AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/8/2015 12:35:48 AM EDT
| Has anyone got one of the new FN-15 rifles (20" bbl)? If so, how do you like it? |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really?  I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William |
|
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does.
Thanks Rich |
|
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich Has the castle nut worked its way loose yet? 
|
|
Quoted:
Has the castle nut worked its way loose yet? Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich Has the castle nut worked its way loose yet? No ....its staked. |
|
Quoted:
This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William You mean like Colt Manufacturing versus Colt Defense? Colt hasn't made M16s for the U.S. Army since the late 80's, making it extremely rare to see Colt M16s in the field/line units; there might be some guard units with A1s. As an aside, FN also makes the light (M249) and medium (M240/Mk48) MGs and Colt also lost the M4A1 contract to FN. Of course the anti-FN person would just use a "cheapest bidder" argument. While I a fanboy of neither brand, it's a fallacy to think that our military runs on Colts; even the USMC M16A4 you cite is an...FN. Do you think FN is using their military history and reputation as shill to trick unsuspecting buyers and making a quick, short-lived score in the civilian market...or perhaps they are using experience gained from 3 or decades of supplying the bulk of the U.S. military's small arms into a viable civilian market? |
|
Quoted:
You mean like Colt Manufacturing versus Colt Defense? Colt hasn't made M16s for the U.S. Army since the late 80's, making it extremely rare to see Colt M16s in the field/line units; there might be some guard units with A1s. As an aside, FN also makes the light (M249) and medium (M240/Mk48) MGs and Colt also lost the M4A1 contract to FN. Of course the anti-FN person would just use a "cheapest bidder" argument. While I a fanboy of neither brand, it's a fallacy to think that our military runs on Colts; even the USMC M16A4 you cite is an...FN. Do you think FN is using their military history and reputation as shill to trick unsuspecting buyers and making a quick, short-lived score in the civilian market...or perhaps they are using experience gained from 3 or decades of supplying the bulk of the U.S. military's small arms into a viable civilian market? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William You mean like Colt Manufacturing versus Colt Defense? Colt hasn't made M16s for the U.S. Army since the late 80's, making it extremely rare to see Colt M16s in the field/line units; there might be some guard units with A1s. As an aside, FN also makes the light (M249) and medium (M240/Mk48) MGs and Colt also lost the M4A1 contract to FN. Of course the anti-FN person would just use a "cheapest bidder" argument. While I a fanboy of neither brand, it's a fallacy to think that our military runs on Colts; even the USMC M16A4 you cite is an...FN. Do you think FN is using their military history and reputation as shill to trick unsuspecting buyers and making a quick, short-lived score in the civilian market...or perhaps they are using experience gained from 3 or decades of supplying the bulk of the U.S. military's small arms into a viable civilian market? I owned the carbine version of the FN-15. The castle nut was not staked, and it had a regular CAR buffer. Though not clear, they are supposedly not able to use the knowledge in the TDP in any way for their commercial division. I've read that they don't make them in the same facility or on the same equipment. For Colt, it was made on the same lines, worked on by the same individuals, etc. I'm open to evidence otherwise, but it does not seem like they are building them like they do their .mil contract M4s or M16s, so I don't think it's accurate to just claim their military pedigree. However, from reports and reviews, the FN-15 line seems to be trouble free. |
|
And the M4A1 I purchased is nothing like the M4A1s I've been issued.
