Quoted:
My first AR was a bushmaster “Izzy” Carbine bought in 07. It’s been to several classes and run pretty hard over it’s life. It’s still in its original configuration and serves as my KISS rifle. I have zero complaints with mine. It’s still one of my favorites to shoot.

Quoted:
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the purple anodized finish from way back then.

Quoted:
A shooting friend of mine has a Bushmaster he bought from me around 2005.  I remember having fired the rifle VERY LITTLE before selling it to him, and know it was bought new late in 2004 because it was right after the AWB sunset (had a threaded muzzle).  It has been his "primary" rifle since he bought it from me.  I'm guessing it has 6,000 to 7,000 rounds through it at this point.

Parts that have not been replaced:

Lower Receiver (all original detents and small springs, original bolt catch, original take-down pins)
End Plate
Upper Receiver
Barrel
Bolt Carrier and Cam Pin

Parts that have been replaced due to problems or failure:  Can you be specific? I find it hard to believe all of those parts failed.

FCG
Bolt
Firing Pin and Retainer
Front Sight Base (we had to use a screw on type since teh barrel was drilled from the factory FSB)
Receiver Extension and Castle Nut
Buffer and Spring
Magazine Release
Furniture
Gas Tube

Quoted:
At what point in it's production history did Bushmaster acquire a negative reputation for quality? Was it post-2010?

Quoted:
I have a 10 or 12 year old Bushmaster. I have no problem with it. No FTF.

Quoted:
Evidence or anecdotes for bad quality on new Bushmasters?

Quoted:

My first AR was a bushmaster “Izzy” Carbine bought in 07. It’s been to several classes and run pretty hard over it’s life. It’s still in its original configuration and serves as my KISS rifle. I have zero complaints with mine. It’s still one of my favorites to shoot.

Quoted:
Personally, I love my Bushmaster lowers.
They give up absolutely nothing to my KAC, Colt, or LMT lowers.
My only other lower is a RRA "U.S. Property" marked lower.

Quoted:

I recall they released a batch with canted FSB that really got them their bad image.  

  United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.
COLT DEFENSE LLC, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS, INC., Defendant, Appellee.
No. 06-1696.

Decided: May 18, 2007
Before LYNCH, Circuit Judge, SELYA, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOWARD, Circuit Judge.Michael A. Bucci, with whom Alexandra C. Fennell and Day, Berry & Howard LLP were on brief for, appellant. Jeffrey M. White, with whom Robert H. Stier, Jr., Gavin G. McCarthy, and Pierce Atwood LLP were on brief, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of a trademark dispute between Colt Defense LLC (Colt) and Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. (Bushmaster) over Bushmaster's use of the term “M4” in conjunction with its sale of certain firearms.   The district court concluded that the term was generic and not entitled to trademark protection.   We affirm.
I.
In 1959, Colt purchased the right to develop the Armalite Rifle model 15 (AR-15), a small-caliber, gas-operated carbine rifle initially developed at the Armalite Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation.   Colt sold a variant of the AR-15 to the United States military, which eventually designated it as the M16.1
In the early 1980s, the military determined that it needed a more compact version of the M16. Colt originally designed the prototype for this new weapon under a 1985 contract with the military in which Colt agreed to build and test forty “XM4 Carbines.”?2  In 1990, the military entered into an agreement with Bushmaster to provide sixty-five carbines “having all the physical and technical characteristics of the M4 Carbine.”
In 1994, the military designated the new compact version of the M16 carbine as the M4. This was the latest in a series of carbine designations beginning with the M1 in 1940.   The M4 characteristics were derived from the XM4 prototype designed by Colt. The M4 is a lightweight, gas-operated, air-cooled, magazine-fed, selective-rate-of-fire carbine with a collapsible stock.   It shares about eighty percent commonality with the M16.
An intellectual property dispute arose between Colt and the military in the mid 1990's.   Colt claimed that the military had breached a licensing agreement concerning the technology for the M16 by disclosing proprietary information to third parties.   As part of the settlement of this dispute, the military and Colt executed the 1997 “M4 Carbine Addendum to Technical Data Sales and Patent License Agreement” (Addendum).   The Addendum recognized Colt's right to the proprietary information incorporated in the M4 carbine design and defined the term “M4 Carbine” to mean “the compact carbine designed by Colt, 5.56mm, having a 14.5” barrel, with a telescoping buttstock, that is capable of firing in the semi-automatic and or three round bursts, defined in “U.S. Government specification MIL-C-70559·” The design set forth in MIL-C-70559 was deemed proprietary to Colt and, as part of the Addendum, the military designated Colt as its sole supplier of M4s until 2011.
Outside of the military context, Colt and Bushmaster have long competed in the sale of carbines.   Bushmaster is the leading producer of carbines for the United States commercial and law-enforcement markets, while Colt is the leading supplier to the U.S. military but also sells to foreign governments, law enforcement agencies, and the public.
Colt and Bushmaster each use the term “M4” in marketing versions of their carbines.   Bushmaster began using M4 in its advertising in 1991 and has since done so continuously.   In 1997, Bushmaster began to refer to the “M4 type” weapon in its advertising “to avoid possible confusion.”?3  Colt has also used M4 continuously in its advertising since at least 1992 and registered M4 on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office in 2001.   Other carbine manufacturers, including Heckler & Koch, Inc., also use M4 in their advertising.
In 2004, Colt filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch for, inter alia, infringing on its M4 mark in violation of the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.   Bushmaster, a Maine-based company, successfully moved to have the claims against it severed and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine.   Bushmaster counterclaimed for the cancellation of Colt's registration of the M4 mark.   See id. § 1064.
Heckler & Koch settled with Colt. In the settlement agreement, Heckler & Koch was not required to pay Colt any money but acknowledged “that Colt owns the M4 trademark and agrees that Colt's M4 trademark is a valid and enforceable trademark that should not be cancelled on the grounds of genericness.”
Bushmaster did not settle and, in due course, moved for summary judgment on Colt's infringement claim and its own cancellation counterclaim.   The motion was assigned to a magistrate judge, who recommended granting Bushmaster's motion.   The magistrate judge concluded that the undisputed evidence established that M4 was a generic term for a class of carbines and therefore could not be trademarked by Colt. Colt objected, but the district court adopted the recommendation without opinion.   Colt appealed.  

