Who makes the best AR15 ?

[arrrrgh15]

You kill me. First, you guys rant and rave how Bushmaster isn't "Mil-Spec". You are proven wrong. You then go on about how Bushmaster doesn't have any military contracts, and are not used in our armed forces. You are again proven wrong. Now, out of any and all ammo, you retort back with, "Other than the 4,000, how many now?" How many do they need to issue to troops before you and the rest of your Colt cronies will fess up to the fact you've been proven wrong across the board? Believe what you wish, and shoot what you want, but as far as any BS being spread, it's coming from your end, not his or mine.


And you've been given it over and over. By myself and others. You choose not to believe it. Not from Bushmaster, or from articles written about them, or people who have used them in the exact way you said they are not being used. You have proven that in this thread, and several others. Bill T.

Lighten up Francis. You're getting discombobulated. I'm not a "colt cronie". I asked a question and got an answer. Then I asked another question.

Out of the original 4,000 from the purchase for Desert Storm, how many additional bushmasters were purchased by the DoD for use by US military personell (not DoD purchasing them to give to another country to use, like Georgia? If you'll remember, we supplied them with bushmaster rifles which were captured by Russian troops and destroyed. Not sure if they were purchased under a DoD contract or not, but I'm sure you can do the research).

If you read carefully, you will see that my first sentence in the second paragraph acknowledges the 4000 purchased for desert storm. That would seem to indicate that I have been provided the proof I requested and have determined it's true and valid.

[ungawa]

You kill me. First, you guys rant and rave how Bushmaster isn't "Mil-Spec". You are proven wrong. You then go on about how Bushmaster doesn't have any military contracts, and are not used in our armed forces. You are again proven wrong. Now, out of any and all ammo, you retort back with, "Other than the 4,000, how many now?" How many do they need to issue to troops before you and the rest of your Colt cronies will fess up to the fact you've been proven wrong across the board? Believe what you wish, and shoot what you want, but as far as any BS being spread, it's coming from your end, not his or mine.

I certainly haven't read the whole thread, and you may have a distinct argument with "you guys," but I am also interested in whether or not Bushmaster has recently had any contracts to produce any M16 type firearms for the US military. Because my understanding is "No." I never knew they ever supplied any, and the jist I am getting from cursory review of this thread is "maybe some a long time ago."

What is the answer? Thanks.

[billt]

If you read carefully, you will see that my first sentence in the second paragraph acknowledges the 4000 purchased for desert storm. That would seem to indicate that I have been provided the proof I requested and have determined it's true and valid.

Stop playing with words. You know where he and I are both coming from. I'm not doing this all over again. As I said I don't much care what you believe. I have listened to you and a host of others regurgitate the same nonsense over and over about Bushmaster "not being Mil-Spec", "not being used by the military", "not being issued to troops in combat". All of this has been proven false with enough credit to convince any jury. Enough is enough. Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~gnbrotz At least for us civilians. Have a nice day and enjoy shooting whenever, and wherever you can. Bill T.

[ungawa]

While I'm at it, I'm also surprised there were M4s in 1990. Were they called M4s? I'm hoping for a definitive answer (but not demanding proof). I didn't know there were M4s back then, but of course very similar firearms existed for decades before.

[billt]

While I'm at it, I'm also surprised there were M4s in 1990. Were they called M4s? I'm hoping for a definitive answer (but not demanding proof). I didn't know there were M4s back then, but of course very similar firearms existed for decades before.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...&refer=germany

https://www.startupnation.com/forums/5537/11/1

A while back, (I can't recall exactly when), Colt sued Bushmaster in court over the name, or nomenclature, "M-4". Colt claimed it was some kind of infringement. Colt lost the suit because the court decided "M-4" was a generic term, not linking that particular rifle to any one manufacturer. Much like the term "Carbine". Bill T.

[ungawa]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...&refer=germany

https://www.startupnation.com/forums/5537/11/1

A while back, (I can't recall exactly when), Colt sued Bushmaster in court over the name, or nomenclature, "M-4". Colt claimed it was some kind of infringement. Colt lost the suit because the court decided "M-4" was a generic term, not linking that particular rifle to any one manufacturer. Much like the term "Carbine". Bill T.

Bill, you quoted me, but did not answer my question. I am hoping you can. Thanks.

[TonyF]

I certainly haven't read the whole thread, and you may have a distinct argument with "you guys," but I am also interested in whether or not Bushmaster has recently had any contracts to produce any M16 type firearms for the US military. Because my understanding is "No." I never knew they ever supplied any, and the jist I am getting from cursory review of this thread is "maybe some a long time ago."

What is the answer? Thanks.

The answer has already been stated. BM providing 4000 rifles to the military was a one shot deal.

Ronnie was issued one of the BM's from that limited contract purchase.

BillT is over-exaggerating the significance of the limited contract purchase.

BM has supplied not one rifle to the military since.

BM's use of the designation "M4" and Colt's subsequent lawsuit had nothing to do with the "limited contract purchase" and everything to do with the commercial use of a trade name that Colt considered to be their intellectual property. Colt lost their lawsuit but it had NOTHING to do with .mil contracts.

This is a perfect example of why some regard the internet as the "misinformation highway".

ETA: The rifles Bushmaster produces for the commercial retail market and the rifles they provided to the military under that limited contract purchase are NOT built to the same standards.

[ungawa]

TonyF,

Thank you for the time for that summary and for the confirmation.

[billt]

ETA: The rifles Bushmaster produces for the commercial retail market and the rifles they provided to the military under that limited contract purchase are NOT built to the same standards.

Link please. Bill T.

[ungawa]

Link please. Bill T.

Here you go:

http://forum.pafoa.org/rifles-42/402...tml#post582496

Were you expecting a link to the Bushmaster website that says that?

I assume "The Chart" has already been posted in this thread. There is nobody out there running carbine courses that says Bushmasters hold up with Colts.

I have a Bushy. It has never jammed - well, except every time I was using one of a few of the Bushmaster magazines I have. But other than that, never. It is a very nice rifle. I have kept it clean and never shot more than 200 rounds through it at a time. I would not hesitate to use it for personal defense. Chances of any decent AR style rifle failing or breaking in 2 rounds, or even 30, is almost nill. On the other hand, no way in Hell I would take it into combat where 500 or (God forbid) even more might need to be fired in a day and perhaps thousands in a week. In those circumstances it's possible the odds will catch up with you. Failure to fire when you need it could be bad. Carrying around a broken rifle for a couple more days - no thanks.