The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 2, 2012, 09:49 PM   #26
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
I believe I can get a Daniel Defense V3 (midlength) for $1375 out the door. Not the greatest price, but I think it is where we're at these days.

If I wanted to get a rifle that really tickled me in the low $1,000 range, I think I'd shoot for the DD.

That's certainly a consideration for me, but there is something very efficient and cool about snagging a proper AR on the cheap. Going to the WalMart and grabbing a gallon of milk, some socks, and an AR is hilarious and very cool.... and American!

IF the WW is as good as a colt with the exception of the weaker buffer tube (replaceable if it ends up being a problem), well, that's pretty sweet for the price.

The different twist rate forces you to shoot lighter bullets for accuracy in the WW. That might be a problem to some buyers.
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 01:19 AM   #27
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,514
There's nothing wrong with Windham's barrels, they're air-gauged to exceed mil-spec, the steel is fine, and the coating is fine.

A correction on history: When Remington moved the Bushmaster operation to Ilion, most of the Bushmaster employees did not move with it.

When the five-year non-compete period the Bushmaster owner signed expired, THEN he founded Windham.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 04:12 AM   #28
FALPhil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
Quote:
Well my point is the non mil-spec buffer tube, the 1 in 8 twist barrel, non f-marked sights and other things that are not the usual in the upper tier AR's. by no means am I a fan of the Colt, but I would take Colt's crappy customer service over the Windham AR that cuts corners (buffer tube..etc)
And see, that's my point. The commercial buffer tube, all other things equal, is superior to the milspec buffer tube. Once you settle on the stock, it is a non-issue. The 1:8 twist is superior to the milspec 1:7 twist unless you are regularly going to be shooting 77 grain and heavier bullets, which, BTW, have to be pushed way back into the case in order to fit into the magazine, therefore, most people don't. Salt-bath nitrided bores are superior to chrome lined bores in any number of ways.

As has been said before - milspec does not necessarily mean superior; it just means milspec.

Quote:
But there's more, why would anyone go with Windham which cuts the same corners that the old (and new) Bushmaster did (does) when you can get a milspec PSA for under $800? It just makes no sense to pay the same or more for a commercial grade AR!
And another fallacy from internet gun experts is that "different" or "not milspec" is equivalent to cutting corners. From a logical perspective, this makes absolutely no sense. If you had said, "...not tested to <insert standard here>...", I can agree. But personally, I think the technology in gun building has progressed since the military standards for the M16/M4 were written.

Last edited by FALPhil; December 3, 2012 at 04:19 AM.
FALPhil is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 08:17 AM   #29
sailskidrive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 726
Good points, although I'm not sure I necessarily agree about the buffer tube. I actually PREFER the slightly longer length of the commercial tube, but not adhering to the mil-spec allows some manufacturers to use a lesser grade of aluminum and use less desirable threading methods. On the flip side, I've never actually every seen a buffer tube that has broke that wasn't literally blown up or run over.

The 1:7 twist rate is actually designed to stabilize LONGER bullets (tracer rounds); the fact that they are usually also heavier is dependent on the material.

I would choose my Fulton Armory FAR-15 w/ a 1:9 Krieger barrel any day over an OEM Colt barrel; reinforcing your point that Mil-Spec isn't always better. I view it as the minimum acceptable level of quality.

Colt make a good gun, but there are others out there who've taken the design a step further.
__________________
SailSkiDrive
Hk USP 45 Expert, USP 40, USP 9, SIG P226, S&W M&P9, Hk 4, Makarov, Desert Eagle 40, Beretta FS92 Centurion, Kimber TLEII 1911A1, Glock 22, SIG P225, 1943 Rem Rand 1911A1, S&W mod 64, Walther PPQ, SIG P229, Browning BDA 45 (SIG P220), Hk45, SIG P230
sailskidrive is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 08:19 AM   #30
madcratebuilder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Quote:
Well my point is the non mil-spec buffer tube, the 1 in 8 twist barrel, non f-marked sights and other things that are not the usual in the upper tier AR's. by no means am I a fan of the Colt, but I would take Colt's crappy customer service over the Windham AR that cuts corners (buffer tube..etc)
And see, that's my point. The commercial buffer tube, all other things equal, is superior to the milspec buffer tube. Once you settle on the stock, it is a non-issue. The 1:8 twist is superior to the milspec 1:7 twist unless you are regularly going to be shooting 77 grain and heavier bullets, which, BTW, have to be pushed way back into the case in order to fit into the magazine, therefore, most people don't. Salt-bath nitrided bores are superior to chrome lined bores in any number of ways.

As has been said before - milspec does not necessarily mean superior; it just means milspec.

Quote:
But there's more, why would anyone go with Windham which cuts the same corners that the old (and new) Bushmaster did (does) when you can get a milspec PSA for under $800? It just makes no sense to pay the same or more for a commercial grade AR!
And another fallacy from internet gun experts is that "different" or "not milspec" is equivalent to cutting corners. From a logical perspective, this makes absolutely no sense. If you had said, "...not tested to <insert standard here>...", I can agree. But personally, I think the technology in gun building has progressed since the military standards for the M16/M4 were written.
+100

Not meeting mil-spec is not the same as cutting corners. The mil-spec is just a list of specifications, using a different specification does not necessarily make it better or worse does it?

The Windham AR is significantly better than the old Bushmaster AR, better barrels that are 4150 Chrome Moly Vanadium Steel which are chrome lined, better bolts made from C158 and MP/HP tested. The finish is MIL-A-8625, Type III, Class2, hard coat anodize, the same finish most all manufacturers use today. I don't see the commercial RE as a big deal, although I would prefer a true mil-spec RE, not all manufacturers use the true mil-spec, they use mil-spec diameter, not a forged 7075 RE.

