AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/2/2003 10:19:22 AM EDT
|
alright, i have seen this topic glanced at within several other threads so here is a thread completely devoted to the topic of poor bushmaster QC i JUST bought a 20" a3 which has worked perfectly, and wednesday my ffl will be dropping a 16" a3 off at my house as well, both bushmasters is there ANY truth to this BS or are these just overzealous people with a ford vs. chevy mentality? by the way...................CHEVY |
|
Every company will have some percentage of returns for repair. I'm sure Bushmaster does, but I don't personally know of anyone that had any problems with a Bushy. I do know of people that had problems with Armalite, Colt, RRA, Olympic, and DPMS. It just happens though, I don't think it is a real QC problem. |
|
Every manufacturer's products will fall somewhere on a bellshaped curve of whatever variable you wish to examine. Some manufacturers spend more time on one end than another! But to make a questionnaire sampling reliable to determine QC issues you're gonna need several thousand replies as is the case in any valid retrospective study, regardless of what a few hundred replies may lead you to believe intuitively. Less than that it's anecdotal and statistically essentially meaningless from a practical standpoint. That is not to say that dangerous occurrences that demand a recall are to be ignored until several thousand individuals experience the problem. But given the finer points of QC you are discussing you need a bunch o' replies! Sorry to be a party pooper![:D] |
| i have a 20" bushy a3 I purchased about a month ago. no mill marks, finish is impeccable, camo application on stock is impeccable, sights are straight, 100% feed reliabilty so far(about 300 rds.) accuracy is well within spec(as far as i can tell.lol), trigger pull is very crisp(tad more creep than i care for), overall fit and finish is what i would describe as impeccable. I agree with an earlier post that to truly gauge QC you would need a thousand rifles.... go to truck forums on chevy, dodge, ford or any other manufacture and read the problems posted on ANY new truck...........it will scare you half to death about ALL the manufactures....... lol just my 2 cents |
|
I currently own 3 Bushmasters: V-Match carbine and 2 Shorty A2's... absolutely no problems, and that's on a steady diet of that 'bad' 'ol Wolf ammo. Fit, finish, function, and workmanship is as good as my ArmaLite rifles... I'll be adding another Bushy within the next 4 weeks. edited 'cause my 'puter can't spell... |
| I have two Bushmaster AR-15's, one is new...late 2002 purchase and the other I bought used, which is a preban in the 30,000 S/N range. Both are of high quaility with zero problems what ever. I like the newer one best as it seems to have the better fit, finsh, and functions perfectly. |
| Have had my Bushy for 2 years and 5000 rounds. NOT ONE PROBLEM. I did put in a Jewel trigger, just because none of the factory triggers can be worked to equal a Jewel. If it seems that you've heard of more Bushy complaints than on other brands, remember that Bushy sells LOTS more guns than the others, thus the higer count of returns. But on a percentage basis, I'll bet you find that Bushie is pretty low. |
|
I have 3 guns built on Bushmaster recvrs. One had a bad saftey and hammer when brand new. Other than that I have no problems with their quality. Their customer service is another matter. I [b]tried[/b] to order a 14.5in M-4 barrel from them one time. After waiting 6 weeks and being lied to 4 times I finally had to talk to the director of customer service to get my money back. (paid with MO) If they don't have a product in stock, they shouldn't tell you they do so you will send your money in. I am not trying to slam Bushmaster, I just had a bad experience with them. Scott |
| Mine worked fine for the 1st 300 rounds..then it went back to factory 3 times before hitting 1000 rounds..mostly failure to eject .Well..it had the upper replaced 2x because carrier was 'scoring' it (needed deburred)and the gas tube,bolt and carrier were all replaced once.since all that was done rifle has been flawless for approx the next 2000 rounds and counting.I know of a few others that needed bolts replaced to function properly.Even after all the grief this caused me I wouldn't say not to buy one but I would say (as with any semi-auto) "PUT 1000 ROUNDS THRU IT WHILE IT'S STILL UNDER WARRANTY" I've seen crap from a few 'big name' manufactuers so it's really luck of the draw at times...yer not even safe by spending $1000 bucks for a rifle.(PS..I have paperwork to support all this...and witnesses that will testify that I clean firearms promptly and don't abuse them). |
|
I noticed a little burr on the inside of my bolt carrier around where the hammer strikes the firing pin. It was very small and out of the way. The only reason I noticed it was a rag got caught on it while applying clp. Just took a small flathead screwdriver and it came right off. Aside from that, my little Bushy is so much nicer on the eyes than any rifle I've been issued. I've never had a single problem out of it that wasn't due to bad mags. |
| Bushmasters are the best as far as I'm concerned, but as with any manufacturing company they have had their problems with QC and sub-contractors who make parts for them, so the sub-contractors may have quality control issues also, sometimes they have a bad batch of parts. I have hear of A2 rear sights being out of wack with Bushies But I've seen problems that people have had with all the AR- makers, the most with olympic and I saw a armalite (eagle) AR-10 tear off the 308 cases rims because the chamber too tight, it shot good groups but was a mess, I had major problems with olympic arms in 7.62X39 upper bent barrel could shoot around corners and with a 223 11.5 CAR which did not have the proper size gas port hole to function right, double feed city, Colt was the first manufacture'r so they really had the gun making down but they sold out, and are expensive and have lame stuff on them like two screw lower and large pins and sear blocks, so I'd say bushmaster is way up there. my 2 Cents |
