I had a colt hbar in the 80's and early 90's. I also own an HK 91 and 93. I recently ordered two bushmasters since I heard that was the way to go for a decent rifle. These guns were not cheap.
Ones an A3 16 inch heavy barrel and a varminter. The finish on these guns is horrific. A friend ordered a varminter at same time I did. His is worse than mine. I know it gets down to how a weapon shoots but for that kind of money they ought to finish them off properly. The finish on the barrel is off in several places showing silver and the reciever looks horrible also.
My colt was certainly not like this.
Is this the norm?

Personally I've owned 3 Bushy's that had excellent finishes and no blemishes whatsoever. I would personally talk to someone at Bushmaster if you are concerned. The nitrate phosphate finish on  the recievers should be a consistent smooth black. They are not the greenish parkerizing that the Colt uses for their finish. I personally have yet to see a blemished Bushmaster and I work in central Ohio's largest gun store, and have handled and inspected dozens of Bushmasters, Colts, Armalites, etc.  Post some pictures and we can get a general concensus.

Quoted: I had a colt hbar in the 80's and early 90's. I also own an HK 91 and 93. I recently ordered two bushmasters since I heard that was the way to go for a decent rifle. These guns were not cheap. Ones an A3 16 inch heavy barrel and a varminter. The finish on these guns is horrific. A friend ordered a varminter at same time I did. His is worse than mine. I know it gets down to how a weapon shoots but for that kind of money they ought to finish them off properly. The finish on the barrel is off in several places showing silver and the reciever looks horrible also. My colt was certainly not like this. Is this the norm?

Put some Break Free CLP on it and it will look better than any Colt.

Do you have any pics of the finish?

Not sure....but at one of the local gunshops, an employee pulled out a NIB Bushmaster to put on the shelf.  I could plainly see that the bottom and top recivers did not match in finish.  The top was black, the bottom was kind of gray.  

Bushmaster has never had a great finish like that of a RRA or Les Baer, but is generally pretty decent.

I'd chalk it up to banging out the number of guns they have been selling and bypassing some of the typical QC rejecting on the line

I could be wrong, but it isn't uncommon for an assembly line to loosen up when orders are backlogged

I'd call Bushmaster.  I have owned a lot of Bushmasters, aned the finish has been uniformly excellent.

never had a finish problem on any bushmaster parts that were made of steel.

the upper and lower match, on the other hand, has always varied a *little*. but i wouldn't necessarily call that a problem.

My Crapmaster had a really nice finish on it..it's just they can't get the FSB on straight.

A rubber mallet will fix your FSB

Quoted: A rubber mallet will fix your FSB

No it didn't...but the cutting torch did...well it didn't but I felt really good when I was done.

I too have owned AR's a while,my first was from Gibson's Sporting goods in 1975...I've had HKs that were "blue", and I have noticed that Bushy has a lot of rifles on dealer shelves that have real fuzzy finishes on the barrels, and purple lowers. My latest aquisition ia a E2A2 Bushy (M4 with a bitch handle) and the finish is impeccable. I reckon that after the sunset of AWB Bushmaster got REALLY backlogged. QC may have been 2nd tier...The E2A2 had a production and ship date to Academy of 2.6.06. Maybe one should look to high volume stores buying directly from BM, as the local shops may be ordering stock from distributers with a lot of old inventory....

By the way, Kudos! to Academy Sports for having a national chain that carries Black Guns!!! Screw the Liberals!

I hope you don't take this the wrong way because I have a lot of respect on your postings here, but.....

"What's FAR more important is that your rifle was machined properly, has the proper chamber dimensions, and that it runs reliably. "Pretty" is a low priority for a combat rifle."


The majority of us here (OK, perhaps just me) never plan on being in combat and our rifles are our toys and hobbies. Sure I want a milatary "look-a-like", but with the $$$ we shell out, I expect a well finished product in all regards, including the finish. If I ever buy a Humvee, I expect the finish to be to my satisfaction as well even though it may not matter to the military.

One mans humble 2 cents worth.

