The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 24, 2013, 03:49 PM   #1
Rabbitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 116
New BushmasterC15

Hello all.

It seems that AR style rifles are once again coming into stock and at better prices. I was in my local Base Exchange and they had a few different models on hand. I drooled over the $2550 (forgot who made it) one they had. Took a look at the Bushmaster Target model and then ended up getting the C15.

It was $760 out the door. From other I have talked to it seems it was a good price.

I have not shot it yet nor do I have any photos.

I guess I just wanted to brag and share my purchase news and ask others what they think of the C15. I did see a very old (2010) thread so was hoping for updated opinions.

It does not come with iron sights but has an optic red dot with it.
__________________
NRA Life Member.
Para; Browning; Colt; Henry; Rossi; Kimber; Magnum Research; Rock Island; Ruger; S&W; Sig; Taurus; Chiappa; Remington; Remington Shotgun; Hi Point Carbine; Bushmaster; ISSC; Beretta; Marlin. .22; .380; 9mm; .38; .357; .45; 12 gauge; .223/5.56.
Variety is the spice of life.
Rabbitt is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 04:41 PM   #2
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,274
Let us know how it shoots. : )
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 08:41 PM   #3
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,244
Well, thats not too bad of a price for a lower-end AR (not to bust your bubble). You could've spent a little more and bought a Smith and Wesson M&P15 Sport for about $799.

If you like it and it shoots good, I guess that's all that matters. Good luck and have fun shooting.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 05:28 AM   #4
spyderdude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Posts: 578
I haven't personally shot nor owned a Carbon 15 but the general consensus is that it is a good design in theory but in practice, perhaps not so much. If it were me, I probably would've saved a little more and bought a Colt, S&W, or even a Windham Weaponry. I just don't see how that polymer lower and upper on the C15 can hold up in the long run. Some people may have more luck with it than others, I just wouldn't buy one unless I already had a few ARs that I could bet my life on. Good luck with it though!
spyderdude is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 02:40 PM   #5
EAJ702
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 446
Congrat's!

Here's a Bushmaster Carbon 15 9MM Carbine I purchased several years ago. To date I haven't had any problems with it. Handy to have if you don't live near an outdoor range. Most indoor ranges allow pistol caliber rifles.

EAJ702 is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 06:55 PM   #6
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
Spyderdude, you have to realize the carbon construction is stronger than steel or aluminum.
patriotic is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 08:28 PM   #7
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
Spyderdude, you have to realize the carbon construction is stronger than steel or aluminum.
I think I'll just wait and let someone else correct this statement.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 05:27 PM   #8
BillyJack3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2012
Posts: 403
I'll wait as well. I"m sure someone here has some data points to share. I'd ask the same when making statements like that regarding strength and durability. To say that the construction is stronger than steel or aluminum, that takes the cake for internet BS today.

Also, the Carbon 5 is a polymer based rifle. It's not Carbon Fiber as the name would imply.

OP, congrats on the rifle. Shoot it and enjoy it.
BillyJack3 is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 06:49 PM   #9
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
http://www.bushmaster.com/electronic...rbonmodels.pdf
patriotic is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:51 PM   #10
LRChops
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Location: Placer County
Posts: 125
Carbon is not stronger than billet aluminum or steel. Carbon is not MIL SPEC!
__________________
May God make smooth the path you follow!
LRChops is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 10:30 PM   #11
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
Are you saying all the research we are doing here at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson AFB is wrong? That we made a mistake with using carbon composite on the B-1, B-2, F-22, F117 and F-35? Gee I will have to let our engineers know that. Are you aware that carbon composite material is used in M-1 tank armor? You think billet aluminum or steal would do a better job?
patriotic is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 12:01 AM   #12
Quentin2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,635
So, patriotic, you're saying we all should run out and buy a Carbon 15? Maybe I'll wait until you guys get some experience building an AR-15! Until then, well you can buy a C15...
Quentin2 is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 02:21 PM   #13
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
No that is not what I am saying at all. You buy what you want just don’t criticize what you know nothing about. The first M16 I used in country back in 1968 was a Colt and it was a POS. It wasn’t until we got replacements with chromed chambers and cartridge assist that they were any better. BTW if you own a Colt you only have an imitation of Eugene Stoner’s rifle. A real purest would have an ArmaLite. I will let you know when my Carbon 15 breaks but until then and if it ever does break I will continue to enjoy shooting it.
patriotic is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 08:08 PM   #14
Quentin2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
No that is not what I am saying at all. You buy what you want just don’t criticize what you know nothing about. The first M16 I used in country back in 1968 was a Colt and it was a POS. It wasn’t until we got replacements with chromed chambers and cartridge assist that they were any better. BTW if you own a Colt you only have an imitation of Eugene Stoner’s rifle. A real purest would have an ArmaLite. I will let you know when my Carbon 15 breaks but until then and if it ever does break I will continue to enjoy shooting it.
And the Colt I was issued in 1968 in Nam worked fine. But I agree there were duds, mainly due to bad magazines, bad ammo and poor maintenance. The chrome lined bore/chamber was a big help too as was the forward assist when you had to get a round chambered NOW.