| I had a problem with a brake being bent on mine, should have noticed it when I bought it, but it was my 1st AR, so I was too overjoyed to finally be getting one that I didnt. I returned it too them, they fixed it right away & got it back to me. I would be more concerned if they didnt want to fix whatever problem may arise occasionally, than if they have a problem from time to time, because all manufactures will have problems sometimes. I purchased a M4 also & it functions flawlessly. |
|
Quoted: Every manufacturer's products will fall somewhere on a bellshaped curve of whatever variable you wish to examine. Some manufacturers spend more time on one end than another! But to make a questionnaire sampling reliable to determine QC issues you're gonna need several thousand replies as is the case in any valid retrospective study, regardless of what a few hundred replies may lead you to believe intuitively. Less than that it's anecdotal and statistically essentially meaningless from a practical standpoint. That is not to say that dangerous occurrences that demand a recall are to be ignored until several thousand individuals experience the problem. But given the finer points of QC you are discussing you need a bunch o' replies! Sorry to be a party pooper![:D] First, it is not a QC problem if the parts are not made to the proper specification, it is a process capability issue. It is a QC issue if the process is set-up incorrectly or if a rifle is not assemble correctly. Second, If it is a reliability issues it will more likely than not follow a Weibull distribution as opposed to a normal curve. If you look at the process over time it will probably follow a non-normal distribution. The total population of all AR-15s ever made may be normalized, but I would suspect what escapes is the result of a sampling plan that is using the wrong confidence level, ie. alpha error. I would also suspect it is not a process capability issues as much as a training issue. (Most of the defects I have read about are / have been assembly issues) The measure you need to see is what the defect rate by cause is and see if it is statistically significant when compared against the common cause variation in the process. The bottom line, sh-t happens with a good dose of Ford vs. Chevy mentality for spice. |
|
Quoted: First, it is not a QC problem if the parts are not made to the proper specification, it is a process capability issue. It is a QC issue if the process is set-up incorrectly or if a rifle is not assemble correctly. Second, If it is a reliability issues it will more likely than not follow a Weibull distribution as opposed to a normal curve. If you look at the process over time it will probably follow a non-normal distribution. The total population of all AR-15s ever made may be normalized, but I would suspect what escapes is the result of a sampling plan that is using the wrong confidence level, ie. alpha error. Semantics notwithstanding, improperly manufactured or improperly assembled components result in a poor or less than optimal quality product, albeit at different stages of the manufacturing process and to varying degrees of performance and consumer relevance depending on the item in question. A Weibull distribution may be a more representative statistical model than a skewed Gaussian distribution. Damed if I know! "I'm a Doctor, Jim!!"(Bones McCoy),not a bean counter, but the necessity for an adequate sampling population is not diminished and negates the value of anecdotal experiences related on this thread with various manufacturers. Also, for the purpose of enlightening the readers of this thread, one must not lose sight of the obvious: statistical expressions and calculcations though commonly used are often difficult to understand and correctly interpret by the consumer. Consequently, overutilization of discipline-specific nomenclature and terminology will have similar utility and relevance to my engaging in the obfuscation of a discussion of accuracy with a dissertation on the neurophysiology of the contributions of the posterior white columns and cerebellum in maintaining the firing posture compounded by the influence of the Golgi reflex in response to felt recoil. |
|
It appears to me that as long as you purchase a firearm made by a reputable company you will have similar odds of quality and problems. [:)] A firearm is a machine and any machine manufactured and assembled by people will have the potential to be affected by human error. Different people have different priorities. From what I've observed over the past few weeks of reading posts, Colt clearly has a higher resale value and BM is more closely adherent to mil spec, if there is any realistically practical significance to that for the non-postapocalyptic civilian. [>Q] However, while I ordered a Bushy and eagerly await its arrival, I have noticed that people will bash Colt every chance they can while, after describing the myriad of problems they experience with their BMs, almost always qualify it with a statement of what a great gun it is, seemingly reluctant to alienate a very pro-Bushmaster board. To me its a moot point. Both manufacturers build high quality, desirable firearms with a few dogs slipping thru on occasion. [snoopy] Good Morning!! TT [coffee] |
|
