Service M4 vs Civilian AR15 Quality

[E7Wrangler]

I was watching a video from one of the fairly well known gun personalities on the interweb of all knowledge. This person made the statement that the vast majority of civilian AR 15s on the market were of at least the same quality if not better quality than the average soldier/marines service rifle. Since I read debates and advice on here all the time about buying the "high end" rifles vs average rifles I am curious about the truth of this statement. Those of you who have served are serving in the military and maybe even our LEOs who are issued rifles what say you? Is the average price PSA, Anderson, Aero, Bushmaster AR15 the equal of an issue rifle or does one have to go to a more expensive brand? I did not serve and have never had the opportunity to handle a military issue M4/M16 so I am genuinely curious. I look forward to hearing some Ingo knowledge.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Mine wasn’t from the lowest bidder...

 

[Ark]

Is the average price PSA, Anderson, Aero, Bushmaster AR15 the equal of an issue rifle or does one have to go to a more expensive brand?

I suggest you take your "quality" mode of thinking and subdivide it into Features, Build/Parts Quality, and Quality Control. When you move up the ladder, your money starts getting spent on intangibles like more detailed inspection of parts and a higher reject rate of parts from suppliers, even though on paper the feature set doesn't seem competitive.

You also have to account for the fact that Military M4 A does not equal Military M4 B. Are you comparing a new PSA to an FN gun right out of the box, or a new PSA to a Colt gun that has been going from sandbox to sandbox since '02? People in the service hated the M9 because the M9s they had were beat to hell, rattled when you shook them, and had the wrong magazines for sand conditions. The M9 wasn't a bad gun, their M9s were bad guns.

Nuance matters.

 

[DadSmith]

Mine wasn’t from the lowest bidder...

Yep the cheapest parts and most unreliableable pos they could issue. Of course I'm talking 30+ years ago . I hope today's military has better firearms.

My Frankin15 would run circles around the one I was issued .

 

[E7Wrangler]

I suggest you take your "quality" mode of thinking and subdivide it into Features, Build/Parts Quality, and Quality Control. When you move up the ladder, your money starts getting spent on intangibles like more detailed inspection of parts and a higher reject rate of parts from suppliers, even though on paper the feature set doesn't seem competitive.

You also have to account for the fact that Military M4 A does not equal Military M4 B. Are you comparing a new PSA to an FN gun right out of the box, or a new PSA to a Colt gun that has been going from sandbox to sandbox since '02? People in the service hated the M9 because the M9s they had were beat to hell, rattled when you shook them, and had the wrong magazines for sand conditions. The M9 wasn't a bad gun, their M9s were bad guns.

Nuance matters.

Excellent point about how well used the rifle has been. I get what you are saying about a 10-20 year old issue rifle vs a low round count civilian version. Obviously we aren't going to get a scientifically sound comparison here, to many variable. Still interested in the opinions.

Added question, does anyone have a guess as to average round count on a military issue rifle before it is removed from service or rebuilt?

Just find this all interesting, certainly not life or death question.

 

[VulpesForge]

I've never served, but I have done enough smithing to know a thing or two.
You have to remember all things being considered that military contracts go to the lowest bidder that can provide the specs whoever commissioned the contract is asking for. It is entirely reasonable to assume without research that someone made something better than what the military is asking for.
Starting with matched upper and lower receivers, match barrels, improved triggers, higher/lower weight everything, almost all aspects can be improved readily from what is commonly accepted from military arms and specifically the m4.
This comes with a caveat that there are of course cheaper arms and parts that will not do what is required of rugged parts intended to go into the shower with Johnny and a steel cleaning rod for general upkeep.
So when you ask is "x" equal to "y" for given price, the answer is maybe, but probably no. Which is better depends on what features you personally want or what your mission specifies.

Are there better rifles than mil-spec? Absolutely, but you're going to pay for them. Remember not to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree. What you want from a rifle determines whether or not it is better subjectively to you, but if you have a specific set of parameters we can get closer to optimal for the situation. If your goal is to do what the military does then a semi auto m4 clone for the money would be about as good as it gets, but any other goal and that can change dramatically at least as far as parts go.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Excellent point about how well used the rifle has been. I get what you are saying about a 10-20 year old issue rifle vs a low round count civilian version. Obviously we aren't going to get a scientifically sound comparison here, to many variable. Still interested in the opinions.

Added question, does anyone have a guess as to average round count on a military issue rifle before it is removed from service or rebuilt?

Just find this all interesting, certainly not life or death question.

Not a different discussion from government vehicles. Was it one that was beat up every day, or did it spend its life in WRM storage in Korea?

 

[Brad69]

I have been issued everything from H&R, AC Delco M16A1‘s to a brand new Colt M4.

You are assigned a weapon based on your job. It’s a tool just like a hammer and lives a life far beyond what a normal rifle lives. Think of going camping and never putting your AR down the entire time. Then it gets tossed around beat on dragged though mud,snow,rain.

M16‘s go though 30 level maintenance thats were they use the go no go gauges. That’s the point most get coded out. Your local armorer takes care of minor repairs and stuff.

IMO your standard issue M4 would equal a mid quality AR.

 

[rooster]

oh boy, I could write volumes about the ****** weapons I got issued but I’ll keep it short and hit the high notes.

Served in a non combat MOS reserve unit, deployed once to a combat zone although my job is not combat. That said I got issued a couple different rifles during work up (for some reason they never assigned S/N to a particular soldier) And every single one was a worn out old m16a2. Barrels were pretty well shot out with some evidence of key holing. Many had excessive wear on the finish and some had mechanical failures more frequently than I would now call acceptable. Now this may have been from poor quality, ****** old mags or just plain wear. One of the rifles I had the three round burst actually just fired a random number of bullets that was different every time. Sometimes it might shoot one, next time it would shoot 5-6.

