AR 15 info.

[MerKWorK]

Good post!!! I just like to see someone listing the "good" carbines and the "better". The TTP and materials are what make the difference and too many people just don't understand!

 

[grizman]

There are all kinds of inaccuracies and issues with the OP.

A couple of things that jump out at me are:

The use of "Tier 1" to describe mil-spec manufacturers. In the manufacturing industry Tier 1 refers to a vendor that supplies the original equipment manufacturer or prime. A Tier 2 company refers to a vendor that supplies a Tier 1. A Tier 3 company is a vendor to a Tier 2 and so on.
A better term would be "prime". It is a fact that there are only 3 prime manufacturers of M16 & M4 rifles, meaning these are the only manufacturers approved to produce rifles for the US military currently and the only true "mil-spec" rifles out there. They are:

Colt
FN
Sabre

Mil-Spec means much more than just making a part to print, it also refers to controlled manufacturing processes, accountability, and acceptance. There are other companies that meet or exceed mil-spec requirements, but do not hold military contracts to produce complete AR15/M16 type rifles currently, some are mentioned in the OP, like Knight Armament.

Stoner worked for Armalite, which was a division of Fairchild Aircraft. Stoner was not the only engineer to work on the AR15, but is credited with its development, even though others contributed greatly to the design. Fairchild Aircraft and Armalite eventually went out of business. The only thing the current company Armalite has in common with the company Stoner worked for is the name and the fact that they make an AR15 type rifle, the two are not the same company.

Colt was not the only company to build AR15 or M16 type rifles prior to the 1980's. Harrington & Richardson and GM Hydromatic both built M16A1 rifles for the govt in addition to Colt.

There is no one single manufacturer of AR15 type rifles that manufacture all parts in-house. Many are buying from the same suppliers, even those referred to as Tier 2. Most do nothing more than assembly of parts, which is why so many new players are in the game now, like Spike's, it's "easy" to do if you have the resources to buy the parts. But service does set many companies apart.

Thats all I got time for now, coming from a Tier 1 who supplies one of the primes & military with components with 23 years in govt & industry.

First off this post was about civilian sold rifles not military contract units. So hence the reason FN wasn't mentioned. Where did I say any of the companies listed made every part on house?
Secomdly the tier sytem as used in the OP is widely accepted as the way people rank civilian produced AR15's.
It in no way is meant to follow the Military materials procurement nomenclature system or definitions. The info was presented in a manner accepted as the norm for this type of forum.
You missed the part about being mil spec with the exception of the fire control parts and barrel length. And that is the only difference between the listed Tier1 guns and USGI issued weapons. You have taken this out of its intended context and attempted to say like so many it isn't mil spec because it is not 100% mil spec due to the lack of selectfire ability or a US contract held by the manufacturer. That is why you only listed current three contract holding companies suppling the armed forces.

Sorry, but that argument has been rerun way to many times and proven to be incorrect. The Manufacturers I listed as Tier 1 do follow all the materials,assembly and test specs and procedures used by the USGI contractors today. KAC and Sabre are not the only guys following the milspec guidlines.

 

[grizman]

Why not skip the very inaccurate history lesson and just post a picture or link to " THE CHART" ??

Because the chart appears to be several years behind in the changes made by several companies and is in need of updating. Some folks don't know what all the ranked catagories mean or how the effect durability or operation! So I used the accepted Tier system and laid out the top of the line Civilian rifles and the good enough for home defense rifles.

As far as an inaccurate history lesson? Read the complete links below.
M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Auto-Ordnance | Products | Long Guns, M1

 

[grizman]

Apparently you didn't read the part were they said they erred in selling Colt the rights to the A15 and set to design something that would not violate Stoner's patented gas system. That right there means they did not produce any as they couldn't without the rights to do so.

There is your problem right there, an assumption, Stoner did have the rights to his gas system yes but you are failing to understand that the AR15 was a functional weapon as it had to be to get a design Patent as a rifle other wise it would have been an intellectual property (unproven theory/design) that was patented. Stoner/Armalite Had already down sized the existing AR10 into the AR15 and Armalite had indeed produced rifles for trials submission and trials were underway, began in 1958, when they sold out to Colt. Please read these two links completely! It should clear up a few things you have incorrect. I was a weapons Sgt in the 1BN/75TH Rangers for a few years of my 22 years in that unit. During that short time I may have learned some history that is "obscure" from the guys retiring that were young infantrymen way back in the early 60's when this all was taking place.

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AR timeline
Auto-Ordnance | Products | Long Guns, M1 AR replaces M1 carbine

 

[grizman]

Do you have any authoritative references for your historical assertions?



If this is true, then the wikipedia AR-15 entry needs some correction (and the one for the M16 too)

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Also, there's some disconnect with the Eugene Stoner entry.

