Gun Review: Bushmaster XM15 QRC-OR

IMG_3158

Bushmaster XM15 ORC

I don’t remember exactly when I formed the belief that Bushmaster was not a high quality platform. I remember as far back as 1999 not having a high opinion. Certainly at that time I really had NO basis for comparison, and had not had more than a couple hundred rounds through any AR-15 type rifle. I’m assuming that the people I associated with at the time were not fans, and thus I was not a fan.

Now that a I have a few more hours running the platform in general, I think I can make a bit more of an informed opinion about Bushmaster in general, and this rifle specifically.

Construction

I know a lot of you are thinking “ho-hum, yawn”, just another AR. And you would be right. There is definitely a glut of them on the market and at this point the platform is a well understood and prolific item. Really, now, it comes down to the specific components used in the build, and the resulting price of that specific package.

Because of the run on rifles over the past few years, it seems that the market did itself a disservice by trying to race to the bottom with prices. That of course translates to a corresponding drop in quality so that manufactures can still make their meager margins (which then get passed on as even more meager margins to dealers, and so forth).

The XM15 OCR-OR rifle is a pretty standard build with a 16″ chrome-moly barrel.  None of the other components were really standout.  The rifle had an adjustable stock (six positions). It was pretty novel to me to see regular hand guards and no quad rail, M-Lok or KeyMod.  It did have a small section of picatinny, on the top, and was there to accommodate the included optic.  The included optic was a basic red dot–not an Aim Point.

Upper with charging handle.

Upper with charging handle.

Lower innards

Lower innards

Buffer

Buffer

Hand guards

Hand guards

Collapsible stock, buffer tube and hand grip.

Collapsible stock, buffer tube and hand grip.

Bottom of optic

Bottom of optic

Side view of the optic.

Side view of the optic.

Hard to tell, but the dot is pretty huge 3.5 MOA).

Hard to tell, but the dot is pretty huge 3.5 MOA).

Observations

Rather than doing another boring square bay shoot by dumping a couple of magazines at some paper, I decided to play with the Bushmaster at distance. I would hope that any rifle in this class would be consistent at “CQB” ranges. Thomas Gomez has a chunk of land down south where we could effectively shoot a mile if need be—not that there was any expectation of this rifle being remotely able to do that.

At the same time I was also doing a review of an iPhone app “Ballistic (Advanced Edition)” and I figured this would be a good chance to “kill two birds with one stone” (or “two reviews with one range session”).

Rifle with pack as a rest.

Rifle with GR2 as a rest.

I ran a magazine of Wolf ammo through it initially just to confirm that it functioned properly. Walt from BMC had kindly donated a box of 75 grain Hornady to play with, so I loaded up a magazine and a half for the test.

Since I was going to run it at distance we added a bottom rail segment with a Harris bipod, and Tom’s Bushnell HDMR (with a Horus H59 reticle), and this was also the first time I had ever shot with anything other than mildot. The rifle did come with a red dot style optic. It was nothing fancy or quality as far as I could tell and it had a HUGE dot (a whopping 3.5 MOA; though I suppose that is somewhat appropriate for a “CQB” optic, perhaps even a bit small).

Rifle upgraded for a long range shoot.

Rifle upgraded for a long range shoot.  Harris bipod and Bushnell HDMR.

I set up a shooting platform at twenty meters just to ensure I was close on the target and then started moving back. At a hundred meters for the first few rounds it was not at all consistent, and I was starting to develop a negative opinion about it.   Rather than just box it back up and go with a “meh” review, I decided to burn the rest of the box of ammo. I did not do any sort of “break-in” on the rifle (e.g. clean, shoot, clean, shoot, etc.)—this was the first time it had been shot. Anyway, after about eight salvos of three rounds it started tightening up (I had Tom shoot it a couple of times to eliminate the potential that I was the problem). Good enough to get a decent and consistent zero. I went back up to the stand, replaced the paper on the target and headed back out. After confirming, we started moving our line back, roughly one-hundred meters at a time (Tom had a range finder so we were getting as close as possible while finding good shooting positions). We shot on paper out to two-hundred and then started on the steel.