I didn't read Troys post before I wrote mine...He hits the nail on the head. Besides if you play with your toys a lot, they'll get "charactor" anyway!

I really don't give a shit if my upper and lower does not match. I would not want to see huge gouges or badly done machining marks, however I want it to run reliable.

My Crapmaster did not. Oh it was "pretty", but it was a POS. Outa spec barrel and a FSB that looked like Ray Charles put it on.

I'm take my non-matching, 100% reliable Colt over a pretty AR anyday.

I've yet to hit a snag with my Bushmaster. I can't say the same for the Colts I ran in the military. I would not have trusted my life to them and in fact they put a blemish on my AR perspective untill I bought my Bushmaster.  Not to say all Colts are crap but everyone I've personally shot would have been better off as an AR shaped door stops.

All 15-20 of my Colts over the years looked good. The latter years, blue labels, were just "ok" shooters, and tough to get parts for...Anyway if a feller wants a good looking rifle, find a good shooter first, then....Refinish it any color you want!? I did a Colt Govt CAR tan teflon, and it was the rage, plus when you heat the crap out of it the first time it smells like a new car!

I wouldn't say the finish on my Bushy is beautiful, but it seems consistent and there are no bare spots.  I'd call Bushy and complain.  They should make it right.

SP

I got a rough looking lower from Bushy. They replaced it no problem. The new one they sent me is flawless. Much better than most Colts i have seen. Oh and with both the rough looking lower and the good looking one it ran 100%.

Quoted: Is this the norm?

Completely from the FWIW contingent: I've had three Bushmasters pass through my hands in the last 3 years. Two had acceptable though not stellar finishes and one had a very nice finish. All 3 shot and functioned  well.

you hould notice a 87% difference

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICTURES!!!

I think Troy stated it perfectly.  It can and does happen to all manufactuers.  I think you hear more of it about Bushy because they manufactuer a much higher number of Ar's than the rest of the companies.  Bushy is also a very popular company here which means a lot of members have them, so naturally you are going to hear more problems about them.  If your Bushy is new and the finish bothers you that much than give them a call and I'm sure they will take care of it.  Bushy is very good at making their customers happy.  With all that being said I have a Bushy M4 and the finish is absolutely perfect.  I laso have seen/handled a dozen or so other Bushys and they all seemed to be perfect.

Good luck and let us know if you contact Bushy

PLEASE POST A PIC SO WE CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES WHAT THE FINISH LOOKS LIKE

I have an A3 from 1999 that has a greyish finish to it, almost greenish grey. But top and bottom do match. I just built a Bushmaster. Ordered all the parts seperately and at different times. All mine matched up great. I always wipe everything down with CLP. If that doesn't take care of it, I'd call BM. By the way, my first Bushmaster had a canted front sight. I didn't notice by looking at it but I had to adjust my rear sight way to the left. When I changed upper recievers to a flat top and reinstalled the barrel the rear sight was perfectly centered. I think the barrel was installed a little off in the 1st reciever.

Quoted: THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICTURES!!!

+1

This whole thread is worthless, pics or not. Damn trolls.

Did it come with horrible "scratches" on the shell deflector too?  





FWIW - all the Bushmasters I've ever owned had really nice finishes.  

PLEASE post some damn pictures already so we can all see these "horrible" looking receivers and terrible barrels (especially after you've cleaned it with some CLP).

My Bushy has a good finish.

I own two bushmasters and I dont think the finish is especially great compared to my RRA.

The Bushy is more of a matte grayish black, than a deep dark thick finish on the RRA

But it isnt like the Bushy hasnt survived hikes and rainy days at the range without any exterior issues to report. Durable yes...pretty, no

I would say just shoot it and be happy that you can. If you want safe queens spend some money on the exotics..........Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world. Production guns are productions guns. I've got some real issues with a few Colt's of mine but I've seen a lot worse from some other manufactures. You just can't buy perfection for a grand. I feel you pain.

My finish on all my Bushys was fine. I don't go over my rifles with a microscope though. Never had any rust problems in the high humidity or ANY complaints about their products.

