I'm looking to get a new AR, and need a little advice. This will be my first AR style rifle. I've been looking around and it seems to get what I want, the best route is to buy the upper and lower receivers seperately. I was looking at the M&P 15 lower with a BCM upper. Any thoughts on this combination? Also, any thoughts on a 16" vs an 18" barrel?

The 18" barrel will give you about 100fps more than the 16". This will only make a difference if you are shooting past 300yds. Also if you are using irons you may achieve more accuracy due to the increase in sight plane. I like my M&P sport. Got nothing on the BCM. Good luck. Hope you get what you want.

The biggest advantage of going with the 18" barrel is that you can get it with the rifle length gas system for even less recoil.

What is in the BCM upper that you want, that you can't get elsewhere?

It's not so much what I can't get elsewhere, but more of a price point. I found some that have the 13" quad rail ff handguard already installed, which is what I want. Overall it was cheaper to get their upper than to buy the handguard separately and then have it installed.

I'm a little slow tonight. Are you going to assemble a stripped M&P 15 lower, or you have a source for a complete M&P 15 lower & topping it off with a complete upper?

All you need is a couple roll pin punches, vise-grips, masking tape, a screw-driver or hex head driver, and a castle nut wrench. In less than 20 min, bingo-bango-boingo... assembled lower.

__________________
-John

I'm also looking to purchase my first AR, and thinking about a S&W M&P15PC, or a SIG516? any thoughts or recomendations? Going to be used at a gun club range..

Both are nice rifles but i'd perfer the S&W over the Sig. If it were a handgun i'd go with the Sig (but most likely a Glock which is my favorite) over the S&W handgun

Conan; The Sig is a military platform which some have pointed out and they are correct is a 3MOA platform, the Smith is a modern sporting rifle and with the PC you do get a 1MOA barrel. That is quite a bit of accuracy difference. On the Sigs website they even state that you get a Military Chrome lined barrel with a 1:7 twist according to what I just looked up with the PC you get a 20" 1:8 SS Match Barrel. With the Sig you get a military trigger with the PC you get a 2 stage match trigger. Plus the MSRP on the PC is less. I would recommend the PC hands down!! If you look around you may be able to pick up the S&W cheaper plus it is Made in the USA. I would love to be able to afford one.

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Why not just buy a Colt 6920?

Emory

some of us like rifles that will shoot less than 1MOA and are not made to loose specifications. So if the prancing pony wanted you to go somewhere and drink the koolaid you would follow them blindly off of a cliff because it has the same insignia as a Ferrari. I have looked up the specs for a Mil-Spec AR and Foxtrot is right they are a 3MOA platform. Not near accurate enough for a hunting rifle. Smith turned a loose rattletrap rifle into an accurate hunting rifle. Not something made for human sized targets.....

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Any AR/M class rifle I've ever shot was a 1MOA rifle when in good repair.
Considering the Marine Q course is 500m on a human size target with iron sights, I really think that statement is a little off.
Especially taking into account it's a 14.5 inch barrel.

__________________
Hold my beer and watch this!

Gunslinger I do not want to offend you but I never had a 1MOA rifle when I was in the corps. the only 1MOA rifles we had were used by the battalion shooting team. I dont know when you were in, we didnt have meters we had yards and the human torso was a big human. But read the above link and see that all the rifle has to do is hit the target with the sights centered. There are no MOA requirements. The individual manufacturers advertise their accuracy when selling to the civilian market, or do not touch it at all... We also did not have 14.5" barrels.

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Shhhhhh.... don't tell all the secrets.

The thing with "Mil-Spec" is that it sets out the basic MINIMUM allowable specs that a weapon can be.
In most cases the specifications are exceeded.
I think most of the problem with a military rifle is it goes through so many hands, if you ever got one right out of the box you'd get your 1MOAS out of it.
Sorta like the old rattle trap .45s they issued, big difference between those and a well cared for Govt. issue.
I've got 2 M-4s sitting in my safe that I can get 1 MOA out of, of course they've never been beat to death and abused like an armory weapon.
ETA:
Now, if I could just get 1MOA out of my aging eyes again!

__________________
Hold my beer and watch this!

Sorry but I think you are a little confused. The 3 MOA accuracy for the Colt is for M193 and M855 ammunition. Which you may not know, but is not very accurate ammunition. The rifle itself is capable of much better accuracy if fed the right ammo.

