AR-15s - Armalite vs Bushmaster vs Rock River Arms

[Javelin]

All are good rifles and will serve you well. But of those three the Armalite is going to be on average a better product. If you look at the machining, fit, and finish is just going to be a little better. Before you buy go ahead and hold and get the feel of all three before purchasing. As far as accuracy they will all probably be about the same with the 16" chrome lined barrels.

None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

Not sure what Serious Social Work is exactly..... but you don't need a Colt or Noveske to have a seriously reliable firearm. Of course a Noveske would be my ideal build..... LOL

I own five ARs, everything from DPMS to Noveske and will contest that Armalite builds a solid carbine:

 

[vanfunk]

I have owned examples of all three brands and wouldn't favor any one over the others. If this is going to be a "range" gun, then buy the first one you find with the features you want, at the price you can tolerate. For duty or defense, I'd recommend other brands.

vanfunk

 

[Glockman17366]

I looked at a Stag (only AR builder to make a LH rifle), Bushmaster and RRA. The RRA was of a higher quality fit and finish compared to the Stag (at that time, although I'd heard nothing but good things about Stag rifles). The Bushy was a used rifle and I don't have any good reason for selecting the RRA over the Bushy.
I went with the RRA (an Entry Tactical) and have been quite happy with it. So, I can recommend RRA. But all AR builder make a decent quality rifle.

None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

I'm not sure why this statement was made, unless it's gun snobbery. There are some folks who push some manufacturers because the rifles are built and tested "mil-spec". Mil-spec doesn't mean better built or more durable. I've worked in Quality Assurance/Control for 30 years and dealt with mil-specs for quite a while. Most folks have no clue what mil-spec entails...but manufacturers using claims of being mil-spec in their advertisements have caught some rifle buyers as the Holy Grail. Then, the manufacturers charge a higher price some and some buyers pay that price. That's the buyers' choice, of course.

Anyway, any AR will work quite well for any "social" work one can imagine or envision. Of course, virtually any rifle will fulfill that function in capable hands.
And, yes, I've handled and shot Colts. First AR I looked at was a Colt Sporter Hbar in the mid-1980's. It was a real jam-o-matic (so I gave up the idea of an AR for a few years). Colt has a name and had a heritage at one time. Before the 1994 AWB, they were not the civilian gun owners' friend. The owner of Colt (at that time...he's long gone) was one of those pushing for the AWB. Decent rifles? Probably...but not worth the extra money demanded for them.

 

[JohnBT]

This poll was posted in 2005.

JT

 

[kwelz]

It has nothing to do with Gun Snobbery. It has to do with using the right tools for the right job.
The abovre Rifles are fine for the range, etc.

Serious Social work to me however means S.W.A.T./S.O.R.T./Military/etc. And this is what the OP asked about.

And for those you are going to want to use a firearm that has good QC, is tested properly, etc.

I would want a gun that is in Spec and meets at least the minimum requirements set forward by military if I have any chance of using that firearm in an actual combat setting. RRA, BM, etc do not meet the minimum requirements, Period.

JohnBT, I just saw that! One hell of a thread Rez!

 

[10-Ring]

I voted RRA because I can't get the other 2 in my state

 

[FlyinBryan]

And, yes, I've handled and shot Colts. First AR I looked at was a Colt Sporter Hbar in the mid-1980's. It was a real jam-o-matic

actually, the first ar i owned was a colt model 6700. i wouldnt say it was a jam-o-matic, but it did malfunction 5-6 times in the time i owned it.

that was probably a half dozen or so jams in about 2500-3000 rounds.

i sold the rifle back in about 2005 and bought a bushmaster.

about 3000 rounds into that rifle, and absolutely zero malfunctions, i bought another ar (guess what kind?)

now both are at apprx. 8000 rounds and the malfunction count between the two totals exactly zero. and i mean 0 stops of any kind.

i just cant see holding out for "mil-spec" when it has been proven to me by the hardware itself that the term means nothing from a reliability stand point.

i can understand listening to reason and logic when it comes to the advantages of "mil spec" components, but i just cant ignore what ive learned from the rifles themselves.

(and they dont even speak english)

p.s. i am not saying that bushmaster is better than armalite or dpms, because ive never owned one, but its a more accurate, more reliable rifle than my mil spec colt was.

(if more reliable can be defined as less malfunctions, being zero vs not zero, and more accurate if that can be defined as smaller groups)

 

[A-FIXER]

I go where I spend my ben's I got a smith & wesson so far zero in all my shooting and do like the feed ramp grooves and chromed line barrel downside only a 1 yr warranty so I see how it goe's later down the road...

 

[bkb0000]

thank you, azizza... wholly ****in ****, privates- nobody is gonna actually help this guy out?

all three of those brands are what you call "home-owner models." none are for "serious" anything.

if you're looking for professional grade, you gotta go Colt, LMT, Noveske for the best, with BCM and Sabre closing fast and CMMG as a bare minimum.

 

[bkb0000]

This poll was posted in 2005.

JT

hahahaha... we all look dumb now. my argument still stands, however.

 

[BIGRETIC]

Old thread I know....but I own a Bushie and it's very reliable...with brass case ammo!I do have a 6920(which I have not shot yet) but the BM has done well so far!

 

[Glockman17366]

thank you, azizza... wholly ****in ****, privates- nobody is gonna actually help this guy out?

all three of those brands are what you call "home-owner models." none are for "serious" anything.

if you're looking for professional grade, you gotta go Colt, LMT, Noveske for the best, with BCM and Sabre closing fast and CMMG as a bare minimum.

