AR M4 style rifle, which one?

[AR fan]

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. Rat

You remind of that saying that goes something like.

Who is more foolish? the fool or the person who tries to argue with him.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. Rat

You remind of that saying that goes something like.

Who is more foolish? the fool or the person who tries to argue with him.

1. Nope, try again.

2. Mirrors are for looking.

 

[Infi-del]

Once again you didn't answer my question. Do you know what MPI testing and shot peening is done for.

From what I remember MPI is magnetic particle testing that can detect imperfections in materials. However from what I know it only detects surface imperfections an really can't tell you if a material is structurally imperfect beyond that. The Military has forever insisted on this as it is a part of the mil spec and they stick to it by the letter. But it has proven to be of little value as the grand majority of failures are due to imperfections or stresses in materials that occur far beyond the scope of MPI.

Shot peening from what I gather is impact preparation of bolts prior to heat treating which changes the grain structure in order to better prepare it for impact service.

However from what I've read these steps only weed out bolts that will fail pre-100 round mark and cannot make any promises beyond that. Most parts that make it past testing generally last within the accepted 5K round mark set by the Military's repair schedule with some exceptions of course. So this is why it is seen as a needless step in many cases as any gun that cannot pass the 100 round mark will not be considered operational as a weapon. And the point at which they fail after 100 rounds is impossible to determine even with MPI and shoot peening. So in general a bolt is gonna fail within 100 rounds or it has a fair shake of making it to 5K no matter the testing if quality materials are used in its construction. It's required by the military because it's in the contract. But with modern materials it's been shown not to do much. There are colt bolts the break at 1000 rounds and bushmaster bolts that last well past the 5000 round mark. It really depends on a particular bolt and it's weaknesses and structural imperfections as to when it will break. I've also seen a Bushmaster bolt break within 50 rounds. It was obviously a bad. one.

These processes were of great value when materials were not as good as they are now. The gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and better materials are made more available to everyone. I got a Bushmaster with well over 7K rounds (probably 3K in FA) through it and the bolt, though worn, still works like a champ. Anything can break. Even your perfect colts. I've seen it happen.

You think because Colt uses these processes that it's an iron clad contract that your weapon will not fail. I can promise you that they can all fail and the Colt doesn't have an edge over well built ARs using good quality materials. And these processes does not mean that a weapon will last longer by any stretch of the imagination. Anything can break at anytime.


Answer me these four questions

1. Is Colt the most accurate AR-15 available?
2. Is Colt the most reliable AR-15 available?
3. Is Colt the most durable AR-15 available?
4. Are Colts any more user friendly than other ARs?

 

[Infi-del]

BTW, I never saw a troop throw away his weapon and start using an AK, If I did I would've reprimanded him severely. All my men kept their weapons very clean and I inspected them regularly.
I think that myth started back in 'Nam, where it may have happened. When a troop was unhappy with his weapon, he was more than likely to grab an M-14 or a shotgun, depending on where his Unit was going. If he was unhappy with the then new M-16.

I didn't mean to imply that soldiers WERE actually throwing down their M4s for AKs. I know that's a huge no-no. What I was saying is that many a joe from the sandbox has said they'd have rather had an AK because of the problems they had with their M4s.

 

[STAGE 2]

From what I remember MPI is magnetic particle testing that can detect imperfections in materials. However from what I know it only detects surface imperfections an really can't tell you if a material is structurally imperfect beyond that. The Military has forever insisted on this as it is a part of the mil spec and they stick to it by the letter. But it has proven to be of little value as the grand majority of failures are due to imperfections or stresses in materials that occur far beyond the scope of MPI.

Then you would be incorrect as MPI testing show both surface and sub-surface flaws in the metal.

However even if you were correct, this still contradicts your original assertion that a non MPI tested firearm is just as good. Knowing whether there are flaws in the metal of your barrel and bolt, even if only on the surface is better than hoping, guessing or assuming.

Shot peening from what I gather is impact preparation of bolts prior to heat treating which changes the grain structure in order to better prepare it for impact service.

However from what I've read these steps only weed out bolts that will fail pre-100 round mark and cannot make any promises beyond that.

