AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/3/2007 5:55:45 AM EDT
Then again the TDPs cover M16 variants, not semi-auto clones. "Mil-spec compatible" might be a better term for them to use. |
Agreed. But there are some semi-auto clones that follow parts of the TDP (notably the Colt 6920).
I like that, unfortunetly I doubt the marketing guys will use it as it implies the rifle is not truely to 'spec'. (Of course they neglect to mention which spec they are talking about....). |
|
Don't get me wrong. I own a bunch of Bushy's in different configurations and have been very impressed w/ the quality of the uppers and lowers. I think they show very good machining. Their barrels shoot very well and last. My beat around HBAR has 8k rounds thru it and still shoots as good as new. It just semeed strange to have a company advertise mil spec and then stop. |
I believe that AR15.com and other websites have a lot of power in the marketplace. I have noticed that in the last 1-2 years every thread like this gets the proper answer: NO commercial AR-15 is MILSPEC. It may be that Bushmaster realized the jig was up, and that it was not smart to keep advertising claims that were seen as nonsense by a large segment of your market. |
|
Correct, there are a lot of dimensional differences between the AR-15 and M-16 and that is not a bad thing at all. I prefer Bushmasters over the rest because I have learned I can rely on them. This might help a little with the differences  :www.quarterbore.com/nfa/registeredreceiver.htm |
I thought it was Mil specs OR BETTER I own a few also and had GREAT LUCK with them |
Not exaclty. How is not parkerizing under the front sight base better? Answer is engineering wise it's not, but it does results in a cost savings (which may be a better thing for a consumer). How is using a commercial receiver extension on it's telestocks 'better'? Again techincally/engineering wise it's not better, you should see a cost savings - but strangely enough you don't. How is not testing each barrel and bolt with a proof load then MPI 'better'? Twist Rate? Debateable by reasonable people as to which is better (1:9 or the 'spec' of 1:7). So if your definition of 'better' is 'Cheaper' then you may have a point. My definisiton of better is 'exceeds the performance capabilities of parts that meet the specifications', so I fail to see 'better'. That being said Bushy makes a good AR. I own several and would not hesitate to buy another. |
|
They're not milspec by popular definition, and they're sure not better. But they work good. Actually, they work pretty dang good. My Bushy's record is tied with my Colts for reliability. And thats what its all about. The big problem is, do you want to shoot heavy bullets, and is the MP testing important to you. |
MP = magnetic particle tested (ie, magnafluxed)... |
They don't proof fire any of them. All Bushmaster chrome lined barrels are marked "B MP" B = Bushmaster MP = Magnetic Particle Inspected (it should mean Proof Fired/Magntetic Particle inspection but Bushy doesn't do the proof firing they just use the same markings as Colt & FN). Bushmaster validateds each lot of barrels by randomly Magnetic Particle inspecting a sample. Sampling from a lot is a valid QC system, but the spec indicates each rifle & bolt should be proof fired then tested (MIL-C-70599A (AR) 3.4.4). |
That's what Bushy's marks 'mean' (that a sample in the Lot has been magnafluxed). For the military M= Maganetic particle inspected / P = Proof fired |
I AGREE FULLY I was just stateing thats what BUSH says I also Pay attention to MOST all your post also And one reason I have a LMT Defender 2000 M4 14.5 SOPMOD I also swap out my Bushmaster shorty A1 upper For a LMT M4 14.5 upper I do Rank Bushmaster Up there but in 4th place |
And to continue the discussion on proof firing, using Colt as an example: Their proof mark can be found on the upper reciever just in front of the ejection port... |
AR Sponsor