In any case, here is a slightly more objective thread. |
|
Quoted: And the M4A1 I purchased is nothing like the M4A1s I've been issued. In any case, here is a slightly more objective thread. Not a lot on that thread other than fn's look nice, or at least better than colt, which ain't saying much |
|
Quoted:
You mean like Colt Manufacturing versus Colt Defense? Colt hasn't made M16s for the U.S. Army since the late 80's, making it extremely rare to see Colt M16s in the field/line units; there might be some guard units with A1s. As an aside, FN also makes the light (M249) and medium (M240/Mk48) MGs and Colt also lost the M4A1 contract to FN. Of course the anti-FN person would just use a "cheapest bidder" argument. While I a fanboy of neither brand, it's a fallacy to think that our military runs on Colts; even the USMC M16A4 you cite is an...FN. Do you think FN is using their military history and reputation as shill to trick unsuspecting buyers and making a quick, short-lived score in the civilian market...or perhaps they are using experience gained from 3 or decades of supplying the bulk of the U.S. military's small arms into a viable civilian market? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William You mean like Colt Manufacturing versus Colt Defense? Colt hasn't made M16s for the U.S. Army since the late 80's, making it extremely rare to see Colt M16s in the field/line units; there might be some guard units with A1s. As an aside, FN also makes the light (M249) and medium (M240/Mk48) MGs and Colt also lost the M4A1 contract to FN. Of course the anti-FN person would just use a "cheapest bidder" argument. While I a fanboy of neither brand, it's a fallacy to think that our military runs on Colts; even the USMC M16A4 you cite is an...FN. Do you think FN is using their military history and reputation as shill to trick unsuspecting buyers and making a quick, short-lived score in the civilian market...or perhaps they are using experience gained from 3 or decades of supplying the bulk of the U.S. military's small arms into a viable civilian market? Most of those points I didn't argue in the first place, so whatever. The A4 that I was issued was infact a Colt that was made in the early 00's, not in the 80's. And of course FN makes it he 249 & 240, they invented them, but Colt has also made 240's and replacement barrels for both systems. I also never said anything about our mil running on Colt, the majority are FN save for M4's which FN now makes. And your last sentence again makes no sense as I said nothing of the sort. I merely meant that it's a fact that it's NOT FNMI who is making the FN-15, it's FNH their civi counterpart. And finally what are you trying to get at woth Colt Defense vs Mfg? My A4 was MFG, and the M4's were marked either or. Not sure what you're attempting to point out here, but I never said that the FN-15 was a bad rifle, did you even read what I said? I was just pointing out that if you're going for the closest one possible to the usgi version, the Colt will be the most applicable. Anyway, it's too early and I'm hung over and have a long day in school so I gotta go, hopefully you see I'm not attacking you, just defending what I wrote and your comments to me. For the op, buy whatever one is in stock, I haven't seen any of the Colt's in any LGS around my area. William PS I just saw your post about "The lines are sperated by the guy's building the FN bolt action rifles (FN SPR)." Can you elaborate a little more, like the tooling are literally separated by another tooling line for the SPR? Or like a shift change? |
|
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich Really? Name one colt person that has hated on the rifle? |
|
Quoted:
Really? Name one colt person that has hated on the rifle? Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich Really? Name one colt person that has hated on the rifle? Yeah, I must have missed that. I have three Colts, and I'd have no problem buying an FN if I was in the market for a complete rifle. I do have an FN bolt carrier in one of my Colts, however.
|
|
Quoted:
As part of the government's licensing agreement of the M16/M4 family with Colt - FN, while allowed to produce M16s and now M4s under contract for the U.S. Government, is not allowed to use Colt's intellectual property (IP) contained within the M16 and M4 Technical Data Packages (TDP) for commercial gain. Colt, meanwhile, is obviously allowed to use their own IP for whatever the hell they want. And while there are certain parts of the TDP that have been leaked - and NSWC-Crane got in a bit of trouble back in 1997 for erroneously releasing the M4 TDP to FNMI, which resulted in a sole-source contract for the M4 for Colt until 2009, and that in reality, remained the case until 2013, the TDP is still proprietary information - and only Colt commercial production has full access to it. I'm not 100% certain what the legal constructions behind the FN-15's production, but FN does at least have an argument that the "general" AR15 design is so widespread now, and they already subcontract to so many commercial manufacturers of AR15-pattern rifles with user-requested specifications and TDPs, that they wouldn't need the Colt proprietary TDP to release a totally separate commercial AR15 variant without using Colt's IP. However, if Colt could prove that they were using Colt IP to produce them in violation of their licensing agreement it would probably get pretty ugly pretty quickly. However, both Colt and FNMI have been pretty quiet about all of this, which could mean a couple of things - The likely possibilities are, from (IMHO) most likely to least likely are - FN is keeping their FN-15 production very well segregated from their military production so as to not invite even the suspicion or suggestion that Colt IP is "bleeding in" to their commercial production, and being very careful to avoid anything that might even have the appearance of impropriety on their part. While I doubt Colt will go out of business any time soon, it's common knowledge that they're sometimes in better financial shape, and sometimes in worse - right now, they're in a fall into a decidedly "worse" situation. Thus, they could be holding their collective tongues because they don't have the money to mount the legal battle at the moment, and I doubt