Quoted: My finish on all my Bushys was fine. I don't go over my rifles with a microscope though. Never had any rust problems in the high humidity or ANY complaints about their products.

Yeah, I live in OH too. My Bushy AR and Glock 17 are the ONLY guns of mine that haven't had some minor surface rust at some point. I catch it before it makes any difference, when I can still basically rub it off with CLP and a rag, but it's NEVER happened with my AR15 or Glock 17.

9 bushmasters and never had the need to start a thread without pics on any of them

I just like to put my OWN charachter on a gun when I pay 1000+ for it. BTW I bought both in the last 3 weeks and they have not had one hitch firing a round with any ammo I have shot. The groups with the 16 inch are very good and I am hoping the varminter will tighten up next time I shoot it.

Nothing wrong with my Varminter or M4A3.

Quoted: I just like to put my OWN charachter on a gun when I pay 1000+ for it. BTW I bought both in the last 3 weeks and they have not had one hitch firing a round with any ammo I have shot. The groups with the 16 inch are very good and I am hoping the varminter will tighten up next time I shoot it.

As well you should.  There is no excuse for a brand new gun to look shitty out of the box.  PERIOD.  Redfisher was exactly right that busy companies often overlook certain aspects of Q.C. when the going gets busy; however that does not excuse the practice.

The good news is that Bushy has pretty good customer service and you shouldn't have an issue getting them to fix it.

Quoted: Why is it that we see these threads every week, yet only once in a blue moon will anyone post pictures.  Almost every time this topic comes up, it degreades into urinary olympics and petty arguements, when the entire time its a visual question that is (almost) never documented by the user? If you have a problem that is so dramatic that you need to rehash the same topic of last week, POST PICTURES.

+1

Recently, I bought a stripped Bushy lower from a vendor in the EE, and when I started to clean it up with CLP, I noticed all kinds of surface defects that were under the anodizing.

These defects look like someone took a file, or rough grit sandpaper or a grinder and tried to remove surface abnormalities and didn't care about how the lower looked before being sent for finishing.  Two sections were grinded down so bad that you could visibly see that the aluminum surfaces were uneven with the surrounding areas.

I immediately called Bushmaster and the rep started with the "mil spec" this and that.  I said "no way, I own several Bushmasters and none of them look like this".  I was handed over to customer service and was issued an RMA.

I'm still waiting for the replacement lower receiver, but I'm here to say that I was very pissed off that something could leave the factory in that condition.

Let me continue to say that I worked part time at Advanced Ordnance in Daytona (a company who makes AR uppers, bolts, carriers, cary handles, etc) .  I would commonly see parts in the scrap bin that had fewer defects than the Bushmaster lower receiver that I got.  What bothers me about the whole thing is that someone at Bushmaster couldn't bear to throw my lower receiver in the scrap bin and just eat the cost of the forging and machining.  There is no way that this just slipped through the cracks, because it is obvious to me that someone spent a great deal of time trying to grind any suface defects away before sending it off to be refinished.  IMHO, Bushmaster has gone to shit and my story is evidence of that.  

I took some pics of it, but I was in a hurry.  I was not trying to capture the defects in detail, but instead, orient the areas of concern in my letter to Bushmaster customer service.  You can still see the defects in the photo, but in no way does this photo capture the degree of the file marks and uneven surfaces left by the grinding.

Click here to see the photo.  (Caution, very large pic)

Area 1 in the photo was grinded to a point that the surface was no longer flat and the edge at the top of the reciever was slightly rounded.

Area 2 in the photo was just like area 1.  The part circled had so much material grinded away that it was no longer flat or even with the rest of the area.  It also had heavy grind marks like area 1.

Area 3 in the photo, just like Areas 1 and 2 had lots of aluminum grinded away.  So much so, that you could easily see that the surface was uneven with the surrounding area.

Area 4 in the photo had some grinder or file marks, but was not as bad as areas 1,2, or 3.

