Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/11/2004 7:31:40 AM EST
DO YOU REALLY NEED THE M-4 FEEDRAMPS. DON'T BUSHMASTER AND OTHER BRANDS FUCTION FINE WITH THEM. I AM NOT TRING TO START A FUSS, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN COVERD IN THE PAST. I CAN'T DICIDE IF I NEED THEM OR JUST STICK WITH BUSHMASTER THAT COMES A 1-YR WARRRNTY AND I AM NOT SURE IF LMT DOES AND IT IS CHEAPER TO GO WITH BUSH M-4, I THINK I SAVE ABOUT $200.00. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:39:23 AM EST
For M4 feedramp info, please read this link: M4 feedramp info

While they are nice to have, they are not needed for 99.99% of the people who own ARs.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:50:18 AM EST
It amazes me that the AR15/M16 world even functioned before the M4 feedramp issue. How many hundreds of thousands of these beasties are there w/o M4 feedramps that have functioned since the 60's.

Obviously, it was a solution to a problem, but what exactly was the problem? I think it all had to do with a specific round that the army adopted. Civilians have been shooting HP and soft point ammo since they got their hands on these things. I know that there are occassional problems but it seems that a functional magazine is far more important.

Yep, their cool to have (keeping up with the Joneses) but I haven't seen anything that really supports the need for them in semi-auto civilian guns.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 8:02:41 AM EST
I agree it is probably not something "needed" for reliability but may just be a slight improvement. My M16A4 at work has all the finish knocked off and rubbed away where M4 feedramps "would be" on an M4 by rounds striking it there during feeding so I can see why they added this I guess.
Top Top