AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/25/2013 9:37:07 AM EDT
| what are the opionins on windham? i have a chance to get one from a guy at our church for 650.00. |
|
They are a great mid level firearm. While they do not hit on "everything that a dream build is based on, they do get the most important things right.
1. C158 bolt...check 2. 4150 11595e chrome lined barrel and chamber with M4 feed ramps, barrel....check 3. Made in USA from all US parts...check 4. M16 profile bolt carriers...check 5. double heat shield hand guards...check 6. They tend to have a very nice fit and finish. Good coatings with even color between parts 7. Known to be very accurate 8. Known to have good quality control. There is almost no information floating around of things built in correctly or bad parts with them. A lot of very positive feedback from people who have actually used or owned one. 9. Not as expensive as some but a lot of value for the money 10. Life time transferable warranty. No better warranty in the business. The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. 3. Not a lot of options for models or configurations. That will change with time as the company as "Windham Weaponry" has only been in business for a short time. Many very experienced people working there. And as a whole, they have more experience then many or most other manufacturers of Ar's. As everyone knows, experience counts. 4. Tageed with a bad rep due to Bushmaster. The assembly plant was once Bushmaster. And they were know as one of the best at the time. But Bushmaster was bought out, the Windham factory closed and production changed completely. The quality of Bushmaster suffer greatly. And now some people just know the quality lacking Bushmaster and it's tags to Windham (as that is where they were previously made). They think that Windham has anything to do with current Bushmaster and group them together. When the current Windham is known for putting even a better product then "old Bushmasters" which were one of the best of their time. Find factual evidence of inferior product in Windham AR's. I am not talking about purse swinger "you do not have complete mil spec so it is crap" people. But information that Windhams are not a first rate rifle. I have never seen anything to state this. Only the contrary. Only people I have seen say anything bad, have no experience with the brand or are comparing them to something out of their league (and there are plenty of those just as most all $1,000 ar's). If you can find one and decide to go with it, be happy. Are there better out there, sure. but in their price range they are a very solid competitor. And not a fire arm to have any regrets on. Simple things "some look down on are easily changeable. All the important features and parts are there. And you have a very good company backing them up. |
My son has the MPC that he has a couple of cases through. So far, so good. Needs a mil-spec RE and stock, and an H2. I have these laying around, and we will throw that at it when we finally clean the thing 
Cleaned and lubed it up in the beginning with Amsoil 0w20, and lubed the BCG again after 1000. Good little rifle, so far |
|
Quoted:
They are a great mid level firearm. While they do not hit on "everything that a dream build is based on, they do get the most important things right. 1. C158 bolt...check 2. 4150 11595e chrome lined barrel and chamber with M4 feed ramps, barrel....check 3. Made in USA from all US parts...check 4. M16 profile bolt carriers...check 5. double heat shield hand guards...check 6. They tend to have a very nice fit and finish. Good coatings with even color between parts 7. Known to be very accurate 8. Known to have good quality control. There is almost no information floating around of things built in correctly or bad parts with them. A lot of very positive feedback from people who have actually used or owned one. 9. Not as expensive as some but a lot of value for the money 10. Life time transferable warranty. No better warranty in the business. The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. 3. Not a lot of options for models or configurations. That will change with time as the company as "Windham Weaponry" has only been in business for a short time. Many very experienced people working there. And as a whole, they have more experience then many or most other manufacturers of Ar's. As everyone knows, experience counts. 