Differences in Manufacturers for the AR

Chizzy said:
AR Newbie question here..... Is there any reason to avoid LMT's Monolithic Rail Platform with quick change barrel system? Are you tying yourself into a non-standardized proprietary system if you ever needed replacement parts? Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Chizzy
Click to expand...

The biggest complaints about the MRP is that the system requires the (more or less) precise torquing of screws that are designed to fail if over-torqued and are expensive (comparatively) to replace if you do destroy one. Also, it does not accept standard AR15 barrels as they have a proprietary receiver extension.

The rifle comes with a (cheap) torque wrench that many users immediately replace with something better.

Other than that, it's a nice platform with solid reviews.
 
Clobbersauras said:
OP: Read the link below and click on "the chart" link. It will give you lots to think about and is a decent place to start when learning about AR's.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA&single=true&gid=5&output=html
Click to expand...

I would NOT rely on that chart. It's no longer accurate to what the mfgrs offer as it is REALLY out of date.

It also, as discussed many times, does not tell the whole story. A manufacturer can exceed GI spec and get a "no" box, for example. Another example is the way they determine a "properly staked carrier" is garbage b/c the GI spec doesn't specify how, only the maximum limits for displaced material. Many other issues with that chart - do not take it too seriously.
 
I have the LMT MRP ( no longer exportable in the configuration mine is ) and it is an excellent rifle. Much more AR that I need or, quite frankly, want but if a top of the line AR is what you are looking for this is near that point if not actually at it.
 
Claven2 said:
I would NOT rely on that chart. It's no longer accurate to what the mfgrs offer as it is REALLY out of date.
Click to expand...

No. This is a brand new chart just recent released (10 June 2011 Update). Read the link I posted please.

Besides, if this guy is new to AR's this link and resulting chart, while not the be-all, end-all, will give him a good basis from which to start. I wish I had read it before I bought my AR.
 
enefgee said:
Less weight = easier to carry
Less Parts = less to break
Less moving parts = less perceived recoil, and recoil all follows the line of the stock, which is in line with the recoiling mass, makes it easier to control on full auto.
(Arguably) Better accuracy - the barrel isn't dealing with a great big piston tied to it that's slamming back and forward and screwing up it's harmonics.
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes sense, follow up shots would be easier as well I imagine. A piston driven system creates out of line recoil. In auto fire would lead to lots bounce like a Hispanic lowrider.

Im going to the city tomorrow and hopefully I can find something decent.
 
yup I am fairly new Ive got a few magazines but I mean they are full of advertising and the forum is "real" feedback.
I see all the sweet rigs they have down there and know that I could never own one so more or less I want to see what is available to me and what the best choice is.
 
Remington
RRA
Armalite
LMT
Bushmaster
Norinco
PWS
STAG

Its confusing they all claim to have the best unit except norinco.
There are claims of problems with the gas tube system.
Too much conflicting data ..... beep beeep beeeeeep cannot compute cannot compute *bang* (as my head explodes)
 
blunt0trauma said:
Yeah that makes sense, follow up shots would be easier as well I imagine. A piston driven system creates out of line recoil. In auto fire would lead to lots bounce like a Hispanic lowrider.

Im going to the city tomorrow and hopefully I can find something decent.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Muzzle devices and design layout of the system affect the way a gun recoils more than the method of their operation. A piston gun with its recoil spring, and/or receiver guide rails in-line with the stock (e.g. G36/SL8 or SCAR) won't have crazy off-balance recoil.
 
blunt0trauma said:
Remington
RRA
Armalite
LMT
Bushmaster
Norinco
PWS
STAG

Its confusing they all claim to have the best unit except norinco.
There are claims of problems with the gas tube system.
Too much conflicting data ..... beep beeep beeeeeep cannot compute cannot compute *bang* (as my head explodes)
Click to expand...

Ignore ALL the information in firearms magazines...it is 100% UNreliable. Once in a while they give an accurate description of a gun, but there's no way to tell which one out of fifty reviews is the one that's accurate.

On your list of manufacturers above, there are two that interest me: LMT and Stag. I have no experience with PWS so won't comment on them.

I am also partial to Daniel Defense...in fact they are my favourite simply because of the CHF barrels they use.

At the moment, I am waiting semi-patiently for the release of the NorthEastern Arms AR. I believe(?) I am one of the only people outside of the company to have had a look at them. I am guessing Darren of One Shot and probably ArmedSask have seen them as well, but that's a guess.

What I have seen gave me serious wood and should perform on par with rifles like, say, the BCM (basically unavailable in Canada, sadly) or DD (minus the CHF barrel) or LMT...but will retail for under a thousand bucks.

So I am advising people to wait for the NEA stuff, personally. I will be getting one of the first ones out and doing a thorough review, but all the tech info I have received so far leads me to believe that they will be serious contenders.

I am not a big fan of any of the following:

Bushmaster
Armalite
RRA
Olympic
DPMS

That is not to say I have not seen Armalites and Bushmasters perform...but they are not on par with the ones I recommend, that is for sure.

I would not bother with RRA, Olympic or DPMS at all.

Norincos I have mixed feelings about. They often run, but then I have also shot some which belonged to people here that were allegedly flawless, and personally had them FTF, or fail to lock back on an empty mag...and yet I have still seen those people here posting about the flawless performance of their Norincos.

BUT, I have also seen them run well. I would buy a Norinco ahead of a BM, Armalite, DPMS, RRA or Oly. But they often seem to have issues with standard accessories, which makes me think that they are better suited to people who intend to buy them and shoot them as-is.