Incorrect again. Shot peening, if done correctly, can extend the service life of a bolt up to 1000% percent. Yes, 1000%. It does weed out sub standard bolts, but thats a byproduct. It modifies the mechanical properties of the metal to allow it to take far more abuse than an untreated bolt. Thats not to say that every shot peened bolt is going to outlast every non shot peened bolt or that they will never break. However if you have 100 shot peened bolts and 100 unpeened bolts, the results are going to be quite clear which lasts longer.

You think because Colt uses these processes that it's an iron clad contract that your weapon will not fail. I can promise you that they can all fail and the Colt doesn't have an edge over well built ARs using good quality materials. And these processes does not mean that a weapon will last longer by any stretch of the imagination. Anything can break at anytime.

I never said that at all. Every firearm, glock, colt, HK, etc, can and has failed. Thats not the issue. The issue is which one is more likely to fail. The better parts that you use make failure less likely. It is without question that a shot peened bolt is better than an unpeened bolt. It is without question that a barrel made of higher grade steel will outlast a barrel made of lesser steel. It is without question that a company that MPI tests its rifles is going to have less issues with metal defects than one that doesn't.

Sure anything can break at any time. Sure colt has produced lemons. Sure M4's have failed in the sandbox. However none of these things are incompatible with the fact that colt makes the best factory AR's.

Again, head over to any of the AR forums, and talk to some of the certified armorers that post there. Colt is the brand with the least amount of problems.

Answer me these four questions

1. Is Colt the most accurate AR-15 available?
2. Is Colt the most reliable AR-15 available?
3. Is Colt the most durable AR-15 available?
4. Are Colts any more user friendly than other ARs?

1. Depends. If we are talking factory rifles, then I'd say they are definately a contender. I know that the tolerances on different rifles, such as RRA are different so that may give them an edge accuracy wise, however it does come at the cost of reliability and none of these rifles are MOA or sub MOA. Whether a standard shooter would know the difference I don't know. Clearly there are some custom AR's out there that would spank a factory rifle, but thats not the issue here.

2. Yes. Again, most reliable doesn't mean perfect and I've never argued that it has. However if you take 100 colt rifles and 100 brand x, colt will have less issues. Range reports, training classes and what armorers see bear this out.

3. Absolutely. The best parts and the best QC is going to make for the most durable rifle.

4. I don't see how they could be as they are all physically virtually identical.

 

[Infi-del]

Then you would be incorrect as MPI testing show both surface and sub-surface flaws in the metal.

This is not so. It only detects surface imperfections.

However even if you were correct, this still contradicts your original assertion that a non MPI tested firearm is just as good. Knowing whether there are flaws in the metal of your barrel and bolt, even if only on the surface is better than hoping, guessing or assuming.

Wrong again. MPI testing seems only to weed out those rifles that will fail prior to 100 rounds. An easy enough trial to put any rifle through on day one. So the flaws it detects can easily be found by a simple range test. And if the rifle passes 100 rounds it has none of the flaws that MPI would normally detect. Anyone trusting any gun with less than 100 rounds through it is not wise. No matter what brand it is.

Incorrect again. Shot peening, if done correctly, can extend the service life of a bolt up to 1000% percent. Yes, 1000%.

There is absolutely no way you can substantiate this. Believing it and saying don't make it so. Why don't Colt bolts last 1000 times longer than any other brand then on a regular basis. If you say they do you're full of it. If a Bushmaster bolt can go 5K rounds a Colt bolt should last 5Mil. Are you gonna sit there and tell me there has EVER been a bolt that ran 5mil?

It does weed out sub standard bolts, but thats a byproduct. It modifies the mechanical properties of the metal to allow it to take far more abuse than an untreated bolt. Thats not to say that every shot peened bolt is going to outlast every non shot peened bolt or that they will never break. However if you have 100 shot peened bolts and 100 unpeened bolts, the results are going to be quite clear which lasts longer.

Without actually doing that your statement is chest beating and pure speculation.

I never said that at all. Every firearm, glock, colt, HK, etc, can and has failed. Thats not the issue. The issue is which one is more likely to fail. The better parts that you use make failure less likely. It is without question that a shot peened bolt is better than an unpeened bolt.

