It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bushmaster

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Someone told me that Bushmaster's .223 Rifles are just cheap knock offs of the M-16. Are they good solid rifles or junk?




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The Bushmaster's are one of the better AR-clone rifles (in truth, I'm less happy with the Colt's quailty -own both). On the other hand the accessories that Bushmaster offers aren't super top notch -the rifles themselves are though.

All the major companies offer decent rifles (even Colt).



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I've always heard good stuff about Bushmasters. Eugene Stoner developed the AR15 for armalite which was licsensed to Colt IIRC. Stoner also helped design the 25mm bushmaster cannon found on the Bradley IFV, but I'm not sure if its the same Bushmaster company??

Another brand to checkout that seems highly regarded is Rock River Arms.

Anyone know anything about "Olympic" brand ARs? I've seen them for like $500



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Bushmaster Modular Carbine is a nice weapon, pretty popular with IPSC rifle shooters.

It's a solid choise if you can't afford an Oberland...



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
That is what I thought this was about, the CFV/IFV main weapon.
Bushmaster is an alright system, like Armalite. Just think of it this way, the original M-16s were made by a toy company, and that is what the first soldiers who used them thought they were.

But after having used them and saw the advantages to synthetics, they readily prefered them over the old heavier weapons.

The quality of the manufacturer is important, but more so is the operator the product. Try it before you buy it.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Go to AR15.com if you want to know all there is on/about the AR.

I have been thinking about building a AR-10, so I have been there a lot studying.

I may just end up buying a DPMS Panther. So many rifles and so little time!


Roper



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I think the one im looking at is the Bushmaster version of the M-4 A2. I forgot what model it was, I think it started with an X.
Anyone have a clue about what Im talking about?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
You mean the XM15 ES2?





posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You mean the XM15 ES2?






That's it!!! So is this perticular model pretty good?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Am I mistaken in my impressions but are the carry handles, so long a hallmark or fingerprint of the M16/AR 15 type rifles, becoming a thing of the past? I see so many today which dont seem to have this olde time carry handle by which It was so easy to identify a M16/AR 15 variant. Is this going to be the wave of the future ..also the very short barrels??

THanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Well I just bought a Bushmaster XM 15 ES2. It's really nice, I have enjoyed shooting it. Though Im going to take the stock off and put an extending stock on it.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Am I mistaken in my impressions but are the carry handles, so long a hallmark or fingerprint of the M16/AR 15 type rifles, becoming a thing of the past? I see so many today which dont seem to have this olde time carry handle by which It was so easy to identify a M16/AR 15 variant. Is this going to be the wave of the future ..also the very short barrels??
...


The carrying handle is obviously only a side effect of the necessary elevated position of the "iron sights". Necessary because the Barrel is in-line with the stock, and a lower sight would require one to aim in a very uncomfortable head tilt. The carrying handle itself was never really needed. Either you are carrying your rifle in a "ready" position, or you shoulder it by the string.
In the few cases where you would grab the weapon and run with it somewhere the handle is alno not really needed, because it is both small and light enough to be grabbed almost anywhere without being cumbersome (unlike for example a heavy MG or several older Battle Rifles that have carrying handles near their center of gravity).

And yes, iron sights as primary sight and with it the carrying handle of the M16 are becoming a thing of the past. Long time has passed in which any kind of optics was only seen as special gear. But in recent years they have proven to be both reliable and superior to usual sights. Almost all new rifle developments are primarily equipped with or designed for advanced sights.

Example: HK416


Many rifles will only retain rudimentary iron sights of the flip-up style, or removable sights like in this picture. This is especially important for the close combat types of rifles with short barrels that you mention. The development here goes hand-in-hand and is somehow defined by the change of roles for the Infantry.

The first and most important change for the infantry would be the newly-discovered emphasis on the Infantry as being a high-tech weapon of its own. Never have armies spent (relatively) more money on the equipment of the individual soldier, with the aim to boost the effectivity of the single man beyond what can be reached by pure training effort. If one keeps in mind that the optics often represent the most expensive single piece of equipment the modern soldier gets issued, and despite that many soldiers get one nowadays, that change in thinking becomes obvious.

Also Infantry is not supposed to fight out in the open anymore... thats what armed forces have their advanced air power, artillery and network technology for. These create the big Bang, and infantry moves in to wipe up the rest. The other main duty for infantry is the fight in confined spaces where heavy gear is not easily deployed or used, like urban areas. Both scenarios require fast target acquisition (provided by the sights) and a fast reaction time (provided by less cumbersome and lighter short-barreled weapons).

Nevertheless, the long rifle and the versatile iron sight, or in specific, the traditional M16 didnt become obsolete. It is just that the footage from the crisis zones can only show what is going on, and both in Afghanistan as well as Iraq that what "goes on" is mainly policing operations in built-up areas - which favors the short-barreled weapon with a close quarters optic (be it an aimpoint, holosight or whatever).

A completely different issue are the civilian shooters where you have two effects: one part of the shooting community has realized that they might max out their competition results with a sight dedicated to their shooting disciplines (with the "tactical runs" becoming increasingly popular -> again, also promoting a carbine weapon). The other part of the civilian shooters are exeriencing what the automobile community exerienced after those "The Fast and the Furious" films were released: suddenly it becomes not only acceptable, but even fashionable to carry a "pimped out" rifle (all those rifle- and other accessories you can see everywhere nowadays are also called "high-speed gear"
)

[edit on 1/9/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Bushmaster makes a good weapon if you're looking for a complete gun ready to go.

