AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/15/2011 8:22:30 PM EDT
| I have always gotten a negative vibe whenever it comes to Bushmaster on this forum so I was wondering why the Texas DPS Agents in charge of fighting the overflow of the Mexican cartels and the associated violence into Texas would be issued Bushmaster XM15s. Judging from the other equipment that they use, they obviously have a pretty serious budget. I don't see why these guys (who do some of the most high risk patrols) would be issued an "inferior" rifle. Or are they really all that inferior? |
|
Back in the day, arfcom used to like the Bushmaster brand. Times change and now there are a few more companies building rifles.
Colt is the gold standard for the AR15 platform and the price difference is not that far off between them. Someone who calls the shots at that agency made the decision on Bushmaster, and it really isn't a bad one. They run fine if they are built right. It may just be that they are happy with their rifles and don't see a need to change. |
|
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec.
Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference 
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. |
|
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. I mean, if you want to get real technical, any rifle that 99% of people on this board can buy from Colt isn't built to the TDP. Just sayin...... |
|
Quoted:
I have always gotten a negative vibe whenever it comes to Bushmaster on this forum so I was wondering why the Texas DPS Agents in charge of fighting the overflow of the Mexican cartels and the associated violence into Texas would be issued Bushmaster XM15s. Judging from the other equipment that they use, they obviously have a pretty serious budget. I don't see why these guys (who do some of the most high risk patrols) would be issued an "inferior" rifle. Or are they really all that inferior? contrary to popular belief police and military often do NOT always use the best of the best. things are often chosen based on budget constraints, cost, and what works good enough for the money. bushmaster probably gave them a fat LEO discount, so thats what they went with. if taken care of and properly assembled and maintained by a competent armorer, they will run just as good as any colt or BCM. why are bushmasters not so popular? because you can buy a better quality rifle for less money nowadays |
|
Full disclosure: I have a Bushmaster rifle as my duty weapon. I have never once worried about it.
You have too look at several factors when analyzing government purchases. Price is always a concern. Generally, a government will have to put out a bid for items within a range of specifications. Products are then evaluated on their compliance with specifications. These can include things from what it is made of to warranty and service agreements. Capacity is often a requirement. Can the vendor meet the demand and service level expected? A lot of the smaller shops simply cannot. The lowest bidder does not always win, but a lower bidder often wins. You have to look at when the contract was awarded. In the last several years, the market has flooded with high quality weapons. The market 10 years ago was not as broad. If the bidding were held today, would the outcome be the same? |
| That is the main point: There are quite a few manufacturers who can and do build a complete and reliable weapon, but, there are other factors: Do they have the ability to supply the quantity required in the time frame needed? Can they provide support to repair those weapons when needed? Does the weapon offered have the interchangability with existing weapons (and parts) that is needed? Can they meet or beat their competitors' prices? Are they reputable? Have they been reputabe for a sufficient amount of time to expect them to continue in the business? So many factors involved when dealing with a government entity. Do you have sufficient pull/prestige with Sentors and Representatives? Have you sufficiently offered "under the table bonuses"? hehe Just had to throw those last couple in there as a joke... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. I mean, if you want to get real technical, any rifle that 99% of people on this board can buy from Colt isn't built to the TDP. Just sayin...... Oh geeze, now all the panties are going to get bunched... |
|
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have always gotten a negative vibe whenever it comes to Bushmaster on this forum so I was wondering why the Texas DPS Agents in charge of fighting the overflow of the Mexican cartels and the associated violence into Texas would be issued Bushmaster XM15s. Judging from the other equipment that they use, they obviously have a pretty serious budget. I don't see why these guys (who do some of the most high risk patrols) would be issued an "inferior" rifle. Or are they really all that inferior? contrary to popular belief police and military often do NOT always use the best of the best. things are often chosen based on budget constraints, cost, and what works good enough for the money. bushmaster probably gave them a fat LEO discount, so thats what they went with. if taken care of and properly assembled and maintained by a competent armorer, they will run just as good as any colt or BCM. why are bushmasters