Quoted: Just comparing differential features: LMT Twist:  1/7 Barrel Ext:  M4 FSB:  F-marked Upper:  T-Marked Priced:  bit higher Bushmaster Twist:  1/9 or 1/7 (special order) Barrel Ext:  Std Rifle FSB:  A2 type Upper:  Non T-marked Priced:  bit lower

Excellent stuff.  Anybody have PICTURES comparing the FSB A2 vs. F-marked?  And why do people get a big hard-on for it being parkerized under the FSB?

Do LMT bust out the full trick Mil-B-1159F Vanadium Alloy barrels or what?  Just curious.

Quoted: You do realize that there are military used items that have not been tested yet are said to be tested. Like testing a sample out of a lot and if the sample passes the lot is said to be tested and proofed.  They do it with strike plates and kevlar vests. You dont have to test every single item to say it has been tested.

USGI specs for US Service rifles is 100 percent proof tested, and has been for at least 100 years.

Quoted: As I recall the govt inspected samples of M14 parts, I believe every 100. If one bad apple was found, the whole lot went to the crapper. I have to go the my accountant right now to close out the year end books but I will find the information. Bill

Sounds about right, but M14 rifles were delivered with 100 percent proof firing.

Quoted: Its good that Colt proofs and MPs their stuff

It is not proof and MP, the P is proof.  You guys are not following me here, I need better hand puppets, or maybe someone else can explain it?

Quoted: CMMG seems to be the best deal..4150 steel,proof tested,........

CMMG is proofing thier barrels?

Quoted: Quoted: As a civilian purchaser you are your own inspector. You can either do it yourself or not. If you can you are way ahead of every other maker besides Colt because they actually proof and inspect barrels and bolts, something Bushmaster does not do, despite what the gun rag peddlers are promoting this month. This statement is based on what? I see a lot of statements in this thread about who does what but where are the actual fact-checked articles or statements from the horses' mouths (colt, bushie, etc) that verify them?

Based on Bushmaster's description of their barrel manufacturing, detailed in the January 2006 issue,of SAR, and on their web site.  Neither describes proof testing, that is because they don't do that.  Bushmaster also described their manufacturing process here, with no mention of proof testing:

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=28&t=143771&page=2

Quoted: Quoted: We who have been here and paid attention to previous threads got the lowdown on BM. How do you know that what he posted is still true and that what was printed in the magazine article is not true?

Neither his post, or the SAR "article" describes proof testing, because Bushmaster does not do that.

Quoted: Quoted: We who have been here and paid attention to previous threads got the lowdown on BM. Meaning that one post from Jarrod? When did he post that? How do you know that what he posted is still true and that what was printed in the magazine article is not true?

That was a year or so ago I think.

What irks me is not that BM does not MP test all the bolts, but that they said they did. It was just spot checking all along. So now they say they are testing them all as of Jan 2006?  Really?

While a raw BM bolt may be exactly the same quality as a Colt bolt, the MP testing for cracks puts Colt over the top because the rare bad one is tossed. It probably costs no more than $10 to test the bolt and I’m happy to pay it. I’ve read Pat Rogers posts (on another forum) about many BMs not making it through his carbine classes. He lists more BM bolts breaking in his presence than I’ve seen posted about here. In fact it’s rare to see a post about a broken BM bolt on Arfcom. It’s almost always a RRA, so many I’ve lost count. A few Colt bolts have broken at low round counts too. Bolts wear and break so I want every advantage I can get, including a $10 MP test and an extra bolt in my kit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We who have been here and paid attention to previous threads got the lowdown on BM. Meaning that one post from Jarrod? When did he post that? How do you know that what he posted is still true and that what was printed in the magazine article is not true? That was a year or so ago I think. What irks me is not that BM does not MP test all the bolts, but that they said they did. It was just spot checking all along. So now they say they are testing them all as of Jan 2006?  Really?

Bushmaster never claimed to do Magnetic particle testing, and Proof firing, or "MP".  There only claim is to doing half of the spec, that is the Magnetic particle testing.

Here is the post, check it out, no mention of proof testing:

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=28&t=143771&page=2

Ekie:  What say you about the new line of Bravo Company rifles?

