User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 9:41:46 AM EDT
[#1]
I am a big Bushmaster fan.
However, if you're ordering a LEO rifle then I'd go with the Colt. Especially if you're buying an LEO M4 (they will have the chrome lined bores). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 10:00:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Ditto what Forest said above.
Bushmaster and thier customer service is very good, but sometimes they aren't very good at getting things done right at the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 11:59:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Colt also has the 16", 1/7" twist barrels in lightwieght and M4 contours, which Bushmaster does not have. Oh, for a 16" lightwieght postban 1/7" carbine.....
Almost all of my objections to Colts do not apply to the LE rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 1:19:43 PM EDT
[#4]
I am also a LEO and I've checked out numerous LEO only carbines made in different configurations by both Colt and Bushmaster.
I own (6) ARs, (4) of them are Bushmasters, (1) is a Colt preban. For a patrol rifle or a SWAT carbine I would highly recommend the COLT M4 over any of the Bushmaster configurations. The thing I don't like about the lightweight Colt carbine is that it has a 1/7" twist in the barrel where the M4 has the 1/9". The quality of the Colt has an advantage over the Bushmaster in their LEO rifles, plus with the Colt you get the original M4 handguards, side sling attachment, collapseable buttstock, etc. Just my .02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 1:47:47 PM EDT
[#5]
For LEO and/or military Colt is the only way to go.
Good. They cater to that type of customer. Bad. Ummmm? Can't think of one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 1:48:52 PM EDT
[#6]
I have a Colt preban, and like the weapon, nut the new Colts dont have the chrome lined barrel... Thanks in advance!!!! Correction- The Colt Match Target M4 (model MT6400C) does have a chrome lined barrel. My 2 cents worth. --RR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 1:50:09 PM EDT
[#7]
For your purposes Colt. All my uppers are Colt and I will not run anything else. Go with the 16 inch light weight barrel in 1/7. 1/7 is becoming the ticket with the introduction of heavier bullets. The heavier TAP ammo likes 1/7 over 1/9. Go light weight. Most of my guys are changing over after having to sit on a perimiter or on a vehicle stop holding up a heavy barrel. I took it so far as to go with 14.5 inch light weight barrels on both of my pre-bans. My partner and I are waiting right now for 16 inch light weight barrels, SF M500's and Reflex sights for our AR's. Our started life out as 20 inch HBARS, not anymore.
If the twist rate is an issue SAW has Colt 16 inch light wieght barrels in stock that are chrome lined in 1/7, 1/9, and even 1/10. [url]http://www.sawlesales.com/[/url] Here are some picks of my light weights. [url]http://community.webshots.com/photo/29311300/81073672YRSxBN[/url] [url]http://community.webshots.com/photo/29311300/80908974dUQFJf[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 5:44:14 PM EDT
[#8]
COLT is the original and all the others are reversed engineered copies, that's a fact.
Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 10:47:18 AM EDT
[#9]
Luckystiff: where did you get LW 1/7 14.5" barrels?
USMC03: According to Sawlesales.com, the AR6320-7 has a 1/7 twist, LW barrel; the AR6320-9 has a 1/9 twist, LW barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 12:03:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Everyone has made some great analysis of the firearms, and I believe that they are roughly equal quality. I think if you are getting a preban get a colt, if you are going postban get a bushmaster, other than that there is just the price difference.
Something else that you may want to consider is the dollar votes you are making in the politics of each company, too. Bushmaster has been under some severe scrutiny following the DC sniper fiasco, and they are strong supporters of gun rights, ownership, and make an active stand against anti-firearm legislation. Colt, on the otherhand, seems to neglect the rights of its civilian owners, given their large government contracts. As far as I have found they return none of their profits to the effort to ensure our freedom to own, or right bear arms. So, as you select a rifle, consider how you are spending your money, in more ways than value and quality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 12:41:16 PM EDT
[#11]
blikbok: I found one at the Reno Gun Show about two years ago. The other is a cut down 16 inch Colt barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 2:36:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: COLT is the original and all the others are reversed engineered copies, that's a fact. Good shootin, Jack I second that. Bushmaster wants you to think their rifle is in the hands of the military. It is not. A few large agencies scrapped their bushmasters, and went back to Colt. The bushmasters that are still with their agencies have all Colt parts in them. I have the Colt AR-15A3. Had it for 8 years hard duty use. It has not let me down yet. Buy a Colt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 4:29:49 AM EDT
[#13]
Colt 1st choice, Bushmaster 2nd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 5:53:44 AM EDT
[#14]
I have owned Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS and RND based rifles.