My Colt will shoot MOA with any number of loads. And I believe, without going back and checking my logs, with anything Hornady I’ve ever tried.

It will even shoot MOA with cheap Federal AAE223.
Here’s a target. The scope is a 1.75X6 Leopold. So even with low magnification I’ve been able to shoot many MOA groups. 3 rounds at 100 is of course much easier, but notice this target was 5 rounds at 200 Yards.



I’ve spent quite a bit of time with AR’s of different makes. Mostly Colts, Rock Rivers, and Noveske’s. The Sheriff’s office I retired from 2 years ago was the first in the state to put an AR in every patrol car. I’ve also been to Thunder Ranch 6 times and shoot IPSC.

I now drink from the Noveske Koolaid as you put it. Colt's and Noveske's have been good to me.

FWIW I also drink Aimpoint, and Larue, and 5 Screw S&W, and Wilson Combat 1911 Koolaid.

I think the 6920 represents the best value in today's AR market. jmho.

Emory

You missed the bull. I'll give ya $100 for that tomato stake.

Emory,

Colt 6920 - $1,150 MSRP
M&P15 Sport - $739 MSRP

Your Colt shooting 2" at 200 yds is very impressive, to me. But I'm certain that for many Sport owners on this forum, not so much. If accuracy is the over riding factor in "best value", for about the same accuracy, or better, you could have saved over $400.

In the industry in which I work there is a saying - no one ever got fired for buying IBM. And I'm certain that in LE or government procurement, buying Colt is a safe career move. After all, it's not like it's real money, it's just tax dollars.

The 6920 is a solid, quality rifle, but "best value"? Besides the name, what else does the Colt have going for it that, say, a Stag, Spikes, BC, DS Arms, S&W, don't have at the same or lower price?

WOW, lot of bad info here. First, the accuracy standard for the M16/M4 is 4MOA at 100yds. This is the MAX accuracy standard for this gun and honestly isn't the guns fault, but the ****** ammo (M855/M193).
As a general rule, most of your Colt AR's will shoot 1.5" groups for better. Same goes with the chrome lined S&W AR's. Can you get a Colt or a S&W AR to shoot UNDER 1MOA @ 100yds? Yes.

Mil-Spec simply means that parts are interchangeable. So you can take one M16/M4 apart and all the parts will fit into another M16/M4.

TDP (technical data package) is what tells the manufacturer how every single part is to be made and assembled. The bolt steel, barrel steel, testing, proof load, anodizing and even the color of the gun is listed. This standard is neither low or high. It is simply THE standard that all AR's are measured against and ONLY Colt and FN own the official one.

As someone that has been involved with S&W AR's since day one, I can tell you that they are a very good AR and are going in the right direction. I would also say that the SPORT is probably the best value out there. With that said, they are not equal to a Colt, BCM, Noveske, DD, etc.


In the end, if you want or own a S&W AR, then great, but to think it is a BETTER built gun than a Colt is inaccurate IMHO.



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Oh boy. Here we go again.

__________________
-John

The AR platform is a 3 MOA platform, not that it will only shoot 3 MOA. The Sig's, Colts, and Smiths are AR platforms.

The 3 MOA is in reference to the standard military issue platform and capability of the basic skills shooter of the military platform. The Sig's, Colts, and Smiths are AR platforms based upon the military platform.

As for the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" applied - a short definiton is: The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" is a marketing term for use distinction preception in relation to application, not a seperate distinct class of AR platform firearm.

The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" is a term put forth, and a campaign, by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Their more complete rationale and "definition" for the term can be read here > Facts | Modern Sporting Rifle

There are really only four major differences between the civilian version and the military version in reference to the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" :

• The "AR" stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed the original platform in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." The military uses an 'M' designation for their firearms (e.g. M-16A2, M-4, etc...). Civilian versions are designated "AR-15" generically as a class of firearms and not a specific firearm type as the military 'M' designation.

• AR rifles sold to the civilian market are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is or has fully automatic (or has automatic type fire such as three round burst) capability available with a single trigger pull. The AR version sold to the civilian market are semi-auto only like other sporting firearms and fires one round with each trigger pull. Civilian versions are no more powerful than other classes of semi-auto platforms used for sporting purposes.