If this were a beater/duty gun, these minor defects would not bother me.  However this receiver was going to be built into a rifle that would have gone into my personal collection.  I am sure that this lower receiver would have funcioned fine.  But that is not the point.  I could have paid $90 for a Stag lower (which is obviously far superior) and got a much better product.  Instead, I paid $160 for this piece of shit so that I could keep my entire build a "Bushmaster".  I think I need to re-think the "keep it all Bushmaster" idea, because there is no point in it if Bushmaster doesn't stand for quality anymore.

No "real" problems in that pic.

Hell I spent 300 more for a Colt w/ a machined by hand-grinder upper. That rifle still has yet to choke on a round.

If you want to see nice looking rifles go back when Colt put the grey finish on them. that expoxy finish fillied in all these so called cosmetic errors.

Like I said in the post, the photo does not capture the details of the defects.  The point of the photo was orientation.  If you expand the photo to full size, clearly area 3 is missing a lot of aluminum.  The angle of the photo does not show the extent of aluminum missing from areas 1 and 2, but believe me, they were just as bad.

Would the gun function fine, yes, I believe it would.

So why would anyone want to pay $160 for a piece of shit lower like the one pictured when they could buy a Stag (which is far superior) for $90.

And I thought just the colt guys were drinkin the cool aid.......

Quoted: Like I said in the post, the photo does not capture the details of the defects.  The point of the photo was orientation.  If you expand the photo to full size, clearly area 3 is missing a lot of aluminum.  The angle of the photo does not show the extent of aluminum missing from areas 1 and 2, but believe me, they were just as bad. Would the gun function fine, yes, I believe it would. So why would anyone want to pay $160 for a piece of shit lower like the one pictured when they could buy a Stag (which is far superior) for $90.]/red] And I thought just the colt guys were drinkin the cool aid.......

I understand wanting something to be perfect when you spend a lot of money on it and it should be perfect but your pic doesn't help your argument.  I understand it's hard to see certain things but it looks good enough to me.

the part in red is absolutely ridiculous.  You can prefer one brand over another but to say Stag is far superior just makes you sound like someone who has an axe to grind

Quoted: Quoted: Why is it that we see these threads every week, yet only once in a blue moon will anyone post pictures.  Almost every time this topic comes up, it degreades into urinary olympics and petty arguements, when the entire time its a visual question that is (almost) never documented by the user? If you have a problem that is so dramatic that you need to rehash the same topic of last week, POST PICTURES. +1

+1

Not seeing yours i can't make an opinion.   However it could not be much worse than my

RRA That has VITALIGO


CLP works for about 3-5 weeks then comes back....The last time i oiled it up and baked it at 200 degrees to get it in the pours.. hope it works

Quoted: Quoted: Like I said in the post, the photo does not capture the details of the defects.  The point of the photo was orientation.  If you expand the photo to full size, clearly area 3 is missing a lot of aluminum.  The angle of the photo does not show the extent of aluminum missing from areas 1 and 2, but believe me, they were just as bad. Would the gun function fine, yes, I believe it would. So why would anyone want to pay $160 for a piece of shit lower like the one pictured when they could buy a Stag (which is far superior) for $90.]/red] And I thought just the colt guys were drinkin the cool aid....... I understand wanting something to be perfect when you spend a lot of money on it and it should be perfect but your pic doesn't help your argument.  I understand it's hard to see certain things but it looks good enough to me. the part in red is absolutely ridiculous.  You can prefer one brand over another but to say Stag is far superior just makes you sound like someone who has an axe to grind

What part in red?  You might want to edit your post so that I know what you are talking about.

I suggest you expand the image using the   button when you click on the photo's link to view it in full size.

If you can't see from the full size photo that area number 3 has been ground down to the point that it is not even with the surrounding area then you need glasses.

Areas 1 and 2 do not look as bad because of the angle the photo was taken at.  If I had taken more photos from other angles, then you would see that areas 1 and 2 were ground down significantly as well.