Well, quality is quality, and if the quality is controlled, thats called QC. I recently bought a complete Bushy lower. The hole for the takedown pin detent and spring was correct at the butstock end of the receiver, but angled about 2mm too far inboard. The takedown pin would latch solidly when "out", and would not latch "in". In fact, it latched so solidly in the open position that a tap with a plastic mallet broke off about 4mm of the paper thin detent wall on the inside of the receiver. Bushmaster offered to examine it and make it right, but I did not want to go through the agonizing wait for a factory evaluation and a new receiver. I went with a JP Tension Pin. Bushmaster probably uses CNC machines extensively, so if the tool was worn or if the machine was misprogrammed, there are more out there. Further, this should have been noticed during the assembly process. And finally, it should have been caught at a final QC inspection point. Other than this minor error, it is a great lower, and I have no other complaints, particularly when compared to my friend's Colt. |
|
Let me get this straight... Your particular Bushy's lower was manufactured in such a manner as to incur the breakage of part of the receiver when it was necessary to strike the takedown pin with a mallet in order to drive it back into seated position and it compares FAVORABLY to your friend's Colt? Does the poor SOB have a rifle assembled with baling wire and finished with Rustoleum applied with a toothbrush?? [:O] |
| I have had 2 of 4 bushies go back in for repairs, recently bought a 20" A3 that had loading problems, and i have also sent one back for barrel torque problems. But i must add this. One time while changing my first stock the detent spring shot all to hell. I called BM they sent one out for free. Also they sent me something else (small item) for free. They do have good customer service. |
| Bushmaster had a number of complaints about overtorqued barrels. It was also known as a Zero problem because the rear sight aperture would end up very close to one side of the carry handle after Zeroing the weapon. My Bushy with A1 upper had this problem and I was very dissapointed. On the phone with support they explained it was a known issue to them caused by the barrel bieng overtorqued. This resulted in a canted Front Sight Assembly which is then compensated for by excessive windage. Bushmaster said they would repair my AR15 right away, under warranty. Someone here posted that Bushy had this issue posted on thier website. I was pleased with thier customer service rep who handled my call, but instead of repair I requested an upgrade to an A2 upper so they took my damaged A1 upper and replaced it with a brand new A2 upper for $30.(The difference in price between the two) Truthfully I didn't want it repaired, I wanted it replaced because it shouldn't have been damaged in the first place, but that's at thier discretion so I thought it would be better to just get the A2 upper and pay the difference. They even threw in a new hard case for free. My experience with AR15/M16's has been great overall but none of my issued weapons were more than 3 clicks away from battlesight zero. I would consider overtorqued barrels a QC problem that should have been caught at some point and none of the weapons should have been sold in this condition. Yes even after all of this I love my Bushy, it never failed except for a faulty magazine(Bushy 10rd Frankenmag which they replaced for free)And a bad bunch of '86 SA battlepack ammo that wouldn't feed in two different AR15's that I had at the range that day. This may not be as big an issue necessary to justify calling Bushmaster's QC poor, I certainly don't believe they have poor QC, but there was a definite QC issue at one time. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: First, it is not a QC problem if the parts are not made to the proper specification, it is a process capability issue. It is a QC issue if the process is set-up incorrectly or if a rifle is not assemble correctly. Second, If it is a reliability issues it will more likely than not follow a Weibull distribution as opposed to a normal curve. If you look at the process over time it will probably follow a non-normal distribution. The total population of all AR-15s ever made may be normalized, but I would suspect what escapes is the result of a sampling plan that is using the wrong confidence level, ie. alpha error. Semantics notwithstanding, improperly manufactured or improperly assembled components result in a poor or less than optimal quality product, albeit at different stages of the manufacturing process and to varying degrees of performance and consumer relevance depending on the item in question. A Weibull distribution may be a more representative statistical model than a skewed Gaussian distribution. Damed if I know! "I'm a Doctor, Jim!!"(Bones McCoy),not a bean counter, but the necessity for an adequate sampling population is not diminished and negates the value of anecdotal experiences related on this thread with various manufacturers. Also, for the purpose of enlightening the readers of this thread, one must not lose sight of the obvious: statistical expressions and calculcations though commonly used are often difficult to understand and correctly interpret by the consumer. Consequently, overutilization of discipline-specific nomenclature and terminology will have similar utility and relevance to my engaging in the obfuscation of a discussion of accuracy with a dissertation on the neurophysiology of the contributions of the posterior white columns and cerebellum in maintaining the firing posture compounded by the influence of the Golgi reflex in response to felt recoil. Gee Doc, it is the only time I get to say anything with a degree of authority. Thanks for understanding my post. Most people only give me that "look" then their eyes glaze over. |
|
Doc, the butplate on the Colt had just a molded plastic hinge, the pins are not standard to anything else, and it had a reinforcing web of some kind inside the receiver, probably to prevent non-Colt parts from being installed. The Bushy has a real spring latch aluminum trap door. It shoots alright though, but it certainly cost a lot more than my Bushy parts gun. It also needs an Accu-Wedge to keep the receiver halves from rattlin' around. Value for dollars spent has to go to Bushmaster, even with the off center hole takedown detent hole. |
AR Sponsor