• Chamberings for a variety of different calibers are available for the civilian version where the military only models uses one caliber chambering.

• The AR platform is modular allowing owners to change uppers or lowers. (Actually though the military version is modular too, its just that the military doesn't allow these things to be changed at will like owners of the civilain version can do.)

Due to these differences, the civilian AR platform is on par with other types and styles of semi-auto platforms used for sporting purposes in civilian market and ownership, thus the campaign by NSSF to distinguish between the military and civilian versions by using the term "Modern Sporting Rifle". The term is intended to get away from and counter the falsely emotional and uneducated based preception stigma used by anti-gun groups that the civilian AR version is also a military type assault rifle simply because it follows the same basics of style. The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" for the civilian AR platform is also intended for public education purposes in respect to the differences. Thus enters the "use distinction preception in relation to application" part of the short definition of "Modern Sporting Rifle"

Basic design, engineering, structure, style, operation, parts, manufacturer methods and materials remain essentially the same between the civilian "AR" model designation and the military "M" model designation except for those things which are intended for military only models.

The Sig's, Colts, S&W, are all AR platforms derived from and adhering in some manner to military/mil-spec standards and/or style and have changes or features which are more attractive or applicapable to the civilian market but do not include military only model function or parts. When the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" is applied to them its marketing and not a seperate type of new firearm class that magically appeared.

Yep but Smith is the only one that advertises 1MOA barrels out of the ones you listed...and when Smith is not building Mil-Spec rifles that kinda blows all that out of the water. And when you look up the specifications for a mil spec AR they spec at 2 to 2.5MOA barrels. Smith doesnt Smith is building Modern Sporting Rifles to modern material specs, the pieces may be the same size as the pieces the emulate but the materials are better, the tolerances are tighter and they ARE NOT made to 2 to 2.5MOA accuracy. Where as the S&W15PC is guaranteed to be 1MOA, Colts, and Sigs and Armalites are not. I happen to like the term Modern Sporting Rifle...it is there to keep the mil-spec people from getting their panties in a bunch!!!

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

The M&P 15 lower will generally work with the BCM upper, although the PC aready has a pretty good barrel to begin with that the BCM upper may not beat. Barrel length of 16 vs 18 inch, if 16 inch satifies your need the 16 inch, if 18 inch satisfies your need then 18 inch, it depends on your needs. But if you consider 18 inch then have you considered 20 inch and a SPR Mod configuration?

OK here is the complete TM on Mil-Spec M4A1's. If you read all the way through you will see that the accuracy required to be a milspec rifle at 94.1 meters is a 10 shot group within a a certain target area. Which basically is a human torso. it is not even 3MOA. I just contacted a very close family member who is SpecOps. he gave me this link. As far as special handpicked ammo (BS) he has access to full auto glocks and full auto SBR's and the latest and greatest of our military weapons. If you read this link you will see that for mil-spec AR's they dont even require 5MOA it just has to hit within the size of a human torso. It even gives allowable failure rates which are a lot lower than I thought they would be. So when the mil-spec gang starts talking just point them at this link....It is the mil specs.
http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/mil...6_%28AR%29.pdf

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Hmmmm... nope, I hate to burst your bubble but did you actually read and understand that document? Just in case you didn't, it says:

"3.4.6 Tarqetinq and accuracy. A series of 10 rounds fired from each carbine at a range of 91.4 meters shall be within the extreme spread and targeting area (heavy outline) specified in Figure I when the front and rear sights are set as follows. The normal rear sight peep (sight rotated fully rearward) shall be used with the rear sight set centrally in the slot for windage within plus or minus twelve (12) clicks. The top edge of the front sight post flange shall be set flush to .030 inch below the bottom surface of the front sight slot. Ammunition shall be Government standard M855, 5.56MM ball cartridges conforming to Drawing 9342868 and shall have been certified by the Government to be of a quality that will have an average horizontal and vertical standard deviation of 3.4 inches to 4.0 inches at 600 yards as measured in accordance with MIL-C-63989."

That is not an accuracy standard. Notice how that section is titled "Tarqetinq and accuracy", do you understand the difference between them? If you did you would realize that paragraph is not for accuracy, its for the maximum un-zero'd extream at which targeting can still be accomplished and still have a chance of hitting the target. In other words its the maximum allowed for the weapon to remain acceptable and in service, beyond that and the weapon is not acceptable.

Those "specs" are for extream spread at that specific distance when sights are approximately at mechanical zero, not actual zero, for checking serviceability/acceptability not accuracy at actual zero. That means within the maximum extream to remain in service with an un-zero'd weapon, but at mechanical zero approximately, to hit, with 10 rounds fired, within the man sized target kill zone deviation of +/- 18 inches from center mass (which is why they tell you to aim center mass). Its spec'd that way so that any inexperienced person with basic skills who picks up the weapon that has not been zero'd can use a weapon at mechanical zero and have a chance of putting at least one round out of 10 fired on target (which is one of the reasons why everyone in the military fires the weapon in basic training as a minimum, so if they never receive more weapons training and experience they will have at least a very basic skill set). Its the lowest common denominator principal. There is something else you obviously didn't notice about this, i'll give you two hints - its in the last sentence and 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.047 inch.

Oh, by the way, its not a 10 shot group, its 10 rounds irrespective of grouping. Its a series of 10 rounds, not 10 rounds for zero. In other words indiscriminate fire (e.g. "spray and pray").

Gunslinger808 is correct. An M-4 platform in good repair can do 1 MOA.

As for your other intentionally false and insulting post, pure rubbish.

Foxtrot...I had him read your posts...he told me you are a 16 year old who has learned it all from video games!!! LOL

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Everyone's experiences are different. When I was in the Military with an 16A1 it had already seen years of vietnam and would not shoot 1MOA. I could still qual expert with it but there was no way it would shoot 1MOA. My experiences with Colts since have not been with new ones. It has been with trade ins that have been resold. And yep they shoot like the 1911's that we were issued, 1MOBD, We also had area targets for quals. I just have not had the experience with them that I have had with my S&W so I will continue to stick up for the Smiths. I do notice that the used Smiths (when you can find one) are still bringing like new prices where as Colts are all over the place. I wasnt attempting to offend but I did want to show that mil-spec is a pretty loose set of specs that my Sport in all applicable areas beats.

I did read further into the accuracy test. The rear sight must be within +/-12 clicks of being centered and the front sight between flush and .3 inches of being flush with the base. That is quite a bit of difference. Plus it states the ammo has an allowable deviation of, and I dont remember exactly, 4 inches of deviation at 600yrds. That is way more accurate than what we have read in other places.

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Well sir I do respectfully disagree with your opinion. My sport is more accurate than my Dad's Colt AR15A3 and My closests Friends Bushmaster. I posted the military TM on the M4 up above. And Remington now has the Technical Package on the M4's. I did not know that S&W had a plant in Ohio.

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

LOL, of course it is. You are comparing apples an oranges. The Colt has a chrome lined barrel and sport does not. So you might as well compare the Colt against a .223 REM Stainless Steel barrel!

Any company that bids on a .Gov contract gets the TDP, BUT cannot use it to produces a Civy available AR15 (legally). With that said, Remington did NOT get the latest M4 contract.

S&W does not have a plant in Ohio. There is this thing called an Airplane though and they have brought me up to their plant to help them with their AR program (FYI).

C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

I agree with C4. However, I don't think anyone said that the S&W was better built than any other AR out there. I do believe that the BARREL is better based on my experience though. With that said, I don't think the Colt is equal to a Noveske or Les Baer. However, all of these weapons are built for different shooters, with different applications, different expectations, and different bank accounts. Kinda like saying a Corvette is better than a Kenworth.
In the end it's the indian, not the arrows anyway. JMO

You might not, but some do. The reason why S&W did not go with chrome lining on the SPORT is for ONE reason, cost. Meloniting barrels is cheaper. In theory, this is better than chrome lining, but we won't know for certain for quite some time.

As a Noveske Distr. they make a great gun, but in certain ways are not up to all aspects of the TDP and Colt.



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

I'm sure that the sport barrel was a cost thing and I don't begrudge anyone from trying to make a $. It does seem to me that they stumbled on to something with the 5R melonite barrel, for whatever reason.
I don't take the Noveske or Les Baer not meeting all aspects of the TDP as a bad thing though. I find it baffling that this seems to be the measuring stick for quality. If Fed Ex was only held up to the standards of the USPS they wouldn't be in business very long, and I doubt Noveske would be either if they were only held to 'mil-spec' requirements. Not to start a political debate but the Federal Govt, regardless of party, ain't exactly known for making very good decisions. YMMV.