The RND is in a class of it own since it is machined from a solid billet, not a forging. Colt, Bushmaster and DPMS all make quality machines. Colt lowers use a large pin, the rest of the world uses the milspec small pin. The real issue with any factory production complete rifle will be the trigger which are horrible and the barrels which tend to have long throats and can be out of round. Depends what your operating parameters will be. For example, I have one AR15 which is designed for extreme accuracy at 100-200 yards. Another rifle is designed for competition accuracy out to 600 yards. What makes a difference is the chamber and barrel twist. 1/12 for the short range, and 1/7.7 for the long range. The short range rifle is designed for use of 52 grain and 55 grain production ammo. Overall, Colt is an old established brand. However, DPMS and Bushmaster have been around awhile and are considered the best non-colt offering. While I have not used one, Rock River Arms seems to be up and coming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 6:41:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Don't loose sight of originial post:
sblackhawk said: "I am a police officer and am going to be ordering a LEO Ar15 real soon." We're comparing Colts LEO rifles to Bushmaster's LEO rifles, not pre/post ban commercial models. I would get a Colt LEO rifle only because they have the options I want in the 16" 1/7 twist barrel and they are almost a different product than their commerical line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 7:27:57 AM EDT
[#16]
The thing I don't like about the lightweight Colt carbine is that it has a 1/7" twist in the barrel where the M4 has the 1/9".
Not a big issue unless you want to use 77grain sierra's. [b]The only difference between BM and Colt LEO rifles is that the BM has a 1/9 twist (UNLESS REQUESTED 1/7) and the BM has the RRA style telestock with NON-COLT style tube.[/b] IF price was equal I would go with Colt just because I like the rampant Colt and colt stock. But if Colt wants more than $160 more I would buy the BM and change the stock. [b]Fact is that Colt barrels are not as accurate as Bushmaster barrels (granted it is like a 1/2-1MOA difference but it is true) [/b] my biggest problem with Colt is that both Bushmaster and Colt provide a mil-spec rifle and Colt wants a lot more money for theirs However this may not apply to Colt LEO. Bushmaster has chrome lined bores (If Colt doesn't they are screwing you- a duty gun that might see a lot of rounds or might need to be used dirty should have a chrome lined bore) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 2:44:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: COLT is the original and all the others are reversed engineered copies, that's a fact. Good shootin, Jack Armalite/Fairchild are the originals. Colt, first in line to buy the licensing. GG |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 8:06:34 PM EDT
[#18]
The RND is in a class of it own since it is machined from a solid billet, not a forging. No offense or intent to insult you my friend, but a forging is much stronger than a wrought billet. Forging is a process in which the material is hammered to create a compressed and more dense (stronger) molecular structure. A wrought billet in 6061 or 7075 is simply compressed through rollers as it solidifies. tougher than a casting? yes..... tougher than a forging? no -RR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 9:37:44 PM EDT
[#19]
GO WITH THE COLT!!! A couple of years ago I had a verry expensive Bushmaster upper built for me by Bushmaster. This upper had the fluted barrel and all the goodies. Had a problem, with point of impact being too far out for the sights (sights wouldn't adjust that far out). Sold the upper to a friend who thought he could fix it.
WILL NEVER DO BUSINESS WITH BUSHMASTER AGAIN!!! Customer service on this was crap also! Went tith a Colt M-4 upper and couldn't be happier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 9:57:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Originally Posted By Gun Guru: Quoted: COLT is the original and all the others are reversed engineered copies, that's a fact. Good shootin, Jack Armalite/Fairchild are the originals. Colt, first in line to buy the licensing. GG BINGO - GG has it right. 3rdtk, ArmaLite invented the AR-15/M-16 and Colt is simply a continuing copy of the ArmaLite original. Nothing more, nothing less. To be even more precise, the two ArmaLite employees who designed the AR-15/M-16 were Jim Sullivan (Jim also designed the Ruger Mini-14 and the Ruger Model 77) and Bob Fremont. [b]The 'AR' in AR-15 still stands for ARmalite !![/b] 5sub |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2003 11:14:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Go with Bushmaster. Bushmaster is the only manufacture of AR15's that are completely compliant with military specs. Surprisingly, Colt AR15's are the least within mil spec. Check out [url]http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/theseriousar.msnw[/url]
Also, try to get ANY customer service from COLT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2003 4:07:40 AM EDT
[#22]
spacemenow, he's looking at the [B]LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY[/B] rifles, which are military rifles that are semi-auto only.