I had no plans to post this info, but I stumbled upon this thread and thought that I would offer my two cents because all you Bushmaster cool aid drinkers are essentially discounting other people's complaints about how Bushmaster's quality has gone to shit.  I've heard it from others before and I didn't believe it, that is until I took possession of this lower receiver.

I have several other Bushmaster rifles without any finish or function problems.  These rifles were purchased about a year ago.  I also have many Stag guns too.  So the comments I made about the comparison between Stag and Bushmaster come from first hand obervation.  

The only axe I have to grind is that I got a shit lower.  Like I said, I have several other Bushmasters and this is my first bad experience with them.  Bushmaster is supposed to make good on it.  We will see about that.

I'm sorry that I didn't take better pictures of the lower before I sent it off.  I didn't know that I would be sitting here trying to prove something to the Bushmaster coolaid drinkers.  To the contrary, I wasn't trying to capture all the defects, but simply using the photo for orientation for Bushmaster customer service.  

Again, take a close look at area 3 with the photo in full size and tell me you don't see that surface being very uneven.

If you think that lower is so wonderful, I'm sure that I can call Bushmaster and have them return it to me if you would like to buy it.  No refunds of course

Edited to add:





You mean to tell me that you can't see a huge difference in the thickness of the lower at points A and B?

At point B in area 3 is where someone took a grinder of some sort and did a number on the lower before it was sent for anodizing.  A similar amount of aluminum was ground away from areas 1 and 2.

 

Quoted: ...

Depending on how recently you bought the Bushy lower with bad finish, you might want to try contacting Bushmaster.

I've had them replace a rifle for me because I didn't like the fit between upper and lower once.  Purely cosmetic and nothing to do with function, but they replaced it, and were very nice about it.

It might be worth giving them a call or sending them an email.  

Quoted: Quoted: ...   Depending on how recently you bought the Bushy lower with bad finish, you might want to try contacting Bushmaster. I've had them replace a rifle for me because I didn't like the fit between upper and lower once.  Purely cosmetic and nothing to do with function, but they replaced it, and were very nice about it. It might be worth giving them a call or sending them an email.

It is scheduled for delivery tomorrow at Bushmaster.  They already told me that they would replace it.

Quoted: Quoted: Like I said in the post, the photo does not capture the details of the defects.  The point of the photo was orientation.  If you expand the photo to full size, clearly area 3 is missing a lot of aluminum.  The angle of the photo does not show the extent of aluminum missing from areas 1 and 2, but believe me, they were just as bad. Would the gun function fine, yes, I believe it would. So why would anyone want to pay $160 for a piece of shit lower like the one pictured when they could buy a Stag (which is far superior) for $90.]/red] And I thought just the colt guys were drinkin the cool aid....... I understand wanting something to be perfect when you spend a lot of money on it and it should be perfect but your pic doesn't help your argument.  I understand it's hard to see certain things but it looks good enough to me. the part in red is absolutely ridiculous.  You can prefer one brand over another but to say Stag is far superior just makes you sound like someone who has an axe to grind

Here's another one for you.

The red line is a perfectly straight line.  The surface of the lower receiver should follow the red line.  It doesn't.  that is because aluminum has been ground away.



Still think it's wonderful?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...   Depending on how recently you bought the Bushy lower with bad finish, you might want to try contacting Bushmaster. I've had them replace a rifle for me because I didn't like the fit between upper and lower once.  Purely cosmetic and nothing to do with function, but they replaced it, and were very nice about it. It might be worth giving them a call or sending them an email.   It is scheduled for delivery tomorrow at Bushmaster.  They already told me that they would replace it.

Sorry if I didn't pay attention if you already said that.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...   Depending on how recently you bought the Bushy lower with bad finish, you might want to try contacting Bushmaster. I've had them replace a rifle for me because I didn't like the fit between upper and lower once.  Purely cosmetic and nothing to do with function, but they replaced it, and were very nice about it. It might be worth giving them a call or sending them an email.   It is scheduled for delivery tomorrow at Bushmaster.  They already told me that they would replace it. Sorry if I didn't pay attention if you already said that.

No problem.  We're cool