I could have sworn their website said they did (at least used too) and I do have a BM barrel that is marked "MP"

Quoted: Quoted: HUH?  The 1/9 barrels are Bad? But the 1/7 from the same manuf are good?hr It's not a matter of barrel quality. All the barrels are going to be of a similar quality (that's another whole discussion) It's a matter of twist rate. Everyone seems to want 1:7 twist so that can shoot about any 224 bullet made. Therefore, a 1:7 BM barrel would be "good" compared to a 1:9, even though all production grade barrels are junk... Personally, I only shoot 55gr bullets and I happen to like the 1:12 or 1:10 twists myself. I am surely in the minority.

I don't wanna shoot any 224 out of my .223- count me out

Quoted: I could have sworn their website said they did (at least used too) and I do have a BM barrel that is marked "MP"

Nope, never did.  They have tried to confuse the meaning of MP all these years on purpose.

Quoted: Based on Bushmaster's description of their barrel manufacturing, detailed in the January 2006 issue,of SAR, and on their web site.  Neither describes proof testing, that is because they don't do that.  Bushmaster also described their manufacturing process here, with no mention of proof testing: archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=28&t=143771&page=2

I find it ironic that everytime Bushmaster is called to the carpet on some manufacturing issue they claim to have some revolutionary new process that will resolve it.  For example, laser alignment to correct canted sights (2003), a new staking machine to correct bad carrier key staking (2005), and now a process to replace MPI (2004).  Strange how these issues still seem to exist.

Sorry for the hijack, but what about Bravo's new line of rifles:  www.bravocompanyusa.com/Standard20inchRifleUppers.html

Quoted: Quoted: You do realize that there are military used items that have not been tested yet are said to be tested. Like testing a sample out of a lot and if the sample passes the lot is said to be tested and proofed.  They do it with strike plates and kevlar vests. You dont have to test every single item to say it has been tested. USGI specs for US Service rifles is 100 percent proof tested, and has been for at least 100 years.

Okay great but you missed my point.  Spot checking and testing of lots through sampling is done in every industry and for the military with other items.  If it is good enough for EVERYTHING else why is it suddenly not good for your one little bolt?

And if I recall correctly, which I probably do, it was even brought up that Colt does sampling with their civilian made parts.  They dont go through the same testing as the military orders.

I dont think its deceptive for Bushmaster to say they test their bolts and barrels when they just use sampling.  Becaus ein essence they are testing their bolts and barrels.  They gain assurance that the lot or batch is good based on the samples tested.

It works for every other industry even the firearms and defense contracting areas.  I dont see why you think Bushmaster is lying to the general public.

Quoted: Ekie:  What say you about the new line of Bravo Company rifles?

I like the idea that they are proof testing, and magnetic particle inspecting their bolt and barrels.  I also like the M4 feed ramps, 1/7 twist, correct FSB's, etc, etc.

The only reason I get into this Bushmaster stuff is that they misrepresent what USGI proof marking mean, and what USGI specs are.  USGI markings, and specs are of great interest to me.  Never would have even read this thread except that it had COLT in the thread title.

www.bushmaster.com/shopping/uppers/8448505-s.asp

"We sell only new bolt carriers - no rewelds or remakes. The bolt carrier assembly is the “heart” of your weapon - with the most critical machining tolerances of any component in the rifles system. Ours are manufactured to mil. spec. and are magnetic particle inspected to insure against cracks or flaws that could cause catastrophic bolt failure or injury."

Quoted: Sorry for the hijack, but what about Bravo's new line of rifles:  www.bravocompanyusa.com/Standard20inchRifleUppers.html

What about them?  They are some Uber Good Shit that's for sure.  Probably the *only* thing more you could ask for is a Mil-B-11595E barrel.  Still, a good ole' boy 4150 will GIT R DUN every time.

Sidenote:
Will ya just look at this upper!!!!!!!!!!!!


G** Da** it's HOT!!!  Sabre Defense barrel, Sampson rail, T-Marked, F-Marked, real/true M4 extensions, government contour, etc.  Of course that stupid costs more than then ENTIRE 05 SEBR plus Membership and FFL dues!!!  

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry for the hijack, but what about Bravo's new line of rifles:  www.bravocompanyusa.com/Standard20inchRifleUppers.html What about them?  They are some Uber Good Shit that's for sure.  Probably the *only* thing more you could ask for is a Mil-B-11595E barrel.  Still, a good ole' boy 4150 will GIT R DUN every time. Sidenote: Will ya just look at this upper!!!!!!!!!!!! www.talonarms.com/talonarms/images/large/products/sdimltar_LRG.jpg G** Da** it's HOT!!!  Sabre Defense barrel, Sampson rail, T-Marked, F-Marked, real/true M4 extensions, government contour, etc.  Of course that stupid costs more than then ENTIRE 05 SEBR plus Membership and FFL dues!!!

