AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/2/2011 5:50:06 PM EDT
|
http://store.chiappafirearms.com/products/cartridge-firearms/rifles/m4-conversion-kit/m4-conversion-kit.html
anyone play with these at the NRA show? Opinions wanted as I am thinking of doing a plum crazy lower with this? |
| If it were me, I'd spend a few bucks more and can get a CMMG which uses high quality aluminum and steel and not polymer receiver. The CMMG uses an atchisson style bolt which is robust whereas the Chiappa has reported bolt issues from what I've read here in the pistol and rimfire section on AR15.com. For the money CMMG is hard to beat plus has features other dedicated uppers don't offer. |
| I have 2 Chiappa's on Plum Crazy lowers. They make for a nice light weight build. I occasionally have problems with a new round feeding and getting caught between the front of the charging handle and bolt. I have noticed that the problem seems to go away with Winchester Wilcat bullets. Both run very well except for this occassional problem. I have only put about 1000 rounds through both and they seem to be holding up just fine. I got my uppers when they were on sale for $250 each, but if you have to pay more, it may be worth getting a different upper for $350. I do like mine though. |
|
Quoted:
If it were me, I'd spend a few bucks more and can get a CMMG which uses high quality aluminum and steel and not polymer receiver. The CMMG uses an atchisson style bolt which is robust whereas the Chiappa has reported bolt issues from what I've read here in the pistol and rimfire section on AR15.com. For the money CMMG is hard to beat plus has features other dedicated uppers don't offer. CMMG also doesnt anodize their .22lr uppers, they leave them raw and only coat them, so its not like it's some massive step up from polymer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it were me, I'd spend a few bucks more and can get a CMMG which uses high quality aluminum and steel and not polymer receiver. The CMMG uses an atchisson style bolt which is robust whereas the Chiappa has reported bolt issues from what I've read here in the pistol and rimfire section on AR15.com. For the money CMMG is hard to beat plus has features other dedicated uppers don't offer. CMMG also doesnt anodize their .22lr uppers, they leave them raw and only coat them, so its not like it's some massive step up from polymer.  What?
How can it be raw and coated? |
|
CMMG has 2 options they use on their 22 uppers as far as finish. One that's a few dollars more is
the same mil spec finish as you'll get from any other manufacturer on an AR-15 receiver. They also offer a ceramic finish for a few dollars less. It's offered on their less expensive models for those who are cost conscious. I have been testing their Sierra Upper with the ceramic finish for the better part of a year and it's very durable. I have yet to nick the finish and I have handled it pretty roughly. This is all to the best of my understanding, unless things have changed and I'm not aware that they have.. Barrels are finished with this process.http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/1702248/WASPTechSheet.pdf Spec / Dave |
|
Quoted:
http://store.chiappafirearms.com/products/cartridge-firearms/rifles/m4-conversion-kit/m4-conversion-kit.html anyone play with these at the NRA show? Opinions wanted as I am thinking of doing a plum crazy lower with this? I actually put a deposit down on one of these in a weak moment. Local shop had them for $320 complete. But, after picking one up and feeling it I just couldn't go through with it. I know I am spoiled by having several "real" AR's and the Chiappa rifle just didn't seem right to me. For a few dollars more I could have a well built .22 AR that I knew would hold up. I have a Cav Arms light weight lower so I built a light weight .22 AR on that using a CMMG upper. Stone reliable, feels right and total price was not much more than the Chiappa. Personal decision for what was right for me. YMMV |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it were me, I'd spend a few bucks more and can get a CMMG which uses high quality aluminum and steel and not polymer receiver. The CMMG uses an atchisson style bolt which is robust whereas the Chiappa has reported bolt issues from what I've read here in the pistol and rimfire section on AR15.com. For the money CMMG is hard to beat plus has features other dedicated uppers don't offer. CMMG also doesnt anodize their .22lr uppers, they leave them raw and only coat them, so its not like it's some massive step up from polymer. What?
How can it be raw and coated? I probably should have said that they do not anodize them, the only ceramic coat them. Sorry for the confusion of my wording. |
|
I have had a Chiappa upper for over a year now. I have put well over 1000 rds through it and have been pleasantly surpised at how well it has performed. It has given me no trouble and run great.
That said, The CMMG is just so much better built for a small premium over the Chiappa, that I have to recommend going with the CMMG. The plastic upper just gave me the willys. I kept having visions of an OOB kaboom and plastic shrapnel flying everywhere. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED! But, I still couldn't get over the picture in my mind. I have replaced the plastic with a forged aluminum upper housing and the rifle still runs great, & I feel better about the possibility of a catastrophic failure being contained. This is my problem, not the upper's, it has performed very well. I did find that I had to file the notch in the forged upper that indexes the barrel a bit to get the barrel key to fit properly, but it wasn't an onerous task, I just had to go slow and make sure to take off equal amounts of material on both sides. For the difference in price, the CMMG wins, hands down. My .02, YMMV. |
AR Sponsor