Just like the bolt issue, it was simply a formatting problem.
Printable View
Is this going to be published in Google Docs rather than just public?
Excellent work Rob! Thanks again for sharing all your hard work.
Thanks for all of your hard work Rob.
lol already people bitching about it on Glock Talk (no surprise though).
Rob, thank you for all of your diligence and hard work put into this new chart. Having used the old one as a noob, I know that this will be a very valuable resource for those in the future that are looking at becoming a part of our community. I also copy and pasted the chart and e of f together into one rather large jpeg if anyone needs it while they are offline. You can message me and I will email it to you if anyone wants it.
Thanks again Rob!
Did Stag step up their game?...
Everyone did.
The chart might as well remove Sionics and say "Here is a list of all manufacturers that produce mil-spec AR15s."
It would be easier than listing all the materials, production methods, inspection processes etc. The chart and its subsequent aftermath on forums like this has made producing a 1/9 twist bbl, non-HP/MPI tested bolt AR15 bad business sense.
So now, in essence, we just have a chart where everything is 95%+ the same.
Rob, thanks for your efforts in compiling this invaluable reference source. Amazing that a compilation of facts can create controversy in some circles. Its really simple, you either feel the info is useful to you or not. If not, then ignore and move on. If it is useful, then you have facts at your fingerprints that would be almost impossible to reproduce on your on.
I hate to even ask this, but are we going to start recommending Stag's newer rifles?
Can we get a member here to examine one or something?
I'm more interested in seeing crappy companies like Stag get better than seeing reputable companies like LMT, and Colt get placed at the top of the chart.
I mean... we already knew they'd be some of the best, I want to see the shit-peddlers get their game together. I had more faith in Stag than the others though. I guess we know why now.
To an extent, they have. Armalite maintains a Tech Library they post on their website and several of the fetaures on the chart are explained in their Tech Library posts. That's official-enough for me, although it would be nice if they could just provide the same info to Rob so he could more easily incorporate it. I'm not sure if every aspect of Rob's chart is covered, but several are.
Rob, I appreciate your unbiased approach. It is nice to have an objective eye on the multitudes of options and you have saved me a TON of time. Thank you! :)
There is so much butthurt on that website it's laughable. It's unreadable most of the time. Guys don't understand why you dont swoon every time they post pics of their new DPMS zombie killer.
Rob, thanks for the work on the chart. Looking forward to the final additions. Since some companies are refusing to send documents back, is there any thought of including info from the old chart with an asterisk or something saying that it may not be he most current or up to date info (due to company compliance of course)
Another "Thank you" from me to add on.
I've only one request about the chart. It runs quite long from left to right and discerning which line is what manufacturer gets confusing for the long-term memory challenged. Maybe insert the "Company Name" column between the major columns, such as between "Bolt & Bolt Carrier" and "Barrel and Upper Receiver".
Nice work!
Their post on TOS covers the specs pretty well ...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=27&t=197755
No reason for them NOT to join the Information Chart with their LEC15A4CBK ..
Come on Armalite , the water is warm :)
I have lurked and learned. Members such as Rob are why I am here. Thanks for your hard work and willingness to share with all who will listen and learn. Once again, thanks.
Thank you Rob. Your detailed research and responses on this forum have done much to educate me, and have allowed me to make informed decisions involving this platform. I've lurked on here for a while, and prior to the introduction of the new chart the "Explanation of Features" has given me a greater understanding of why certain features are desired and downright necessary.
That being said, I hold you responsible for my purchase of a LE6920 and future BCM LW Middy build...
thx for the work rob. great chart!
2 comments/observations...
1 - the old chart for Noveske, under HPT bolt, had it listed as "Batch" tested. this new chart has it as "None". is noveske not batch testing any longer?