Tom was testing a new scope on his .308 build at the same time so we took turns shooting and spotting. The goal was to go as far back as we could until we both could not get at least one round on steel from a salvo of six (or we ran out of ammo).

Ultimately I was able to hit the steel from six-hundred with three of my last six rounds (for what it is worth, Tom was still going strong with his). I attribute the missed ones to a sudden crosswind (rather than say, anything I was doing…). Call me impressed. I would not have expected to be able to do that with this rifle.

Tom Gomezs super sweet portable target stand.

Tom Gomez’s super sweet portable target stand.  We started with paper targets on the cardboard for close confirmation.  The hanging steel was for our distance shots beyond 200 yards.

One other thing I did note while doing the review was that the adjustable stock was super loose and rattled a bit. Most of the other adjustable stocks I’ve used are pretty tight. I’m not sure if that is a general issue with the model, or the specific stock that was on the rifle—I didn’t have another stock to swap out and check against.

Technical Specifications

Rifle

  • Caliber: 5.56 NATO/223 Rem
  • Weight: 6 lbs
  • Overall Length: 32.5″
  • Barrel Length: 16″
  • Barrel: 4150 chrome-moly steel w/chrome-lined bore/chamber
  • Handguard: Oval M4-type hand guards
  • Stock: Six-position “telestock”
  • Mounts: Receiver-length Picatinny “optics rail”
  • Muzzle Device: A2 birdcage-type flash hider

Optic

  • Power/Objective Lens: 1×20
  • Length: 2.65”
  • Center Height: 40.5mm
  • Weight: 6.6 oz
  • Dot Size: 3.5 MOA
  • Adjustment Range (in@100yds/MOA): 36/35
  • Click Value: 1 MOA
  • Parallex Setting: 50 yards
  • Battery: CR2032
  • Brightness Levels: 11

Conclusion

Overall I was pleasantly surprised with the Bushmaster. As I had mentioned, I did not really associate the Bushmaster line with a quality product (and in all fairness I did not actually do destructive testing on it). But we were ringing steel at a hair over six hundred meters. After chatting with my favorite armorer, he indicated that the uppers have always been generally good—it was historically a number of the components in the lower that were problematic (which he demonstrated by pulling broken components from his box of shame; one particularly telling piece was a shattered bolt drop lever).

It will be interesting to see if this rifle suffers from the same problem—Tom G actually just bought one of this exact make and model and tore it apart (because he is a nerd like that) so I was able to get him to contribute some feedback:

  • The Barrel nut was not torqued to the minimum 30ft/lbs and I was able to loosen it by hand. The range that the barrel nut should be torqued is 30-80 ft/lbs
  • The M4 feed ramps were a bit rough where the barrel extension meets the upper receiver.
  • The gas port was .058. There is nothing wrong with a .058 diameter gas port. A gas port this size will run best off mil spec ammunition.
  • The taper pins on the gas block were hardened appropriately and did not deform when removed. (Unlike the ones on the POS CORE rifle I recently worked on.)
  • The lower receiver was assembled correctly, though I wish Bushmaster would start using the Mil Spec sized receiver extension/buffer tube.
  • The CNC work and anodizing on the upper and lower receiver were excellent.
  • The bolt carrier group was chromed were appropriate. The gas key was staked appropriately and the fasteners did not move when I tried to move them with an allen key. The ejector was smooth when pushed in and did not hang up. (Unlike the one on the POS CORE rifle I recently worked on.) The extractor had the black insert as well as a Crane o-ring. The gas rings looked good.
  • I am confident the Bushmaster will run fairly well. The bolt appeared to be well made, but I always stash a 158 Carpenter bolt from Bravo Company or Colt in the pistol grip as well as gas rings, extractor, extractor spring and firing pin.

Bushmaster does tout a full one-year warranty on the rifle so I imagine they have worked some of the kinks out.

In any case, the Bushmaster XM15 ORC did just fine for a sub $700 (street price I saw on a number of sites) AR15 style rifle, and would make a great starting platform to begin your own customizations.