Quoted:
Is there a serial number cutoff that denotes a Windham Bushie from the NY Bushies?

Quoted:

Now its coming back to me.. the magic number was 65 carbines ordered from Bushmaster by DoD in 1990. Keep in mind, the TDP was US Gov owned. not Colt owned. And they gave it to Bushmaster for awhile...

Colt found out and off to court everybody went.
Colt felt they had proprietary rights as they had M4 Feed ramps and the correct height FSB. Where Bushmaster was using there standard FSB on Carbines, which is why you always needed a taller front sight (Which they sold)

Those 65 carbines were just enough to let Bushmasters Sales and Marketing guys go to town telling everyone they produced M4 type carbines for the US military...which like all sales and marketing...was a stretch of the truth.

The never supplied another one after that...………

Colt vs.Bushmaster

Quoted:

Good find. 1990 was the start of Desert Storm, was t it? So I think my story might be right but I don’t know I’m still very skeptical of any military usage of Bushmaster. It be pretty cool.

Quoted:

1/7 has been always available as an option.
while I want my AR to be as close to the .mil issued ones the only 1/9 Colt I have is far mor accurate than my 1/7... so from a commercial stand point it makes perfectly sense to offer 1/9 as standard on the civilian market where 99% of the shooter are feeding their guns with 55 FMJ ammo.

Quoted:

At one time BATF sent a notice to all FFL holders listing M-16 parts that if they were installed in an AR-15 it would be considered intent. The M-16 carrier was one of the parts listed.

They later rescinded that part from the list.

Quoted:
The only verifiable evidence of the United States Government purchasing Bushmasters is for assistance towards Georgia in the mid-2000s. Everything else is hearsay. Bushmaster has been used for Czech SOF as well.  Georgia still has Bushmasters in circulation.

Edit for Clarification: I believe it wasn't necessarily the US Government providing the Bushmasters for the Georgian military, but via foreign assistance program.  "Here's money now buy something American made".