not so popular? because you can buy a better quality rifle for less money nowadays Absolutely true. My department issues Ruger Mini-14s as patrol rifles. Now, mine has always been 100% reliable, its reasonably accurate, and it is sure better than no rifle. At the same time, for what the department paid, we could have spent a little more and gotten some kind of AR type rifle. Our rifles were purchased during the ban, and because of the availability of the 20 round factory Mini-14 magazine at the time (well, lack there of actually) and the expense of the magazines directly from Ruger, each rifle got one 20 round and one 5 round mag. That was it. Since that time some of the original mags have disappeared and the department has not purchased a single new magazine. So, we have some officers who just have one 5 round magazine now. Luckily since the ban expired and Ruger started selling 20 and 30 round mags to the general public officers can choose to buy their own. I did, and I now have 5 magazines with me when on duty. I keep hoping we can get personally owned rifles approved, and I'm working on that. So, the question remains, why did we buy the Mini-14 instead of an AR type rifle? Because they were slightly cheaper, and no one took into account less parts availability and more expensive, less available magazines when the decision was made. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have always gotten a negative vibe whenever it comes to Bushmaster on this forum so I was wondering why the Texas DPS Agents in charge of fighting the overflow of the Mexican cartels and the associated violence into Texas would be issued Bushmaster XM15s. Judging from the other equipment that they use, they obviously have a pretty serious budget. I don't see why these guys (who do some of the most high risk patrols) would be issued an "inferior" rifle. Or are they really all that inferior? contrary to popular belief police and military often do NOT always use the best of the best. things are often chosen based on budget constraints, cost, and what works good enough for the money. bushmaster probably gave them a fat LEO discount, so thats what they went with. if taken care of and properly assembled and maintained by a competent armorer, they will run just as good as any colt or BCM. why are bushmasters not so popular? because you can buy a better quality rifle for less money nowadays Absolutely true. My department issues Ruger Mini-14s as patrol rifles. Now, mine has always been 100% reliable, its reasonably accurate, and it is sure better than no rifle. At the same time, for what the department paid, we could have spent a little more and gotten some kind of AR type rifle. Our rifles were purchased during the ban, and because of the availability of the 20 round factory Mini-14 magazine at the time (well, lack there of actually) and the expense of the magazines directly from Ruger, each rifle got one 20 round and one 5 round mag. That was it. Since that time some of the original mags have disappeared and the department has not purchased a single new magazine. So, we have some officers who just have one 5 round magazine now. Luckily since the ban expired and Ruger started selling 20 and 30 round mags to the general public officers can choose to buy their own. I did, and I now have 5 magazines with me when on duty. I keep hoping we can get personally owned rifles approved, and I'm working on that. So, the question remains, why did we buy the Mini-14 instead of an AR type rifle? Because they were slightly cheaper, and no one took into account less parts availability and more expensive, less available magazines when the decision was made. Yea...I understand that military / LE aren't given the best that there is due to budget constraints and politics and that sort of stuff. I would think that the rifles that guys like this use should have gone under some pretty significant testing. The reason I brought it up is because these TXDPS guys (includes the state border police plus the SWAT units that are fielded with them) aren't using them as trunk guns...they are out in that nasty environment on the border dealing with some pretty serious shit. So given the environmental conditions and the likelihood that these particular LE guys will have to engage using their rifle, I would imagine that they would hold their equipment to a slightly higher standard than a patrol officer here in Columbia, SC for example. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have always gotten a negative vibe whenever it comes to Bushmaster on this forum so I was wondering why the Texas DPS Agents in charge of fighting the overflow of the Mexican cartels and the associated violence into Texas would be issued Bushmaster XM15s. Judging from the other equipment that they use, they obviously have a pretty serious budget. I don't see why these guys (who do some of the most high risk patrols) would be issued an "inferior" rifle. Or are they really all that inferior? contrary to popular belief police and military often do NOT always use the best of the best. things are often chosen based on budget constraints, cost, and what works good enough for the money. bushmaster probably gave them a fat LEO discount, so thats what they went with. if taken care of and properly assembled and maintained by a competent armorer, they will run just as