wherermykeys
Regular
- Location
- Whitby, ON
I believe they're sold out of the 10.5" guns as I bought the last one after I cancelled my NEA pre-order.
Spikes Tactical
- Thread starter MWL
- Start date
I believe they're sold out of the 10.5" guns as I bought the last one after I cancelled my NEA pre-order.
I know we're splitting hairs, but depending on who you ask, Stag is often considered top tier alongside LMT et al.
For example, our own KevinB has nothing but good to say about the Stag guns. Not that I put all my faith in other internet posters, but my experience with the Stag product is that it's on a par with LMT when it comes to fit and finish. The only real appreciable difference I've found is that Stag batch HPT's their bolts (all are shot peened and MPI) where LMT HPT's every bolt. (Stag consistently uses FSB taper pins, while LMT has used un-tapered pins in the past).
I consider these differences inconsequential, and honestly, I prefer my bolts to NOT be HPT, assuming they are MPI and made of qualified Carpenter 158 bar stock. HPT testing shortens the mean time to lug failure of any AR15 bolt.
Putting my money where my mouth is, I've used Stag FA BCG's in every build I've done for the last 2 years. They even come with Crane o-rings pre-installed. Next month I hope to try some NEA BCG's in a build or two for comparison purposes, but at the $175 they are sold by Armseast for the quality you get, I love Stag stuff.
Pistolwhiptricks
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Mississauga
They had Spike's Tactical AR's in 14" and 10" since summer I believe. I was going to buy one but changed my mind. They didn't last long either. Guess they just got another shippment in.
Well, it probably doesn't matter much either way.
Some would say the only real Tier1 companies are those that have the TDP (Colt and FN). Say what you like about the TDP specs, but they are they only measure/standard/what have you in existence.
I would say that Stag is capable of producing Tier1 guns, but choose to make stuff a little less so, perhaps based on costs.
LMT are generally considered Tier1 despite the strait pins, not parkerizing under the FSB, and the MIM gas key, but along with DD, Knights, Colt and FN, are the only serious military suppliers. BCM, Noveske (who to all intents and purposes, exceed the TDP), and now Centurion, are really the only other ones that I would consider Tier1.
I don't really consider fit and finish to be necessarily an indicator of quality. This is especially evident when you hear someone say that they compared their Norc/DPMS/whatever to a Colt, and there was less play between upper and lower, and the fit and finish was better than the Colt, and that this made their rifle "just as good as" or even better. It's more what the components are made of, and to what tolerances they are held. There is a well known maker of "just as good as" guns that uses parts rejected by Colt.
As for MPI, HPT, we probably agree, but I don't think it would really make much difference one way or the other with a well made component (eg: Filthy 14, HPT'd and MPI'd bolt and barrel, and still running way past what most guns will ever do, as well as thousands of military M16s, etc.). It's just that some of those who choose not to do it, and use that arguement, are known for making sub-standard parts and cutting corners, and the argument plays into their favour.
Regards.
Mark
Some would say the only real Tier1 companies are those that have the TDP (Colt and FN). Say what you like about the TDP specs, but they are they only measure/standard/what have you in existence.
I would say that Stag is capable of producing Tier1 guns, but choose to make stuff a little less so, perhaps based on costs.
LMT are generally considered Tier1 despite the strait pins, not parkerizing under the FSB, and the MIM gas key, but along with DD, Knights, Colt and FN, are the only serious military suppliers. BCM, Noveske (who to all intents and purposes, exceed the TDP), and now Centurion, are really the only other ones that I would consider Tier1.
I don't really consider fit and finish to be necessarily an indicator of quality. This is especially evident when you hear someone say that they compared their Norc/DPMS/whatever to a Colt, and there was less play between upper and lower, and the fit and finish was better than the Colt, and that this made their rifle "just as good as" or even better. It's more what the components are made of, and to what tolerances they are held. There is a well known maker of "just as good as" guns that uses parts rejected by Colt.
As for MPI, HPT, we probably agree, but I don't think it would really make much difference one way or the other with a well made component (eg: Filthy 14, HPT'd and MPI'd bolt and barrel, and still running way past what most guns will ever do, as well as thousands of military M16s, etc.). It's just that some of those who choose not to do it, and use that arguement, are known for making sub-standard parts and cutting corners, and the argument plays into their favour.
Regards.
Mark
^^ Filthy 14's bolt lug cracked at 16 400 rounds and was replaced. However it has north of 43 000 rounds now, so the current bolt is still running (with a few extractor replacements) way past what the first bolt did.