the FN-15 is significantly affecting their bottom line too much. This also opens the possibility that Colt may have simply decided that everyone else is in the game, may as well let FN have a piece of cake, too, new AR manufacturers pop up like internet start-ups in the early-2000s these days. Or, they could be quietly building their case against FN until such a time that they're ready to "drop the other shoe" and try to win a big settlement from FNMI and the U.S. Government. The latter is probably the least likely, though, because it would be incredibly short-sighted for FNMI to have not considered such a possibility and taken steps to avoid it. In my very personal opinion, the first option is the most likely by a wide, wide margin. This neither makes the rifle any better or worse, companies like BCM, DD, and KAC don't have the TDP either, but still build quality rifles - just not according to the "USGI MIL-SPEC" TDP. ~Augee Just FWIW, Colt has produced runs of the M16A4. Other than the whole "sole source" thing with the M4/M4A1, which was frankly somewhat unprecedented, for reasons I've briefly touched on above - this has been the "usual" way of doing government business - the designer/owner of design does a couple of production runs of a weapon, then serial production gets farmed in whole or part to other companies - this has been happening to the M16 since Vietnam, with GM Hydramatic and H&R long before FNMI and the M16A2 production. Same thing with the M1911 - I don't think that anyone particularly doubts that the 1911 was a Colt product - despite the large number of manufacturers who built them for the government, and again in today's aftermarket. The M4/M4A1 situation, combined with GWOT was an unusual situation where government incompetence resulted in a hugely favorable sole-source contracting agreement while basically the entire military was very quickly re-equipped with a new weapon that could only legally be manufactured by one company - I'm sure Colt was more than happy during those "gravy years" to farm out the relative onesies and twosies of M16A4 production to meet the demand of the relatively small Marine Corps to FNMI while they cranked out M4s and M4A1s as fast as they could, getting in on the ground floor of fielding the weapon system, versus current contracts which are more or less just sustainment contracts, that is to say - most units that were going to get M4s, have already gotten them by now. While FNMI has the contract for new rifle production for the M4 and M4A1 - Colt still has the conversion barrel contract, which constitutes the largest part of the M4A1 PIP program. They also got several large contracts to manufacture, in an interesting reversal, FN machine guns and automatic weapons and barrels. Looking at it in a "bigger picture" sense, FNMI doesn't seem to have done terribly well - as the government cost of an M240L or M249 is always going to be significantly higher than that of an M4A1, and each of those requires two barrels at a minimum and conceivably need to be replaced far more often than M4A1s - what they essentially have is an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) to replace broken Colt weapons and to keep the trickle of sustainment and replacements coming in the door in a time of heavy contractions of military spending while their own big ticket items are being manufactured by a competitor. It's a weird situation. 
~Augee |
|
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich A few hundred rounds is nothing. Let us know when it hits the 10k mark. |
|
Quoted:
Really? Name one colt person that has hated on the rifle? Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one of there carbine length FN 15 and it shoots great....I put a few hundred rounds through it today and it runs like a type writer!..no problems whatsoever. There seems to be a lot of hate towards this rifle from the Colt crowd but in the end they go bang and put holes in things just like the colt does. Thanks Rich Really? Name one colt person that has hated on the rifle? Maybe hate was a bad word..I apologize for that. "Doubt" would have better described the general reactions I read. Im guessing the FN 15 is still in the "prove it" phase with the masses. I just figured if its mil spec it should be in the quality ball park of the Colt rifle. Im new to this and Ill certainly update after 10K rounds. Thanks Rich |
|
Quoted:
This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William The FN M-4's, and FN-15 are both built by FN America in Columbia, SC. See the press release for the name change: http://www.fnhusa.com/l/media-center/press-releases/fnamerica/ While different equipment/tools and gages are used some of the same people work both lines. The lines are sperated by the guy's building the FN bolt action rifles (FN SPR). . |
| Obviously I realize that the military version and civilian version would have operational/design differences. However, I get the impression that some here believe the civilian model would be inferior because they're made in different locations or lines. Same brand and model cars/trucks are/were made in different parts of the country, yet seem to come to market with basically the same or even identical quality and performance in most cases. Is this that big of a deal in this case of the FN's? |
|
Quoted:
Obviously I realize that the military version and civilian version would have operational/design differences. However, I get the impression that some here believe the civilian model would be inferior because they're made in different locations or lines. Same brand and model cars/trucks are/were made in different parts of the country, yet seem to come to market with basically the same or even identical quality and performance in most cases. Is this that big of a deal in this case of the FN's? Nobody is saying it's a bad product. However, it's not accurate to claim the FN-15 is good because FNMI also makes contract M4s and M16s. Citing military pedigree is moot to a certain degree because they can't get around the NDA surrounding the TDP. |
|
I hope this isn't a dumb question but what would be different?.... When I bought my rifle I was told it was the same rifle they make for the military with the exception of the select fire. The barrel and the BCG are supposed to be exact.