good as any colt or BCM. why are bushmasters not so popular? because you can buy a better quality rifle for less money nowadays Absolutely true. My department issues Ruger Mini-14s as patrol rifles. Now, mine has always been 100% reliable, its reasonably accurate, and it is sure better than no rifle. At the same time, for what the department paid, we could have spent a little more and gotten some kind of AR type rifle. Our rifles were purchased during the ban, and because of the availability of the 20 round factory Mini-14 magazine at the time (well, lack there of actually) and the expense of the magazines directly from Ruger, each rifle got one 20 round and one 5 round mag. That was it. Since that time some of the original mags have disappeared and the department has not purchased a single new magazine. So, we have some officers who just have one 5 round magazine now. Luckily since the ban expired and Ruger started selling 20 and 30 round mags to the general public officers can choose to buy their own. I did, and I now have 5 magazines with me when on duty. I keep hoping we can get personally owned rifles approved, and I'm working on that. So, the question remains, why did we buy the Mini-14 instead of an AR type rifle? Because they were slightly cheaper, and no one took into account less parts availability and more expensive, less available magazines when the decision was made. The dept. I worked for several years ago issued stainless GB Ruger Mini-14' s. When it came time to qualify, 10 of us were scheduled. I had 28 malfunctions out of 220 rounds. Other officers had similar issues. Why did they purchase Mini's? Crappy job of writing specs and it was the low bid! |
|
Quoted:
Those making the purchase decisions often are not the ones using the equipment. As long as the bolt carrier key is sufficiently staked (this is a common failing with Bushmasters but it's an easy fix), Bushmaster is adequate. This post pretty much nails it. The people who make the decisions are almost never the ones feilding the equipment and they rarely listen to those who know what they are talking about. The higher they go in the chain of command the less they remember about what it's like to do the job and it seems they also no longer care. Once people get to the ivory tower it's all about numbers on paper not what works. As familyman said if the department armorer went through the rifle and gave it a goo going over it should be fine. I would hope that those who are issued any weapon system in which their life may depend on it check it thuroghly before deploying it. |
|
GT Distributors sells the Bushmaster TPS M4s. They listed the specs, which included M4 handguards, staked BCGs, and staked castle nuts. NOT features that are commonly found on Bushmaster rifles from the factory. So yes, the Texas DPS purchased Bushmaster rifles that were built to a higher standard than the average Bushmaster rifle. The price was also $60 more for the DPS rifles than the standard Bushmaster.....
Here's the link:Texas DPS Bushmaster |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. first link you cant even tell what caused the malf, could have been a bad primer for all you know. that second link doesnt mean anything with the information given. i saw a snipped out article from that last night and skimmed over this one (so if what i was looking for was in there but i didnt see it tell me) and i have still yet to see HOW these rifles were tested other than "in a dust chamber". how often were they cleaned during these 60,000 rounds? if the rifles werent cleaned on regular, short intervals its no shock that the only direct impungement rifle faired poorest of the bunch. is that real world conditions? no...FAR from it. typical load out for a soldier....6-10 mags more or less. who cares if the rifle starts malfunctioning after 5000 rounds of no cleaning in a dust chamber? no one carries anywhere near that much ammo in the field and the rifle is cleaned long before it hits 5000-whatever rounds. this is why the army officials said its not resemblence of a real world test and it works just fine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. first link you cant even tell what caused the malf, could have been a bad primer for all you know. that second link doesnt mean anything with the information given. i saw a snipped out article from that last night and skimmed over this one (so if what i was looking for was in there but i didnt see it tell me) and i have still yet to see HOW these rifles were tested other than "in a dust chamber". how often were they cleaned during these 60,000 rounds? if the rifles werent cleaned on regular, short intervals its no shock that the only direct impungement rifle faired poorest of the bunch. is that real world conditions? no...FAR from it. typical load out for a soldier....6-10 mags more or less. who cares if the rifle starts malfunctioning after 5000 rounds of no cleaning in a dust chamber? no one carries anywhere near that much ammo in the field and the rifle is cleaned long before it hits 5000-whatever rounds. this is why the army officials said its not resemblence of a real world test and it works just fine. I like carrying 15 + 1 in the rifle  but 9 seems to be a popular number
|
|
Let's just be clear here -
