrel nuts with Colts?

Nah, they're not in denial. But you certainly are. Thanks for yet another demonstration of the malady.



Actually, I did read the entire thread. In fact, I read it as a diehard Bushmaster fan looking for the reason so many people recommend Colt. I also read this thread several times. Those threads and other research led me to believe that overall Colt has more consistent QC, better manufacturing processes, and is highly recommended by professionals who actually use their guns for a living. I never claimed that the barrel nut issue didn't exist. You just keep harping on it because that's the best you can come up with. You have no argument. You have no proof. You have no professional opinions. You have no manufacturing data. BTW, did you read the several instances in that thread where the professionals felt that Bushmaster was their next choice after Colt, although they felt Bushmaster was a distant second? Read it again...I'll give you a few minutes.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:27:56 PM EST
AGC...here is another interesting thread I have been following.

Does Bushmaster MP their barrels?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:25:35 AM EST


You guys need to get out more.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:42:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By scottryan:
All colt flattop rifles and flattop carbines have a taller front sight base.



and are marked "M4"....!!
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:45:26 AM EST
Whine whine whine.

We're close to losing our rifles all-together in this country and you folks are having a pissin contest about the Snake and Pony....


It is ALL about company vs. company.

Colt doesn't want to support my rights, Bushie does... and the Snake gets my business.

I'm not saying Colt sucks... they just won't get a dime from me. I won't buy anything from em unless its used and cheap...

- BG
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:59:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 12:45:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 12:55:56 AM EST by Iceshark03]
Can someone please tell me if the A1 and A2 uppers originally used the F front sight bases or were the F fsb's designed specifically for the A3/A4 uppers?

I am assuming the original A1/A2 used the shorter front sight. Therefore I do not understand why the equipment for the A3/A4 uppers was not originally designed to work with the lower front sight as it would have been the standard at the time the flat top was developed. I have heard that the original flat tops needed to be beefed up in the rail which may account for the difference in fsb height needed (not sure). I am assuming that rather than scrap all parts (detachable handles and rear flip ups) made when the flat top was first designed they just made a different height front sight to accomodate the change in dimensions of the A3 uppers (because now the rear sights sat too high). Maybe Bushmaster and most others take the dimensions of the original M-16 A1/A2 to be mil-spec rather than the modified and currently produced A3 and so they make their flat top carry handles to work with the A2 sight height. I'd also guess that their A3 uppers with carry handle mounted more closely match the dimensions of the A2 upper. Apparently Bushmaster and most others feel the dimensions of the A2 are true mil-spec and use those as their guide. Colt and the aftermarket flip up sight manufacturers appear to have made their own spec for A3 accessories rather than designing them to work with the original front sight height and then continued using this new standard. I think I understand why, but I still think the industry should have decided upon a standardized set of measurements years ago so that people would not have had so many issues with cross compatability.

If any of what I have said is wrong please feel free to educate my dumb ass.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:21:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:34:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 1:41:41 AM EST by Iceshark03]
I believe I read it in a thread on this forum but have been going through so much info concerning not only this issue here and elsewhere but also issues related to the upper that I want to get that I have no idea which thread it was in. I do remember the reason given to be that there was too much stress on early A3's when accesories were mounted causing stress cracks and POI shifts worse than what I have heard can occur with a recently manufactured upper (referring to the need to re-confirm zero after attaching a red dot which I know I read here). I do not own either brand and do not care about the mil-spec argument. I am just trying to figure out why the F fsb's were ever even developed. Thank you for the link. Hopefully my answer will be there.

ETA: Now I'm wishing I had checked to see if the fsb on the Colt w/ a 1x7 barelled A2 upper i just saw in a shop had the F on it.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:59:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I guess I'm just not understanding why people get so upset about this.



Including yourself. Christ it's tiresome. Why are you so concerned that someone on an internet board might think you're an idiot for buying a Colt?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:17:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:24:05 AM EST by Col_Colt]
The very valid point Brad made was that Bushmaster is making themselves out to be "THE milspec guys" on the subject of the manufacture of Front Site Bases, when in fact, if the AR in question is a Flattop, the correspondingly .040 higher FSB is most definitely the real Military Spec Part, actually in use by the military, FOR ALL FLATTOP RIFLES AND CARBINES.

Apparently - someone chime in here if you have more or better information - Colt changed the height and thickness of the Flattop Upper Reciever and the corresponding FSB to deal with a real problem/concern the military identified, i.e. the upper reciever mounting rail needed to be stronger/stiffer to accomidate PVS-4 Starlight Scopes and other heavy, special purpose optics, attaching rails, etc. It seems unlikely the FSB would have been changed, by either Colt or the US Military, without good and sufficent reason due to the logistical headaches of having two part numbers in the system, etc. As always, Colt is the developer,even if not the original inventor, of the AR Series as a viable, adaptable, world class military weapon.

Bushmaster chose the cheap way out, as usual - one size fits all, and is trying to paint Colt - who apparentlly made the mod at Military request for good reasons, as non-standard. That is a dececption and a falsehood - otherwise known as a Lie- to sell more to the guilible. Some people appear to enjoy being gullible.

Worth commenting on. And Brad appears to have a similar hobby to mine - educating the unknowing who get their knowledge from gun magazine "payola articles" vs. the .Mil and LE real life knowledge base. One is about pushing a product, the other is about protecting warrior's lives.

Warmly, Col. Colt

Certified LE Armorer
Certified LE Firearms Trainer

PS - Brad, regarding the BM Mag Particle/Proofing issue. My understanding is that Bushmaster buys (not makes) most or all of their barrels from a large, well known AR barrel supplier. When that barrel supplier was asked directly by a large Western PD Armorer about the Mag Particle and Proofing of BM barrels he was told, point blank, "Hell no, they don't pay for that." If proven, that would make it understandable why the Thread asking Bushmaster about Mag Particle testing and Proof testing on their Forum was apparently locked by them. Would false barrel markings be considered Fraud in the Commercial world?

As for Bolt heads, Colt Bolt heads are made from Carpenter Tool Steel - every one proofed, "other makes" apparently are regular 4100 Series gun steel - proofed or even spot checked? Yankee Hill Machine makes BM's recievers. What, indeed, does Bushmaster actually make themselves? Makes them look like an assembly shop - and not a particularly able one, at that. cc

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:08:15 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:24:05 PM EST
Thank you Tweak. I get it now. I've always heard people refer to the other manufacturers' detachable carry handles as short, whereas I always thought Colt's were tall because they appeared to be the odd one. I finally understand.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top