You're wrong. Most failure due to imperfections in parts happens very early. If it doesn't break in the first couple hundred rounds, then the rifle is gonna run along like any other. MPI can't detect these flaws if they are deep within the material and shot peening cannot make a 100% protection against it. So it doesn't make them better. If you can say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Colt to break within the first 1000 rounds and prove it. I'll submit they're the best. But you can't. And that puts them in the same category as other rifles. You just pay more for the pony.

It is without question that a barrel made of higher grade steel will outlast a barrel made of lesser steel.

But different steels can also render greater accuracy at the price of less wear resistance. It is much easier to shoot out a stainless match barrel than a chrome lined combat barrel. But the stainless is going to be a tack driver.

It is without question that a company that MPI tests its rifles is going to have less issues with metal defects than one that doesn't.

No it isn't. Pleanty of guys (More knowledgable than you or I) say that the process yields little benefit in a world with modern materials.

Sure anything can break at any time. Sure colt has produced lemons. Sure M4's have failed in the sandbox. However none of these things are incompatible with the fact that colt makes the best factory AR's.

They absolutely are. It means Colt's crap stinks just like every other manufacturers.

Again, head over to any of the AR forums, and talk to some of the certified armorers that post there. Colt is the brand with the least amount of problems.

I care what I've seen with my own two eyes. I've owned almost every brand of AR out there at some point. Colts are nothing special. And overpriced. So are their 1911s. I much prefer an Armalite Ar-15 and Springer 1911. I get great service, a great weapon, and performance that has yet to fail me. This is my experience. I don't need to read what front sight or thunder ranch tells fanboys they should like. Most of those places get their pockets filled to say crap like that. Or at the very least open doors for themselves. You can't trust a thing they say because you never know if it's a paid opinon or a real one.


[/quote]1. Depends. If we are talking factory rifles, then I'd say they are definately a contender. I know that the tolerances on different rifles, such as RRA are different so that may give them an edge accuracy wise, however it does come at the cost of reliability and none of these rifles are MOA or sub MOA.[/quote]

You don't know the tolerances but you can without a shadow of a doubt say one is better than the other. That's pitiful. Like I said, I have a 1,200 dollar RRA with stainless barrel that will eat a factory Colt's lunch in accuracy. And with over 2K rounds through that rifle I haven't experienced a single malfunction.

Whether a standard shooter would know the difference I don't know. Clearly there are some custom AR's out there that would spank a factory rifle, but thats not the issue here.

Don't know if I'm a standard shooter or not. But I can tell the difference.

2. Yes. Again, most reliable doesn't mean perfect and I've never argued that it has. However if you take 100 colt rifles and 100 brand x, colt will have less issues. Range reports, training classes and what armorers see bear this out.

Hasn't been my experience. Not that I think Colt's are dogs. They're good rifles. Just not the best.

3. Absolutely. The best parts and the best QC is going to make for the most durable rifle.

You can't say that with 100% certainty. You just can't. Anything breaks right?

4. I don't see how they could be as they are all physically virtually identical.

My point is that they can't be claimed to be the most accurate. They're superior durability is debatable depending on who you talk to and who's paying them to talk. And I personally find most of the top manufacturers to be very reliable with a dog here and there from every maker. So how are they the best? You can buy an AR that is superior to colt in every way without having to change a thing.

Look, we're getting no where. And what's worse is that we're crapping all over the forums here. At this point we are making no positive contribution to this community. I like a good debate as much as any one else but we're spinning our wheels. You will never be able to make 80% of the AR community believe that Colts are better than most of the other top makers. You just won't. You can call us ignorant or stupid or whatever you want but it's not going to change a thing. On the flip side I'll never be able to make you believe that Colt didn't hang the moon. You are devoted to them, even if they don't want you have their product and would rather you couldn't have them. So be it. Enjoy your rifle of choice and I'll enjoy mine. If you wanna fight, fight those who would take all of our guns away, no matter the make.

I'll let you have the last word. I'm out.