Eugene Stoner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the Armalite entry.

ArmaLite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention resources on ARFCOm, globalsecurity.org, and elsewhere/etc. This is what we call convergence. Are all these resoures incorrect?

I think the problem some folks are having is getting over some of the apparent historical inaccuracies in your initial post (i.e. the AR name, "carbine" trials, who designed it, who sold it, etc.) which seem to detract from the credibility of the point you're trying to make (which is generally valid).

Try the links In post #24 They are in line with what I was taught in my limited Army days! Go to that post read it then read the links completely the correct info is there.

 

[loony1]

your forgot LaRue

 

[grizman]

your forgot LaRue

I do not see where they offer any complete rifles. The list only includes manufacturers that offer complete pre set rifles not build your own uppers and lowers. BCM now offers a line of complete rifles so they made the list. If you can link me to something showing a line complete rifles offered by LaRue I will call them about the material.testing and assembly specs. If they are milspec or better I will add them no problem.

 

[Cwood]

Apparently you didn't read the part were they said they erred in selling Colt the rights to the A15 and set to design something that would not violate Stoner's patented gas system. That right there means they did not produce any as they couldn't without the rights to do so.

There is your problem right there, an assumption, Stoner did have the rights to his gas system yes but you are failing to understand that the AR15 was a functional weapon as it had to be to get a design Patent as a rifle other wise it would have been an intellectual property (unproven theory/design) that was patented. Stoner/Armalite Had already down sized the existing AR10 into the AR15 and Armalite had indeed produced rifles for trials submission and trials were underway, began in 1958, when they sold out to Colt. Please read these two links completely! It should clear up a few things you have incorrect. I was a weapons Sgt in the 1BN/75TH Rangers for a few years of my 22 years in that unit. During that short time I may have learned some history that is "obscure" from the guys retiring that were young infantrymen way back in the early 60's when this all was taking place.

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AR timeline
Auto-Ordnance | Products | Long Guns, M1 AR replaces M1 carbine

After 59 Armalite did not produce any of the rifles for the military or the civilian market. What is so hard to understand?

 

[RichardR]

Arguing over AR minutia seems silly to me, either an AR is reliable or it isn't &/or either an AR is accurate or it isn't.

No-one argues over whether or not M1 Garands, MG42's, M2HB's or AK-47's are made from 4140 or 4150 steel or if those weapons barrels & bolts were/are HPT or MPI batch tested.

Don't get me wrong advancements in armament design, development & stricter quality control is a great thing, but some folks forget that billions of firearms have been made over the last few hundreds of years & in all of that time all it has really boiled down to these two things ... "does the firearm I have in my hand work reliably?" & "can I hit what I am aiming at with it?".

Just my .02

 

[grizman]

After 59 Armalite did not produce any of the rifles for the military or the civilian market. What is so hard to understand?

For me nothing, I have proven my historical account with independent accounts from a couple of sources. You attempted to discredit that account with a biased self promoting company history and a independent link that looked as if it was written on a cocktail napkin. In your last post you ignored the fact it proved my account and discredited your entire basis. You have been proven wrong sir and it is time to admit that fact. You are only making yourself look bad at this point. Nothing personal. Post what you like now, anything other than and admission you were wrong or just walking away will only discredit you not me.

Sorry this turned into an argument over 50 year old history guy's!
End of argument

 

[DialTone301]

For the most part I agree with your list as far as "tier 1" and "tier 2". But I am surprised that Spikes and Sabre are considered "tier 1" and KAC isn't. I thought Spikes only recently began producing a rifle that met the "mil spec" requirements.....not saying it is a bad rifle but it needs to be out there a little longer to prove itself as a "tier 1" rifle. Spikes does have good customer service so if the parts are good the overall package will be good.

I also don't think that the "tier 2" rifles all are anywhere near equal. Some are more "mil spec" that others.

I have rifles in both groups and for paper punching there isn't much difference but I would grab my "tier 1 " rifle first in a SHTF situation.

 

[LPMan59]

saw this on ARF.com

Are you the kind of guy who buys store brand soda and cheap liquor? If so, then a Spikes AR15 may be right for you.

lolz

 

[paddling_man]

Agreed, hearsay and poor information can be counterproductive.

Wouldn't surprise me if their rifles aren't made by Armscor in the Philippines the Ar 24 pistols are.

Who told you this?

The AR-24, as sold by Armalite, is manufactured by Sarsilmaz Silah Sanayi in Turkey who patterned the pistol off of the Tanfoglio 9/40 TZ-75 / Witness frame, with Tanfoglio supplying designwork, tooling and parts.

In the world of CZ clone/copies, there are two general pathways: either one builds a gun nearly identical to the CZ or they make one fundamentally as a Tanfoglio.

