I want to make and maintain an up to date version, along with a .308 version.

Would anyone like to help me on this project?

The parkerized under the fsb chart ?

one of the many details on that chart yes.

tag

the guy who made it took it down and was subsequently banned on TOS for something else. chances are slim that someone has it saved, but i'm hopeful for it.

I thought the chart was banned here?

Here you go.

why would an imagine of technical data be banned?

The definitive answer.

ITAR?

Perfect, absolutely perfect!

First post wants corrosion under his FSB.

Nailed it. My first AR was a Bushy XM-15E2S

Then moved on to Larue and Aero Precision receivers for the win

Because it was never fully correct, and not every rifle by the manufacturer was the same for every run
Details change and it creates more disinformation than is was helpful.

Came to post this

Damn, that's an EXPENSIVE chart to follow.

Chart sucks, no 12.5"

well then i'll start from scratch, should a detail be made about stripped lowers?

Here is/was the original:  M4 Chart

Its your funeral pal. When Different War erupts you'll regret not having a CWAR. Geesemen and Nazis don't fuck around.

This exactly.  The chart was never actually right and was treated as fact.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

A.W.D.

fify

Just don't go around saying yours is "as good as."

Ahh the chart. Good times.

Was that the Tier chart?  What's so bad about listing specs of a gun by manufacturer?  Sounds like it would be helpful to noobs.

n/m asked and answered.  well, so what if things change?  the chart can have an "as of" date, right?

The chart assumes an entire company is represented by the specs of a single gun.  Not every company is a one-trick pony.

Actually I was more alluding to the fact that it was associated with m4c and that dude Grant(?).  Am I going to get banned now?

I think it's a terrible idea.

With all the options today it could be a full time job maintaining the chart in any sort of up to date fashion. The chart was from an era when there were less than 10 manufacturer's all producing pretty much the same type of carbine...M4 style. That's over.

Then you've got to deal with new technologies...how do you rank nitride vs chrome lining for instance? Are you still going to be worried about F marked front sight bases (and phosphating) when there are great rifles that are SS with free floated handguards?

Let's be honest, most budget builds are Mil-Spec(ish) at this point and the BEST guns are NOT. We've come full circle where the finest guns use non Mil-Spec coatings and production techniques. A chart would be pretty meaningless.

Then there's the legal ramifications for the OP when he gets something wrong. In the past few years we've seen companies try to take folks to court over bad online reviews. Imagine what would happen if he actually puts out false information or doesn't keep up with current changes.

You have people on here that post misinformation that its a wonder they havent died from self weaponized dumb. i dont see how you'd get sued for a jpeg with the manufacturers spec, as listed from their spec. as "incorect"

I will never understood the worship of The Chart(TM)

its a chart. Not a religion.

I agree with this; everything except the whole legal thing anyway.

The chart became irrelevant years ago.

Do it.


Fanbois of all flavors absolutely melt down when their choices are questioned!  And the impersonal method of a 'chart' drives them bonkers.









 

So, according to the chart, this is worse than this.

Do you agree?

I do not. which is why i want to make a new chart, the is more representative of the current market.

And i wanted input from more members. it needs to be collaborative. not just a single person.

If you feel its a bad idea, contribute anyway to make it "less' bad.


NEW project. not a continuation of the old.

Two reasons:

The perception that the military version is the best, and anything commercial is junk (which was certainly true in most cases at the time, it may be debatable now, but many still hold this beloef), or that they want a rifle that is battle proven to the extent that they can.

Collectors who MUST have everything correct when building a clone or as close as is possible.

That last one was me and you can see some of the responses I was getting already in this thread when I asked for help, I am still cyber stalked by it.  People got straight up pissy when I dared say I didn't want their personal product of choice or disagreed with them when they said that the commercial version was "good enough" and I should just buy it even though it was not what I was looking for.  They especially hated it when I suggested that brand didn't matter if specs were identical (to me brand means markings (and not all parts are marked) and that was already going to be wrong do to not having the same markings as the military version so I judged brand to be irrelevant to my purposes).  In the end I used mostly Colt parts (all except for the lower, LPK, buffer tube, buffer, and Bolt Carrier Group as I recall) because I was unable to find a cheaper alternative with identical specifications but they still were not happy because I dared to not just buy a 6920 outright enen though the 6920 as configured was NOT what I wanted (the barrel is too long and Colt mills off the selector stops which in addition to beijg wrong and silly just looks horrible to me).

You may not understand it but some really do just want to get as correct as they can, the reaction to that on here is just shocking.

I used the chart, but only as a list of features that I had to have as none of the factory rifles, not even the Colt, was perfect.

This, I ran into it first hand, they got nasty.

Sorry, you will need to ask your question in the form of a chart.

 

The list is more important.  As for which is better, that is subjective.  To a person who wants as close to issued as possible, the first one is indeed inferior, for the person who wants the latest features than the first one is clearly better, it depends what you want.

The Chart was based on what is "mil-spec". I agree with you that there are or could be improved specs over what is "mil-spec".

The issue you'll face is what drives and who decides what the new specs would be.

(I hate the term "mil-spec" in relation to the AR15 because true mil-spec would be a 14.5" barrel and FA. No one is making that for civilian purchase right now so from the beginning The Chart was a compromise.)