Very nice.

By the way, what's a Mil-B-11595E barrel?  Any links?

Quoted: Okay great but you missed my point.  Spot checking and testing of lots through sampling is done in every industry and for the military with other items.  If it is good enough for EVERYTHING else why is it suddenly not good for your one little bolt?

Did not miss your point.  I am discussing USGI specs, and in particular what the MP in C MP means.  The P means each and every barrel/bolt is fired with a high pressure proof cartridge that is a M197.  Am not discussing my little bolt, or EVERYTHING else.

Quoted: And if I recall correctly, which I probably do, it was even brought up that Colt does sampling with their civilian made parts.  They dont go through the same testing as the military orders.

Yes it was, and we called Colt's and they confirmed that they do fire a M197 out of each bolt and barrel on their commercial line, even though some lack the MP marking.  I find that hard to belive that Colt's would spend the money to fire the M197, and do the magnuflux, but not do the marking, what ever?

Quoted: I dont see why you think Bushmaster is lying to the general public.

Here is one:

SAR, January 2006, page 37

Originally appearing in SAR: The familiar "CMP" mark often seen would indicated Colt Magnetic Particle Testing and "BMP" would indicate Bushmaster Particle Testing and so on.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a deal for you all... Don't shoot proof loads through barrels that you fork out your own hard-earned money for, and live your life perfectly satisfied that your NON-PROOFED $200 cheaper barrel will bust all the pop cans and dirt clods you can put in it's way!!! People who NEED proofed barrels don't have to pay for them out of their own pockets. Don't troll in the AR forum.

I wasn't trolling actually. I was making light of the fact that they're both probably equal products when all is said and done.

This is the first time I've seen anything negative about an LMT upper.  I just purchased one and thought I was getting 1st tier quality.  Am I wrong?  I've shot a couple of hundred rounds thru it with no problems.  I purchased this upper because of the positive comments I've seen here and waited over a year before I made the plunge.  I know there are preferences of manufacturers but did I screw up?  I guess I may take comments on this site too literally.......pisses me off that I may have just been gullible.

BTW, in the pharmeautical industry, AQL means average quality level. Once one has their quality provably under control, the FDA will allow spot checks, because the mfg. has proven their average quality meets cGmp's

Quoted: This is the first time I've seen anything negative about an LMT upper.  I just purchased one and thought I was getting 1st tier quality.  Am I wrong?  I've shot a couple of hundred rounds thru it with no problems.  I purchased this upper because of the positive comments I've seen here and waited over a year before I made the plunge.  I know there are preferences of manufacturers but did I screw up?  I guess I may take comments on this site too literally.......pisses me off that I may have just been gullible. BTW, in the pharmeautical industry, AQL means average quality level. Once one has their quality provably under control, the FDA will allow spot checks, because the mfg. has proven their average quality meets cGmp's

Now in pharmaceuticals........I'd be FAR more diligent on the specs!!!

Quoted: www.bushmaster.com/shopping/uppers/8448505-s.asp "We sell only new bolt carriers - no rewelds or remakes. The bolt carrier assembly is the “heart” of your weapon - with the most critical machining tolerances of any component in the rifles system. Ours are manufactured to mil. spec. and are magnetic particle inspected to insure against cracks or flaws that could cause catastrophic bolt failure or injury."

That is about bolt carriers.

Quoted: That's it? Oy edit-thanks for taking the time to find that post

Yep, "that's it", and no problem.

OK, I did some searching and I was WRONG about the M14 parts inspection. Here is a little bit of a fine writing:
M14 Rifle History and Development
By
Lee Emerson