military.com is in no way a reliable source or in any way affiliated with the military any more than any other publication that writes about military stuff. Also, regarding that specific test- the test was done with M4 Carbines (RO920) that had the burst FCG installed, as they were "off the shelf" weapons. When they were fired on BURST in the dust test, every time the weapon failed to fire three rounds on BURST, it was counted as a malfunction. If you understand the way the burst function in the M16A2/4 and M4 Carbine work, it's a non-resetting cam, meaning that if you only fire two rounds on BURST, the next time you pull the trigger, you're only going to get one round. This is not a malfunction, it's the way the fire control group was designed. Whether this is good or bad is a totally seperate debate, though most feel that the BURST function frankly sucks - a) because of this feature, and b) because it makes the semi trigger pull inconsistent depending where the cam is set. When the proper functioning of the BURST function was taken in to account, the M4 Carbine did not have appreciably higher failure rates in the dust test than other platforms tested. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is how to tweek your RFP Gas system must be "mid-length" system. How many manufacturers do not make a midlength system? Well, Colt's out.  Come to think of it, unless you go MRP, LMT is out too.right, Kinda my point. When you draft the RFP you can lean it down through "wording".... Person X hates colts, or brand X, then this is what happens all the time. it pisses me off....... My line of work is done like this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. first link you cant even tell what caused the malf, could have been a bad primer for all you know. that second link doesnt mean anything with the information given. i saw a snipped out article from that last night and skimmed over this one (so if what i was looking for was in there but i didnt see it tell me) and i have still yet to see HOW these rifles were tested other than "in a dust chamber". how often were they cleaned during these 60,000 rounds? if the rifles werent cleaned on regular, short intervals its no shock that the only direct impungement rifle faired poorest of the bunch. is that real world conditions? no...FAR from it. typical load out for a soldier....6-10 mags more or less. who cares if the rifle starts malfunctioning after 5000 rounds of no cleaning in a dust chamber? no one carries anywhere near that much ammo in the field and the rifle is cleaned long before it hits 5000-whatever rounds. this is why the army officials said its not resemblence of a real world test and it works just fine. I like carrying 15 + 1 in the rifle but 9 seems to be a popular number
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k558/thornejc23/ParksAfghanistan.jpg There are a couple things you need to remember about military issue weapons, regardless of who makes them. They are issued to Privates. And a bunch of dumb joes that don't care about their issued equipment, that use whatever shortcuts for cleaning they can in order to get the overly anal ocd armorer to accept their weapon. Army cleaning has done more damage to weapons than any amount of firing. Requiring them to be spotless and dry when turned in is stupid. Using steel picks, scrapers, green scrub pads, etc, is stupid. Removing the actual finish from weapons because your squad leader thinks the black is carbon is fucking stupid. Running an M4 dry because "dust sticks to oil" is stupid. Using 5 year old magazines that have been dropped, kicked, stepped on, and have bent feed lips is stupid. Teaching recruits to use sandpaper to clean the gas piston on the M249 in Basic is completely moronic. I have never had a problem with any of the M16 family of weapons I've been issued. From Florida to deserts. I like to ask questions of people that still do this for a living, the guys with the funny colored hats say that there is nothing wrong with the M4. The only people that usually bitch about it, are Specialists and Privates that can't properly maintain their shit. Not keeping it spotless, but properly maintain. If the M4 were so bad, group and batt wouldn't have collectively said "meh" about the SCAR 16. |
| Just throwing out there that multiple florida sheriffs dept and florida highway patrol are using spikes rifles. Some one has some brains lol. But i would imagine if bushmaster is suppling them rifles they are probably not the same ones we can buy off the shielf, just like they have a mil spec ACR which is different feom the civilian version. |
