View Single Post
Old December 3, 2012, 04:12 AM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
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.

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  
Page generated in 0.03927 seconds with 7 queries