....just a newbie relaying what I was told |
|
Quoted:
I hope this isn't a dumb question but what would be different?.... When I bought my rifle I was told it was the same rifle they make for the military with the exception of the select fire. The barrel and the BCG are supposed to be exact. ....just a newbie relaying what I was told 16" barrel?? |
|
Quoted:
The FN M-4's, and FN-15 are both built by FN America in Columbia, SC. See the press release for the name change: http://www.fnhusa.com/l/media-center/press-releases/fnamerica/ While different equipment/tools and gages are used some of the same people work both lines. The lines are sperated by the guy's building the FN bolt action rifles (FN SPR). . Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? I was referring to the commercial variant. Never mind.Same except for burst. Wrong. This. They're not the same, not even made on the same tooling, or same state if I'm not mistaken. While I'm sure FNH has excellent QC/QA, they are not the same as FNMI, now FN MFG LLC. The closest you'd come to a USGI A4 would be the Colt A4 variant, sans M4 feed lips of course. William The FN M-4's, and FN-15 are both built by FN America in Columbia, SC. See the press release for the name change: http://www.fnhusa.com/l/media-center/press-releases/fnamerica/ While different equipment/tools and gages are used some of the same people work both lines. The lines are sperated by the guy's building the FN bolt action rifles (FN SPR). . They all say FN MFG INC/LLC South Carolina on the A4 and M4A1 lowers, the FN-15 says Virginia? If I'm missing something please shed some light, the two entities are now joined, but the civi versions are made in Virginia, how does that make them produced on the same line in South Carolina that makes the military versions? William |
|
Quoted:
I hope this isn't a dumb question but what would be different?.... When I bought my rifle I was told it was the same rifle they make for the military with the exception of the select fire. The barrel and the BCG are supposed to be exact. ....just a newbie relaying what I was told The US Military contract calls for weapons to be built using a very specific set of specifications. Everything from specific materials (types of steels, types of fasteners, etc) to specific measurements of parts, to testing/quality control procedures, to type/thickness of finishes on parts is laid out to indicate what the weapon is expected to be. FN, has been allowed access to this set of specs for the specific purpose of fulfilling government orders, but is forbidden from using the specs for making a commercial profit. This means that they can (and do) build military grade weapons for the military, but the rifles they sell to the civilian market must not be built using the government specs. How much different are their civilian rifles than their military ones? Who knows? One thing is certain though... They must differ enough to prevent being sued by Colt. This might be as simple as using a different finish, but I'd suspect the differences would have to be quite a bit more significant than that to prevent a successful lawsuit. More like different types of steel being used for barrels/bolts, that sort of thing. At any rate none of this makes the FN a bad rifle in any way. It is just to say that the civilian FN rifle cannot legally be built to the same specs as their military rifle, even after exempting such features as the longer barrel/lack of select fire capability. The only company that can sell a rifle to the public which is built using the same specs as the rifles they build/built for the military is Colt. |
|
Quoted:
The US Military contract calls for weapons to be built using a very specific set of specifications. Everything from specific materials (types of steels, types of fasteners, etc) to specific measurements of parts, to testing/quality control procedures, to type/thickness of finishes on parts is laid out to indicate what the weapon is expected to be. FN, has been allowed access to this set of specs for the specific purpose of fulfilling government orders, but is forbidden from using the specs for making a commercial profit. This means that they can (and do) build military grade weapons for the military, but the rifles they sell to the civilian market must not be built using the government specs. How much different are their civilian rifles than their military ones? Who knows? One thing is certain though... They must differ enough to prevent being sued by Colt. This might be as simple as using a different finish, but I'd suspect the differences would have to be quite a bit more significant than that to prevent a successful lawsuit. More like different types of steel being used for barrels/bolts, that sort of thing. At any rate none of this makes the FN a bad rifle in any way. It is just to say that the civilian FN rifle cannot legally be built to the same specs as their military rifle, even after exempting such features as the longer barrel/lack of select fire capability. The only company that can sell a rifle to the public which is built using the same specs as the rifles they build/built for the military is Colt. Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope this isn't a dumb question but what would be different?.... When I bought my rifle I was told it was the same rifle they make for the military with the exception of the select fire. The barrel and the BCG are supposed to be exact. ....just a newbie relaying what I was told The US Military contract calls for weapons to be built using a very specific set of specifications. Everything from specific materials (types of steels, types of fasteners, etc) to specific measurements of parts, to testing/quality control procedures, to type/thickness of finishes on parts is laid out to indicate what the weapon is expected to be. FN, has been allowed access to this set of specs for the specific purpose of fulfilling government orders, but is forbidden from using the specs for making a commercial profit. This means that they can (and do) build military grade weapons for the military, but the rifles they sell to the civilian market must not be built using the government specs. How much different are their civilian rifles than their military ones? Who knows? One thing is certain though... They must differ enough to prevent being sued by Colt. This might be as simple as using a different finish, but I'd suspect the differences would have to be quite a bit more significant than that to prevent a successful lawsuit. More like different types of steel being used for barrels/bolts, that sort of thing. At any rate none of this makes the FN a bad rifle in any way. It is just to say that the civilian FN rifle cannot legally be built to the same specs as their military rifle, even after exempting such features as the longer barrel/lack of select fire capability. The only company that can sell a rifle to the public which is built using the same specs as the rifles they build/built for the military is Colt. You bring up a question that came to my mind...not being fully versed on Colt/AR history or any patents thereof. You mention "lawsuit". For the time element involved with the AR rifle history, how many and what kind of patents are still in effect? How do the many companies and small outfits who are making milspec components and/or complete firearms get around any patent infringements? I'm asking...not making any statement from knowledge. |
| Most of them aren't actually making "mil-spec" components. In this day and age it's become more of a buzzword used to sell rifles and components. Now, it has been said that there are a few companies out there that have seen/have a copy of the TDP and manufacture their rifles accordingly, but trying to prove that is likely all but impossible. |
|
Quoted:
The US Military contract calls for weapons to be built using a very specific set of specifications. Everything from specific materials (types of steels, types of fasteners, etc) to specific measurements of parts, to testing/quality control procedures, to type/thickness of finishes on parts is laid out to indicate what the weapon is expected to be. FN, has been allowed access to this set of specs for the specific purpose of fulfilling government orders, but is forbidden from using the specs for making a commercial profit. This means that they can (and do) build military grade weapons for the military, but the rifles they sell to the civilian market must not be built using the government specs. How much different are their civilian rifles than their military ones? Who knows? One thing is certain though... They must differ enough to prevent being sued by Colt. This might be as simple as using a different finish, but I'd suspect the differences would have to be quite a bit more significant than that to prevent a successful lawsuit. More like different types of steel being used for barrels/bolts, that sort of thing. At any rate none of this makes the FN a bad rifle in any way. It is just to say that the civilian FN rifle cannot legally be built to the same specs as their military rifle, even after exempting such features as the longer barrel/lack of select fire capability. The only company that can sell a rifle to the public which is built using the same specs as the rifles they build/built for the military is Colt. Thankyou for the explanation. Just plain curiosity makes me wonder what they did, but all in all Im happy with what I have. FN as far as I know has a fine reputation and this rifle should serve me well for years to come. Thanks again Rich |
|
Quoted:
They all say FN MFG INC/LLC South Carolina on the A4 and M4A1 lowers, the FN-15 says Virginia? If I'm missing something please shed some light, the two entities are now joined, but the civi versions are made in Virginia, how does that make them produced on the same line in South Carolina that makes the military versions? William The civi versions are not made in Virginia. All the pistols and FN rifles are made in the same factory as the .mil products in SC. FNH USA in Va. is the sales and marketing. From the link that I posted: "FN America, LLC will unite the sales and marketing efforts of FNH USA, established in 1998 in McLean, VA, with the precision manufacturing capabilities of the Columbia, SC-based FN Manufacturing, a global leader in the development and manufacturing of high-quality, reliable firearms for the military, law enforcement and commercial markets, including the M240, M249, M4 and M16 rifles, the FNP™, FNX and FNS™ pistol lines, and the FN 15™ series of modern sporting rifles. |
|
Quoted:
The civi versions are not made in Virginia. All the pistols and FN rifles are made in the same factory as the .mil products in SC. FNH USA in Va. is the sales and marketing. From the link that I posted: "FN America, LLC will unite the sales and marketing efforts of FNH USA, established in 1998 in McLean, VA, with the precision manufacturing capabilities of the Columbia, SC-based FN Manufacturing, a global leader in the development and manufacturing of high-quality, reliable firearms for the military, law enforcement and commercial markets, including the M240, M249, M4 and M16 rifles, the FNP™, FNX and FNS™ pistol lines, and the FN 15™ series of modern sporting rifles. Quoted:
Quoted:
They all say FN MFG INC/LLC South Carolina on the A4 and M4A1 lowers, the FN-15 says Virginia? If I'm missing something please shed some light, the two entities are now joined, but the civi versions are made in Virginia, how does that make them produced on the same line in South Carolina that makes the military versions? William The civi versions are not made in Virginia. All the pistols and FN rifles are made in the same factory as the .mil products in SC. FNH USA in Va. is the sales and marketing. From the link that I posted: "FN America, LLC will unite the sales and marketing efforts of FNH USA, established in 1998 in McLean, VA, with the precision manufacturing capabilities of the Columbia, SC-based FN Manufacturing, a global leader in the development and manufacturing of high-quality, reliable firearms for the military, law enforcement and commercial markets, including the M240, M249, M4 and M16 rifles, the FNP™, FNX and FNS™ pistol lines, and the FN 15™ series of modern sporting rifles. Do you mind if I ask, do you work for FN? I read the link but it isn't legal for FN to use the TDP to make their civi weapons, so wouldn't the tooling for the mil weapons be dedicated to that only? It's probably government furnished equipment anyway and therefore would be bound to such contracts, I'm only speculating that but it isn't uncommon. Additionally I've never seen a gun manufacturer before that can stamp whatever state they want on the weapon. Colts are made in CT, and marked as such. It's the same with Knight's Armament who's down the street from me, they aren't marked with anything other than Florida. Is it not ATF req's to marked the city and state where the gun is manufactured? If I'm wrong please correct me so I and others reading this are made aware. Will |
|
Quoted:
Do you mind if I ask, do you work for FN? I read the link but it isn't legal for FN to use the TDP to make their civi weapons, so wouldn't the tooling for the mil weapons be dedicated to that only? It's probably government furnished equipment anyway and therefore would be bound to such contracts, I'm only speculating that but it isn't uncommon. Additionally I've never seen a gun manufacturer before that can stamp whatever state they want on the weapon. Colts are made in CT, and marked as such. It's the same with Knight's Armament who's down the street from me, they aren't marked with anything other than Florida. Is it not ATF req's to marked the city and state where the gun is manufactured? If I'm wrong please correct me so I and others reading this are made aware. Will Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They all say FN MFG INC/LLC South Carolina on the A4 and M4A1 lowers, the FN-15 says Virginia? If I'm missing something please shed some light, the two entities are now joined, but the civi versions are made in Virginia, how does that make them produced on the same line in South Carolina that makes the military versions? William The civi versions are not made in Virginia. All the pistols and FN rifles are made in the same factory as the .mil products in SC. FNH USA in Va. is the sales and marketing. From the link that I posted: "FN America, LLC will unite the sales and marketing efforts of FNH USA, established in 1998 in McLean, VA, with the precision manufacturing capabilities of the Columbia, SC-based FN Manufacturing, a global leader in the development and manufacturing of high-quality, reliable firearms for the military, law enforcement and commercial markets, including the M240, M249, M4 and M16 rifles, the FNP™, FNX and FNS™ pistol lines, and the FN 15™ series of modern sporting rifles. Do you mind if I ask, do you work for FN? I read the link but it isn't legal for FN to use the TDP to make their civi weapons, so wouldn't the tooling for the mil weapons be dedicated to that only? It's probably government furnished equipment anyway and therefore would be bound to such contracts, I'm only speculating that but it isn't uncommon. Additionally I've never seen a gun manufacturer before that can stamp whatever state they want on the weapon. Colts are made in CT, and marked as such. It's the same with Knight's Armament who's down the street from me, they aren't marked with anything other than Florida. Is it not ATF req's to marked the city and state where the gun is manufactured? If I'm wrong please correct me so I and others reading this are made aware. Will Yes I do work there as a weapons assembler.... I have no Idea why they are marked the way they are. I have two pistols (FNP-9M & FNP-45) that are marked Columbia, SC. It may have to do with who it is being made for; commercial FNH-USA get their label and the .mil guns get what's required. . . |
Good to know!! I've (as some others I'm sure) been trying to get a definitive answer. I heard that the newer FN-15's are going to forego the laser engraved logo on the right side, any thing in the grapevine about them taking off MULTI for a proper 5.56 marking...perhaps one for me 
Will |
|
Quoted:
Good to know!! I've (as some others I'm sure) been trying to get a definitive answer. I heard that the newer FN-15's are going to forego the laser engraved logo on the right side, any thing in the grapevine about them taking off MULTI for a proper 5.56 marking...perhaps one for me
Will I'll look tomorrow if I get a chance and see what the markings look like. I know some items have changed. . |
|
Quoted:
Has anyone got one of the new FN-15 rifles (20" bbl)? If so, how do you like it? To answer your question OP (imagine that!), I just purchased the FN-15 Rifle (20" barrel) online yesterday after having examined and fired one in-person over the weekend. Mine should arrive early next week. Messing around with it on the range, I was impressed. Smooth firing, good fit and finish, nice handling and basically everything you'd expect it to be. If you're wanting a 20" A2 style AR, I think it's a nice choice. A few other companies (Colt, Windham, Fulton Armory, etc.) make similar models, and you might want to check those out too. There are a few differences between all these A2-style rifles (e.g., some have 1/7 vs. 1/9 barrels), but I suspect the companies I just named all do a decent enough job with their own A2 interpretations. They're probably worth taking a look at as well. It's a shame that with these threads, people tend to get bogged down in the "This isn't mil-spec enough" argument, and other arguments that - in all likelihood - will have little to no bearing on your use of the rifle. Assuming, that is, you're not purchasing this rifle to stave off hoards of zombies or something. Believe it or not, some of us non-operator types actually just shoot paper and cans, and don't worry too much whether the rifle was manufactured by virgin retired special forces guys on production lines blessed with holy water by Samuel Colt himself. I think there's, like, maybe six of us total on Arfcom? No wonder I can always find paper targets in the store! The point being, this rifle should be perfectly fine for just about any purpose you'll likely find for it. FN didn't just pop up in a garage yesterday, and from what I've read from people who actually own and shoot one of these rifles, they seem to be satisfied with the 20" FN-15. I thoroughly enjoyed my short shooting session Saturday, and look forward to the arrival of my own rifle in a few days. Now, if by some chance you DO anticipate re-enacting Rambo Part III and feel you need the milliest-speciest AR around, then by all means keep looking. Don't settle for a mere commercially-made FN, dear God! First, get involved in some good 20-page threads about the TDP, relay a story or two about how your uncle's cousin owned a non mil-spec rifle and it melted with the first drop of rain, and honestly express your fears of not having a hi-speed/low-drag rifle when it comes time to tie on that bandana you made from a ripped t-shirt. Only THEN will you be blessed with the knowledge of what rifle to buy. And after you buy that nice Operator Rifle™, make sure you spend at least $1,000 on cool accessories, then take some cool photos for your photobucket account while you're waiting for the zombies to knock on your door. And rest easy, knowing you won't have to face those Zombies with a, ppfffft, commercial FN rifle. If you need any help with those zombies, give me a ring. I'll be at the range successfully slaying my paper targets. |
|
Quoted:
Legally they can't use the TDP to make commercial rifles right? Of course not, if they used the TDP they would be producing a military weapon. All, or at least most of the FN hate can be pretty much traced down to one source, and people playing parrot. TDP mean full auto. John Noveske never used TDP, and even when he was working with certainly groups to improve the 10.5, the TDP never mattered. You will find people using the TDP line as the magic answer because they don't know anything else, and they don't know any better. |
|
Quoted: To answer your question OP (imagine that!), I just purchased the FN-15 Rifle (20" barrel) online yesterday after having examined and fired one in-person over the weekend. Mine should arrive early next week. Messing around with it on the range, I was impressed. Smooth firing, good fit and finish, nice handling and basically everything you'd expect it to be. If you're wanting a 20" A2 style AR, I think it's a nice choice. A few other companies (Colt, Windham, Fulton Armory, etc.) make similar models, and you might want to check those out too. There are a few differences between all these A2-style rifles (e.g., some have 1/7 vs. 1/9 barrels), but I suspect the companies I just named all do a decent enough job with their own A2 interpretations. They're probably worth taking a look at as well. It's a shame that with these threads, people tend to get bogged down in the "This isn't mil-spec enough" argument, and other arguments that - in all likelihood - will have little to no bearing on your use of the rifle. Assuming, that is, you're not purchasing this rifle to stave off hoards of zombies or something. Believe it or not, some of us non-operator types actually just shoot paper and cans, and don't worry too much whether the rifle was manufactured by virgin retired special forces guys on production lines blessed with holy water by Samuel Colt himself. I think there's, like, maybe six of us total on Arfcom? No wonder I can always find paper targets in the store! The point being, this rifle should be perfectly fine for just about any purpose you'll likely find for it. FN didn't just pop up in a garage yesterday, and from what I've read from people who actually own and shoot one of these rifles, they seem to be satisfied with the 20" FN-15. I thoroughly enjoyed my short shooting session Saturday, and look forward to the arrival of my own rifle in a few days. Now, if by some chance you DO anticipate re-enacting Rambo Part III and feel you need the milliest-speciest AR around, then by all means keep looking. Don't settle for a mere commercially-made FN, dear God! First, get involved in some good 20-page threads about the TDP, relay a story or two about how your uncle's cousin owned a non mil-spec rifle and it melted with the first drop of rain, and honestly express your fears of not having a hi-speed/low-drag rifle when it comes time to tie on that bandana you made from a ripped t-shirt. Only THEN will you be blessed with the knowledge of what rifle to buy. And after you buy that nice Operator Rifle™, make sure you spend at least $1,000 on cool accessories, then take some cool photos for your photobucket account while you're waiting for the zombies to knock on your door. And rest easy, knowing you won't have to face those Zombies with a, ppfffft, commercial FN rifle. If you need any help with those zombies, give me a ring. I'll be at the range successfully slaying my paper targets. Quoted: Quoted: Has anyone got one of the new FN-15 rifles (20" bbl)? If so, how do you like it? To answer your question OP (imagine that!), I just purchased the FN-15 Rifle (20" barrel) online yesterday after having examined and fired one in-person over the weekend. Mine should arrive early next week. Messing around with it on the range, I was impressed. Smooth firing, good fit and finish, nice handling and basically everything you'd expect it to be. If you're wanting a 20" A2 style AR, I think it's a nice choice. A few other companies (Colt, Windham, Fulton Armory, etc.) make similar models, and you might want to check those out too. There are a few differences between all these A2-style rifles (e.g., some have 1/7 vs. 1/9 barrels), but I suspect the companies I just named all do a decent enough job with their own A2 interpretations. They're probably worth taking a look at as well. It's a shame that with these threads, people tend to get bogged down in the "This isn't mil-spec enough" argument, and other arguments that - in all likelihood - will have little to no bearing on your use of the rifle. Assuming, that is, you're not purchasing this rifle to stave off hoards of zombies or something. Believe it or not, some of us non-operator types actually just shoot paper and cans, and don't worry too much whether the rifle was manufactured by virgin retired special forces guys on production lines blessed with holy water by Samuel Colt himself. I think there's, like, maybe six of us total on Arfcom? No wonder I can always find paper targets in the store! The point being, this rifle should be perfectly fine for just about any purpose you'll likely find for it. FN didn't just pop up in a garage yesterday, and from what I've read from people who actually own and shoot one of these rifles, they seem to be satisfied with the 20" FN-15. I thoroughly enjoyed my short shooting session Saturday, and look forward to the arrival of my own rifle in a few days. Now, if by some chance you DO anticipate re-enacting Rambo Part III and feel you need the milliest-speciest AR around, then by all means keep looking. Don't settle for a mere commercially-made FN, dear God! First, get involved in some good 20-page threads about the TDP, relay a story or two about how your uncle's cousin owned a non mil-spec rifle and it melted with the first drop of rain, and honestly express your fears of not having a hi-speed/low-drag rifle when it comes time to tie on that bandana you made from a ripped t-shirt. Only THEN will you be blessed with the knowledge of what rifle to buy. And after you buy that nice Operator Rifle™, make sure you spend at least $1,000 on cool accessories, then take some cool photos for your photobucket account while you're waiting for the zombies to knock on your door. And rest easy, knowing you won't have to face those Zombies with a, ppfffft, commercial FN rifle. If you need any help with those zombies, give me a ring. I'll be at the range successfully slaying my paper targets. And that is why you'll see people take a pass on buying an FN rifle with an unknown pedigree v a colt whose pedigree is known. Fn is a fine company, I doubt they are turning out crap rifles, but their rifles, as has been discussed, are a different product completely than their military rifles. |
|
Quoted: Of course not, if they used the TDP they would be producing a military weapon. All, or at least most of the FN hate can be pretty much traced down to one source, and people playing parrot. TDP mean full auto. John Noveske never used TDP, and even when he was working with certainly groups to improve the 10.5, the TDP never mattered. You will find people using the TDP line as the magic answer because they don't know anything else, and they don't know any better. Quoted: Quoted: Legally they can't use the TDP to make commercial rifles right? Of course not, if they used the TDP they would be producing a military weapon. All, or at least most of the FN hate can be pretty much traced down to one source, and people playing parrot. TDP mean full auto. John Noveske never used TDP, and even when he was working with certainly groups to improve the 10.5, the TDP never mattered. You will find people using the TDP line as the magic answer because they don't know anything else, and they don't know any better. The old dodge of "it's not full auto so it's not mil spec" is ridiculous. We all know we are talking about testing of bolts, barrel steel and so on. |
|
Quoted:
The old dodge of "it's not full auto so it's not mil spec" is ridiculous. We all know we are talking about testing of bolts, barrel steel and so on. No, what is ridiculous is the people spewing trash they have no understanding or knowledge base of. If you can't understand the context of my post, I'll simply bow out of this thread. Noise behind the cage, nothing more. |
|
Quoted:
The last fn 15 i handled was made in virginia. If they are made in south carolina now I may have to pick one up. The roll mark is for FNH-USA in Virginia but the rifle is made in Columbia. http://www.recoilweb.com/preview-fn-15-36445.html "FN has been making variants of an AR-15 in its South Carolina factory since 1989, which was originally set up in order to fulfill Uncle Sam’s 1976 order for the M240 machine gun.......the FN 15 will be produced in parts of the FN Manufacturing plant which are separate from the military model" . |
|
Quoted: No, what is ridiculous is the people spewing trash they have no understanding or knowledge base of. If you can't understand the context of my post, I'll simply bow out of this thread. Noise behind the cage, nothing more. Quoted: Quoted: The old dodge of "it's not full auto so it's not mil spec" is ridiculous. We all know we are talking about testing of bolts, barrel steel and so on. No, what is ridiculous is the people spewing trash they have no understanding or knowledge base of. If you can't understand the context of my post, I'll simply bow out of this thread. Noise behind the cage, nothing more. |
AR Sponsor