| There's lot of silly ass guessing in this thread. Pretty simple. It boils down to money, perceived knowledge and stupidity. About six years ago I put together a few bids for rifles for my department. It came down to Colt and RRA and they were within $10 of each other in price. Admin chose RRA. Know why? They shipped with 30 round magazines instead of Colt's 20 round magazines. Seriously. That's the kind of stupid ass decision making that goes on by the experts who read Guns N Ammo while sitting on the shitter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. first link you cant even tell what caused the malf, could have been a bad primer for all you know. that second link doesnt mean anything with the information given. i saw a snipped out article from that last night and skimmed over this one (so if what i was looking for was in there but i didnt see it tell me) and i have still yet to see HOW these rifles were tested other than "in a dust chamber". how often were they cleaned during these 60,000 rounds? if the rifles werent cleaned on regular, short intervals its no shock that the only direct impungement rifle faired poorest of the bunch. is that real world conditions? no...FAR from it. typical load out for a soldier....6-10 mags more or less. who cares if the rifle starts malfunctioning after 5000 rounds of no cleaning in a dust chamber? no one carries anywhere near that much ammo in the field and the rifle is cleaned long before it hits 5000-whatever rounds. this is why the army officials said its not resemblence of a real world test and it works just fine. I like carrying 15 + 1 in the rifle but 9 seems to be a popular number
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k558/thornejc23/ParksAfghanistan.jpg There are a couple things you need to remember about military issue weapons, regardless of who makes them. They are issued to Privates. And a bunch of dumb joes that don't care about their issued equipment, that use whatever shortcuts for cleaning they can in order to get the overly anal ocd armorer to accept their weapon. Army cleaning has done more damage to weapons than any amount of firing. Requiring them to be spotless and dry when turned in is stupid. Using steel picks, scrapers, green scrub pads, etc, is stupid. Removing the actual finish from weapons because your squad leader thinks the black is carbon is fucking stupid. Running an M4 dry because "dust sticks to oil" is stupid. Using 5 year old magazines that have been dropped, kicked, stepped on, and have bent feed lips is stupid. Teaching recruits to use sandpaper to clean the gas piston on the M249 in Basic is completely moronic. I have never had a problem with any of the M16 family of weapons I've been issued. From Florida to deserts. I like to ask questions of people that still do this for a living, the guys with the funny colored hats say that there is nothing wrong with the M4. The only people that usually bitch about it, are Specialists and Privates that can't properly maintain their shit. Not keeping it spotless, but properly maintain. If the M4 were so bad, group and batt wouldn't have collectively said "meh" about the SCAR 16. Yea it always bothered me watching people slam the stock of their M4 on the ground as hard as they could to disengage the bolt catch. The weapons are generally treated like shit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The TDP for the M4 belongs to DOD/Colt...nobody else makes a gun to that spec. Making rifles to that standard isn't cheap or easy...but making a black gun and calling it tactical is cheap and easy. Which one sells more to people that don't know the difference
Get a Colt if your life rides on your gear. If my life rides on my gear my first choice would hopefully not be a Colt. I have seen a lot of Colts go down in the middle of some pretty serious shit. I would hope someone makes a better rifle....Colt got a gov contract so that typically means they are good enough for a great price. I would trust a Colt...I would trust a Bushmaster...but when it comes down to it I rather have something that is more reliable. The failure rates in the Colt M4 are high enough to where the military is concerned about their reliability. This is just one instance that I remembered was on vid....Colt malfunctions after first round...bad timing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8hLKNlWTc This is military reports of how the Colt M4 has performed in the dusty environments http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html I could definitely go on for awhile with similar reports....these aren't just some guy complaining...these are serious concerns that our military has on the performance of the Colt M4. first link you cant even tell what caused the malf, could have been a bad primer for all you know. that second link doesnt mean anything with the information given. i saw a snipped out article from that last night and skimmed over this one (so if what i was looking for was in there but i didnt see it tell me) and i have still yet to see HOW these rifles were tested other than "in a dust chamber". how often were they cleaned during these 60,000 rounds? if the rifles werent cleaned on regular, short intervals its no shock that the only direct impungement rifle faired poorest of the bunch. is that real world conditions? no...FAR from it. typical load out for a soldier....6-10 mags more or less. who cares if the rifle starts malfunctioning after 5000 rounds of no cleaning in a dust chamber? no one carries anywhere near that much ammo in the field and the rifle is cleaned long before it hits 5000-whatever rounds. this is why the army officials said its not resemblence of a real world test and it works just fine. I like carrying 15 + 1 in the rifle but 9 seems to be a popular number