Examples of Tanfoglio TZ-75 clones (with Tanfoglio doing everything from simple licensing to parts to complete manufacture) include the EAA imported Witness, Armalite AR-24, IMI Jericho and Baby Eagle, FIE/EXCAM TA90, Armscor MAP and Springfield P9.

saw this on ARF.com

Are you the kind of guy who buys store brand soda and cheap liquor? If so, then a Spikes AR15 may be right for you.

lolz

rep incoming to lpman - that's funny.

 

[mvician]

I am surprised that Spikes and Sabre are considered "tier 1" and KAC isn't.

The "tier" system and "chart" were/are based on M4 style rifles.
KAC no longer makes a M4 style, thus it is not on "the chart".

 

[Cwood]

For me nothing, I have proven my historical account with independent accounts from a couple of sources. You attempted to discredit that account with a biased self promoting company history and a independent link that looked as if it was written on a cocktail napkin. In your last post you ignored the fact it proved my account and discredited your entire basis. You have been proven wrong sir and it is time to admit that fact. You are only making yourself look bad at this point. Nothing personal. Post what you like now, anything other than and admission you were wrong or just walking away will only discredit you not me.

Sorry this turned into an argument over 50 year old history guy's!
End of argument

I never tried to discredit the fact that after 59 they made no AR15's. I showed you a quote that said they erred in selling the rights to Colt and went on to develop something that wasn't patented by Stoner. This was in response to your statement below.

It is somewhat misleading reading that "history" as it never states that Armalite built no AR15's for 20+ years.

Anything after 1959 was Colt AR15 not a Armalite.

Your own links prove what I have said. Also Armalite never won any trial with the AR. The M1 wasn't replaced with the M16 till the 60's which by then COLT owned the rights not Armalite and this is per your LINK.

The M1 series was finally replaced by the M16 in the 1960s, though it continued to be used as a civilian firearm.

Auto-Ordnance | Products | Long Guns, M1

The U.S. Air Force's rifle, the M16, and the United States Marine Corps and Army rifle, the XM16E1, were the first versions of the M16 rifle fielded. Soon, the U.S. Army standardized the XM16E1 as the M16A1 rifle, an M16 with a forward assist feature requested by the Army. All of the early versions were chambered to fire the M193/M196 cartridge in the semi-automatic and the automatic firing modes. This occurred in the early 1960s, with the Army issuing it in late 1964.[10] Commercial AR-15s were first issued to Special Forces troops in spring of 1964.[11]

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[parkerj112]

Wiki

I would like to point out that if you go take classes anywhere they will tell you that you may !NEVER! use wikipedia as a ref. The reason for this is due to the fact that anyone can get onto wiki and change infomation around to suit themselves. Ask any highschool student or college student. Wiki as a ref to the original info is great but go find the info from where wiki gets it. Otherwise you are using a source quoting another source. I wanted to add this for future arguments.

Peace.

 

[strahd71]

really tho i got to ask why does this stuff matter? i dont care who made what 30 years ago!

jake

 

[paddling_man]

really tho i got to ask why does this stuff matter? i dont care who made what 30 years ago!

jake

Most of it is esoteric minutiae, of interest only to gun knuts willing to debate. Watch how upset folks get when the media calls a Romanian AK an assault rifle (being incorrect in the unofficial definition of most gun knuts) and yet we see folks list their HiPoint 995 in the INGO exchange as an Assault Rifle... with only two clips fired thru it.

It matters to folks for whom firearms are their passion.

 

[grizman]

Most of it is esoteric minutiae, of interest only to gun knuts willing to debate. Watch how upset folks get when the media calls a Romanian AK an assault rifle (being incorrect in the unofficial definition of most gun knuts) and yet we see folks list their HiPoint 995 in the INGO exchange as an Assault Rifle... with only two clips fired thru it.

It matters to folks for whom firearms are their passion.

Well I could be a Gun "knut" maybe. This is all gotten out of hand and is detracting from the intent of the post. That being to provide an somewhat up to date guide of suggested manufacturers for new AR buyers to look at. Depending on budget limits they can compare the top end rifles specs to the specs of the ones in their respective budget and pick the one they feel is the best within their budget.
This could be a good thing to help guys not waste their hard earned dollars if we stop this petty stuff. Lets try! lets us this as a thread to update specs give personal accounts and track records of whatever AR you own or owned. Just straight forward no beating around the bush info.
If not I will ask a MOD to either lock it or delete it!

 

[paddling_man]

If not I will ask a MOD to either lock it or delete it!

FYI - If you are a site supporter, you can lock your own threads. Beyond that, Mods lock threads when things are violating the rules, but seldom else. They don't usually lock threads at the request of someone who just disagrees with the opinions therein or the track it is taking.

That said, civility is nice.