I actually did have an ArmaLite but got rid of the HBAR upper last year. Kept the lower as I put it together myself and like the parts. It now has a PSA upper that brings it much, much closer to milspec. (The current ArmaLite has nothing much in common, other than name, with the real ArmaLite of the '50s that designed the AR-15.) Colt's LE6920 is much closer to the M4 than today's ArmaLite is.

I hope your C15 holds up but I sure wouldn't push it hard. My buddy has one and I've never been impressed except it is light. Its polymers are nothing like the materials you were describing earlier.

Last edited by Quentin2; June 30, 2013 at 08:14 PM.
Quentin2 is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 10:10 PM   #15
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
Are you saying all the research we are doing here at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson AFB is wrong? That we made a mistake with using carbon composite on the B-1, B-2, F-22, F117 and F-35? Gee I will have to let our engineers know that. Are you aware that carbon composite material is used in M-1 tank armor? You think billet aluminum or steal would do a better job?
Terrible analogy.

The B-1, B-2, F-22, etc. were designed to use carbon composites in their construction. The receiver of the AR-15 was not designed to be made out of plastic. There are plenty of photos of receivers broken at the buffer tube attachment point floating around out there to bear this out.

FYI, there is a massive difference between the carbon composites used in aircraft construction and the injection-molded polymers used in firearms. Another reason this analogy fails.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 10:55 PM   #16
Jim243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 4,343
Quote:
A real purest would have an ArmaLite.
I did in 1967 and by the way this IS a Bushmaster Carbon 15.

Jim



Congrats on the new gun, you will have fun with it.

These are also fun to shoot.

__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Jim243 is offline  
Old July 2, 2013, 04:47 PM   #17
Rabbitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 116
Hello everyone.

Finally got a chance to get to the range and shoot off a little less than a hundred rounds.

I love it. No problems what so ever. I am glad I got it.

To get us all on the same page. I am not a hunter. I don't go running through the woods or desert or mountains shooting game or targets or anything. I will be shooting at my local indoor range for the most part and that is at all of 75ft.

This being a Carbon gun suits me fine. I don't need or want at this time anything a few dollars more or a hundred dollars more or even a thousand dollars more. It suits my needs and that is it.

Jim 243 - I also have a 9mm Hi Point as well as a S&W M7P 15-22. I like shooting them both also.
__________________
NRA Life Member.
Para; Browning; Colt; Henry; Rossi; Kimber; Magnum Research; Rock Island; Ruger; S&W; Sig; Taurus; Chiappa; Remington; Remington Shotgun; Hi Point Carbine; Bushmaster; ISSC; Beretta; Marlin. .22; .380; 9mm; .38; .357; .45; 12 gauge; .223/5.56.
Variety is the spice of life.
Rabbitt is offline  
Old July 2, 2013, 05:00 PM   #18
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
Quote:
The B-1, B-2, F-22, etc. were designed to use carbon composites in their construction. The receiver of the AR-15 was not designed to be made out of plastic. There are plenty of photos of receivers broken at the buffer tube attachment point floating around out there to bear this out.