For reference Colt, Bushmaster, and CMMG use 4150 steel in their barrels. Colt additionally uses HPT on their barrels for a quality final product. Stag, DPMS, Olympic, and RRA (along with most others) use 4140 steel, which is lower quality than 4150. Stag gets their barrels from the same place that Colt gets their barrel blanks from, but they are 4140 steel.

Bushmaster chrome line their chamber and bores (as do others) and offer full interchangeability between .223Rem and true military 5.56mm ammunition - both important features.

Colt arguably make the best ARs for civilian purchase, but the real hard core AR fans combine uppers and lowers from different manufacturers to make the best weapon.

Bottom line - Bushmaster is a great choice.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Bushmaster makes a good weapon if you're looking for a complete gun ready to go.

For reference Colt, Bushmaster, and CMMG use 4150 steel in their barrels. Colt additionally uses HPT on their barrels for a quality final product. Stag, DPMS, Olympic, and RRA (along with most others) use 4140 steel, which is lower quality than 4150. Stag gets their barrels from the same place that Colt gets their barrel blanks from, but they are 4140 steel.

Bushmaster chrome line their chamber and bores (as do others) and offer full interchangeability between .223Rem and true military 5.56mm ammunition - both important features.

Colt arguably make the best ARs for civilian purchase, but the real hard core AR fans combine uppers and lowers from different manufacturers to make the best weapon.

Bottom line - Bushmaster is a great choice.


Well that good to hear, I bought an XM-15 E2S. It's a fun rifle to shoot.

But I think the 5.56x45 is too weak. I can't believe the Military actully uses this stuff.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77But I think the 5.56x45 is too weak. I can't believe the Military actully uses this stuff.


That's a whole different story, but I'll play for a while.

Out of an M4s 14.5" barrel, 5.56mm FMJ struggles to be truly effective. It (M855) will generally fragment out to 80M or so, but compare this with the terminal ballistics of a 20 inch barrelled weapon using Mk262 Mod 1 ammunition and there is a World of difference. The military is slowly getting there with 5.56mm, maybe there will be a change to 6.8mm SPC but I doubt it.

The thing is that that us civvies can use expanding .223Rem ammunition (side note .223Rem and 5.56mm are not identical). With expanding ammo .223 graduates into a much higher level of effectiveness, a 16 inch barrelled Bushmaster loaded with something like 75gr Hornady TAP or Federal Tactical Bonded (if you can get it) is an extremely effective combination.

I'll take the low recoil, low ammunition cost, and light weight of a .223 semi auto such as a good Bushmaster 16 inch A3 any day over the thumping .308s that are out there (DSA58, PTR-91, Springfield SOCOM etc etc), but that's just me.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by Full_Auto77But I think the 5.56x45 is too weak. I can't believe the Military actully uses this stuff.


That's a whole different story, but I'll play for a while.

Out of an M4s 14.5" barrel, 5.56mm FMJ struggles to be truly effective. It (M855) will generally fragment out to 80M or so, but compare this with the terminal ballistics of a 20 inch barrelled weapon using Mk262 Mod 1 ammunition and there is a World of difference. The military is slowly getting there with 5.56mm, maybe there will be a change to 6.8mm SPC but I doubt it.

The thing is that that us civvies can use expanding .223Rem ammunition (side note .223Rem and 5.56mm are not identical). With expanding ammo .223 graduates into a much higher level of effectiveness, a 16 inch barrelled Bushmaster loaded with something like 75gr Hornady TAP or Federal Tactical Bonded (if you can get it) is an extremely effective combination.

I'll take the low recoil, low ammunition cost, and light weight of a .223 semi auto such as a good Bushmaster 16 inch A3 any day over the thumping .308s that are out there (DSA58, PTR-91, Springfield SOCOM etc etc), but that's just me.



So what's the difference with the .223 Rem and 5.56x45? And you say the Bushmaster take both?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
So what's the difference with the .223 Rem and 5.56x45? And you say the Bushmaster take both?


Ok - link below, but in summary 5.56mm operates at a higher pressure and needs a longer "throat" immediately ahead of the chamber. .223 is safe in a 5.56mm but not the other way around.

www.thegunzone.com...

The Bushmaster barrels, apart from using the best steel and being chrome lined are specifically marked .223 Remington / 5.56mm - you'll see this stamped on the barrel, i.e. the manufacturer has specifically designed them to be compatible with both civilian and military grade ammunition.

Just one of the many reasons I would choose a Bushmaster AR.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Pretty much all assualt style rifles are made for 5.56 so shooting .223 is no problem, but if you tried to put 5.56 military ammo in a .223 hunting rifle you might have one

[edit on 4-9-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Ive heard a lot of AR bashing on these boards. Can anyone tell me much about my XM-15 E2S Bushmaster? I have not had a single problem with it.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
Someone told me that Bushmaster's .223 Rifles are just cheap knock offs of the M-16. Are they good solid rifles or junk?


They are good solid rifles if you take care of them. Make sure you keep the bolt group good and clean.

I have one we use wolf ammunition in and you couldnt ask for a better, simpler to operate rifle.

I imagine most people who claim the bushmasters are junk are just inexpierenced with AR-15s. At first glance you might say that for the mix of plastic and metal in these guns are junk. makes them light weight and strange.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join