Hi-quality ARs sure seem "sold out" a lot!

Re: Op

It depends on where you look, and what you're looking for. Lightweight mid-length AR15s are all the rage now, and are harder to find. If you look around, Colts and other DDs should be laying around. I purchased a DD M4 for about $950 on gunbroker, replete w/ FF rails.

With respect to the claims that RRA are inferior, and the usual **** measuring, take what you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Both I and a friend have run RRAs hard, as in, a couple hundred rounds in a few minutes and shooting all day, in a carbine class. That said, the RRA could use a couple of upgrades, but I won't feel underarmed with a Bushmaster, S&W, or RRA.
 
Granted that DD may do more testing and use more expensive parts but that does not necessarily make them a better product.
Click to expand...


Actually, yes it does. I'm not knocking RRA; they make good stuff, but they aren't Bravo Company. RRA will likely more than cover the needs of 99% of the folks out there, but the extra testing, higher quality steel, and generally greater attention to detail on a BCM rifle does indeed make it better on a more consistent basis- you *know* you won't have any problems, whereas with the more consumer grade rifles you *probably* won't have any issues.

Ferrari vs. Corvette is not a good analogy; there's just too much difference between the vehicles, and the Ferrari costs several times more than the Corvette. A BCM is what, 20% more than a RRA? I'd sooner spend the extra couple hundred bucks on the upper and BCG and have a higher quality top end.

Just because something isn't quite as good doesn't mean it's garbage. It can be just fine, but not "just as good as." Anecdotal evidence aside, "just as good as" isn't. There's good for your purposes and there's good for the most demanding purposes. Some are willing to pay for the latter, it doesn't mean that the less expensive rifle isn't capable of the former, it just means that the performance envelope on the latter rifle is larger. Period. I don't see why folks get all up in arms when it is said that the extra money for some rifles goes to more than just the rollmark.
 
Instructors like Pat Rogers and Larry Vickers who keep track of which brands fail in their carbine classes keep reporting that Colt, BCM and DD are among the most reliable. No doubt this has led to paid endorsements but these guys wouldn't endorse something that isn't among the best.

Another thing guys like this say is there has been a shift in what brands students bring - toward the quality guns and this has reduced the number of class interruptions due to malfunctions. With this word getting out, there is a higher demand for quality brands today and with the prices being more competitive with run of the mill brands no wonder you find BCM and DD sold out at times.

There is nothing terribly wrong with RRA for 90+% of buyers especially if you have one that's doing the job but when you're looking for a new AR why not look at what else is available for not much more money.
 
My RRA stuff has been flawless through thousands of rounds and years of service. My local store always has them in stock too... unless you want a 20" stainless varmint upper. It took six months to get that in when I ordered it, but it was well worth the wait. I've never owned a DD, or a bcm. Shoot what you can afford, but don't shy away from rra if your worried about quality. They make nice stuff.
 
Larue Tactical is another nice higher end AR, but I don't know that you can buy one complete. I think you have to buy each individual component and build. Upper alone is $1,200:eek:
 
Bfskinnypunk!

I just ordered a DD V3 LW from Rainier arms Last friday. I saved about $266 from the price on Daniel Defense website so check them out to see if they have what you are looking for.
 
ripnbst said:
Larue Tactical is another nice higher end AR, but I don't know that you can buy one complete. I think you have to buy each individual component and build. Upper alone is $1,200
Click to expand...

For a while the ONLY way to get a Stealth upper was to buy a complete rifle. So yes, you can get one complete and they aren't MASSIVELY expensive.
 
jsp10477 said:
After all, isn't the quality of any firearm judged on accuracy and reliability? I have a 700p that shoots 1/2 inch groups. Is an AI that shoots 1/2 in groups any more accurate just because I paid more than twice what the 700 costs?
Click to expand...

Yes they may both shoot 1/2" groups but what you get in a Accuracy International is superior reliability. Now that reliability comes at a price, is it worth it, that is up to you?
Here is a video by Zak Smith that shows the AI reliability up against a Custom 700 (as well as some others) in a competition. Was the extra money worth it for the AI, I think Zak would say YES.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=zu9JEoHMBPA
 
There are a few facts floating around in this conversation along with a lot of fart sniffing. I have nothing of value to add.

I currently have a Colt lower/RRA upper for my beater AR and a Noveske basic for more serious purposes.

I have fired as many as 600 rounds through the Colt/RRA in a day with no issue. Then again, the Noveske has seen the same round count and it has not given me any problems either...

However if you hold both rifles in you hands and give them a good shake the N4 doesn't rattle like an old truck going down a bumpy road.
 
However, the Daniel Defense and the BCM are objectively superior weapons because they are made with objectively superior parts, end of story.
Click to expand...

Hey redstategunnut; what are these "Superior Parts" you speak of? Are we talking tungston vs aluminum? Or are you saying that they were just inspected more carefully? And is there a certain round-count where a person is allowed to finally say that they have a "Quality" firearm. I.e. If a person has finally put 5,000 rounds through a Rock-River; M&P15; etc... without any issues whatsoever; are they allowed to finally say: "I have a "QUALITY" firearm"?

And on the other side; if a person buys a BCM or DD or Colt or whatever is considered "Quality" with "Superior parts", and it happens to have an extraction problem with shells, do they still have a "Quality" rifle with "Superior Parts"? Is it just considered a glitch and can be easily fixed.