Note: I normally recommend going to the manufacturer’s website, but Bushmasters looks terribly dated and doesn’t really have much in the way of details (but I included it nonetheless): http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/XM-15.asp



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • sean

    Its a shame that Remington owns them! Gun companies should be owned by Gun guys

    • Robert Powell

      They have merged with Remington but they are owned by the Freedom Group, which is part of Cerberus. Same investment firm that owns grocery stores and a bus manufacturer! Don’t worry, they are owned by passionate gun guys who care more about quality then the bottom line!!

      • sean

        That is False! I just got done playing with the “new” remington rm380 and i can say no true gun guy made that gun…who puts a pin in a gun that can fall out or jam the gun if you pull the slide to slowly!?

        • ostiariusalpha

          Rob is laying down some fairly obvious sarcasm that you’re not picking up there, sean.

        • uisconfruzed

          I do believe that was sarcasm.

    • Kivaari

      Look at what happened at Taurus USA. They hired a real gun guy, around the time they had to admit to making junk (Gen 1) guns. He seems to have fallen on his sword.

  • Esh325

    I know there are military units around the world like Czech Special forces that use Bushmasters. I don’t think they would use junk.

    • sean

      No military is using Bushmasters made by Remington…the military Bushmasters where made in Windham by the original owners. Remington (freedom Group) destroys everything they touch.

      • Kivaari

        Remington has slipped so far that almost nothing could restore what was there 25 years ago. I know stores that simply will not buy Remington’s thanks to very poor finish and functioning. I will not buy new Remington anything.

        • mosinman

          the only new Remington i’ve purchased was a R1 1911 for my first 1911 ( i had a Hi Point before that so i can only go up lol) and it’s pretty decent, the slide racks smoothly and nothing seems to be messed up except i’ve noticed the bluing is coming off where the heel of my palm contacts the very edge of the butt of the pistol, i have had a couple misfeeds but i’m not sure if that’s the break in period or something is wrong with the gun as i haven’t shot many rounds through it

          • Kivaari

            Honest wear is OK. It gives the gun a certain flare. When you have it long enough to have most of the bluing gone, you will have done good. I knew men that used the same revolver for decades, and you couldn’t find bluing on it. But the guns were well maintained mechanically. Some were very old pre-WW2 S&Ws. Great old guns.

          • mosinman

            yeah what you say makes sense

      • n0truscotsman

        I never understood the contempt that folks had with original Bushmasters. Some part of me believes its brand-snobbery/purchasing self-validation or some other internet-related phenomena closely related to certain firearms internet forums.

        There have been a number of times I challenged the claims of ‘lower-end’ ARs being reliable, and was surprised to find out my pre-conceived notions were hasty and largely incorrect.

        Although I cannot say I know much about the newer Bushmasters or Windham types other than “Caveat Emptor”.

  • Kivaari

    I suspect the rifle has a Mil-Spec tube. And a commercial size stock. That would make the stock rattle. It is near impossible to put a mil-spec stock on a commercial tube. If you want real tight, try that. I never could make it work. I had a few ARs that were shipped with the over-sized stock, and they rattled. The barrel torque is odd, except it is made by Remington, so I would expect something to be wrong. Original Bushmasters (now Windham) are well made. With an exception, and that is the plastic uppers and lowers. None of them I’ve ever encountered are worth having. I used 4 Bushmaster lowers to build rifles on. The lowers are quite good. The factory trigger-hammer is too rough. Replacing them with CMMG kits or Geiselle SSAs makes them fine.

    • Doc Rader

      Good insights! Thank you for the comment. Very helpful to hear from other people’s experiences.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Judging from the 6th picture, it clearly seems to be a commercial buffer tube. Those GI M4 stocks are just incredibly loose; not much you can do about it except replace them with a higher quality stock.

      • Kivaari

        When using a mil-spec tube and using a true mil-spec stock, it should not have much play. If there is “too much” (subjective) install a Magpul CTR or STR or similar that has a lock down feature. Most makers offer both tube diameters. I use Colt and Bushmaster lowers. Most uppers are BCM or Bushmaster. I used tubes from various suppliers and only ha issues when I grabbed the wrong model. Once corrected, there were no issues. I have seen some rifles on store shelves, lower priced examples, where the maker obviously didn’t care if it was the right mix. Same for scope-rifle packages as promotional items. Often the people had never put the “deal” together to see if it would work. Gun companies can be extremely stupid. The wholesalers take it in from (often Savage) and sell it. Then the dealer gets to fix the issue at his expense. Sometimes it’s just a Weaver (or copy) that can fix it. Other times it takes new mounts or new rings and/or a new scope or all three. “Our industry partners” are simply too lazy to do the job right, just so they don’t piss-off the dealers and customers. It wouldn’t be too bad if the supplied products are common and made with better qualtity, but its more likely to be the cheapest Chinese junk with not resale value. When I got those items in, it was simply a waste of money. Oh, I am so glad I sold the store and went back to government.

