mini15,
It is the correct profile, but the FN ones issued to the US Military use FN's cold hammer forged barrels, which is why I suggested the BCM one, although I believe the current offering is not CHF, so the Colt barrel will be the same in terms of materials, coating, dimensions and testing. The stripped FN lower would just be there to make it look the same, but as some Colts have been issued, I suppose the Colt would also suffice, and at least the Colt will definitely be correct in terms of materials, dimensions, and tolerances.
TDC,
What is "gov spec"? Now you are just making up terms to try to drag yourself out of the hole you are digging. For a rifle to meet the actual specifications required for acceptance by the military, it has to have either Safe-Semi-Burst or Safe-Semi-Auto fire controls, no if's, but's, and's or also's. In the case of the carbine, it is also required to have a 14.5" barrel.
In the case of the carbine, there are currently only two firearms that can claim to meet these standards. They are the Colt R0920 (Safe-Semi-Burst), and the Colt R0921 (Safe-Semi-Auto). In fact, Colt actually states this on their web site: "the ONLY 5.56mm carbine in the world today that is manufactured to meet or exceed the stringent performance specifications (MILSPEC) required for acceptance and use by the U.S. Armed Forces". No other manufacturer can claim this, or dispute this, although I believe first Remington, and now FN have been selected to be the current sole suppliers.
Nowhere on BCM's site do they claim that their rifles and carbines are "completely mil spec". They list certain parts of their guns as being built, coated and/or tested to one or other of the various military specifications laid down as being acceptable, but that is only part of the TDP package. Also, the only component that is independently tested, is the barrel steel. They state that the barrels are also HPT'd and MPI'd to the required spec, but only you are claiming that those processes are also independently tested.
Basically, you are just making stuff up. Perhaps you should go and do some reading of the various specs that apply, and the difference between a collection of specs that is easily and freely obtainable on the internet ( http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/ ), and the TDP. Having access to the TDP is why FN can not produce a "milspec" rifle or carbine for civilian sale, not because they have chosen not to, in order to save a few bucks, unlike DPMS, Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, and yes, even Armalite (the only thing they have in common with the original Armalite, is the name that the new company purchased).
When you have done some reading, and have a proper understanding about the stuff you are posting, we can continue this discussion.
Gunnerlove,
Absolutely correct. People who say that "milspec" guns are built by the lowest bidder to the minimum requirements, and use that description as a derogatory term, have absolutely no understanding of "milspec".
Regards.
Mark
It is the correct profile, but the FN ones issued to the US Military use FN's cold hammer forged barrels, which is why I suggested the BCM one, although I believe the current offering is not CHF, so the Colt barrel will be the same in terms of materials, coating, dimensions and testing. The stripped FN lower would just be there to make it look the same, but as some Colts have been issued, I suppose the Colt would also suffice, and at least the Colt will definitely be correct in terms of materials, dimensions, and tolerances.
TDC,
What is "gov spec"? Now you are just making up terms to try to drag yourself out of the hole you are digging. For a rifle to meet the actual specifications required for acceptance by the military, it has to have either Safe-Semi-Burst or Safe-Semi-Auto fire controls, no if's, but's, and's or also's. In the case of the carbine, it is also required to have a 14.5" barrel.
In the case of the carbine, there are currently only two firearms that can claim to meet these standards. They are the Colt R0920 (Safe-Semi-Burst), and the Colt R0921 (Safe-Semi-Auto). In fact, Colt actually states this on their web site: "the ONLY 5.56mm carbine in the world today that is manufactured to meet or exceed the stringent performance specifications (MILSPEC) required for acceptance and use by the U.S. Armed Forces". No other manufacturer can claim this, or dispute this, although I believe first Remington, and now FN have been selected to be the current sole suppliers.
Nowhere on BCM's site do they claim that their rifles and carbines are "completely mil spec". They list certain parts of their guns as being built, coated and/or tested to one or other of the various military specifications laid down as being acceptable, but that is only part of the TDP package. Also, the only component that is independently tested, is the barrel steel. They state that the barrels are also HPT'd and MPI'd to the required spec, but only you are claiming that those processes are also independently tested.
Basically, you are just making stuff up. Perhaps you should go and do some reading of the various specs that apply, and the difference between a collection of specs that is easily and freely obtainable on the internet ( http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/ ), and the TDP. Having access to the TDP is why FN can not produce a "milspec" rifle or carbine for civilian sale, not because they have chosen not to, in order to save a few bucks, unlike DPMS, Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, and yes, even Armalite (the only thing they have in common with the original Armalite, is the name that the new company purchased).
When you have done some reading, and have a proper understanding about the stuff you are posting, we can continue this discussion.
Gunnerlove,
Absolutely correct. People who say that "milspec" guns are built by the lowest bidder to the minimum requirements, and use that description as a derogatory term, have absolutely no understanding of "milspec".
Regards.
Mark
.