I agree.

Depends on what is important to you. If you are looking for a combat weapon it would. Many of the parts selected by Noveske and how they build the gun are specifically from the TDP. This is a clue that the TDP is well thought of by the higher end manufacturers.

The Govt didn't write the TDP, Colt did. So your analogy is not correct.


C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Ummm so which is it? If "COLT has it and no one (less FN) has it. ", then how the heck can Noveseke build the gun specifically from the TDP?


Yea TDP!

You know McDonalds has the best burger, the BIG MAC, because of their secret sauce. No one else has it. Over the years no one has figured out what goes into the McDonald's secret sauce to ever replicate it.

__________________
-John

So because of a set of rules the Colt is better, regardless of all the engineering that shows how much better melonite or Salt NitroCarburization or QDQ whatever you decide to call it over hard chrome is. Thats your reasoning. Engineering tests show that Melonite (we shall call it that for simplicity sake) will outlast hard chrome by a factor of 3 and has twice the corrosion resistance of Stainless Steel. Because of a 50 year old set of engineering and metallurgical standards you claim are better than something that has been discovered and used for the last 12 years and the tests are out there to prove the 50 year old standards wrong.
and water flows uphill!!

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Well, currently yes. This may change, but that is some ways off (think we might see it in future trials though).

Keep in mind that the barrel is only ONE part of the gun. So just because a company does one part well does not mean the entire platform is better.

Actually we have not seen a full .Gov test involving tons of guns for super high round counts. All we have is theory (currently).

With that said, I am a fan of QDQ and believe it is where things need to go (or something similar). I just don't judge an ENTIRE weapons quality by the barrel alone.


C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Thanks for the info. Always like to learn something new.

You are welcome Sir.



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

If you look up in the sticky threads you will find a thread called sports barrel specs that has a ton independent engineering data for melonite, Maybe you should read that before you say that we dont know yet.....just maybe fanboy you might be wrong. I still find it funny that I can put my bolt carrier in my Dad's colt and it work fine. Hmmmm no standardization or reverse engineering.....

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Yes, but no .Gov testing (which is different). Believe me, I know all about the SPORT barrel. When S&W was thinking about doing these, I got a phone call and shared my opinion. So please, don't try and "educate" me on them.

Mil-Spec means that all parts fit with one another. Every single AR manufacturer I know of does this. So if this was the true test of quality, then all AR's would be the same. We all know this just isn't the case. This is why you have to look at how well a company follows the TDP (on a fighting weapon) or if they go above what the TDP calls for.



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

C4, you're losing me on this. You keep referring to other companies following the TDP. Some elements of the TDP are proprietary, owned solely by Colt, shared with FN as 2nd source manufacturer. No other company can "follow" the Colt TDP. Colt would own them in court if they did.

TDP is a gov't contracting term meaning "A collection of product related data comprising .... data related to the design and manufacture of the item or system." It might surprise you to know that EVERY manufacturer of complex items, especially when they contract to build for an outside source, has a similar document. This document can specify any number of process specifics relating to incoming material standards, process times/temperature ramp & dwell, chemical/gas flow rates, power settings, hi-vacuum settings, process step testing/sampling, rework/scrap specifications, deviations, etc. And, yes, many of these process steps will be proprietary.

You stated it was simple - Colt is superior because they follow their own TDP. Therefore every other AR manufacturer is inferior to Colt, be it Noveske, Larue, BCM, Remington, or S&W. You dismiss as no consequence hundreds of years of weapons manufacturing.

I really would like to know why Colt is considerd by some as a superior weapon. I'd hoped to hear from you that Colt is more accurate, barrels last longer, has fewer FTF's or FTE's, and so on, with data to back that up. I've previously been offered The Chart, now you've offered TDP, and I still see no empirical data to back up the Colt superiority claim.

BTW, have you read No Easy Day, the 1st hand story of the raid that killed bin Laden? The author was carrying an H&K416. Do you suppose he knew his weapon was not manufactured with Colt's TDP and is, by your definition, inferior?