LMT's bolts also typically run longer than normal bolts due to their stress relief cut behind the bolt lugs.
LMT's bolts also typically run longer than normal bolts due to their stress relief cut behind the bolt lugs.
Not really. HPT is not proof firing. HPT tests only the bolt. To proof fire an AR, you would have to run a proof load with that bolt and the bbl extension it is mated to.
All HPT does is confirm what X-raying the qualified bar stock and post-machining MPI has already proven to you, which is that there are no internal faults in the steel and no cracks post-manufacture.
In my opinion, it's a total waste of time. KAC staff agree with me. They have stated a number of times they would prefer not to HPT and shorten the life of their bolts, but the US ARMY clings to 1940's era specifications and insists on it.
It is done because of the TDP, but it accrues NO BENEFIT. It would be smarter to proof the assembled rifle, but then you could not do it to batch parts yet to be assembled...
All HPT does is confirm what X-raying the qualified bar stock and post-machining MPI has already proven to you, which is that there are no internal faults in the steel and no cracks post-manufacture.
In my opinion, it's a total waste of time. KAC staff agree with me. They have stated a number of times they would prefer not to HPT and shorten the life of their bolts, but the US ARMY clings to 1940's era specifications and insists on it.
It is done because of the TDP, but it accrues NO BENEFIT. It would be smarter to proof the assembled rifle, but then you could not do it to batch parts yet to be assembled...
I agree in this day and age, that with the advances in materials and manufacturing, proof testing/HPT is no longer required in parts that are made to the required standards.
I'm not sure there is any actual data that supports the reduction in service life by doing so, but logic dictates that it should have some effect. How much is the question, 100 rounds less, 1000?
Some of my Glocks are Austrian made and assembled, some are assembled in the US. The Austrian ones are proofed, the US ones not (nor are any other US made firearms, apart from the ones specified by the military, and those that want to be seen to be built to the same standard).
This is only due to the legislation that exists in the two countries. Will one be better than the other, or will one have a shorter service life? I doubt it.
My H&S Precision built Remington was not proofed, and I was allowed to import it into the UK, but was informed that if I ever decided to sell it there, it would have to be proofed first. Given that a .300WM barrel is only good for about 1200 rounds before accuracy begins to drop off, how would proofing effect that number, and would it be more or less safe after being proofed, given that it was made from quality components to begin with?
Regards.
Mark
I'm not sure there is any actual data that supports the reduction in service life by doing so, but logic dictates that it should have some effect. How much is the question, 100 rounds less, 1000?
Some of my Glocks are Austrian made and assembled, some are assembled in the US. The Austrian ones are proofed, the US ones not (nor are any other US made firearms, apart from the ones specified by the military, and those that want to be seen to be built to the same standard).
This is only due to the legislation that exists in the two countries. Will one be better than the other, or will one have a shorter service life? I doubt it.
My H&S Precision built Remington was not proofed, and I was allowed to import it into the UK, but was informed that if I ever decided to sell it there, it would have to be proofed first. Given that a .300WM barrel is only good for about 1200 rounds before accuracy begins to drop off, how would proofing effect that number, and would it be more or less safe after being proofed, given that it was made from quality components to begin with?
Regards.
Mark
Saying that any rifle other than those made by Colt or FN meets the TDP is not really correct. As far as I know, only those two companies have access to the document, and is one of the reasons that FN is not allowed to build ARs for anyone but the military. It was, I believe, part of the conditions for them being allowed access to it.
Any other company claiming to build guns to the TDP is just guessing at what it is, and hoping that Colt never finds out that they have so much as even sniffed the document if they ever want to produce another AR without being sued out of business.
I think BM may have had it at one point when they were awarded a contract that didn't actually produce any guns, and they had to certify that that had given back/destroyed all copies of it.
It's the same as calling an AR "mil-spec", when in order to truly be "mil-spec", it would have to be FA/burst capable, as that is what the "mil-spec" calls for.
Regards.
Mark
Any other company claiming to build guns to the TDP is just guessing at what it is, and hoping that Colt never finds out that they have so much as even sniffed the document if they ever want to produce another AR without being sued out of business.
I think BM may have had it at one point when they were awarded a contract that didn't actually produce any guns, and they had to certify that that had given back/destroyed all copies of it.
It's the same as calling an AR "mil-spec", when in order to truly be "mil-spec", it would have to be FA/burst capable, as that is what the "mil-spec" calls for.