FYI, there is a massive difference between the carbon composites used in aircraft construction and the injection-molded polymers used in firearms. Another reason this analogy fails.
You are correct the AR receiver was not designed to be made of “plastic” and the C15 is not made of plastic. If you ask Quentin2 or Jim243 how we disabled M16s in Vietnam they would tell you how we smashed the stock against a tree or rock to break the stock and buffer tube from the receiver. Oh yes the aluminum will break.

I am surprised that for someone unwilling to accept new technology that you would want to shy away from a steel rifle for an aluminum rifle. Maybe you would like to point out the “massive” difference in the carbon composite used in aircraft construction versus that used in firearms.
patriotic is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 09:56 AM   #19
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
You are correct the AR receiver was not designed to be made of “plastic” and the C15 is not made of plastic.
The Carbon-15 receiver is made of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP). The material is plastic (def: capable of being shaped or formed) when heated. Plastic is a 100% accurate term for the receiver of the Carbon-15

Quote:
Maybe you would like to point out the “massive” difference in the carbon composite used in aircraft construction versus that used in firearms.
You are the one that indicated they are one in the the same, so the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. You will, however, quickly find that you will be unable to, so I'll go ahead and help you out.

The injection-molded polymers used for firearm frames (which may or may not have glass or carbon fiber reinforcement in a random pattern) do not have the structural strength of the type of composites used in aircraft, which are laid up in a mold with the strands precisely oriented and precisely engineered for their specific use and the severity and direction of forces they will encounter. These composites are then compressed under heat and pressure into shape. Titanium, aluminum, or steel reinforcements may be incorporated into the material.

If you want to take the time, here is a description of the composite materials used in the F-22 Raptor:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ft/f-22-mp.htm
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 11:52 AM   #20
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 4,849
On the other hand, the materials and construction of the rifle don't need to be as strong as the plane.
It's not going to suffer jet engine and flight stresses.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 01:33 PM   #21
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
On the other hand, the materials and construction of the rifle don't need to be as strong as the plane.
It's not going to suffer jet engine and flight stresses.
Indeed.

But patriotic made the failed analogy that since I indicated injection-molded plastic was inappropriate for a design whose shape and function was intended to be manufactured of forged aluminum, I must also believe that the sort of specifically engineered resinous laid/pressed woven carbon-fiber material used in modern aircraft is inappropriate for that use. Which of course is not true.

He made a number of condescending remarks without actually knowing what he was talking about:

Quote:
Are you saying all the research we are doing here at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson AFB is wrong? That we made a mistake with using carbon composite on the B-1, B-2, F-22, F117 and F-35? Gee I will have to let our engineers know that. Are you aware that carbon composite material is used in M-1 tank armor? You think billet aluminum or steal would do a better job?
By the way, one of the materials that makes up the Chobham composite armor of the M1 Abrams is steel (not "steal").
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 11:36 AM   #22
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 968
I don't think the carbon 15 uses carbon nano fiber reinforcement like the F-35. We probably shouldn't compare the tech used in the world's most advance fighter aircraft to that used in a rifle sold on the civilian market. Probably not the best example.


Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help

Last edited by Boomer58cal; July 4, 2013 at 11:51 AM.
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 12:38 PM   #23
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 69
Quote:
The Carbon-15 receiver is made of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP). The material is plastic (def: capable of being shaped or formed) when heated. Plastic is a 100% accurate term for the receiver of the Carbon-15
Your definition of “plastic” can also define a property of steel when heated. And thank you for the spelling lesson. You saved me the agony of going through life depending on the Gates spell checker.

Quote:
You are the one that indicated they are one in the the same, so the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. You will, however, quickly find that you will be unable to, so I'll go ahead and help you out.
No need to repeat “the”.

Never indicated they were one in the same only that carbon composites are the new high strength technology replacing aircraft aluminum in aircraft. Just like all injection molded plastics are very different from one another. If is refreshing to see you have revised your terminology to “injection-molded polymers” and not plastic, they are quite different you know. Plastic can be melted and reformed but polymers cannot. Hence you cannot call a C15 receiver “plastic”.