RRA sells to the DEA....does that make them "professional grade"?

And, remember, contracts from government agencies most frequently go to the lowest bidder which may or may not be the best quality.

 

[txgolfer45]

All are fine examples. You ought to also consider S&W M&P15. I own one and it is well put together with quality parts. Probably a notch above the three you listed.

I just put together a RRA upper varminter 20" bull barrel free floated with a Spikes Tactical lower with an ACE ARFX skeleton stock.

 

[BADUNAME4]

They're all exactly the same. Mine's an Armalite. Just thought it looked slightly "cleaner" with slightly better fit & finish. So far so good, but I've never once met an AR I didn't like (to include ones from early on that have tons of mileage on them).

 

[punkndisorderly]

I own all three. To be honest, I can't really tell any quality difference between them. The Armalite seems to have a higher level of observable build quality, but the others function just as well. I really believe that any name brand factory built AR will do well for 99% of those who buy them. The other 1% are generally proffional operators or high level match shooters. If you were one of those, you'd likely not be asking the question.

As far as not being good for "serious social work" that may be your opinion. I don't really share it. My civilian rifles have exhibited better reliability and build quality than any issue rifle I saw in the Army.

I liken the difference between a Mustang Cobra, Saleen Mustang, Roushe, etc. The differences in performance are pretty much academic for most real world driving. The real differences only show themselves on the track. Since 99% of drivers never put them on the track, the differences really don't amount to much. That doesn't mean that you can't get owners arguing endlessly about which is better.

 

[kwelz]

lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

 

[Glockman17366]

lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

OK, prove your statement....

 

[rscalzo]

I had an interesting conversation today with two students that are in the business of selling CNC machines in the New England area. As much of their business is with firearm's companies the topic flowed into AR15 production. I was surprised to learn that Bushmaster does not manufacture anything. Their entire rifle is subcontracted and only assembly takes place in the Maine facility.

S&W has turned the Thompson Center facility into a plant for producing the barrels for their M&P15 line. As the business is down at the plant I can see them moving other areas of production into that plant.

 

[FlyinBryan]

All are fine examples. You ought to also consider S&W M&P15. I own one and it is well put together with quality parts. Probably a notch above the three you listed.

but dont the three mentioned by the thread starter use 4150 barrel steel while the s&w uses the lower grade, 4140 i think it is?

 

[woodfiend]

Quote:
lot of people throw around that DEA contract witout talking details.

Do you think those rifles are the same you can get at your Local shop? No. they are upgraded and have to meet a level of testing and quality that is not the norm in a production rifle.

Any manufactuer can get a government contract and meet the requirements of it. The problem is that they choose to cut corners on their normal production guns.

OK, prove your statement....

Seriously. Show us the documentation that tells us this or it's BS

 

[wickedsprint]

None of those is any good for "Serious Social work"

You must be a gun salesman.

My RRA has not jammed once, my issued Colt M4 has, and on more than one occasion. It was also new out of the crate so nothing can be blamed on the previous user.

I love how everyone preaches "mil-spec" for the Colt, but then slams the Beretta M9. Pick one side of the fence, either you trust the Military to evaluate a weapon and their final decision or you don't.

"Mil-Spec" is not always the best, it's the cheapest bidder that complied with the minimum specification.

Last I checked a Commercial Colt does not even have full parts compatibility with a military model.

 

[BBstacker]

Mil spec describes the phyical & or operation characteristics of a product. Meaning no commercialy produced AR 15 is a mil spec. If you have a receiver made of 6061 T6 aluminum it not mil spec. Mil spec would be 7075 T6. ARs are semi auto not full auto. Thay do not have wylde or .223 chambers and so on. As per military mil specs.

 

[wickedsprint]

Common misconception about the RRA chamber, not all of them are Wylde. All of the 16" non-stainless barrels are actually NATO chambers

 

[Glockman17366]

"Mil-Spec" is not always the best, it's the cheapest bidder that complied with the minimum specification.

Mil-spec is nothing more then a series of written requirements a supplier must adhere to when producing a product for the Department of Defense. The majority stem from the WW II era. Many are now obsolete having been superceded by various other specifications including ANSI (American National Standards Institute), ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) and ISO (a series of international standardization specifications).
Mil-Spec intent is to meet the product designer's requirements. Mil-Spec does not mean better quality or lower costs. It normally does mean there is more paperwork involved when submitting product for approval.
Being a mil-spec product does not mean a higher quality firearm. It just means the firearms were produced to specifications required by the government contract.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I've worked in Quality Assurance/Quality Control since 1977 (as a civilian..also worked QC while in the Navy). Most folks, including some of the responders to this thread, have no idea what mil-spec entails.

Any AR-15, except the cheapest POS you can buy, will likely hold up as well as any rifle built to a mil-spec. That's a subjective statement, but has every bit as much validity as anyone claiming Colt builds a better rifle.

BTW, automotive specs tend to be more stringent then mil-specs.

If you have a receiver made of 6061 T6 aluminum it not mil spec. Mil spec would be 7075 T6.

Wrong! If the design requires 6061-T6, it's built to mil-spec. If the design requires 6061-T6, that doesn't mean you can produce the receiver in 7075-T6.
6061-T6 is a tough alloy, so is 7075-T6. Both are used in aerospace, but 7075 has the edge for strength and toughness. It's also harder to machine (more tendency to crack).

 

[wickedsprint]

Who uses 6061 on their ARs? At least according to a quality review of RRA it was mentioned they used 7075 T6.