Anyway I think they are about to become kind of irrelevant, because the NEA stuff will only be a couple hundred bucks more, and will kick the living #### out of any Norinco.

But then, there will always be some morons who want to save the $200 by buying a rifle worth $1000 less. If there weren't, none of the "not recommended" brands above would continue to exist in the US, where the price gap really is that small.
 
Im waiting for the NEA AR as well.
It will be interesting to see what it does to the Canadian AR market. I would imagine it would be tough to sell Armalites and Bushmasters if the NEA's are is good as promised.
I could also see the Norincos having a significant price drop down to the $400 range, what do they cost to make an AR in the Peoples Republic?
 
Clobbersauras said:
No. This is a brand new chart just recent released (10 June 2011 Update). Read the link I posted please.

Besides, if this guy is new to AR's this link and resulting chart, while not the be-all, end-all, will give him a good basis from which to start. I wish I had read it before I bought my AR.
Click to expand...

That's not "the chart". What you linked to is a synopsis of each rifle in paragraph format - no chart I can see.

When ppl say "the chart" they are referring to a specific thing, not this website.
 
Mea Culpa... I just found the link embedded in the paragraphs that does show an updated chart.

I'm still not a fan of these charts, but this one is better than the original.
 
The "C" word.

If there was one problem with the "old" Chart, it was the way in which some people used it.

One group would use it to allow them to feel superior over others who did not own a M4 style rifle from the left side of the "old" Chart, despite the fact that they never truly understood the benefits of the features they so trumpeted, let alone needed, or used them to their full potential.

The other group would spread the hate that it was "wrong", "out dated", etc. because the "fit and finish" and "reliability" (500 hundred or so, almost trouble free, rounds in 10 years!) of their "sample of one" was the same as the rifles that ticked all the boxes, so it must be "just as good as".

What both these groups failed to realize, was that this was never the intention of the chart. Rob put the chart together for his own use, to educate himself with regard to which manufacturers produced M4 style rifles that were as close to the military specification as possible, in terms of materials, manufacturing processes and QA/QC procedures.

He found it useful enough for HIS purposes, that he put it online, where it took on a life of its own.

What these people failed (and still do fail) to realize, is that it is merely a tool that allows the less knowledgeable, prospective owners of M4 style rifles to begin to educate themselves with regard to what goes into making a military grade (see how I avoided the use of "mil-spec" there?) M4.

The format of the "new" Chart goes a long way towards giving people a better understanding of how it should be used. Read all the "stuff" about materials, etc. that were pretty much ignored in the "old" Chart, then decide what is important to YOU, and then look to see which manufacturers provide those features. There are no longer yes/no's or Xs in the various "boxes"

It is interesting to note that certain manufacturers of self declared "mil-spec" M4 style rifles that are used by deltarangernavyseals, have declined to participate, and purchasers should look carefully at the specifics of what model a particular manufacturer (or possibly more correctly, assembler) has provided for inclusion; for example, the Stag rifle is their Model 1 Plus Package, and does not relate to the specs of their regular rifles in terms of materials, manufacturing and QA/QC. Again, it is up to the purchaser to do their own research before laying down their hard earned cash.

It is however, important to realize a couple of things when doing so. The Chart only applies to M4 style rifles (so not every manufacturer is listed and then only certain models), and therefore concentrates on the features that apply to that particular rifle. It is also just the beginning of becoming an informed consumer, and looking at the benefits of say, nitrocarburizing versus hard chrome, mid-length gas systems, and the necessity, or not, of HPT/MPI, is something people will need to do for themselves.

However, people are generally lazy. How many times a week do we see threads that start with "looken for a AR - tell me what to buy" followed by twenty different suggestions based on personal experience (sometimes accompanied by a well hidden tinge of regret), and ending with an argument and some internet tough-guy name calling that makes it appear as if the other guy said your wife was ugly and your children ride the short bus to school?

Maybe we should stop answering these threads, and tell people to use the search function or Google instead. I doubt that will happen, because people love to appear knowledgeable, and give their opinions, so the madness and catering to to lazy will continue.

While I'm off topic, I would like to appeal to people to kindly stop refering to FTFs, FTEs, etc. as JAMS. Jam is what we put on toast. If you have jam in your rifle, well, there's your problem right there. In order for US to diagnose the issue YOU are having with YOUR rifle after you followed the advice to purchase/not purchase a particular make, etc. on some forum, we need a proper description. Look up for yourselves what the proper terminology is, and use it to describe your problem.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Regards.

Mark
 
Claven2 said:
Mea Culpa... I just found the link embedded in the paragraphs that does show an updated chart.

I'm still not a fan of these charts, but this one is better than the original.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why I am a fan...I think the existence of "the chart" has forced every mid-grade AR maker to step up its game.

The current version is practically just a list of companies who build ARs to a reasonable approximation of the TDP.

The last chart showed the failure of all kinds of major companies to put a serious effort in to building decent rifles.

What's changed? There is now a much better informed consumer base. Sure, there are still people who think Armalites and Bushmasters are every bit as good as a Colt, but that group is shrinking (though still embarrassingly large). There is a growing group of consumers with an appetite for guns built out of decent components and which run properly straight out of the box.

And I think the first step in this was the quantification of a quality standard in ARs. That's what the chart represents.

And I think if you read the documents that went with the chart originally, there is plenty of supporting information there to explain the potential shortcomings of the chart itself. Unfortunately many people just looked at a jpg of the chart posted somewhere, and got themselves in a huff without understanding what they were looking at.

But it's a good starting point for research and covers a lot of critical AR information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom