AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/6/2007 11:39:04 AM EDT
|
I have read about the reliability issues that the Carbon 15 had when they were manufactured by Professional Ordnance. I am currently looking at a NEW one. Does anyone have any input on the new Carbon 15's and how they stack up? Thanks |
| As owner of both I have had nothing but great success. The PO version did break its extractor in the first three rounds, but after replaced I put thousands thru it without any malfunctions. It did prefer some mags to others though. The Bushy has been flawless. No complaints. I think if u go with the Bushy you will be fine. |
|
Markm will be along any minute now to tell you how much they both suck, unless he, too, is tired of replying to the same type of thread every week. He's probably right. I am here to make the obligatory response that they work just fine for what they are. First, what they aren't:
Now, what they are: Very light weight. You can get pretty close with a Superlight or some other configuration. Also, since the bulk of the weapon is non-metallic, they are somewhat less susceptible to damage from lack of cleaning or getting them wet. There are metal parts, however, so you still have to do basic maintenance. In the beginning of the Bushmaster Carbon 15, the charging handle track in the upper receiver was not always smooth. Without a lot of lubrication, the bolt key would bind on the charging handle, pushing both back with each pull of the trigger. This would cause a notch to form where the latch gouged out the upper receiver. There is no real fix for the gouge. You could prevent one from forming or getting worse with heavy lubrication. Eventually, the parts and track wore in, and you didn't have to worry about it so much. Other folks have reported excessive wear on the feed-ramps. I used to be skeptical, but at one point when I posted a thread of my Carbon 15 after it's 10,000 round, several folks commented on the fact that my feed ramps were different than theirs. I've now seen pictures of Carbons with and without feed ramps like mine. So anyways, if you want a really light rifle and you have a spirit of adventure, go for it. If you want something you won't have to tinker with out of the box, or that you want to customize heavily, go for something else. It should be noted that in the course of it's evolution, I have replaced almost all the light-weight parts on my Carbon 15 with heavier standard parts, thus somewhat defeating the purpose of it's lightweight design. Also, I have run mine quite hard in a variety of configurations in local competition. The Carbon Gods have smiled upon me, as my particular Carbon has proven more reliable and jam free than many of my competitors conventional ARs. However, based on feedback from this board, I have come to the conclusion that mine is unusual in terms of reliability. Since I beat both Markm and HKDude to this Carbon thread, I will now fill it up with my Carbon pictures.  When she was new:  During the ban:  After the ban:  Current: |
|
A friend of mine just got one of these rifles, like the one JohnnyEgo has in the picture there. At first I was very skeptical. The buffer and spring is different- it's smaller and the gun uses a special buffer tube. The bolt carrier is not standardized, it's shorter overall. Then we took it out and ran it for awhile.... the gun is actually pretty damn good. No problems with it at all. It does seem to kick a bit more than my Colt 6520 does, but that isn't saying much. The compensator doesnt appear to really do a whole hell of a lot. We shot it with and without the compensator, and I didn't notice a big difference. If someone is just buying a "sundry AR" with no intent to add all kinds of crap to it, I think it's not a bad deal. If you need rails etc then it is best to look elsewhere. -Mike |
|
I have emailed Bushy about a PO Car15 I owned, and was told via email by them that they have replaced/changed many things in the design since PO went bankrupt. I can't remember them all at the moment, but I posted the email here: http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=313299 Hopefully, these changes drastically improved their reliability, quality control, and accuracy. |
|
I own a Carbon 15 M4 from Bushy and as far as I can tell Bushy has fixed everything I had heard about. I had heard the same thing but when one popped up at a dealer here I did some research and I haven't found anyone with a new production carbon 15 that isn't pleased with it. The MAIN issue that popped up with the PO carbons seemed to be feed problems, and those problems seemed to be due to the shitty feed ramp that used to be in the carbon 15s. Bushmaster fixed this. I have fired lots of different bullets and weights of various qualitie, new production name brand and remanufactured NATO in new quality mags and in military surplus gun show mags. I have yet to have one malfunction. I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. Bushmaster may have bought the patent from a company that couldn't pull off the design but it's all Bushmaster now. If it was still something that people couldn't work with I guarantee Bushmaster wouldn't let this one platform drag down their reputation. |