Lately I have read a lot more quality control problems about Colt than I have about Windham. Colt has shipped unstaked keys, poorly machined bolts, terrible feed ramps. Even the dancing pony farts sometimes.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 10:06 AM   #31
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Posts: 750
1:9 - 45-69gr ,1:7 - 45-80gr, Why limit yourself. As far as the buffer tubes, it is personal preference. I prefer a Mil-Spec tube. I have had two buffer tubes that were not mil-spec(both Bushmasters), they worked fine but had more "wobble" in the standard carbine stock. I have also had one mil-spec that would "catch" while between positions(Colt, hence my customer support issues).

I am in no way advocating Colt, the OP asked from the two he listed, which to get. I gave my opinion. I will never buy another Colt again. But if I am going to pay for an AR, I want a few options WW does not offer(at least in the basic model). The Chrome-lined barrel is the deal breaker for me. If I buy a carbine style rifle, I am going to stuff as many rounds through it as possible. The Chrome-lining is your friend if you plan on shooting it a lot. While to some it is not a big deal, to me it is a huge deal. It is my money, I am very picky about how it is spent. Again, remember that mine is just an opinion, so are the others. Take it all with a grain of salt.
__________________
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in Government.
..." - Thomas Jefferson
CharlieDeltaJuliet is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 05:29 PM   #32
Quentin2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
... And another fallacy from internet gun experts is that "different" or "not milspec" is equivalent to cutting corners...
Milspec is desirable in most AR components. Not always necessary in all applications but certainly desirable. Some people talk about exceeding milspec but what really matters is at least meeting the milspec baseline, not falling below as often happens in off-the-rack, sale-of-the-week guns.

When a rifle comes with a commercial instead of milspec diameter receiver extension that's a red flag telling you that you can expect more cost cutting components. Right off you can expect a standard weight buffer and lighter weight bolt carrier instead of the milspec H buffer and heavier carrier which smooth out recoil and functioning. A small thing in many applications but wise to demand when buying an AR. And what about Bushmaster, DPMS, ArmaLite and others' commercial height front sight and shorty carry handles? People replace the carry handle with a third party rear sight that's almost always milspec height which cause problems in zeroing. So many problems that BM sells a 0.04" taller front sight post to fix the problem.

And what's not to like about military specifications on barrel/bolt steel? How does PSA give it all to you for $800 (including FN barrels) and DPMS/BM/WW and many other charge the same for sub milspec rifles? Do they do that to give you something better than milspec or to increase their profit? I'll let you decide.

One other thing, many of us end up with a few ARs over time. How much fun is it to have to remember that one stock won't fit the other buffer tubes and you can't use this rear sight on that AR? Why not demand any AR you buy complies with military specifications as much as possible and then mix'n'match to your heart's content! I certainly demand that of my ARs and have it.

Also, not that I'd likely ever do it but I'm almost certain my BCM, Daniel Defense and PSA uppers would pin right on a real M4 and rock'n'roll. For semiauto functioning they are overengineered (or if you will, milspec) but is that bad?
Quentin2 is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 05:48 PM   #33
ohiomossyoak
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: East Central Ohio
Posts: 92
I just looked over WW website an it seems that EVERY model is chrome lined barrel...Am I missing something,or did I overlook one?
__________________
First it's pretty tires, then it's pretty guns and bows...next thing you know, you're shavin' your beard and wearin' capri pants
ohiomossyoak is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 05:49 PM   #34
Sweet Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2011
Posts: 502
Milspec is a standard of measurements and tolerances. It is not a guarantee of quality.

It can mean that a rifle has been tested to see if it conforms to those specifications... not a problem if it hasn't been, as I'd like to do that bit and actually from what I have seen I have higher standards.

-SS-
Sweet Shooter is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 07:16 PM   #35
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Posts: 750
Ohiomossyoak, sorry that was my fault, the varmit are not chrome lined, The basic bare bones rifle was not chrome lined, but it is not offered anymore. So I do apologize for the confusion. I will get a copy of the spec sheet from it. My buddy has the rifle. It works great, I would just prefer a Colt in a "battle rifle" style rifle.
__________________
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in Government.
..." - Thomas Jefferson
CharlieDeltaJuliet is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 08:09 PM   #36
ohiomossyoak
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: East Central Ohio
Posts: 92
Quote:
Ohiomossyoak, sorry that was my fault, the varmit are not chrome lined, The basic bare bones rifle was not chrome lined, but it is not offered anymore. So I do apologize for the confusion. I will get a copy of the spec sheet from it. My buddy has the rifle. It works great, I would just prefer a Colt in a "battle rifle" style rifle.
No problem
__________________
First it's pretty tires, then it's pretty guns and bows...next thing you know, you're shavin' your beard and wearin' capri pants
ohiomossyoak is offline  
Old December 3, 2012, 11:33 PM   #37
tgreening
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2011
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 246
Mil-spec doesn't necessarily mean better, it simply means the specifications the military wishes the producer to adhere to.

BUT, the one good thing about mil-spec is it is a known set of standards of production. IOW, you know what you are getting, exactly. If you buy a mil-spec replacement part from ANYone, it should be exactly the same as the part you are replacing, regardless of who that part came from.

When standards are left up to the producer, you get.... what exactly? How does it compare to the part you are swapping out? Better, worse, what?
tgreening is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09505 seconds with 7 queries