They promised us new fancy m4’s that never arrived. We deployed with these weapons, again not in great shape. Due to our actual job 95% of the weapons got turned in at the armory once we got to country. Some of the command staff (warrant, top, CO and S shop sergeants) got issued M9’s from said armory. Those pistols looked like they had been in country since the 1st gulf war. Finish was nonexistent, as to how they shot I have no idea because I don’t think they ever went to a range with them but I doubt they functioned any better than they look.

So are some of the weapons front line units get issued of better quality than say an Aero like I run now? Maybe when they are new but certainly not after a few years of use and abuse. Parts wear out and a soldier in OSUT now fires 3775 live rounds in just 22 weeks. This doesn’t count the probably well over 1k blanks they shoot too. I’m not in the infantry but I did hand them out their ammo and let me tell you that one training ammo draw would blow you away with how many rounds they go through. They would pickup several 10’s of thousands of rounds seemed like every other week or so.

point is maybe better quality to start with but long term most rifles in the army are pushed well beyond where most of us would just buy a new gun.

 

[smittygj]

It's not always about lowest bidder, as best performing plays a factor as well in the decision making to go with a particular submission for a military contract. But they don't always go with the best performing. Also have to remember this (and this goes back to the M-1 Garand days), they have to be of a "loose" enough tolerance that you can take 10 weapons, disassemble them and throw them in a box, shake it up, and put 10 guns back together again.

If you have a custom built, tighter tolerance civilian market gun, you are likely to have a much better performing weapon.

Just my

 

[DadSmith]

I imagine the new FN built M4's will be good quality rifles that the military hasn't had in years. My Colt built M4 was a total disaster. One of the reasons I really dislike Colt firearms. Maybe I got a lemon but the majority of us had problems with them. Again 30+ years ago. Maybe Colt stepped up their quality control since then.

 

[E7Wrangler]

So does the military do a decent job of making sure front line combat units get the better condition weapons or is it just free for all?

 

[Brad69]

The Army issues based on readiness level so a unit that is a rapid deployment will usually get the newest stuff first.

So a Signal guy from the 82 ABN may be better equipped than a Infantryman from the 4th ID.

In the regular Army you are assigned a weapon by S/N. It depends on the unit at company level to maintain individual weapons.

I personally would have the Team Leader, Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant at my office at 1800 to explain why a weapon was dirty or unserviceable. Then hand them there a$$ back after I was done with it.

Weapons maintenance is too easy and something you can control. You never run out of money for parts and cleaning supplies are free.

 

[DadSmith]

I think a lot of ours needed new springs. Buffer springs for sure. We shot cleaned lubed repeat. Several guys were happy to get through a magazine without a failure. They were very accurate and very unreliableable. Like Brad said if you are higher trained unit you got the best weapons available and most likely you had armorers who actually gave a crap about how the weapons preformed.

 

[Ark]

It's not always about lowest bidder, as best performing plays a factor as well in the decision making to go with a particular submission for a military contract. But they don't always go with the best performing. Also have to remember this (and this goes back to the M-1 Garand days), they have to be of a "loose" enough tolerance that you can take 10 weapons, disassemble them and throw them in a box, shake it up, and put 10 guns back together again.

If you have a custom built, tighter tolerance civilian market gun, you are likely to have a much better performing weapon.

Just my

This is an interesting point. I know guns get gauged before they're handed out, but swap enough parts and your tolerance stacking is going to go to crap compared to a shiny new KAC product nicely toleranced from the factory with all original parts.

 

[breakingcontact]

So does the military do a decent job of making sure front line combat units get the better condition weapons or is it just free for all?

I was in a very non-combat unit and we got brand new M4s early on.

There is little rhyme or reason in the military.

Yes, the SF guys get the good stuff.

 

[Ggreen]

Most civilians don't have knights, fn or hk quality period. Most ar15s i see are hobbled together garbage rods, this includes a lot of factory built guns. Civilians can have better gear, but they chose not to. Instead they listen to paid influencer YouTube channels talking just as good, or even worse listen to the general masses on social media gun groups. I fell into that trap at the beginning.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

To go back to your original question, a mil-spec rifle is built to very exacting standards before it leaves the factory. Once it is issued, it depends on how much abuse the weapon is exposed to, that impacts it's reliability. An FN or a Colt may stand up to more use and abuse, than a PSA or Anderson, because they were originally built to a higher standard. A KAC or Larue on the other hand may outlast a Colt because they are built to even higher standards.

 

[Ggreen]

To go back to your original question, a mil-spec rifle is built to very exacting standards before it leaves the factory. Once it is issued, it depends on how much abuse the weapon is exposed to, that impacts it's reliability. An FN or a Colt may stand up to more use and abuse, than a PSA or Anderson, because they were originally built to a higher standard. A KAC or Larue on the other hand may outlast a Colt because they are built to even higher standards.

Even with meeting mil spec with all parts, kac and geissele etc... have armorers work to get best fit between in spec components. All of their parts are in tolerance, but tolerance stacking can make a huge difference in operation. The lower end brands have assemblers who just put parts together without caring about tolerance stacks. It is why we see takedown pins that need a hammer to release vs a smooth clean detent and release.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

A really good author who covers this question in great detail is Patrick Sweeney. His books on the AR-15 are awesome.