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k558/thornejc23/ParksAfghanistan.jpg There are a couple things you need to remember about military issue weapons, regardless of who makes them. They are issued to Privates. And a bunch of dumb joes that don't care about their issued equipment, that use whatever shortcuts for cleaning they can in order to get the overly anal ocd armorer to accept their weapon. Army cleaning has done more damage to weapons than any amount of firing. Requiring them to be spotless and dry when turned in is stupid. Using steel picks, scrapers, green scrub pads, etc, is stupid. Removing the actual finish from weapons because your squad leader thinks the black is carbon is fucking stupid. Running an M4 dry because "dust sticks to oil" is stupid. Using 5 year old magazines that have been dropped, kicked, stepped on, and have bent feed lips is stupid. Teaching recruits to use sandpaper to clean the gas piston on the M249 in Basic is completely moronic. I have never had a problem with any of the M16 family of weapons I've been issued. From Florida to deserts. I like to ask questions of people that still do this for a living, the guys with the funny colored hats say that there is nothing wrong with the M4. The only people that usually bitch about it, are Specialists and Privates that can't properly maintain their shit. Not keeping it spotless, but properly maintain. If the M4 were so bad, group and batt wouldn't have collectively said "meh" about the SCAR 16. Unicorn, this couldn't have been said better. And has been my observation...although I have been out of the military 15 years. |
|
Quoted:
GT Distributors sells the Bushmaster TPS M4s. They listed the specs, which included M4 handguards, staked BCGs, and staked castle nuts. NOT features that are commonly found on Bushmaster rifles from the factory. So yes, the Texas DPS purchased Bushmaster rifles that were built to a higher standard than the average Bushmaster rifle. The price was also $60 more for the DPS rifles than the standard Bushmaster..... Here's the link:Texas DPS Bushmaster This is what I heard from the distributor of the DPS Bushmaster rifles. Colt submitted a rifles for testing but, mistakenly sent the wrong rifle for testing and disqualified(like a 20 inch A2 instead of an M4). Rock River won the competition but, told that they could not supply rifles to the DPS in a timely manner because of the DEA contract. DPS ultimately chose Bushmaster. |
|
We just went and qualified with our rifles and shotguns today. Every time this happens I am reminded that many of my coworkers shouldn't even have rifles and shotguns, let alone be worried about getting new AR type rifles to replace the Mini-14s. The rifles were purchased about ten years ago. Most of the people I work with were not cops ten years ago. Hell, most of them were in high school. We haven't had any sort of training (just 30 round qualification courses) since the rifles were first purchased. We do some handgun training, rather than just qualification, and when we transitioned to Glocks in 2010 we had two days of transition training. Most of the folks I work with are passable with a handgun. I shudder to think what might happen to me if I were down range of one of them when they decide to cut loose with a rifle or shotgun if the SHTF.
|
| Sounds like my agency policy would be preferred by most of you. Our purchasing is done by each district (92 Federal districts) which boils down to each Firearms Instructor. We are limited b policy to an "AR-15 gas impingement operating system". It then comes down to what I can convince my direct superiors to lay down the cash for. I have chosen RRA due to the customer service, workmanship and availibility. The only failures I have seen were due to neglect and operator error. We were shipped one rifle with a 6.8 bolt but that was made right in a matter of 2-3 days. I have also installed 20 some SP1 conversion kits (10" and 14") from RRA into Colt lowers and we love them. I was just zeroing a couple of our older Bushmasters and got them to give me burst fire for a couple of magazines. The problem is they are semi weapons.............. new parts time......... Be safe everyone. |
| Is the average patrolman gonna be able to notice, and wring out any "advantage" gained by having a $2500 Larue or whatever rifle over a $1000 Bushmaster? After bouncing around in a rack for the next 5 years, is the finish gonna be that much better for the cost? There are a lot of brands that get thrown around here cause it's what the cool kids have. Not that they are really that much better, but that they cost a shit ton more. TXDPS is not a stupid organization. If the Bushys were cracking in half, giving unacceptable accuracy or proving to be faulty, the lawyers would jump in and get it resolved. Police weapons, beyond training and requal's, are carried a lot but used very little. They may come out of a holster or rack a lot, but few, of any, rounds are fired in anger. Spending state money, which is harder than ever to come by, for a perceived brand advantage on a rifle that may or may not ever be utilized is a waste. |
|
It's not that Bushy is an "inferior" rifle. It's because their customer service sucks. I called them 3 times, and spoke to 3 different "reps", about a 20" barrel kit. One said they don't make them anymore because he couldn't find it in the computer (even after giving him the part #). The second said it had rifle feed ramps. The last said that all their barrels had M4 feed ramps. Including their M16A2 "replacement" barrels. WTF ?????
In the industry forum there are other people that expressed their experiences with Bushmaster. IMHO....F them..... 
|
AR Sponsor