      • Kivaari

        I don’t know how you can tell from that picture if it is GI or commercial. That ids a common style made in both sizes.

        • ostiariusalpha

          It’s the thread diameter on the tube, commercial tubes are the same the whole length, while milspec have a step down in the threads just past the castle nut with a flattening of the threadform. The buffer tube in the picture has an unflattened threadform that is the same diameter as the tube; not what you’d see on a milspec tube.

          • Kivaari

            The threads are the same size. You can install either tube on any AR15 lower. The smaller and tougher (read above posts) mil-spec is 1.14″ OD whereas the commercial is 1.17″ OD. Putting a commercial sized stock on the smaller diameter military tube results in a sloppy fit – and lots of rattling. I could not get GOOD quality mil-spec buttstocks onto commercial tubes. You can put either size stock onto a mil-spec tube. You end up with a loose ad sloppy and noisy fit. Many component manufacturers simply do hold to the recommend standards. Many after market AR products are cheaply made from inferior materials. Over nearly 50 years of working on M16A1 and AR-pattern rifle I came across quite a few products made cheaply. My personal rifles and carbine use high grade products. Colt and Bushmaster lowers. Bravo Company Mfg. and Bushmaster uppers. The Colt items were usually well made. The DSA uppers I bought (only 2) were of lower quality, and the same price as Bravo Company products. I now only buy major components from companies that have proven to supply the higher grade items. It also pays to buy from Brownell’s as they care about their customers. Unless I buy from one local store, where the owner is knowledgeable, priced right and carries top grade parts, I rely on BCM and Brownell’s.

          • ostiariusalpha

            I’m well aware that both the commercial and milspec buffer tubes thread into the same size extension bridge on the lower receiver. That was not in question. I was referring to the transition on the milspec tubes that you don’t find on the commercial ones.

            This Spike’s milspec shows the transition to the flattened threadform more clearly than some other manufacturers, but they all have it.

          • Kivaari

            I had to look at my Colt M4. It is not obvious on my Colt. No step, probably shows a little more care in manufacturing.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Hmm, Colt’s are the same. It would probably be more obvious if you took it off the rifle.

            A Colt Milspec buffer tube:

          • Kivaari

            Mine doesn’t give that view. A dial caliper shows no step. I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve seen other tubes with a slightly more abrupt step. I am not going to pull if off since it would damage the staking.

          • Thomas Gomez

            Hey Kivaari. Are you an Ar-15 armorer? Your knowledge exceeds that of a normal Ar-15 end user.

            Hope you are doing well.

          • Kivaari

            Not anymore. I was an armorer in the Army. A storekeeper in the Navy, police officer and gun store owner. I have been around guns for nearly 60 years. I became hooked the first time I shot a .22 rifle.
            In the 80s I wrote a few articles for magazines. That was after reading many poorly done reports. In fact I had three letters to the editor published in one month regarding the Benelli M121 M1 shotguns. One writer had declared the shotgun to be the best combat shotgun in the world. He made that claim after firing 65 rounds. I had 2 of them, and I had had more failures than he fired before declaring it the best. When three of the 4 magazines I read, had letters in them, I told my wife. I should try writing articles. I did nd produced about 10. It is hard to compete against the pros. When I did a couple of submissions that declared the products to be over-priced and didn’t deliver what customers needed in the product, I found out some magazines cave to advertisers pressure. That happened 2 times, where telling the truth did not advance my “writing career”. Since I am not a pro with a journalism degree, I decided screw ’em. If they can’t be truthful, I don’t want to be part of the operation. A couple articles were used overseas, and they never paid me. Another reason to get back to real work.