2 - For Noveske, the feedramps are not true M4 sized feedramps. they are much shorter as compared to longer cut colt, bcm, lmt feedramps. should this difference be listed? they are actually noted as "extended feed ramps", not M4 feedramps on the Noveske website.
http://noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin...since=&status=
Thanks for the new and improved chart Rob, defiantly come in handy. Admitting that I know very little about true specs on a go to war gun. Mine are used for range shooting and dispatching small critters. As for manufactures that would not reply, may say something about there weapons.
should be fine. i have an noveske recce upper on an LMT lower. works great. there's a lot of info on M4 feedramps on this site. the history of them etc.
todd from noveske had told me via email long time ago that they use the same "extended feedramps" on their full auto guns as their semi auto.
in addition, a gentleman from AR15barrels.com had also told me that one really only needs the feedramp to extend onto the first few millimeters of the upper receiver, as the magazine when inserted in the magwell does cover over a portion of the lower part of the M4 feedramp.
although i've always wondered why noveske would not simply make the standard M4 feedramps as per colt, lmt, bcm, and dd.
at any rate....works great. never heard of any issues, as i researched it quite a bit before i bought mine.
I second this. I kept swiping back and forth with my finger on my iPad because I wouldn't know which name was where once I got in the middle and right side of the Chart. It'd be really nice to have the company names in each subsequent column of it. Maybe just abbreviations of some sort?
Anyways, THANKS for all your hard work on this, brother Rob!!!:)
Remember that the Chart was populated by responses from the manufacturers themselves. This is not a situation where I ask a question, interpret the answer, and insert the results. This is a situation where the manufacturer answers a question on an online form, the answer automatically appears in the draft chart, and is copied over to the published version.
There may, of course, still be typos on their part.
Just got an email from Mark Westrom. The original guy I was corresponding with at Armalite is no longer there, and Mark is taking a look at the questionnaire for me. He pointed out that their model line and options make it difficult to pick and choose for a matrix.
I can sympathize with this from the manufacturer's perspective. The thing I have to remind them of is that the goal here is to represent what the average consumer is likely to find on a shelf at a gun shop or on a table at a gun show. In hindsight what I should probably have done is have each manufacturer choose the model they sell the most of to distributors (RSR, Accusport, Jerry's, etc.) and use that as the baseline to fill out the Chart.
I'm not terribly disappointed in the way it's headed now though. Buyers just need to make sure they educate themselves. You can't simply say "oh, I saw this brand on the Chart, I'm going to buy one of these" without paying attention to the model.
Glad to hear that !
They truly only have 1 "M4 Pattern" rifle , though ...
the LEC15A4CBK ...
I like the layout , too ... alphabetical .... the consumer needs to look at the chart and do research and decide what is important ...Quote:
....I'm not terribly disappointed in the way it's headed now though. Buyers just need to make sure they educate themselves. You can't simply say "oh, I saw this brand on the Chart, I'm going to buy one of these" without paying attention to the model.
to me , staking is not as important as the type of metals used and the testing ... I can stake anything in my shop ... I can't stress test in my shop ....
Again , Thank You !!!
Thanks for all your hardwork on this.
Well done Sir. It seems that companys are stepping and making better rifles.
Thanks for your hard work on this chart.
I have 1 question though.
Can you shed some light on the "Other" under DD for their HPT?
Looks like Stag has a response to Chart-goers
http://www.stagarms.com/information.php?info_id=13
Nice to see Armalite "pending" :cool:
Thanks for going to the effort to get this new chart up...
DeltaSierra
"For those wanting a rifle with extra testing and also with features for the constant firing of 5.56 ammunition Stag Arms offers the Plus Package. This package includes individual Magnetic Particle (MP) and High Pressure (HP) testing of the bolt and barrel, upgraded barrel steel, and other features listed below. Available only as a complete package. "
Well and good, but why make a decent rifle available only as an extra-cost Package option? If one has the capability to do so, as they imply, why not charge a bit more and build every rifle correctly to begin with?
Stag targets the budget shooter. Why would they up their prices and move into the mushy middle when they're largely dominating the low end?
Think of it as Timex building a watch to compete with Rolex. They have nothing to gain, nothing to offer that isn't already available from the entrenched "first minder" brand. Who on this site would buy a Stag AR, even if they were "just as good" as the top companies? Not many.
Many categories (regardless of product type) are trending toward "barbell" style sales distribution. Big volumes in the cheap and premium categories, with floundering companies in the middle losing customers to the two extremes.