Regards.
Mark
Usual story, all these threads evolve into something else. As the OP of this one, I don't really mind, as all I was doing was a public service announcement. It didn't really require any other posts, but has led to some interesting discussion without evolving into a sh!tstorm that usually accompanies Norc or NEA threads.
I'm just disappointed that no one has gone and bought one yet, I was hoping to hit Questar up for some commission (insert appropriate smiley here).
See, we can all play nice!
Regards.
Mark
I'm just disappointed that no one has gone and bought one yet, I was hoping to hit Questar up for some commission (insert appropriate smiley here).
See, we can all play nice!
Regards.
Mark
Nope. Like one knowledgeable guy over at M4Carbine.net said, everyone has friends in low places, a few guys over there can make a quick phone call and get the exact info on what the TDP says.
BCM for example do have access to the TDP and order parts made to it.
Also, a number of LMT uppers have been put in service as MK-18's.
Knowing what is in the TDP, and having access to it are two different things.
I'm willing to bet that you will never get BCM to admit they build their guns based on access to the TDP. Also, the companies that are subject to the TDP submit to govt. inspection on the factory floor throughout the manufacturing and assembly process. It is the inspectors who decide whether or not they are compliant. I don't believe that they do that at other companies that claim to be compliant.
I'm not knocking BCM, I would own their stuff in preference to Colt, if I could get it here (not that I own any Colt stuff either).
Look at some of the legal stuff that has happened over access to the TDP. Even the US govt. has gotten into bother when they released it unapproved.
Regards.
Mark
I'm willing to bet that you will never get BCM to admit they build their guns based on access to the TDP. Also, the companies that are subject to the TDP submit to govt. inspection on the factory floor throughout the manufacturing and assembly process. It is the inspectors who decide whether or not they are compliant. I don't believe that they do that at other companies that claim to be compliant.
I'm not knocking BCM, I would own their stuff in preference to Colt, if I could get it here (not that I own any Colt stuff either).
Look at some of the legal stuff that has happened over access to the TDP. Even the US govt. has gotten into bother when they released it unapproved.
Regards.
Mark
Unless the TDP has been altered in a way that is not being advertised, then this is not true.
As of July 1, 2009 Colt's patents on the M16 and M4 expired and the US Gov't took possession of the entire TDP as of that date.
As of June 14, 2011 the US ARMY has begun procurement of approximately 70,000 to 100,000 M4 and M4A1 (US GOV COMPETITION W56HZV-10-R-0593). This is the first time that the procurement of the M4/M4A1 has not been limited to Colt Defense. Those pre-2011 M4's out there that appear to be made by FN are in fact M16 lowers built into M4's during arsenal rebuilds.
Additionally, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August 1996 illegally as they thought they had the IP rights - they didn't - Colt still owned them at that point. This let to the 1997 "M4 Addendum", those in the industry can tell you about it. It effectively led to the US Gov't paying Colt royalties even after the patents expired as a punitive measure. By Colt's waiving of its damage claims and agreeing to revert to the previous terms of the 1967 licensing agreement of the M16 TDP, the US ARMY in return agreed to not use the M4 TDP for competitive procurement until July of 2009, ensuring Colt’s sole-source status for that period.
The bottom line is that virtually every AR manufacturer in the USA has had a copy of the TDP since 1997.
HPT testing has ZERO to do with QA/QC. It has to do with TDP compliance for gov't contracts and THAT IS ALL. It does not make a better bolt.
The TDP was written in 1967, LONG before modern non-destructive testing became the industry standard.
I knew about most of that history, but as far as I know, no other manufacturer is allowed to use the TDP to produce any products. I was told that was the reason FN were not allowed to sell to non-military customers. Also, there was that BM fiasco which caused some issues with regard to the release of the TDP.
As far as I knew, this was still the case, expiry of the patent not withstanding. I am at work, so I don't have access to any of my books or laptop (having to type on my iPhone!). Of course I could be completely misinformed.
Regards.
Mark
As far as I knew, this was still the case, expiry of the patent not withstanding. I am at work, so I don't have access to any of my books or laptop (having to type on my iPhone!). Of course I could be completely misinformed.
Regards.
Mark
Also, the fact that the % of bolts that actually fail this test is virtually zero. And KAC are right, it dramatically reduces the bolt's life. I remember a thread a while back on M4C and I think it cut about 1/3 of the bolt's life if not half of it.