The following describes the requirements each M14 rifle had to pass before it could be shipped to the military.  The M14 rifle was tested by first firing a high pressure proof round.  That was followed by function tests in semi-automatic, burst automatic, and sustained automatic fire.  The rate of fire in automatic had to be within a specified, narrow range.  Each rifle was required to deliver its center of impact within a specified limited area around the point of aim at 100 yards with the rear sight set at eight clicks up from bottom and at zero windage.  Every rifle had to group within 5.6 " at 100 yards with five rounds of M80 ball ammunition.  If the rifle failed, it was tagged to record what the particular problems were.  The manufacturer replaced the parts and sent it through the entire inspection process again.  Most rifles passed the testing the second time around.  The information noted on the tags was recorded and used to analyze the manufacturing process to determine what needed correction.
In addition to test firing, which every rifle went through, M14 rifles were pulled out at given intervals and subjected to endurance firing for 6000 rounds.  Only a small fraction of any kind of failure was allowed in the endurance test.  Some of the M14 rifles completed the 6000 round endurance with no malfunctions.  While a five shot group of 5.6 " at 100 yards may not seem terribly accurate this includes the inaccuracy of the M80 ball ammunition factored in.  The Boston Ordnance District was responsible for final acceptance of M14 rifles manufactured by Harrington & Richardson and Winchester.  By Fiscal Year 1962, it had conducted a study into the factory accuracy testing rejection rate of M14 rifles. 2 The Boston Ordnance District discovered that the M80 ball ammunition of itself had an average spread of 3.57 " at 100 yards within every ninety rounds fired.  Ammunition inconsistency aside, a rack grade M14 type rifle is accurate for a battle rifle when properly assembled.  
After completion of all firing tests, each bolt assembly was examined by magnetic particle inspection for cracks, seams and other injurious defects.  If the bolt passed examination, the bolt was marked with the letter M.  The bolt assembly was then cleaned, the roller repacked with grease and the rifle reassembled.

It is OK to be wrong, I should know.

Bill

Quoted: This is the first time I've seen anything negative about an LMT upper.  I just purchased one and thought I was getting 1st tier quality.  Am I wrong?  I've shot a couple of hundred rounds thru it with no problems.  I purchased this upper because of the positive comments I've seen here and waited over a year before I made the plunge.  I know there are preferences of manufacturers but did I screw up?  I guess I may take comments on this site too literally.......pisses me off that I may have just been gullible. BTW, in the pharmeautical industry, AQL means average quality level. Once one has their quality provably under control, the FDA will allow spot checks, because the mfg. has proven their average quality meets cGmp's

Calm Down. You did great.

LMT is on par in quality with FN & Colt. LMT's 10.5" is probably the most battle proven shorty in history. It works very well. The LMT 10.5" is issued to the Teams as the "CQBR" MK18 that has replaced the MP5. It's also in use with JSOC's Tier 1 units( Army and Navy).

You can't take everything seriously on the Internet. 99.5% of this site is made up of people's opinions.

Quoted: Quoted: By the way, what's a Mil-B-11595E barrel?  Any links? Info on 11595E material at this link

Thanks.

Quoted: LMT is on par in quality with FN & Colt. LMT's 10.5" is probably the most battle proven shorty in history. It works very well. The LMT 10.5" is issued to the Teams as the "CQBR" MK18 that has replaced the MP5. It's also in use with JSOC's Tier 1 units( Army and Navy). You can't take everything seriously on the Internet. 99.5% of this site is made up of people's opinions.

In the last year one of the site vendors was testing an LMT upper that wouldn't group. He couldn't figure out what was wrong with the barrel so sent it back to the factory for replacement. That was much better than sending it to Iraq to the guy that had bought it. If he hadn't tested it it could have gotten people killed over there.

I received an LMT upper receiver/barrel group with M4 cuts in the receiver, but not the barrel extension. I sent it back, they cut or replaced the extension.

I received an LMT upper receiver where the machinist must have slipped and cut an extra cut in the charging handle groove off to the side. I kept it because I figure it can eat up some debris and add to the reliability.

You must inspect LMTs yourself or you could have a fubar without knowing it.  They are not inspected with care like Colts so bad ones do slip through. It has been recorded here by several members of this site with personal experience. A good LMT is an equal of a Colt. A bad one can get you killed.

Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If God logged in and posted that Bushmaster does the same barrel testing as Colt (I'm not saying they do) I don't think you'd believe it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And he probably wouldn't believe you, because God doesn't make Bushmaster's barrels, Bushmaster does, and they keep saying otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, Bushmaster does not even make the claim that they proof fire thier barrels. Get it? USGI specs are Proof fired, Bushmaster are not.

Hey wait a minute     That's exactly what I was saying - that Bushmaster says they neither proof fire them nor mag particle every barrel.  

I have a rifle with a Colt barrel sitting right here, myself -- the only reason I wouldn't pay $400 for one is because I didn't need to, when I got the whole upper for that much.

......

And a question -- it was my understanding that the whole point of mag particle inspection is to do it after you proof fire, to see if the proof load created any cracks; the reasoning being, if the proof load won't, it should be fine with regular pressure ammo.  Does anyone have any input on that?

Here is the online version of the SAR "article", you can read it for yourself:

www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Blackrifle.pdf

Quoted: Hey wait a minute     That's exactly what I was saying - that Bushmaster says they neither proof fire them nor mag particle every barrel.   I have a rifle with a Colt barrel sitting right here, myself -- the only reason I wouldn't pay $400 for one is because I didn't need to, when I got the whole upper for that much. ...... And a question -- it was my understanding that the whole point of mag particle inspection is to do it after you proof fire, to see if the proof load created any cracks; the reasoning being, if the proof load won't, it should be fine with regular pressure ammo.  Does anyone have any input on that?

Sorry, did not follow you, think that was joke?

Yes, on USGI service rifles the bolts and barrels are magnetic particle inspected after proof firing.  Barrels that pass are then proof marked, and parked.

Quoted: Quoted: LMT is on par in quality with FN & Colt. LMT's 10.5" is probably the most battle proven shorty in history. It works very well. The LMT 10.5" is issued to the Teams as the "CQBR" MK18 that has replaced the MP5. It's also in use with JSOC's Tier 1 units( Army and Navy). You can't take everything seriously on the Internet. 99.5% of this site is made up of people's opinions. In the last year one of the site vendors was testing an LMT upper that wouldn't group. He couldn't figure out what was wrong with the barrel so sent it back to the factory for replacement. That was much better than sending it to Iraq to the guy that had bought it. If he hadn't tested it it could have gotten people killed over there. I received an LMT upper receiver/barrel group with M4 cuts in the receiver, but not the barrel extension. I sent it back, they cut or replaced the extension. I received an LMT upper receiver where the machinist must have slipped and cut an extra cut in the charging handle groove off to the side. I kept it because I figure it can eat up some debris and add to the reliability. You must inspect LMTs yourself or you could have a fubar without knowing it.  They are not inspected with care like Colts so bad ones do slip through. It has been recorded here by several members of this site with personal experience. A good LMT is an equal of a Colt. A bad one can get you killed.

So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"?

This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's.

Quoted: Money is not a issue Can somebody post a LMT on Bushwhacker lower? Yes Bushmaster will SO 1/7 I thought Bush MP there ALL Carriers and Barrels! Man there seems to be 3  to pick from

I have an LMT on a Bushwacker lower.  Since I am drinking, I will just tag this to add pictures when I can.  



(already had a pic on the server)



LEWIC?????  Is there something up tonight with header spelling??

I shoot Wolf ammo in my Colt and LMT.  How many are going to wet the bed tonight because of that???

Quoted: So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"? This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's.

I’m yawning.  I never made such claims about Colt. In fact I mentioned a few Colt bolts breaking. I was fair to both Colt and LMT. The number of Colts in service is huge, yet only a handful of problems have surfaced. I’d call that normal. Colt has improved bolts too, but they were rejected by .mil as being unnecessary. I guess “The Teams” never reported back to the S4.

LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. The problems reported here are significant because so few have been built yet so many Lemons have been reported.

LMTs are fine for experienced AR15 users who know what defects to look for, or for people who buy from a vendor who will go through them like an armorer before shipping. Otherwise they should be avoided, especially by people new to the platform.

Do teams get to specify vendors when they pick a tool...or do they just say, "gimme this and make it one that works."?

So where would CMT/Stag fit into this "tier" system?

Quoted: Do teams get to specify vendors when they pick a tool...or do they just say, "gimme this and make it one that works."?

No, Crane does all of the small arms testing. They get the requests/needs from the end users. Then they test and select the best system for the job.

Quoted: Quoted: So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"? This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's. LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. .

The LMT's that are in service are used by Soldiers and Sailors that are at the tip of the spear and shoot a hell of a lot more rounds down range than the average grunt.

Quoted: Quoted: www.bushmaster.com/shopping/uppers/8448505-s.asp "We sell only new bolt carriers - no rewelds or remakes. The bolt carrier assembly is the “heart” of your weapon - with the most critical machining tolerances of any component in the rifles system. Ours are manufactured to mil. spec. and are magnetic particle inspected to insure against cracks or flaws that could cause catastrophic bolt failure or injury."