...or get the Carbon 15 Model 4. I got it and put the BMAS 4 rail split handguard on it. I love it. |
I have rails and a light on my Carbon 15. I kinda wish I left it stock, but it is still very light and good looking. |
Yeah, I was just illustrating that it is possible to load them up with accessories if that's what you want. I'm actually wanting to turn it back completely stock except for some trijicon iron sights. I want to get a traditional tin can AR and I may use the handguards on it. |
|
I do not understand the point of the Bushmaster Carbon 15. They say it saves 3/4 pound, but in fact the entire thing weighs more than the COLT counterpart. Here are the links to the two weapons. Bushmaster Carbon 15 M4 5.95 lbs. COLT M4 5.9 lbs. Where did they piss away 3/4 pound? |
I don't quite follow your pronoun agreement. Who does "they" refer to in your last sentence? If you are asking about Bushmaster it is, of course, because,
I'd be much more concerned to know where Colt pissed that weight away when their rifle isn't made from anything different and I am assuming that is who you were referring to with "they". Without an inside, definitive, answer I'd always wonder what Colt skimped on in relation to a traditional rifle being so light.(it's moot when discussing Colt with me, however, because I'd never own anything made by Colt on pronciple) |
|
What I meant was why is the Carbon 15 still so heavy. Where did "they" add 3/4 lb so that it still weighed 5.9 lbs? If you look at the Bushy C15 and the Colt M4 they are virtually identical. If the C15 is benefiting from the carbon fiber, I don't see it. I am not knocking the gun, I am sorry if I offended you. I actually think it is cool because it is different. I wouldn't mind having one myself. I was simply trying to understand why they pissed away the 3/4 lb weight savings if in fact they were trying to make a lighter M4. I would love a 5lb M4. It is still a nice looking weapon. |
I wasn't offended(it takes a lot more than interweb discussion) and I see where you were headed now. I haven't held a Colt M4 in my hands since before I bought my C15 but now I am curious as well. I'll have to seek a Colt M4 out and see if I can tell what the specific differnces are by pawing at it a little while and maybe I'll see why the C15 still weighs as much. The c15 is 1.75 inches longer with a fully extended stock but that's all I see. |
Here are some pics of my COLT M4. I replaced the hand guard with a KAC RAS, and added a Trijicon, GG&G Flip-up Rear Sight, and a COLT 14.5" Heavy Barrel. Without these mods it weighs 5.9lbs. I also have two COLT LE6920's, they weight 5.95lbs, the same as the Carbon 15. I can see no difference between any of these guns. Maybe the pics will help you figure out what might be different.   Although it is marked M16A1, it was made only 3 years ago. It is a rare remanufactured serial number and was factory made by COLT as a new late model M4. I am really curious to know where the extra weight could be. |
|
heh...of course it also just dawned on me that we're comparing Colt to Bushy and bushy never made the claim that it's lighter than ALL other carbines. They may have just meant in relation to all of their other carbines and they have their superlight with a telestock listed as 6.25 pounds. 1/3 of a pound difference in weight even between Bushy's superlight and the C15. Bushmaster doesn't have a weight listed for their M4, which is odd. So now the question in my mind isn't where did the weight in my rifle come from but where was it taken out of yours!  After reading this thread, however, I did decide to go back super simple with my C15. I figure why not really appreciate it's weight savings. I'll just save my quad rail, rail covers, and flashlight for a build I want to start in a few weeks. The only thing I have on the C15 now is my CAA saddle(which is comfy and holds my field cleaning supplies) AND DAMN is it light.  |
Probably a misprint on the website. Looking at my 2007 Bushmaster Catalog, page 3, the Carbon 15 "Flat-Top" rifle with 16" M4 profile has a weight listing of 5.5 lbs. The 9mm variant with medium barrel profile on page 4 weighs in at 5.7 lbs. The M4A3 type conventional Bushmaster on page 9 lists as 6.22 lbs. So the ad copy is acurate in the sense that the carbon fiber receiver version of the M4 is just about 3/4 of a pound lighter then the aluminum receiver version of the same Bushmaster firearm. Should be noted that all of the Carbon guns mentioned above have 16" barrels. I don't know how much a 1.5" chunk of barrel at the fat end of the M4 profile weighs, but I imagine a Bushmaster gun of the same barrel specs would probably weigh the same as the Colt copy, and that a Carbon gun of the same barrel specs would probably weigh about 3/4 of a pound less then both. |
AR Sponsor