Yes. Better fit and finish, and it seemed that the FN made rifles and carbines had a slight edge on reliability. I’ve had a few Colt M16s/M4s break on me, and one of those times I was fortunate enough to receive a FN M16A4 as a replacement. She just purred along. The FNs also didn’t have the upper receiver “wobble” that most Colt M4s have. Might have something to do with most FN M4s are much newer, but I’ve also handled an FN M16A2 that was more steady than many of the newer Colt rifles.
I’ll admit, I’m probably biased towards FN because these experiences happened early in my career, and left a lasting impression, but (aside form the M249), I’ve been very pleased with every weapon I’ve gotten hands on, both civilian and military, that FN makes.
Why are some hung up on this “TDP” crap when it comes to civilian ARs? Colt has a TDP for the military M4 and FN has TDPs for the military A2, A3, A4, and the M4A1. If an AR is not made per a TDP, then is it not any good? Is BCM, DD, and several other AR manufacturers not good enough because they do not build their weapons per a TDP? The TDP is for products that are subject to DoD procurements. It is documentation that the government maintains to make sure that any product they buy from an approved vendor meets their standards, which does not say a lot in some cases. A company like FN produces very good quality firearms for the military and a wide variety of them at that. Colt cannot say the same thing about themselves. Most likely, these new FN15 M16A4s and FN15 M4s will be made to the same standards as their military counterparts. I have no doubt. This would mean the same parts would be used with the exception of the select-fire lower and the select-fire FCG.
Colt commercial rifles, to include models 6920 and 6720, are made to the TDP “crap,” a recognized military standard. To what standards are FNs commercial guns made? That’s unknown, and “most likely” doesn’t quite cut it. FNs initial run of FN15s did not meet the TDP. I’ll stick to known standards. Each to his own.
This means they may come from the same source as parts used by other manufacturers, but BCM for example specifies a very rigorous standard of QC and testing. So, even though your Stag Arms bolt catch came from the same manufacturer as your BCM bolt catch, the Stag Arms part may or may not have been tested, which in turn means it may or may not include defects that shorten its life. With the Stag Arms part you won’t know until it breaks, whereas with the BCM part if it’s going to break it will most likely fail testing, which means BCM will not accept it in the first place.
I just fondled a Colt M4A1 earlier this week and was very impressed by how it was put together. Prices run kinda high in this part of GA on average… Tag said $1,250.
I almost bought the thing ‘just because’.
The FN would have to be pretty special to sway me away from the Colt.
FN’s commercial M4s will not have the same parts as their military rifles, they would have a lawsuit on their hands if they did. It has to do with the agreement between Colt, the military, and other companies who manufacture M4s for the military, and the use of the TDP.
Colt does use the same parts in their military and commercial rifles, and their commercial rifles can follow the TDP since Colt owns the TDP. This is at least true for the M4, not sure if it applies the same way to the M16.
Ok I get the Colt love, but how did we come to it where people put BCM, an assembly company, on a higher pedestal than FNH, one of the world’s oldest and most distinguised firearms manufacturers? People really think BCM has better QC and quality than FN? Seriously? FN makes more hard-use guns in a week than BCM does in a year. My experiences with FN rifles in the military were extremely positive and AFAIK, most service members opinions are the same. You guys act as if the civilian guns that they make are specced and put together by the guys at Olympic Arms…
Who uses their guns more and who is more likely to run their guns hard enough to discover deficiencies in manufacturing? I know civilian AR guys want to pretend that you will attend classes several times a year but realistically most BCM and other civi guns will see less than 1k round throughout thier lifetime. A military gun will see more than that in one week/weekend.
And this comes from what source? FN does not manufacture military M4s. They manufacture military M4A1s. Colt only manufactures military M4s. The dispute over the M4 TDP has been settled for a while now. This is why FN no longer manufactures military M4s. Instead, they make the M4A1 and M16A2, A3, and A4 and they have the TDPs for these. Like I said, the TDP has nothing to do with commercial ARs built for civilians. If FN wants to manufacture a civilian M4, they can. Nearly every AR company does. FN can use the same parts they use on their military M4A1s and M16A4s with the exceptions I listed earlier. Some of you Colt elitist need to get over it. Like I said, I would not be surprised if FN used every part they use to build their military versions in building these new civilian versions with the two exceptions being the select-fire lower and the select-fire FCG.
I was wondering how long this thread would last before the TDP butt-hurt would start and here we are.
For me the TDP is a minimum known standard that certain manufacturers use such as Colt. Others go above and beyond, see DD and BCM among others. There are some companies who build rifles who come nowhere close to the known min. standard knowing the people who buy them will never shoot them to failure. Then there is FN. They have the ability to make a rifle meeting the minimum standard but initially didn’t with their commercial line. Thus the questions about their Military Collector Series. If you are going to build a rifle and call it the “military collector series” it had better meet the standard. It’s not that people are looking for reasons to talk the guns down, we are questioning if FN will finally build the mil-spec gun those who would buy a “military collector series” gun they are asking for. If not, FN is making a big mistake.
There are some buyers who understand it, others who don’t and still others who don’t care.
FN = foreign company = bad is simple BS. How many of the guys on this thread run Glocks?? I’d bet most of them have at least one in the safe they run.
From what I understand the FN civilian AR models can not use the TDP by the rules of their contract, so they will not and can not be the same as they produce for military since the the military parts would be made usign the TDP by the nature of the military contract, and the military parts therefore can not be part of a civilian rifle. Here’s some source material that explains why and will hopefully clear up a few of the frustrated questions above:
As of July 1/09, the sole source clause of the “M4 Addendum” expired, allowing the Army to second source production of the M4/M4A1 carbines and their unique parts. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, however, the M4 TDP remains Colt proprietary data. Those terms also state that the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt, for every M4/M4A1 carbine and/or their unique parts procured from second sources, for another 26 years – through Dec 24/37.
Second source contractors will also be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, just as they do for the M16. The non-disclosure/ non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt’s proprietary data for commercial sales. Once the second-source vendor’s military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them.
The companies receiving second source M4 contracts will only be able to use the Colt M4 TDP to supply the US government. Whether or not the US government can then turn around and export these carbines is a matter of the 1967 license agreement and subsequent amendments. Certainly, FN-made M16 are being contracted by the US Army on behalf of the Iraqi military.
The non-disclosure/non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt’s proprietary data for commercial sales. Once their military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them.
The following link provides the US Army’s standard non-disclosure/non-use agreement for contractors accessing the M16 TDP:
I cannot speak for everyone but I think most US consumers would relish an FN roll marked M4orgery and M16AX built to TDP/mil-spec/etc. I have no use for such a thing but I could see how guys that like to collect as close to USGI guns as possible and or want something that reminds them of their service rifle would jump at these.
Personally my next long arm purchase will be a FN SCAR 17S.