Not trying to start an argument. But it seems that there are some people that automatically assume that if it's a certain NAME BRAND and costs appropriately, then it MUST be quality. And I totally agree that weapons that are generally junk, or NOT AS HIGH QUALITY, usually have some track record to back up that accusation. My problem is when a particular brand has basically nothing but success stories; no one complaining; isn't breaking; and is shooting thousands upon thousands of rounds flawlessly; why isn't it considered QUALITY??? I need to know so I can have "A TALK" with some of my weapons and let them know that they "AREN'T SUPPOSE TO BE OPERATING" as well as they are. Damn guns. Don't they know anything. Don't they know they're SUPPOSE TO BREAK once in a while if they don't have a certain name on the side!!!
 
what are these "Superior Parts" you speak of? Are we talking tungston vs aluminum? Or are you saying that they were just inspected more carefully? And is there a certain round-count where a person is allowed to finally say that they have a "Quality" firearm. I.e. If a person has finally put 5,000 rounds through a Rock-River; M&P15; etc... without any issues whatsoever; are they allowed to finally say: "I have a "QUALITY" firearm"?
Click to expand...

I don't know many people who would claim a RRA or S&W M&P to be not a quality AR, and I've hung around Arfcom a fair amount. But to answer your question, the standard that is generally held up is compliance to the TDP where it is possible (you obviously won't get a full auto FCG in a civilian AR). Some things are matters of quality inspection- individual MPI testing of bolts vs. batch or none at all. Some things are matters of metallurgy- better grades of steel used for the barrel and bolt. Some things point to attention to detail but may not make much difference- parkerizing under the front sight base. Some things are more matters of preference with a theoretical benefit but not much practical benefit- milspec vs. commercial size receiver extensions and full auto vs. semiauto bolt carriers.

Ultimately, the proof is indeed in the pudding- does the gun perform? However, I'm not aware of any gun shop that lets you dump a couple thousand rounds in a day or two through a rifle to determine if that particular one is worthwhile, hence the higher cost and preference for those companies with good track records, not just for range plinksters, but for weapons that have performed in extremely difficult circumstances.

I've said it before, and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face. Just because there's a quality difference doesn't mean that difference will matter to a specific buyer/shooter. It also doesn't mean that because you won't notice it that there's ZERO difference between them. There's rifles that are plenty good enough for your purposes, as well as rifles that won't work well enough and rifles that will exceed your needs. It's your money, you can buy what you want and you don't need to defend it. But in a thread that asks why certain brands of rifle parts considered to be extremely high quality (such as Bravo Company), to claim that companies like BCM cost more solely for the name exposes more ignorance than knowledge.

Figure out what you plan to do, figure out what you want (or can) spend, and buy accordingly. Then don't spend your time denigrating people who bought less or trying to drag down people who bought more.
 
(by christcorp)
Hey redstategunnut; what are these "Superior Parts" you speak of? Are we talking tungston vs aluminum? Or are you saying that they were just inspected more carefully? And is there a certain round-count where a person is allowed to finally say that they have a "Quality" firearm. I.e. If a person has finally put 5,000 rounds through a Rock-River; M&P15; etc... without any issues whatsoever; are they allowed to finally say: "I have a "QUALITY" firearm"?

And on the other side; if a person buys a BCM or DD or Colt or whatever is considered "Quality" with "Superior parts", and it happens to have an extraction problem with shells, do they still have a "Quality" rifle with "Superior Parts"? Is it just considered a glitch and can be easily fixed.

Not trying to start an argument. But it seems that there are some people that automatically assume that if it's a certain NAME BRAND and costs appropriately, then it MUST be quality. And I totally agree that weapons that are generally junk, or NOT AS HIGH QUALITY, usually have some track record to back up that accusation. My problem is when a particular brand has basically nothing but success stories; no one complaining; isn't breaking; and is shooting thousands upon thousands of rounds flawlessly; why isn't it considered QUALITY??? I need to know so I can have "A TALK" with some of my weapons and let them know that they "AREN'T SUPPOSE TO BE OPERATING" as well as they are. Damn guns. Don't they know anything. Don't they know they're SUPPOSE TO BREAK once in a while if they don't have a certain name on the side!!!
Click to expand...

christcorp, not saying your S&W is junk but take a look the following link of what BCM brings to the table. (It's basically BCM's "TDP".) Quality components and certification that S&W and many other brands won't do. You may not need all this, and in the last paragraph Paul Buffoni even admits that, but here it is. You can expect much of the same from Daniel Defense.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=55930
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't that Rock River or S&W is junk. The problem is that, for not much more money (and often LESS money), you can get a high end/top tier AR for the same price as you can a RRA or S&W.

For example. A MSRP on a mid-length, standard, BCM rifle is $1045. The closest thing RRA offers is $1035. For only $10 more, you get a far better rifle.

Also, if the OP is asking for DD or BCM, telling him to buy a RRA is laughable.
 
I should have gave a reason for my comments. My first ar was a DPMS. It never gave a problem and was stupid accurate. Drank a little Kool Aid and got rid of it for a Bushmaster. Again, never a problem and was also very accurate, more Kool Aid please. Got rid of it for a RR. Again, a very good, accurate rifle. Tired of Kool Aid now. Hung on to the RR and decided to get a DD. Bought a V4. Great rifle. I am not a combat vet, police officer or defence contractor, but I know how to test for accuracy and shoot a crap pot of rounds through a gun. After shooting both rifles side by side and finding that they are both accurate and dependable I put my 2cents in. Still feel the same way and won't apologize. At the same time I realize that there are superior products. I also know that anything man has created is flawed and will eventually fail no matter how much it costs. Only Christ is perfect and everlasting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top