Oddly enough, there is no mil-spec requiring proof testing and magentic particle inspecting of bolt carriers. Only bolts and barrels. So why one would do this to a bolt carrier is beyond comprehension to me. All the stress is on the bolt itself.

Quoted: Go to the potty and I miss something good!

Quoted: So where would CMT/Stag fit into this "tier" system?

I was asking the same question - I have a Stag upper, and it's as accurate, the fit and finish is top notch and will hang with all the other uppers mention above (note: I do own a couple of C--t's)

In regards to the CQBR, the only manufacturer documentation I can find is this:

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/05-May/08-May-2004/FBO-00581273.htm

Notice it is a solicitation for Colt's products:

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm-Fixed-Price, supply type, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with an ordering period of five (5) years after award, for the following items manufactured by Colt Defense LLC.

Quoted: Quoted: So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"? This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's. I’m yawning.  I never made such claims about Colt. In fact I mentioned a few Colt bolts breaking. I was fair to both Colt and LMT. The number of Colts in service is huge, yet only a handful of problems have surfaced. I’d call that normal. Colt has improved bolts too, but they were rejected by .mil as being unnecessary. I guess “The Teams” never reported back to the S4. LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. The problems reported here are significant because so few have been built yet so many Lemons have been reported. LMTs are fine for experienced AR15 users who know what defects to look for, or for people who buy from a vendor who will go through them like an armorer before shipping. Otherwise they should be avoided, especially by people new to the platform.

I will have to throw the BS flag on this entire statement. Every single manufacturer has had negative posts on this forum. Hell it has become "Fashionable" to bash everything and anything. Nobody is going to tell me one has anymore than another. I always find it odd when guys will hype a few limited problems from one manufacturer, but ignore those from others. The only reason LMT's limited amount of problem threads gets so much attention is because a few individuals have a hard on for LMT due to their popularity and the favorable comparisons made to a Colt. This seems to bother a few individuals. It makes them feel superior to bash every other manufacturer. I own several LMT's and damn near every one of my friends do also. None of them are safe queens and get shot often. Each one of us has taken an LMT to relatively high round count shooting classes. Not one of us has had a single problem.

Big & broad statements like this based on nothing but Internet hearsay and very limited or non-existent personal experience chaps my ass.

Posting a comparison thread on ARFCOM is a complete waste of time.

Is a LMT "Better" than a Bushmaster? Hell that decision is up to each individual buyer. Both are quality firearms in my opinion. I personally prefer LMT, but I know several guys that I trust who love their Bushmasters.

Quoted: The LMT's that are in service are used by Soldiers and Sailors that are at the tip of the spear and shoot a hell of a lot more rounds down range than the average grunt.

That's BS spin of the highest order.

The "average grunt" has been putting far more rounds down range than some unknown "tip of spear" or unknown special olympic "Team" you keep referring too.  This is a technical forum so leave the video game BS to the kids.

I'm still waiting for you to offer anything of substance to this thread. So far you have been limited to hyperbole.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"? This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's. I’m yawning.  I never made such claims about Colt. In fact I mentioned a few Colt bolts breaking. I was fair to both Colt and LMT. The number of Colts in service is huge, yet only a handful of problems have surfaced. I’d call that normal. Colt has improved bolts too, but they were rejected by .mil as being unnecessary. I guess “The Teams” never reported back to the S4. LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. The problems reported here are significant because so few have been built yet so many Lemons have been reported. LMTs are fine for experienced AR15 users who know what defects to look for, or for people who buy from a vendor who will go through them like an armorer before shipping. Otherwise they should be avoided, especially by people new to the platform. I will have to throw the BS flag on this entire statement. Every single manufacturer has had negative posts on this forum. Hell it has become "Fashionable" to bash everything and anything. Nobody is going to tell me one has anymore than another. I always find it odd when guys will hype a few limited problems from one manufacturer, but ignore those from others. The only reason LMT's limited amount of problem threads gets so much attention is because a few individuals have a hard on for LMT due to their popularity and the favorable comparisons made to a Colt. This seems to bother a few individuals. It makes them feel superior to bash every other manufacturer. I own several LMT's and damn near every one of my friends do also. None of them are safe queens and get shot often. Each one of us has taken an LMT to relatively high round count shooting classes. Not one of us has had a single problem. Big & broad statements like this based on nothing but Internet hearsay and very limited or non-existent personal experience chaps my ass. Posting a comparison thread on ARFCOM is a complete waste of time. Is a LMT "Better" than a Bushmaster? Hell that decision is up to each individual buyer. Both are quality firearms in my opinion. I personally prefer LMT, but I know several guys that I trust who love their Bushmasters.