4. Tageed with a bad rep due to Bushmaster. The assembly plant was once Bushmaster. And they were know as one of the best at the time. But Bushmaster was bought out, the Windham factory closed and production changed completely. The quality of Bushmaster suffer greatly. And now some people just know the quality lacking Bushmaster and it's tags to Windham (as that is where they were previously made). They think that Windham has anything to do with current Bushmaster and group them together. When the current Windham is known for putting even a better product then "old Bushmasters" which were one of the best of their time. Find factual evidence of inferior product in Windham AR's. I am not talking about purse swinger "you do not have complete mil spec so it is crap" people. But information that Windhams are not a first rate rifle. I have never seen anything to state this. Only the contrary. Only people I have seen say anything bad, have no experience with the brand or are comparing them to something out of their league (and there are plenty of those just as most all $1,000 ar's). If you can find one and decide to go with it, be happy. Are there better out there, sure. but in their price range they are a very solid competitor. And not a fire arm to have any regrets on. Simple things "some look down on are easily changeable. All the important features and parts are there. And you have a very good company backing them up. This looks like a typical cut and paste review. I disagree with a number of the points as they discuss things that are not necessary in building a quality rifle. They are far from a "mid Level" rifle. Cite your experience with shooting WW rifles and lets see if you can back up your post....You also cite shit that is just wrong...Do your homework on their page and see how Eric addresses all the issues "you" bring up... |
|
Quoted:
This looks like a typical cut and paste review. I disagree with a number of the points as they discuss things that are not necessary in building a quality rifle. They are far from a "mid Level" rifle. Cite your experience with shooting WW rifles and lets see if you can back up your post....You also cite shit that is just wrong...Do your homework on their page and see how Eric addresses all the issues "you" bring up... Quoted:
Quoted:
They are a great mid level firearm. While they do not hit on "everything that a dream build is based on, they do get the most important things right. 1. C158 bolt...check 2. 4150 11595e chrome lined barrel and chamber with M4 feed ramps, barrel....check 3. Made in USA from all US parts...check 4. M16 profile bolt carriers...check 5. double heat shield hand guards...check 6. They tend to have a very nice fit and finish. Good coatings with even color between parts 7. Known to be very accurate 8. Known to have good quality control. There is almost no information floating around of things built in correctly or bad parts with them. A lot of very positive feedback from people who have actually used or owned one. 9. Not as expensive as some but a lot of value for the money 10. Life time transferable warranty. No better warranty in the business. The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. 3. Not a lot of options for models or configurations. That will change with time as the company as "Windham Weaponry" has only been in business for a short time. Many very experienced people working there. And as a whole, they have more experience then many or most other manufacturers of Ar's. As everyone knows, experience counts. 4. Tageed with a bad rep due to Bushmaster. The assembly plant was once Bushmaster. And they were know as one of the best at the time. But Bushmaster was bought out, the Windham factory closed and production changed completely. The quality of Bushmaster suffer greatly. And now some people just know the quality lacking Bushmaster and it's tags to Windham (as that is where they were previously made). They think that Windham has anything to do with current Bushmaster and group them together. When the current Windham is known for putting even a better product then "old Bushmasters" which were one of the best of their time. Find factual evidence of inferior product in Windham AR's. I am not talking about purse swinger "you do not have complete mil spec so it is crap" people. But information that Windhams are not a first rate rifle. I have never seen anything to state this. Only the contrary. Only people I have seen say anything bad, have no experience with the brand or are comparing them to something out of their league (and there are plenty of those just as most all $1,000 ar's). If you can find one and decide to go with it, be happy. Are there better out there, sure. but in their price range they are a very solid competitor. And not a fire arm to have any regrets on. Simple things "some look down on are easily changeable. All the important features and parts are there. And you have a very good company backing them up. This looks like a typical cut and paste review. I disagree with a number of the points as they discuss things that are not necessary in building a quality rifle. They are far from a "mid Level" rifle. Cite your experience with shooting WW rifles and lets see if you can back up your post....You also cite shit that is just wrong...Do your homework on their page and see how Eric addresses all the issues "you" bring up... What did I "Cite" that is incorrect? And I own an SRC model. Nothing was "cut and pasted" they are just my experiences after owning one. By "mid" level I just mean that they are not at the level of upper level brands but above most all 1,000 and below brands imho. Point's that I state that are bad point's are mainly due to the purse swinging on here about what "has" to be done for an AR to be any more then a paper weight. I had extra Mil spec stocks left over so instead of buying a new stock (which when trying to find a mil spec one locally and online) were hard to find. I doubt the commercial spec would have failed me. Most people pipe in and make it seem like an atomic bomb will go off if you run one on your rifle. $40 mil spec extension was better then another $75 CTR. I think it is a bad part on Windham to set them up that way as the price difference between Com and Mil are very little on that part. The WW rifle's are completely solid in their price range. It makes me wonder why people say "get something else so you will have Mil spec features. When they are quite well on the mil spec scale at least where it counts. Even more so then many others in their range. You make it sound like I was bashing on WW when it was the contrary. I know it is hard to understand intent through typing. |