Well, yes (in theory). The problem is that there are many "black market" copies of it. It is impossible to prove whether a company reverse engineered a product or has the official specs. In fact, I can pick up the phone right now and get any info I want from the TDP.

No it doesn't surprise me as I do this for a living. Before that, I was a DoD contractor managing contracts for the USAF. So I have lots of experience with this type of work.

Yes and no. The TDP is written for a FIGHTING gun (not a target, hunting or plinking gun). So if the AR manufacturer is making a target or varmint AR, the TDP (for the most part) is irrelevant IMHO (so buy what you like).

But, when we compare guns that are designed to fighting, then the TDP comes into play.

Does S&W know a lot about manufacturing guns? Yes. I have been to their plant, had meetings with their engineers and helped on projects. When they started out, they knew ZERO about the AR15 weapon and consequently had some serious issues. So no, those hundred + years of manufacturing did not help them on a new platform that they had no prior experience with.



I think I explained this already. Apparently I was not clear so here it is again. Colt HAS to follow the TDP. This document defines EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the gun. Part used, testing done, what type of high pressure round is to be used, how hard the anodizing is, even the color of the thing. Colt also has .Gov inspectors checking everything they do. No other companies has this.

While the above (TDP) is very important, the next part is equally important and that is how the guns are built. An AR built with quality parts won't run if it isn't assembled properly. That means everything from knowing/using the proper torque values on everything to staking the castle nut. Colt does all of this correctly.

So what does all of this mean? Well you asked about fewer FTF/reliability and the above procedures means that the Colt is LESS likely to have a malfunction VS a company that does NOT have to follow the TDP and made up their own armorers manual.

I understand that you are a numbers guy and want to see something like this:

Brand XYZ: 10,000rds fired with 400 FTF and 100 FTE
Brand ABC: 10,000rds fired with 200 FTF and 300 FTE

There is really nothing like this on the commercial side and only the Govt performs these tests. With that said, the most recent M4 contract had two companies in the race. Remington and Colt. If it was so easy to produce an M4 (and per you, that they are already building guns that would pass .Gov inspections/equal to Colt), wouldn't more companies like S&W, Armalite, BM, RRA, etc have gone after this contract??? The answer is that these companies all know that it would take a massive change in how they do things in order to even compete in this type of competition and is why they don't do bid on these types of contracts. This is a clue.

I am very familiar with the 416 and consider it the best of the piston guns. A tier 1 group recently completed testing for a replacement to the 416. Companies such as LT, LWRC, Colt, Remington, etc, etc all competed. The 416 beat them all (by a lot). With that said, there are some negatives to the gun. They are heavy, expensive and have more felt recoil than a DI operated weapon.

The main reason for a piston operated weapon is if one of these categories is needing to be met:

1) Do I need a barrel length shorter than 14.5 inches?
2) Do I need to run my gun suppressed a lot?
3) Do I need to shoot a lot of full auto?
4) Do I need to shoot a wide variety of ammo?

For most Civy's none of this is needed or even a possibility but in certain .Mil groups this is a priority.

So back to your question, is the 416 superior to the M4? Yes and no. Is it a more reliable platform? I think so, but at a penalty of 3 times the cost. So IMHO, it is not a fair comparison and equates to racing a Ferarri against a Ford Taurus.

Last, but not least I can see that some people think I am making up my involvement with S&W. Below is payment I received after helping them write the armorers manual they use to teach LE how to work on their AR’s. It is a S&W custom shop 3953 and there are only three in existence.





Further proof, I am a S&W LE Dealer. You can see my company listed under Ohio: U.S Law Enforcement Dealers - Smith & Wesson





C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Hey. I consulted with FN on their gun. It's the internet. I don't lie.

__________________
-John

Have you thought that because Colt had basically a monopoly on the M4 for years and subcontracted out for rifles when their own production couldn't keep up. Maybe because Colt already had all the inspections in place to meet the government protocol, that the other manufacturers didn't want to risk adding all of these employees and equipment because they might get the contract. Remington already has this in place due to their manufacture of military weapons. The other companies don't, in this time of economic depression it would be a great risk to put it all in place, so that they could bid on a government contract, when the civilian market is already buying up what they can make. When you go to a gun store to buy a "black rifle" I don't find any shortage of Colts, Bushmasters or DPMS's. I do find that the stores cannot keep the S&W's in stock. As soon as they get them they sell them. Not all, but a lot of people in my part of the country and elsewhere have been in the military and their experiences with the issued Colts were not favorable. You also cannot say because the Smiths are less expensive, when a S&W outfitted the same as the 6920 is comparably priced. As I also stated earlier in this same thread, I have posted the governments requirements for the M4's operation and accuracy, in that they state the accuracy of the ammunition and the required ammo is a lot more accurate than we have been led to believe. When you can sell all you make at a profit, why risk spending all the money to put all the extra layers in place on the chance that you can sell more rifles when you can already put out a solid, dependable, good product that sells.

