I decided to browse the FN Tac3s on Gunbroker to see what they sell for and was surprised to see an auction for an FDE cerakoted one end today at $1099 with no bids. It looks like someone would be able to snag one of these for a good price if they were willing to hunt GB for a bit. If I was in the market for another AR, I would have bid on it.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
I remember some thread on ar15.com (can't find it now), where someone posted pictures of an FN15's bolt carrier and the gas key screws had the "YF" (or whatever those letters are from that big chinese screw manufacturer), and the allen key holes were bigger than on a USGI gas key screw. They also apparently use 6000 series aluminum for their rifle-length receiver extensions/buffer tubes on their 20" models such as their M16A4 Military Collector, and their specs for their M4 lists 4140 for their barrel material rather than the proper 4150.Originally Posted by WobblyPossum
I'm not convinced that they are making them to the same spec their military contract rifles are, and while their military contract rifles are made in Columbia, SC, while the commercial FN ARs I see are made in Fredericksburg, VA. Consistent with the notion that FN is not allowed to use Colt's TDP for anything other than military contracts, and their commercial ARs are reversed engineered like everyone else's. To be clear, that doesn't mean they're bad. There are AR manufacturers without the TDP that make ARs better than Colt (like DD, LMT, and KAC imo).
I'm not an FN hater, I actually am using a commercial FN lower for my military surplus NOS FN M16A4 upper.
I don’t know anything about their rifle length guns. It would be nice if FN provided all the specs like SOLGW does but I don’t think any other company really does that. Here’s what they say about the FN15 TAC3 bolt carrier group. Nothing about the gas key screws.
“M16-style bolt carrier group made from 8620 steel
HPT/MPI-tested and certified bolt made from Carpenter 158
Gas keys properly sealed, torqued and staked according to MIL-SPEC”
Here’s what they say about the barrel:
“16-inch government profile chrome-lined and cold hammer-forged barrel with 1:7 twist
FN Proprietary CMV barrel steel, DIN Spec 21CrMoV5-11
High Pressure tested, MPI after proof firing”
Nothing about the aluminum the receiver extension is made of. This isn’t a rifle that claims to be built to the TDP though.
If knowledgeable people on the forum are saying these FNs are on the same level as Daniel Defense, that’s good enough for me. My first AR was a DD M4V5 with the DDM4 quad rail. I ended up selling it to my brother’s friend who wanted it more than I did but I was perfectly happy with it. Had I known what DD’s prices would rise to, I would have kept it. It’s probably one of a couple of firearms I’ve sold that I actually regret.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
I remain relatively certain that they are not.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
Correct -Not TDP doesn’t always mean inferior to TDP.
TDP like “mil spec” is “just good enough” - not the best.
Like a lot of products FN’s commercial AR’s are not all the same. There’s a reason I specified the TAC models and the Michigan state police model not just any FN AR. Both of those are superior to a 100% TDP rifle.
My early FN TAC rifle does indeed show “ Fredericksburg VA” on its lower. One change I omitted in my earlier statement was that commercial FN rifles get CHF barrels where the government contract TDP doesn’t allow them and apparently FN tried to get that changed unsuccessfully.
I had to get it out of the safe to look because it’s in semi-retirement since I built two near clones for my shooting needs.
still amazes me how many "manufacturers" can't even meet the minimum standard. not unlike humans.
Also important to remember, better is better. different isn't necessarily better.
Also important to remember that someone can use materials and finishes that exceed the TDP, and then shit the bed on assembly and all that leaves you with is a nice pile of parts.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
My “go to” rifle is my LWRC IC-DI.
Everything I needed/wanted in an AR……..other than a feeding issue that was on me, it’s been flawless.
This statement, while technically true, does not tell the whole story. People throw it around to imply ARs built to milspec using the TDP are barely adequate. The truth is, the standards for ARs built for military contracts are high.
-There is no better material to make AR receivers from than forged 7075 aluminum
-There are very few steels better for barrels than 4150cmv
-TDP/milspec springs, gas ports, buffers, small parts and dimensions work
What are the cons? An approved civilian legal trigger with an unpredictable crunchy-ticky pull. But the trigger can be smoothed out with some forced dry fire. The trigger can also take rough handling without the sear bouncing and firing. This doesn’t mean it’s the best choice of triggers, but it is worth considering. Some people have gone on record to say fancy aftermarket triggers are not needed or desirable.
Another criticism of the 6920 is the government profile barrel. Outside of the need to mount a grenade launcher, the profile makes no sense. But the profile does not impact reliability or durability.
Colt takes flack for no innovation for the AR. What can Colt do to objectively improve the performance of their ARs? Better barrel steel? Improved dimensions? Better springs? Better ergonomics? What innovations can they make that won’t negatively impact durability & reliability? Every AR maker that is criticized for putting out inferior ARs deviates from the standards, often in the name of innovation. Every single one.
The changes I would make to a Colt 6920 are a two stage trigger, throw the A2 grip into the fires of Mordor, MagPul Slimline stock, carbon fiber handguard and barrel appropriate to my wants. All are subjective, not objective, improvements.
In my opinion, the best bang for the buck, hard use, straight out of the box AR is the Colt civilian M4A1 SOCOM. The barrel profile handles heat well and has the right gas port. I’d change the handguard because I’m not a fan of rails. My Colts have proven to be reliable.
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
Mil spec TDP stuff works and it’s proven.
But the idea, for example that there is no better material than 7075 is incorrect . There have been real advances in materials since the TDP was codified. Aluminum lithium for example, is both stronger and lighter, the downside, of course being that it is prohibitively expensive. C405 is also stronger, at the same weight as 7075, but again it costs more than 7075.
Same with barrel steels. There are better materials out there but you’re not gonna get barrels made of those materials for $99 on a black Friday sale.
Reply With Quote