|
Quoted:
What did I "Cite" that is incorrect? And I own an SRC model. Nothing was "cut and pasted" they are just my experiences after owning one. By "mid" level I just mean that they are not at the level of upper level brands but above most all 1,000 and below brands imho. Point's that I state that are bad point's are mainly due to the purse swinging on here about what "has" to be done for an AR to be any more then a paper weight. I had extra Mil spec stocks left over so instead of buying a new stock (which when trying to find a mil spec one locally and online) were hard to find. I doubt the commercial spec would have failed me. Most people pipe in and make it seem like an atomic bomb will go off if you run one on your rifle. $40 mil spec extension was better then another $75 CTR. I think it is a bad part on Windham to set them up that way as the price difference between Com and Mil are very little on that part. The WW rifle's are completely solid in their price range. It makes me wonder why people say "get something else so you will have Mil spec features. When they are quite well on the mil spec scale at least where it counts. Even more so then many others in their range. You make it sound like I was bashing on WW when it was the contrary. I know it is hard to understand intent through typing. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are a great mid level firearm. While they do not hit on "everything that a dream build is based on, they do get the most important things right. 1. C158 bolt...check 2. 4150 11595e chrome lined barrel and chamber with M4 feed ramps, barrel....check 3. Made in USA from all US parts...check 4. M16 profile bolt carriers...check 5. double heat shield hand guards...check 6. They tend to have a very nice fit and finish. Good coatings with even color between parts 7. Known to be very accurate 8. Known to have good quality control. There is almost no information floating around of things built in correctly or bad parts with them. A lot of very positive feedback from people who have actually used or owned one. 9. Not as expensive as some but a lot of value for the money 10. Life time transferable warranty. No better warranty in the business. The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. 3. Not a lot of options for models or configurations. That will change with time as the company as "Windham Weaponry" has only been in business for a short time. Many very experienced people working there. And as a whole, they have more experience then many or most other manufacturers of Ar's. As everyone knows, experience counts. 4. Tageed with a bad rep due to Bushmaster. The assembly plant was once Bushmaster. And they were know as one of the best at the time. But Bushmaster was bought out, the Windham factory closed and production changed completely. The quality of Bushmaster suffer greatly. And now some people just know the quality lacking Bushmaster and it's tags to Windham (as that is where they were previously made). They think that Windham has anything to do with current Bushmaster and group them together. When the current Windham is known for putting even a better product then "old Bushmasters" which were one of the best of their time. Find factual evidence of inferior product in Windham AR's. I am not talking about purse swinger "you do not have complete mil spec so it is crap" people. But information that Windhams are not a first rate rifle. I have never seen anything to state this. Only the contrary. Only people I have seen say anything bad, have no experience with the brand or are comparing them to something out of their league (and there are plenty of those just as most all $1,000 ar's). If you can find one and decide to go with it, be happy. Are there better out there, sure. but in their price range they are a very solid competitor. And not a fire arm to have any regrets on. Simple things "some look down on are easily changeable. All the important features and parts are there. And you have a very good company backing them up. This looks like a typical cut and paste review. I disagree with a number of the points as they discuss things that are not necessary in building a quality rifle. They are far from a "mid Level" rifle. Cite your experience with shooting WW rifles and lets see if you can back up your post....You also cite shit that is just wrong...Do your homework on their page and see how Eric addresses all the issues "you" bring up... What did I "Cite" that is incorrect? And I own an SRC model. Nothing was "cut and pasted" they are just my experiences after owning one. By "mid" level I just mean that they are not at the level of upper level brands but above most all 1,000 and below brands imho. Point's that I state that are bad point's are mainly due to the purse swinging on here about what "has" to be done for an AR to be any more then a paper weight. I had extra Mil spec stocks left over so instead of buying a new stock (which when trying to find a mil spec one locally and online) were hard to find. I doubt the commercial spec would have failed me. Most people pipe in and make it seem like an atomic bomb will go off if you run one on your rifle. $40 mil spec extension was better then another $75 CTR. I think it is a bad part on Windham to set them up that way as the price difference between Com and Mil are very little on that part. The WW rifle's are completely solid in their price range. It makes me wonder why people say "get something else so you will have Mil spec features. When they are quite well on the mil spec scale at least where it counts. Even more so then many others in their range. You make it sound like I was bashing on WW when it was the contrary. I know it is hard to understand intent through typing. Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... |
|
Quoted:
Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are a great mid level firearm. While they do not hit on "everything that a dream build is based on, they do get the most important things right. 1. C158 bolt...check 2. 4150 11595e chrome lined barrel and chamber with M4 feed ramps, barrel....check 3. Made in USA from all US parts...check 4. M16 profile bolt carriers...check 5. double heat shield hand guards...check 6. They tend to have a very nice fit and finish. Good coatings with even color between parts 7. Known to be very accurate 8. Known to have good quality control. There is almost no information floating around of things built in correctly or bad parts with them. A lot of very positive feedback from people who have actually used or owned one. 9. Not as expensive as some but a lot of value for the money 10. Life time transferable warranty. No better warranty in the business. The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. 3. Not a lot of options for models or configurations. That will change with time as the company as "Windham Weaponry" has only been in business for a short time. Many very experienced people working there. And as a whole, they have more experience then many or most other manufacturers of Ar's. As everyone knows, experience counts. 4. Tageed with a bad rep due to Bushmaster. The assembly plant was once Bushmaster. And they were know as one of the best at the time. But Bushmaster was bought out, the Windham factory closed and production changed completely. The quality of Bushmaster suffer greatly. And now some people just know the quality lacking Bushmaster and it's tags to Windham (as that is where they were previously made). They think that Windham has anything to do with current Bushmaster and group them together. When the current Windham is known for putting even a better product then "old Bushmasters" which were one of the best of their time. Find factual evidence of inferior product in Windham AR's. I am not talking about purse swinger "you do not have complete mil spec so it is crap" people. But information that Windhams are not a first rate rifle. I have never seen anything to state this. Only the contrary. Only people I have seen say anything bad, have no experience with the brand or are comparing them to something out of their league (and there are plenty of those just as most all $1,000 ar's). If you can find one and decide to go with it, be happy. Are there better out there, sure. but in their price range they are a very solid competitor. And not a fire arm to have any regrets on. Simple things "some look down on are easily changeable. All the important features and parts are there. And you have a very good company backing them up. This looks like a typical cut and paste review. I disagree with a number of the points as they discuss things that are not necessary in building a quality rifle. They are far from a "mid Level" rifle. Cite your experience with shooting WW rifles and lets see if you can back up your post....You also cite shit that is just wrong...Do your homework on their page and see how Eric addresses all the issues "you" bring up... What did I "Cite" that is incorrect? And I own an SRC model. Nothing was "cut and pasted" they are just my experiences after owning one. By "mid" level I just mean that they are not at the level of upper level brands but above most all 1,000 and below brands imho. Point's that I state that are bad point's are mainly due to the purse swinging on here about what "has" to be done for an AR to be any more then a paper weight. I had extra Mil spec stocks left over so instead of buying a new stock (which when trying to find a mil spec one locally and online) were hard to find. I doubt the commercial spec would have failed me. Most people pipe in and make it seem like an atomic bomb will go off if you run one on your rifle. $40 mil spec extension was better then another $75 CTR. I think it is a bad part on Windham to set them up that way as the price difference between Com and Mil are very little on that part. The WW rifle's are completely solid in their price range. It makes me wonder why people say "get something else so you will have Mil spec features. When they are quite well on the mil spec scale at least where it counts. Even more so then many others in their range. You make it sound like I was bashing on WW when it was the contrary. I know it is hard to understand intent through typing. Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... Trust me, I have. When purchasing my most recent AR the Windham SRC, I did all of the research I could. I read through all of that as well as though normal online "googling " and other sites. I still decided to go with the Windham after finger poking a few in person. Knowing it had all of the features "I" needed and looking at the quality of build, finish, proper assembly, etc. There was no comparison in it's price range. There were other options in manufacture that were much more expensive (the money was not the issue for me). But the "value" for what I needed in this AR was where I needed it to be. I knew I would change a few things. and who doesn't. Very few stock AR's on this site. Trust me, I know what makes up a good AR (I don't need a high post count here for that). And I feel WW is a great competitor in it's range. I think it surpasses many other higher regarded brands as well. I also after spending some time with it and seeing how some people talk about them am confused on why they talk down on them (WW). Hence in my first post on this topic how I expressed WW getting grouped quality wise with "current" Bushmaster. |
|
Quoted:
got the windham tonight. love it. thanks for all the advice Awesome! Hopefully he gave you some pointers on how to break it down, clean and lube it, if not read the forums, watch some you tube videos it's easy. Now get some ammo and shoot the piss out of it! |
|
http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr188/sammagner123/IMG_20130813_110142_166_zps32a1c2c4.jpg
This is a picture of my Windham. I have about 2500 rounds through it and it has never failed. Hope it keeps up and lasts a lifetime so far so good. I picked it up about 2 years ago for $645, good buy. Things I've added: Daniel Defense M4 FSP 12" rail BCM Mil-Spec Buffer tube B5 Sopmod Enhanced stock Magpul MOE+ grip Aimpoint PRO Chrome Silicon Recoil Spring I still have a few things I want to add then I'm on to the next rifle build hopefully. |
|
Quoted:
got the windham tonight. love it. thanks for all the advice Awesome, post some pics when you can. Great choice. Make sure you take some time to break it down, lube properly and check for any issues (should be done with any firearm regardless of brand). Then go out n get your grin on by shooting it! |
|
Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). How can this be addressed ? It's not a 7075 extension. It is 6066. I don't think it matters really at all, but he is stating the "bad" in other words, not the best you can get. 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. I dont think they even batch test anymore, from reading this anyway... WW bolt testing All material used in the manufacture of our bolts is magnetic particle inspected Carpenter 158 steel.
Two major suppliers of bolts have concluded with Metallurgic experts and engineers that firing a HP round in this testing process can weaken the bolt by creating micro fractures. With the development of modern aerospace metal manufacturing and testing procedures Carpenter 158 material has been proven for this application. There is a lot of debate about MPI/HPT testing anyway… KAC does not use HPT round. The only other thing I would put on the "bad" list would be it has a A2 FSB instead of the "F" marked one. Little things would be 1/9 twist, not parkerized under the FSB, castle nut not staked, upper receiver does not have laser eteched T marks and standard carbine buffer instead of an "H". But all in all where it matters the WW has it. |
|
Quoted:
How can this be addressed ? It's not a 7075 extension. It is 6066. I don't think it matters really at all, but he is stating the "bad" in other words, not the best you can get. I dont think they even batch test anymore, from reading this anyway... WW bolt testing There is a lot of debate about MPI/HPT testing anyway… KAC does not use HPT round. The only other thing I would put on the "bad" list would be it has a A2 FSB instead of the "F" marked one. Little things would be 1/9 twist, not parkerized under the FSB, castle nut not staked, upper receiver does not have laser eteched T marks and standard carbine buffer instead of an "H". But all in all where it matters the WW has it. Quoted:
Rook, check their page in Industry. It will address all the "bad" you stated about WW... The bad: 1. Commercial receiver extension (buffer tube). Not a big deal for most, but the upgrade to "Mil spec" is very inexpensive to the manufacturers. And fairly inexpensive to consumers. This is only a deal for "most" when trying to find an aftermarket butt stock. Mil spec is more common and much easier to find. As well as the build of a Mil spec stock is stronger for a few reasons. Not much of a deal for 95% of people, but a big deal for many on these forums (myself included). How can this be addressed ? It's not a 7075 extension. It is 6066. I don't think it matters really at all, but he is stating the "bad" in other words, not the best you can get. 2. Only batch tested on bolts, etc. At least they do batch test critical parts. That is generally good enough to know you are getting well fabricated parts and materials. But the time it takes to test every part in the testing criteria for higher level manufacturers is a big part of why they cost more. When every single bolt, barrel, etc is tested, then you do have a better chance of getting a long term functioning product then when the manufacturer batch tests. But that takes time and money and hence a required addition cost. Does it rule out every issue? Maybe not as testing like that is only as good as the tester, quality control, or desire to have zero tolerance failures. The testing does not mean much if you do not know how critical the manufacturer is of their tests. There has been many posts on here to people getting rifles with these tests but still having issues. So what does the testing mean? Not sure. The testing does show things not see-able to the human eye, but there are other factors that contribute as much as the tests to having a quality firearm. My self, I would prefer to go with a manufacturer that has employee's who care what they are putting out for products. Not Union based people only looking for a pay check. I dont think they even batch test anymore, from reading this anyway... WW bolt testing All material used in the manufacture of our bolts is magnetic particle inspected Carpenter 158 steel.
Two major suppliers of bolts have concluded with Metallurgic experts and engineers that firing a HP round in this testing process can weaken the bolt by creating micro fractures. With the development of modern aerospace metal manufacturing and testing procedures Carpenter 158 material has been proven for this application. There is a lot of debate about MPI/HPT testing anyway… KAC does not use HPT round. The only other thing I would put on the "bad" list would be it has a A2 FSB instead of the "F" marked one. Little things would be 1/9 twist, not parkerized under the FSB, castle nut not staked, upper receiver does not have laser eteched T marks and standard carbine buffer instead of an "H". But all in all where it matters the WW has it. Agreed on all points. Commercial buffer is not going to matter to 99% of the purchaser who buys an AR that is outfitted that way. WW is not the only manufacturer to use them. They have worked great with only a few failures found by searching online. But would have a Mil version held up better in those cases, maybe maybe not. Commercial RE's are not known for failing at any rate. But Mil spec is built better and if in 7075 aluminum, stronger ( you can find Mil spec versions made from 6061) while not actually Mil spec due to materials, it is Mil spec sized. It is really a meaningless issue for most all people. It is just one of the points that fan boys of some manufacturers bust on to make other manufacturers look inferior. As far as Bolt testing, I think the manufacturers have a lot more experience and have done more factual r&d then most any of us have. If they feel the build. testing, and final product will be more reliable, then I trust them more then I would someone who says "It has to be mil spec as nothing else is right". Are we to think our military and the people who spec things are the best resource for us as consumers. If so we would all be driving H1 Humvee's. Although technically not mil spec as they are not 24 volt. In that case as with many other things, firearms included. There are options that will work better (or at least make more sense) in the outside of Military (civilian) world. I think some may of thought I was putting down WW for the bad points. Maybe it was my wording. But I was trying to convey the opposite. I think they have made wise choices in their production. The only point I could nit pick is the RE. As the cost to use an Mil spec RE would add very little to the cost of the rifle, a few dollars maybe. And my basis of that is only that Mil spec butt stocks (most common swapped part on an AR) is much easier to find in Mil spec. At least these days anyways. All of the major and popular stock makers seem to offer both Mil Spec and Commercial. But I have witnessed a lot of variance of fit on Commercial stocks. Where my experience with Mil spec versions all seem to fit consistently tighter. I see not benefit to using Commercial RE's other then it lowers the price a very small bit. It is not better in anyway, and adequate for most. But to add the small price to use Mil spec ones imho would be a wise way to go. Especially when but stocks are usually the first thing changed out on an AR. And most everyone customizes their AR. It is the only feature I would change on an WW as I think the rest of the firearm is spot on for it's class. |
AR Sponsor