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

Some companies had this thought I am sure, but from talking to a couple of them, they simply did not know how or have the capability to make guns to the TDP specs.

Remington, for instance, does NOT have the capability to meet the most recent M4 Contract and is why the Govt is re-bidding it.

Good question, but not for the reason you think. S&W treats their AR's like a red headed step child. When you go to their plant, the AR section is shoved way back in a corner. It is a very small after thought for them (as pistols and revolvers are king). So THIS is why you see so few of them (as they just don't make that many).

On a side note, I have been screaming at them to make more AR's (specifically the 15-22 MOE line, new M&P 15 Magpul Edition and SPORT).



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Dang! I was fixing to go shoot either my Sport or my Colt tomorrow but I stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing and now I'm plumb tired out!

But if I should get up enough energy to visit the range, which of these two rifles should I take? I'm all confused now.

Seriously, I bet I'm like most of the posters who are just shooting these rifles for recreation so in the grand scheme of things, what's all the fuss about?

Of course, I would like to know which rifle is likely to be the most reliable so that if I ever had to use one for "serious" purposes I'd know which one to grab!

I know I've posted these photos of my two "modern sporting rifles" many times but I never get tired of showing them off. Second photo shows the other side of the Colt.

Attached Images

	DSC_0792.jpg (103.3 KB, 23 views)
	DSC_0796.jpg (101.4 KB, 22 views)

Shoot both! :-)

To be honest, I do not own a single "factory" built AR. I prefer to build my own and hand select each and every part. There isn't a spring, detent to screw in my AR that I don't know where it came from. After many years in this industry as an armorer, dealer, consultant and trainer I have come to realization that I don't want a disgruntled, underpaid guy at some company building my AR. YMMV.



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

@C4IGrant

Most people don't understand the actual application and use of TDP. Most don't know it can change, sometimes frequently, and they think its set in stone when it isn't.

Its sort of like the MIL-C-71186 that was posted by someone claiming its the accuracy standard. It isn't and a lot of people don't understand that either, all its for is determing if a weapon is within the maximum not for determining its accuracy. That changes too at times. They can spec a weapon all day long for a specific accuracy and it can meet that accuracy too, but if it fails at the maximum its not acceptable for service. Yet people will still continue on believing the weapon is acceptable for service without an understanding of why its not acceptable for service and how that is applied and why its applied.

We used to have an instructor with us, he has passed on now but he was a great person. A 26 year U.S. Marine vetran, a few years at Picitinny, and a decorated law enforcement officer. He did a short stint with us as one of our contract instructors. He used to say "Real shooters know how, when, and why to use a gun. All others shoot groups."

BTW, I was looking at ya'lls web site yesterday. Your prices are reasonable, not over whelming but reasonable all the same considering prices at other places where they think everything is made of gold and diamonds. Any specials coming up?

Ya, I know. Most people know little to nothing about AR's (or guns in general), but since they own ONE, they are now the expert.

We also run into people that are "married" to their purchase. So when you try to have a technical discussion with them, they basically stick their fingers in their ears and scream NO!

For the record, I am a S&W LE Distributor. I make my living by selling S&W products. I am also a fan of the company and personally carry an M&P pistol and own some of their rifles. With that said the truth is the truth and if one of the LE Reps for S&W was in this thread, they would be the FIRST one to tell everyone that their AR's are not to the same quality as Colt.

Just sayin....



C4

__________________
S&W M&P Armorer
S&W LE Distr.

Foxtrot...when a person who is SpecOps and when not "downrange" is developing small arms for the army in your part of the world tells me that that is the standard they go by, I have to take your statements and remove klingons with them!!!

__________________
Grover Oathkeeper

oneyeopn, I replied to this post in PM