Can you be more specific about what you are talking about?

I haven't bashed LMT, just stated facts and have personal experiance with LMT, so it does not appear you are refering to me, or this thread, yet you qoute me and posted in this thread.  

Quoted: Quoted: The LMT's that are in service are used by Soldiers and Sailors that are at the tip of the spear and shoot a hell of a lot more rounds down range than the average grunt. That's BS spin of the highest order. The "average grunt" has been putting far more rounds down range than some unknown "tip of spear" or unknown special olympic "Team" you keep referring too.  This is a technical forum so leave the video game BS to the kids. I'm still waiting for you to offer anything of substance to this thread. So far you have been limited to hyperbole.

Maybe you should be the one doing some research.

I have personally seen several LMT products in use by "Tip of the Spear" U.S. military shooters. Not every piece of information can be found with a Yahoo search and big & broad statements should not be based off of them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, are you saying that Colt never sends out lemons even after being "checked"? This is going to be a whopper of a fact for you. The Teams actually have LESS problems with their issued LMT shorty's than the Colt 14.5" M4's. I’m yawning.  I never made such claims about Colt. In fact I mentioned a few Colt bolts breaking. I was fair to both Colt and LMT. The number of Colts in service is huge, yet only a handful of problems have surfaced. I’d call that normal. Colt has improved bolts too, but they were rejected by .mil as being unnecessary. I guess “The Teams” never reported back to the S4. LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. The problems reported here are significant because so few have been built yet so many Lemons have been reported. LMTs are fine for experienced AR15 users who know what defects to look for, or for people who buy from a vendor who will go through them like an armorer before shipping. Otherwise they should be avoided, especially by people new to the platform. I will have to throw the BS flag on this entire statement. Every single manufacturer has had negative posts on this forum. Hell it has become "Fashionable" to bash everything and anything. Nobody is going to tell me one has anymore than another. I always find it odd when guys will hype a few limited problems from one manufacturer, but ignore those from others. The only reason LMT's limited amount of problem threads gets so much attention is because a few individuals have a hard on for LMT due to their popularity and the favorable comparisons made to a Colt. This seems to bother a few individuals. It makes them feel superior to bash every other manufacturer. I own several LMT's and damn near every one of my friends do also. None of them are safe queens and get shot often. Each one of us has taken an LMT to relatively high round count shooting classes. Not one of us has had a single problem. Big & broad statements like this based on nothing but Internet hearsay and very limited or non-existent personal experience chaps my ass. Posting a comparison thread on ARFCOM is a complete waste of time. Is a LMT "Better" than a Bushmaster? Hell that decision is up to each individual buyer. Both are quality firearms in my opinion. I personally prefer LMT, but I know several guys that I trust who love their Bushmasters. Can you be more specific about what you are talking about? I haven't bashed LMT, just stated facts and have personal experiance with LMT, so it does not appear you are refering to me, or this thread, yet you qoute me and posted in this thread.

Who did I quote?

I'm talking about your statements listed below:

Quoted: LMT lemons have been reported here for at least two years. In the big picture LMT is a small manufacturer with limited numbers of rifles in service. The problems reported here are significant because so few have been built yet so many Lemons have been reported. LMTs are fine for experienced AR15 users who know what defects to look for, or for people who buy from a vendor who will go through them like an armorer before shipping. Otherwise they should be avoided, especially by people new to the platform.

Do you have the "Big Picture" on LMT? Doesn't look like it.

(1.) Do you personally know how many AR products LMT ships out everyday?
(2.) How many different manufacturers & Government agencies they supply?
(3.) How many Special Operations personal are currently using one or more of their products?
(4.) The exact number of LMT products that have been sold by dealers on this board?

If not, then maybe you should not post big & broad statements.

Quoted: Not every piece of information can be found with a Yahoo search.......................

Correct, for example Commercial Off-The-Shelf purchases (COTS) are not something we are typically going to get any documentation on.

Here are some more CQBR Crane solicitations:

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2005/12-December/14-Dec-2005/FBO-00950382.htm

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/04-April/14-Apr-2004/FBO-00564127.htm

www.fbodaily.com/archive/2005/04-April/30-Apr-2005/FBO-00797625.htm

So far I find Colt's CQBR complete Carbines and uppers, and LMT rear sights and buttstocks.