          • Thomas Gomez

            It is a pleasure to see you in the comments section. You have an incredible depth of knowledge. If you ever wanted to write a guest post, you should contact our associate editor. I would love to read one of your articles. Our associate editor can be reached at phil@thefirearmblog.com

            Happy New Year!

          • Kivaari

            It would be hard to come up with a subject your existing staff covers so well. Maybe we can come up with something of interest. I come here because the staff puts some really great articles together.

          • Kivaari

            I just was telling a friend that his patented conversion kit for M1911s need to be shown on TFB. It is simple as can be. All the user needs to do is replace the barrel and magazine to convert it to .22 LR. He used an off-set bore so the .45 FP strikes the rim. The ejector is built into the magazine he designed. His patent is on the US government patent office website. He’s made a good video showing how it works. Because there have been millions of 1911s built, it simply wont work in all of them. There has been so many fine tuning over the last 100 years that even Colts wouldn’t reliably interchange. At the start of WW2 the Army asked Colt to create new blueprints showing how the pistols were now being made. That way from that point on all the WW2 makers had the same drawings. Well that didn’t hold for the commercial market so sloppy 1911s are all over the place. His patent is a an absolute bit of engineering magic. I’ve suggested he send the video to Phil. Along with a little explanation of how not all 1911s cooperate. It’s Greer MFG in Mollola, Oregon. I think it may still be on youtube. It’s great. I shot an early prototype about 15 years ago. The thing worked in my SA-GI..

          • Kivaari

            Another issue is proper castle nuts having notches where the plate can be staked into the nut. They use a simple punch to cross the joint. I like the better Colt variant.

      • Thomas Gomez

        It is a “commercial receiver extension”. I am ditching mine and going to a Mil Spec sized receiver extension.

        • ostiariusalpha

          Traditionally in firearms engineering it’s referred to as the “recoil assembly housing.” That’s how Eugene Stoner labeled it.

          • Thomas Gomez

            My Armorer manual from Specialized Armament Warehouse refers to is as the receiver extension. Colt refers to is as a receiver extension. Fairchild Armalight created the concept, Colt got us where we are today. I defer to Colt’s naming standard.

            Hope this finds you well!

          • ostiariusalpha

            It does find me very well! I had a fantastic Christmas and New Years, as I hope you have also. In regards to Colt’s nomenclature, they refer to the aluminum tube as the recoil assembly housing or just housing in their own patent and design materials on all M16 models (including the adjustable stock carbines like the Commando) until 1996. This is of course the M4 patent (US 5726377), where they begin the use of the term receiver extension.

  • Rick5555

    I did a lot of research pertaining to AR’s and other firearms too. With AR’s that look identical, but there’s a $200-$400 cost difference. What I’ve found was the cheaper versions, use different materials. And if they’re using the correct material, then it’s the process in how they make that part. People think the difference between a milspec and commercial buffer tube, is just .0200″…being the commercial is a bit larger outer diameter. However, the commercial tube is made from Extruded 6061 series aluminum. Whereas, the mil-spec buffer tube, is made from Forged 7075 series aluminum. 7075 aluminum is twice as strong as 6061. As well as, forged aluminum is much stronger than extrusion. 7075 aluminum cannot be successfully extruded, and that’s why it’s forged. Then we get into detents, springs, castle nuts, barrel nuts, pins, etc. Many of the cheaper AR’s don’t adhere to milspec in those parts. Like the article emphasized about the gas block pins on the CORE AR. Will a CORE AR do fine or other cheaper models? Depends what you want your AR for. For most people who want to plink, shoot on their land and have fun. Then these cheaper AR’s will do just fine. However, for people who want a “True Fighting Rifle.” Then you want to get mil-spec or better. Notice many manufactures won’t list what the BCG is made from. Just mention proper stalking and screws. The BCG is where a lot of the cheap AR manufactures will not use the proper metals or process in making those parts. Like a gas key being 4030 steel and from billet. When it should be 4041 or 4341 and forged. Same for the extractor. You get what you pay for usually in the gun industry. Personally, I want all my AR’s to be fighting grade rifles. So I, either assemble my own with parts I know are correct. Or purchase a companies mil-spec, base model. And then customize from there…i.e., stock, handguard, fire control group, etc.