Quoted:
I think I've posted this a couple times here, but my first AR was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S that I purchased right after the AWB sunset, I think in Dec '04 or Jan '05. It was from the first batch of non-ban Bushmasters that the local shop received. As others stated, back then, if you couldn't find a Colt, people would tell you to buy a Bushmaster. And half of those people would say that Colt was overrated and overpriced. Colt seemed to be out of stock everywhere, and I recall them being $1,000+ if you could find one, but my Bushmaster wasn't much cheaper. Back then, I recall that the big thing that everyone talked about was whether or not an AR's rifle was chrome-lined. Everything was judged against "The List," and Bushmaster had some shortcomings when compared to that standard (mainly staking and batch testing, as others mentioned). However, their rifles were considered superior to Olympic Arms, Rock River, and DPMS - basically the next best thing after Colt.

Having been around Army M4s and M16s for a while, I was pretty disappointed in the Bushmaster. It just felt cheap compared to a military rifle. It had a plastic GI-style trigger guard, and it sounded and felt like it had sand inside the buffer tube when you pulled the charging handle back. The castle nut wasn't staked, and the selector felt mushy. I had actually borrowed an instructor's Bushmaster at the first class that I took a couple months before buying my own rifle, and his castle nut came loose during the class, causing the buttstock to rotate as I was shooting. I kept having to manually tighten the nut after every few drills that we ran. Probably the two technical things that bothered me the most about the rifle were the semi-auto bolt carrier, and the questionable specs of the "5.56 mm" chamber (which many people, including Pat Rogers, said you shouldn't trust for anything other than .223 without reaming it). I replaced the commercial stock with an (expensive) LMT SOPMOD assembly but recently took it off to use for another project.

I still have my Bushmaster, although I've considered selling it a few times. I only put about 750 rounds through it before I put it away and didn't pick up ARs again until I bought a BCM in 2013. I knew I wouldn't get much for it if I sold it, but I also didn't have any interest in doing anything with it. A few months ago, I decided to tinker with it a bit, so I replaced the RE assembly, grip, trigger guard, and FCG with BCM parts, and added a Colt selector. I have to decide what to do about the upper. I'm not a fan of the M4 government profile barrel with its rough phosphate finish, but I may try to find someone to ream the chamber and then just shoot it for fun. One last note: the upper has an odd "shadow" in the anodizing on the left side that seems to match the pattern of the rail on the top of the upper. Not sure how that happened, but you can see it below above the bolt release. It's only cosmetic, but I didn't notice it until a few days after I got it home, so it kind of bugged me. I wouldn't buy another Bushmaster - too many other high quality options out there - but I'll probably hang on to this rifle. I'll upgrade the BCG, maybe eventually swap out the barrel for a lighter profile mid-length, and experiment with building a lightweight setup for my family to practice with.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/Bushmaster_XM15-E2S_jpg-759256.JPG

Quoted:
Thanks a lot for clarifying that old mystery for me! It never occurred to me that they might be assembling their uppers that way. It may have been that they were so slammed with pushing rifles out the door after the AWB sunset that they opened up additional assembly stations and used non-standard equipment.

Still trying to decide what to do with this rifle. I may swap the original barrel out for an extra BCM M4 profile barrel to get around the whole .223 vs. 5.56 chamber issue.

Quoted:
The only verifiable evidence of the United States Government purchasing Bushmasters is for assistance towards Georgia in the mid-2000s. Everything else is hearsay. Bushmaster has been used for Czech SOF as well.  Georgia still has Bushmasters in circulation.

Edit for Clarification: I believe it wasn't necessarily the US Government providing the Bushmasters for the Georgian military, but via foreign assistance program.  "Here's money now buy something American made".

Quoted:
Just another N=1 anecdote on Bushy: I bought a 25th Anniversary Edition Carbine in 2003 - can't even tell you how many rounds have been through it in 15 years, but it's a lot. No problems. Still have it - It's wearing the Eotech 552 that I used in Iraq. But I just moved her to the safe since I built an AR Pistol. I have no idea where the factory was, or the "rep" of Bushy - at the time that those were produced.

Quoted:
Bushmaster was bought out in 2006, and in short order had its production consolidated to another facility under the Freedom Group umbrella, essentially killing what was known as Bushmaster.

That's the virtual dividing line, anything not wearing the Windham, Maine stamp is considered compromised.

Quoted:
Bushmaster was bought out in 2006, and in short order had its production consolidated to another facility under the Freedom Group umbrella, essentially killing what was known as Bushmaster.

That's the virtual dividing line, anything not wearing the Windham, Maine stamp is considered compromised.