Go with the Colt. Bushmaster touts "mil-spec" but show me one US military unit using Bushmasters. I have also, having sold these things for the last 16 years, seen more out of the box problems with Bushies than the other two "major brands". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2003 4:55:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Go with Bushmaster. Bushmaster is the only manufacture of AR15's that are completely compliant with military specs. Surprisingly, Colt AR15's are the least within mil spec. Also, try to get ANY customer service from COLT. Unless it's full auto, none of them are "completely mil spec". Semantics, sure. I'd prefer my Colt to have standard hammer/trigger pins, but it's Colt. People will make the parts for it, and there won't be availability problems. I've also had good luck with Colt regarding warranty issues. I like the Colt M4, the 1/7" is fine with me and shoots great with TAP 77gr and Black Hills 69gr. Haven't had a chance to really push it with my new Comp ACOG, but soon hopefully. Colt's inspection process for LEO rifles is a little more than for Commercial rifles, but both are far and away better than just about any of the other AR makers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2003 6:21:06 PM EDT
[#24]
5sub
You are correct up to a point. When I and others say Colt was first, It was Colt that turned the invention from something for the varment shooter in 222, to a completly new redesign from head to toe for use by soldiers. The parts are not anywhere near interchangeable, and the military bought the Colt redesign with all the spec's it had, and follow on upgrades. Foward assist, xm177, collapsable stock, flash hider, new bolt and carrier design, trap door butt plate, semi and full auto ability, buffer systems, the list is endless and they were done by Colt, not first anyone else. Just historical/documented facts. Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2003 6:42:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Go with Bushmaster. Bushmaster is the only manufacture of AR15's that are completely compliant with military specs. Surprisingly, Colt AR15's are the least within mil spec. Check out [url]http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/theseriousar.msnw[/url] Also, try to get ANY customer service from COLT. Let's not put out false information here: Neither the Colt or the Bushmaster are "completely compliant with military specs". Your statement is absolutely false. I'll throw out a couple of points: Bushmaster does not use the mil-spec buffer tube on their carbines. Bushmaster uses 1/9 twist unless you special order a 1/7 twist...1/7 is mil-spec. Bushmaster does not use H buffers on their carbines. I know we are nit-picking here but anytime a "completely compliant" statement is made like this it only gives out the wrong information. If you want a "completely complaint" sign on this dotted line.........[:D] With all that said, the LEO Colts will have a chrome-lined barrel but they'll still have the oversized fire control pins. I'd probably go with Bushmaster if the wait isn't too bad. It's up to 10 weeks for my upper but I'm going to wait it out! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2003 2:39:35 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: 5sub You are correct up to a point. When I and others say Colt was first, It was Colt that turned the invention from something for the varment shooter in 222, to a completly new redesign from head to toe for use by soldiers. The parts are not anywhere near interchangeable, and the military bought the Colt redesign with all the spec's it had, and follow on upgrades. Foward assist, xm177, collapsable stock, flash hider, new bolt and carrier design, trap door butt plate, semi and full auto ability, buffer systems, the list is endless and they were done by Colt, not first anyone else. Just historical/documented facts. Good shootin, Jack Well, that is true to a certain extent. Wasn't the AR15 already chambered for .223 when Colt bought the rightrs? I beleieve it was and the initial batch of AR15s used for the evaluation was identical to the final product Armalite would have made if Colt hadn't bought the rights. It was the Army's research and input that sort of forced Colt to make changes. I'm sure Colt would have liked the AR to be adopted as is to save time and money. Colt was more aggressive with the selling of the AR and persistent in wanting the military to take a serious look at it. I will give them that. But as far as changes to the rifle to make it more able to withstand filed conditions, Armalite would have had to and been just as willing to implement those changes if the DOD had adopted the AR when Armalite owned the design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2003 6:38:14 AM EDT
[#27]
More than to an extent, you just observed and said what I said. COLT did the work that made it into what the military adopted. In fact Colt are the ones that got the R&D money and spent the resources to get it right and spent millions on designing and setting up the production line. The heavy marketing came latter. The .222 was almost the .223, (close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades)but COLT did the work of conversion and hence the adoption of .223/.556. FNMI have a LIC. and gov't prints.
The other companies reversed engineered, years later. Good Shootin, Jack |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