Quote:
Traditional aircraft materials such as aluminum and steel make up about 1/5 of the F-22's structure by weight. The high performance capabilities of the F-22 requires the significant use of titanium (42 % of all structural materials by weight) and composite materials (24 % by weight), which are both stronger and lighter weight than traditional materials, and offer better protection against corrosion.
Taken from your F-22 link. I would guess you made my case regarding composite materials being stronger as well as lighter in weight.

In reality the condescending remarks that were made in this thread were by the Carbon 15 cynics. So unless you have owned one and have experienced a problem with it you have no grounds to talk.
patriotic is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 12:11 AM   #24
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
If is refreshing to see you have revised your terminology to “injection-molded polymers” and not plastic, they are quite different you know
Sorry you don't like the word plastic, patriotic. Polymer certainly sounds better, doesn't it?

Quote:
I would guess you made my case regarding composite materials being stronger as well as lighter in weight.
Yes the materials in an F-22 are. The injection-molded plastic/polymer/petrochemical-derived-stuff-that-gets-soft-when-you-heat-it material of a Carbon-15 is not the same material. It sounds like you may actually understand this now, but your pride is causing you to try to keep up this discussion.

For all we know, an equal weight of the stuff in in a Carbon-15 receiver may actually be stronger than 7075 forged aluminum (but doubtful). However, the plastic receiver is so much lighter than an aluminum receiver, it is quite clear that there is not enough material by weight to approach the strength of the same receiver rendered in forged 7075. This is testified to by all those images out there of polymer lower AR-15 receivers breaking at the buffer tube connection during normal usage (i.e. not being smacked up against a tree).

This goes right back to the heart of the issue - the F-22 and the like were designed to be made of aircraft composites. The AR-15 lower receiver was not designed to be made of injection-molded plastic/polymer. Look at the polymer lower receiver of a SCAR or ACR. You will see much beefier sections of material and none of the thin/weak spots of a plastic/polymer AR-15 receiver (not to mention an operating system that does not make use of a buffer-tube connection). These shapes were designed around the properties of polymer. The shape of an AR-15 receiver was not.

Am I saying a Carbon-15 is a terrible product? Of course not. I'm sure it is perfectly acceptable for what it is - a lower-cost commercial-market AR designed for range fun, plinking, maybe hunting. I own several guns designed for similar purposes. There is nothing wrong with that. But to say it is stronger than a forged 7075 AR-15 just because an F-22 is made of high-tech aircraft composites is just a bit delusional.

Quote:
So unless you have owned one and have experienced a problem with it you have no grounds to talk.
Wow patriotic, with an attitude like that, you may want to re-evaluate your screen name.

Last I checked, this is still a free country and this is an open board. So I have grounds to talk and contribute to the discussion, provided I follow forum rules. And as we celebrate our nations' independence and I partake of this God-given right (among others that we cherish) I wish you the best. There is really nothing more to discuss on this particular point, so I bid you adieu.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; July 5, 2013 at 03:09 PM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 08:32 AM   #25
Rabbitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 116
Well hey everyone.

Thanks so much for turning a simple "I have a new rifle and want to show it off" into a Urinary Olympiad on the merits or lack thereof of a way a particular gun is made and the materials used.

Here's an idea. HOW ABOUT STARTING YOUR OWN DARN THREAD AND GETTING THE HECK OUT OF MINE!

Yo Monitors. Would you be so kind as to lock this thread so it can finally disappear?

Thanks.
__________________
NRA Life Member.
Para; Browning; Colt; Henry; Rossi; Kimber; Magnum Research; Rock Island; Ruger; S&W; Sig; Taurus; Chiappa; Remington; Remington Shotgun; Hi Point Carbine; Bushmaster; ISSC; Beretta; Marlin. .22; .380; 9mm; .38; .357; .45; 12 gauge; .223/5.56.
Variety is the spice of life.
Rabbitt 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 12:41 PM.


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 0.13784 seconds with 7 queries