Quoted:
My 2007 xm15e2s has been utterly reliable 7-800rds.  However, I never could understand why they didn't up their game with the commercial buffer tubes and 1-9 barrels, and semi-auto bcg.   I'ts funny it was my first AR I ever bought and I paid over $1200 .   I have done some upgrading, bcm buffer tube, and a psa bcg is next.

Quoted:

Bushmaster was bought out in 2006, and in short order had its production consolidated to another facility under the Freedom Group umbrella, essentially killing what was known as Bushmaster.

That's the virtual dividing line, anything not wearing the Windham, Maine stamp is considered compromised.

Quoted:

No Offense, but your story has too much "Barrack Tales" to it...
Folks forget that the Us Government is more then just the Army... DOT,DOE DOS DEA FBI and on and on and on...

There was not a shortage as the M4 was not on too many units  TO&E in 1990. and this was before Sadamn rolled into Kuwait in Aug of 90.

DOD simply placed an order for 65 M$ type rifles and paid Bushmaster for them. They also, as I recall gave Bushmaster a peak at the TDP which is what angered Colt to lawyer up and head to court, as they felt that a lot of what was in that TDP was tech they helped develop.

Bushmaster never used Mil Spec size Buffer tubes nor the correct FSB height required for the Carbine with a 0-6oom elevation adjustment.

They also did not parkerize under the FSB like Colt either.. and a few other details as well...

The Unit would have been able to get anything they wanted and I'm pretty sure it would not have needed to order 65 M4 Type carbine from Bushmaster due to some "Shortage"

I think the Government was kicking tires and wanted to see if there was any other game in town other then Colt, who had held a Monopoly over the M16s since day one... A monopoly in which FN eventually low ball bid to get some of it away from Colt and then eventually got some M4 business away from Colt as well...
Colt found out... and sued... and for a while.. they won a lot of the judgements... and Bushmaster faded from the pic and focused on what there market share was... the civilian market, except now they could stretch the truth a bit and say we supply Mil Spec to the US Government…. and back in those days, when the internet was new, who could tell , as the TDP was not open source, and most gun shop commando's would dismiss most of the TDP as unnecessary or overkill and proclaim Bushmaster .. "Good Enough" along with Rock River, Model 1 sales, Olympic Arms and a few others...

AR's were a lot more cost back then then they are now, And Colt commanded a premium.

Quoted:
And  a Gieselle trigger I see.... neat.

Quoted:
No, I’ve been meaning to buy a chamber gauge for myself. Haven’t found a gunsmith in Eastern VA yet since moving here, and I’m kind of just interested in tinkering with the rifle, both for practice and to upgrade its components. I have an extra BCM upper that I want to disassembly anyway to remove the rail it came with and install a delta ring and front handguard cap (also extra off another BCM upper). Figured I would use the opportunity to do my first barrel swap, just as a learning experience. But you’re right, I probably shouldn’t put more work into the Bushmaster than necessary, since it will probably just be a beater / loaner rifle for friends and family to use.

Quoted:
Bushmaster was bought out in 2006, and in short order had its production consolidated to another facility under the Freedom Group umbrella, essentially killing what was known as Bushmaster.

That's the virtual dividing line, anything not wearing the Windham, Maine stamp is considered compromised.

Quoted:

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/32677/IMG_6269_jpg-791090.JPG

Quoted:

Couldn't have been a M4 shortage during GW1 as the M4 wasn't type classified until 94'.  In Iraq 05', I had 3 Bushmaster XM15E2 (M4A1) Carbines on my hand receipt.  These were NGO rifles used by NGOs assigned to my S2 section.  14.5" 1:9 twist, flat top, select fire guns.  Have also seen the Ugandan guard guns in Iraq.  Ugandan guards here in Astan use Russian/Chinese AKs and S&W M&P15 Carbines.  As a contractor I used and kept up 72ea Double Star semi auto AR15s in Iraq in 08'.  I'm sure different companies used just about everything they can get their hands on.  Seen this with a contractor in Astan.  Only part on here that is Bushmaster is the lower.  Everything else been replaced with USGI to include Block II 10.3" URG upper. (no, not my gun)
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/32677/IMG_6269_jpg-791090.JPG

CD

Quoted:

OGA or NGO? Not many NGOs sporting blasters.