 

[STAGE 2]

Look, we're getting no where. And what's worse is that we're crapping all over the forums here. At this point we are making no positive contribution to this community. I like a good debate as much as any one else but we're spinning our wheels. You will never be able to make 80% of the AR community believe that Colts are better than most of the other top makers.

We are getting nowhere because you simply refuse to accept the facts as they are. You like to pick at minutae and hold it up as authoritative. In fact your entire argument is pretty much a logical fallacy.

You accuse me of using unsubstantiated info and then claim to know what 80% of the AR community thinks.

You point to the dissatisfaction of some military members as an indictment of Colt when you have no idea whether any other brand would even perform as well.

You dodge cut and dry issues such as barrel steel with irrelevant comparisons between match barrels and standard grade chromelined barrels.

You continually ignore the experiences of folks in the business who work on all brands of rifles and see all brands of rifles in hard use scenarios because your single 1200 AR hasn't had a problem. There are plenty of folks that still drive a ford pinto and even like it, but that doesn't mean its the best car.

There is definately a fanboy here, but it aint me. I encourage you to head over to m4carbine.net and post some of the responses you've given me and see what the majority of the AR community thinks of your analysis. You might be in for a surprise.

 

[mikeyd501]

The best source on what piece of gear works the best is Jeff Gonzales with TRICON and Pat Rogers with EAG, everything from AR’s to slings, ammo, optics, handguns and holsters.

I've been through a few of their classes, both carbine and handgun. If it works it has been proven on both the square range and in battle with high round counts and hard use.

Neither one of these gentlemen care who the maker is. If it works they let you know. If it doesn't they will also let you know and why. Their job is to train, if the equipment fails it slows down the class or may get someone killed. I have seen them take good notes on the gear that did not work including ammo. I know that their opinions are valued by the manufactures and welcomed.

There is a big difference between hard use equipment and stuff that works for occasional plinking.

If you want to know what works...that's where I would start. Then go train with it and see if it works for you.

Mike

 

[mikeyd501]

From Pat Rogers:

Recommendations

I get asked this a few hundred times a month, so we decided to put this out as a document. Like all else, this is based on my opinions, based on my observations. If your sacred cow isn’t included it may be because it sucks, but more likely that we have no hands on experience with it- or we have not seen enough in class to have an opinion. I have personal experience with all of the companies listed, owned or continue to own products recommended here.

Please note that while many makers sell direct, those vendors listed in the last section may also carry some of the listed products. They are not necessarily in order of preference, but rather alphabetically.

Carbines
Piston:
LWRC International
416

Direct Impingement:
Bravo Company
Colt
Defensive Edge (Sully)
Denny's Guns
Larue Tactical
LMT
MSTN
Noveske
Smith & Wesson LE

Optical Sights
Red Dots:
Aimpoint Micro T-1
Aimpoint Micro H-1
Aimpoint CompM4
Aimpoint CompM3
Aimpoint CompML3

Telescopes:
ACOG (RCO/ ACO/ TA31F)
Leupold MR/T
Schmidt & Bender Short Dot

Optical Mounts
Daniel Defense (non removable)
Larue Tactical

Pistol Grips
Magpul MIAD
TangoDown

Vertical ForeGrips
TangoDown

Quad Rails
Free Float:
Larue Tactical

Non-Free Float:

KAC (RIS, RAS)
Midwest Industries
Surefire

Slings
BlueForce Gear VCAS
BlueForce Gear Victory
Magpul
Viking Tactics VTAC

Rear Sling Mounts
TangoDown PR-4
TangoDown PR-16

Front Sling Mounts
MI 06
MI 08
Viking Tactics LUSA

Stocks
BravoCompany Gen 2 Stock
Defensive Edge Sully Stock
Magpul CTR
Magpul UBR
LMT Sloping Cheekweld (SOPMOD)
VLTOR Basic Stock

BUIS
Fixed:
Larue Tactical
LMT

Folding:
KAC
Magpul MBUS
MaTech
MI SPLP
Troy Folding Battle Sight

Magazines
BravoCompany (D&H)
Magpul PMAG
TangoDown ARC
Lancer L5

EarPro
Sordin

EyePro
Oakley

 

[timcsaw]

AR's are great, but I now prefer my SIG 556.