    • Kivaari

      I used DSA uppers on two rifles. I did not like the lesser grade finish and how they did not line up well with the lowers. I then went to Bravo Company uppers and a Bushmaster SBR. The Bravo Company uppers were very nice. Some of the best work I’ve ever seen on ARs. One was the standard grade another the hammer forged barrel. Wonderful fit and finish. I want another SBR from BCM. Not that the Bushmaster I have has any issues, it doesn’t. I just want another project, even if I don’t get to shoot it. I use BCM carriers, or Brownell’s M16 (heavier) types.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        I can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met that has been upset at BCM’s parts. Their availability is horrific, but the parts are great.

    • Thomas Gomez

      You are 100% correct.

  • mosinman

    I have a Bushmaster XM15-E2S and it’s been quite a reliable rifle , i only had one serious malfunction that i remember and it was a stuck case of Tul Ammo in the chamber (the purchase of a chamber brush remedied this problem as i had not cleaned the chamber properly previous to this) i don’t have a super high round count through it ( i estimate about 1.5k give or take) and it shoots well and hasn’t really had many issues in use since i purchased it from my father. i can testify that the stock rattles a bit on mine but it at least locks into place well.

    • Kivaari

      Brownell’s sells two types of broken shell extractors. It is a good thing to have with you. I’d stay away from Wolf ammo.

  • Pilfer Proof

    I believe the BM has a 1:9 barrel twist and if so, a 75 gr. bullet will not perform as well as a 55 or 62. It would be interesting for you to go back to the range with lighter bullets and compare your results. Good luck.

    • Thomas Gomez

      These rifles have a 1/8 twist. I have 3 Ar-15’s that are 1/8. They stabilize everything from 52 to 77 grains very well.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Still Bushmaster? Still overgassed.

    • Thomas Gomez

      These rifles have a .058 gas port. Some would argue these guns are under gassed. The Mil Spec for the M4X is around .063.

      • n0truscotsman

        It makes sense if they anticipate people running just 55 grain FMJ or non-military loads through them. I haven’t actually measured the ports. Interesting.

        • Thomas Gomez

          I was surprised to see such a small gas port. The rifles I have see of late have been larger then the Mil Spec .0625. Midlength gas ports are going to be in the .07X range. Ports larger then .0625 on a carbine length gas system allow for a wider range of ammunition, though the gun may experience faster gas port wear and throat erosion.

          I only shoot mil spec ammunition through my rifles. I have never had any problems.

  • uisconfruzed

    My brother got their 308. It quit cycling after 20 rounds. Found the gas key screws backed out, DPMS told him to see a gunsmith, they wouldn’t fix it.
    Remington…

    • Thomas Gomez

      Yikes! Ar-10’s are either built well or they are not. There is very little room for error

      • Kivaari

        Several years ago a fellow gun shop owner bought an “un-remembered” brand, .308 having a “good reputation” and after 40 rounds the bolt tail was already showing significant gas cutting. Big names in the gun press, did not always perform like great rifles in the hands of real users. We see this all too often.

  • phil box

    a thought, it only has to hold up long enough to kill one enemy soldier. then you take the dead’s weapon and ammunition. bingo you are back in the battle. barring that, choose a caliber that the enemy uses so you ample ammo.

  • JoelM

    Is it just me, or are the basic M4 and CAR looking rifles becoming more attractive among all of the gaudy looking rifles that are flooding the market now? Just something about a basic rifle with no rails and just irons or a basic optic…

    • Thomas Gomez

      I get it. I got to shoot an XM-177 copy recently. I loved it. Currently working on a GAU-15/XM177 copy. Hope this finds you well!

  • Brad Ferguson

    I own one it’s my truck rifle, I bought it to replace a beat up Mini 14. As long as you keep in mind it’s not for paper punching. The rifle is just fine, plus it was less expensive than a new Mini 14.

  • CavScout

    I’d call this an ‘unboxing’ before I’d call it a ‘review.’ Lucky gunner pulled some of these rifles apart and found they were inconsistantly built. And since the Bushmaster rifles are made at a completely different factory now than before… like 2010-ish, there’s no real track record. The Windham factory did continue to make guns though, but under that name.