 

[SIFU1A]

What you would rather do isn't the issue. The fact remains that both rifles need maintenance and both accumulate gunk.

Everyone heaps loads of praise on the AK because its reliable, and deservedly so. What they usually fail to mention is that its effective range is almost half that of the AR. You might have the more reliable rifle, but thats not going to matter much if you have to close an extra 250 meters to bring the fight... especially when the guy who brought the AR is shooting at you.

i dont know about the effective range being 2X better w/a AR vs a AK, the ones i have shot with iron sites are pretty close to each other, sure the AR is a bit better but twice as good? i dont think so.

i do know off hand with irons at 300 yards is a lot closer than i ever thought possible, some folks will have ya belive that ya cant hit a thing beyond 200 yards with an AK, thats a complete falsehood its pretty easy to hit an 18" plate at 300 yards with an AK47 or AK74, not a big trick at all.

now with scopes and such who knows i have never tried the 2 when both had scopes, of course in combat very few use scopes, or use scopes/optics with magnification anyway,

as far as colt vs bushy's/etc, both my M4's are colts FWIW, i personally prefer them, but i have buds with bushmaster, RRA, and several others and they have all seemed to be fine, but i do prefer the colts and the colt M4 6350 or 6320(whatever it is lol) which i have seen run ~ $1200 are imho hard to beat for the $$ and not much more than the others, so i have gone with colt, myself.

 

[InfidelShootist]

Regarding Pat Rogers Recommendations,
He lists LaRue BUS and not Troy.
LaRue are Troy,I have the Tritium and recommend them.

 

[STAGE 2]

i dont know about the effective range being 2X better w/a AR vs a AK, the ones i have shot with iron sites are pretty close to each other, sure the AR is a bit better but twice as good? i dont think so.

From what I have seen at 300 the AK is pretty much maxed out. The AR can make hits reliably at 500+. This is due to the tolerances, but also the longer sight radius. Its not exactly twice as much, but having an extra 200 yards is a good thing in combat.

 

[blgoode]

I prefer my straight forward gas system LMT's. SOPMOD stock on one and a MAGPUL stock on the shorter true M4 size with a good red dot. ACOG on the larger 16" for more precision out at a distance. Just stick with quality componants and the whole become more than just an AR. Its the quality small parts that make a great gun.

 

[SIFU1A]

From what I have seen at 300 the AK is pretty much maxed out. The AR can make hits reliably at 500+. This is due to the tolerances, but also the longer sight radius. Its not exactly twice as much, but having an extra 200 yards is a good thing in combat.

i would have to say 500 yard reliable hits with an AR wouldnt be easy, not with iron sights, maybe i'm not the worlds greatest rifle shot but imho the sights are pretty coarse for work like that.

while i am pretty good at 300 or so, 500 with irons aint easy for most folks, hell i cant even see that far lol.

have you ever tried to hit something at 500 yards? with iron sites? i have and its not easy with anything,

now with a scope its a bit easier for sure,

one things for sure ya wouldnt wanna get hit by that "maxed out" AK at 300 yards.

 

[STAGE 2]

have you ever tried to hit something at 500 yards? with iron sites? i have and its not easy with anything

Yes, but in the interests of full disclosure I have 20/15 vision so I'm sure that helps some. One of the ranges I shoot at has targets out to 600 and I've hit with a 20" AR with irons.

one things for sure ya wouldnt wanna get hit by that "maxed out" AK at 300 yards.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either.

 

[mikeyd501]

I am wrong.

Nice to meet you.

Mike D

 

[SIFU1A]

it depends on the size of the target too, we used to shoot at an old outhouse at around 1000 yards ('ala elmer keith lol) and could even occasionally hit the thing with an 8MM mauser & savage 99 300 savage but it wasnt easy at all lol.

 

[Matthew Donegan]

Remember i'm from Aus
But...what do you use a M4 for??
is it just for the collector or do you actually hunt with it?

 

[STAGE 2]

Target shooting and, for some, home defense. IIRC most states prohibit hunting with the .223.