Hi-quality ARs sure seem "sold out" a lot!
- Thread starter bfskinnerpunk
- Start date
... how about Daniel Defense and ArmaLite...)christcorp
New member
I have nothing against colts. They are a fine weapon. I do have a problem with "The Chart". The information provided "Without the actual guns listed" can be valuable when deciding on what you want to buy. Listing the actual weapons and "Implying" that one is better than another, based on it's place on the chart, is very misleading and in most cases actually WRONG. There; I said it. LOL!!!
Let's take out all the people who simply think that "Mil-spec / TDP" is simply BETTER all around, and that they won't have anything but 100% mil/tdp. There's no discussing with those people. So; taking them out of the equation, what we have left are people who want an AR15 for various reasons. some for fun. Some for home defense. Some because they believe that a "Red-Dawn" scenario is possible/probably. Some will shoot 100-200 rounds a year; some 1000-2000 a year; and some 5000 round or more a year. For every person out there, there are various reasons to own an AR15. So; is a Colt, BCM, or DD BETTER than an M&P15, Bushmaster, or Rock-River? Is it better because they're on the "LEFT" side of the chart? Well, the answer depends on what the person buying the AR wants it for.
Here's my reasoning behind getting an M&P15-OR instead of a colt or BCM, and why I believe that it's BETTER than the colt, bcm, or DD. "BETTER FOR ME".
1. S&W has sales, the 3 far left of chart rifles rarely do; so I was able to get my M&P15 for about $400-$500 LESS than any of those 3. And all compromises and decisions have to start with price.
2. I don't rapid fire or shoot full auto, so the extra money towards an M16 BCG over an AR15 BCG simply isn't justified.
3. I am not into competition or marksmanship long range shooting. So, paying extra for a 1:7 twist barrel instead of a 1:9. If I have a need to shoot 70+ grain bullets, for WHATEVER reason, they will shoot fine at 100 yards or less. Even in a 1:9 barrel. (I don't care about sub moa accuracy)
4. B-11595 barrels were intended for Full Auto capability; high rate of fire. I have no need or intention of doing either. Even in a SHTF scenario. So; for me, a 4140 barrel steel is quite fine. It's not going to get as hot as my military rifle did in training or actual use.
5. Because I trust the S&W company; and have little to NO complaints from actual owners; I am content with batch testing than individual rifle testing.
6. Finally; I mainly shoot lower pressure .223 ammo compared to 5.56 ammo. So; having a carbine length gas system, with the gas port the size of a mid-length gas system, (Basically, overgassed), is not that much of a concern to me.
So; which gun is a "Better Choice" for me? Again; some will say that BETTER is BETTER and that's the end of the discussion. I disagree. Is a corvette BETTER than a ford focus? well; if you're a family of 4 and can't afford 2 cars, then the ford focus would be a "Better Car". Well; I like being able to pay for the gun that I want, than to pay extra for a lot of features/parts that I have no interest in whatsoever. Is a 300hp motor BETTER than a 125hp motor? Well, if the majority of your driving in urban, and the speed limit never goes beyond 40mph; and the few times you do drive at 75mph, you don't care about passing power because of the traffic type; then NO; 300hp ISN'T necessarily BETTER than a 125ho motor. Same with the AR or any rifle. Is it better to pay more for features/abilities in a weapon that I have absolutely no use for; or is it money that could have been better spent on ammo or accessories?
And the same thing applies to the person who maybe chooses the bushmaster, RR, DPMS, or even Olympic. I made my choices based on what real owners; on a manufacturer specific forum, where no one is trying to impress each other, because they all own the same manufacturer; and everyone is honest about the good and bad; said about their guns. I feel confident using my M&P15 for home defense, varmints, SHTF, plinking, etc... It will shoot any ammo you feed it and is very reliable. THE ONLY thing the colt is better at than the M&P15, are things that aren't significant to me. In other words, 2 AR15's that both fit ALL MY NEEDS. Both have a great track record and customer satisfaction . One is $400-$500 less than the other. Which do I buy??? Same with all other AR15 owners. They need to decide for themselves. But to imply because a chart; made up by a forum member and not some scientific weapons professional, says that certain weapons are BETTER than others because of where they are on the chart; is simply wrong. yes; it is wrong.
precision_shooter
New member
I could not have said it better myself...You summed up the reason I bought a RRA and not a Colt or DD or Noveske etc etc... My rifle works, for what I do, just as well as any of the other "BETTER" guns.
Seriously? NO complaints?
I owned a S&W M&P15. I picked one up as soon as they hit the stores, and was the first AR purchase I made.
My experience was so bad with it, that I swore off AR's for 5 years.
I experienced every type of feeding, extracting, and ejecting malfunction that a AR is possible of having.
After 5 years, I finally decided to get another AR, and put one together using a top shelf upper and bcg, and 100 percent happy with my decision.
With that said, I do believe that less than tier 1 AR's can function perfectly. I also believe that S&W can make an AR that runs. But, *I* will NEVER buy anything other than tier 1 AR's (atleast assembled uppers anyway), or a S&W AR regardless of where it falls on the chart.
ETA: I'm not a 100 percent, "It's gotta be milspec or nothing" kinda guy. My BCM has a mid-length gas system...nothing mil-spec about it. But I do want top quality components, and it didn't cost me much more for my BCM build, than it would have cost me to buy an assembled, mid-grade AR.
Last edited:
Christcorp, the M&P-15 actually does quite well in the M4 Chart though as you say there are other brands that do score higher. I agree that not having B-11595 barrel steel, 1:7 twist and M16 bolt carrier are not likely to affect the reliability of your AR. In fact Pat Rogers has said the S&Ws do very well in his classes, which is not true of Bushmaster, DPMS and others.
The brands that fall well to the right of S&W on the chart are much harder to defend since they cut a lot more corners. Also their price is very close to middle of the chart ARs like S&W and ArmaLite so I think it's not wise to buy one. If someone already has one, that's fine but when buying, stay away from the right side of the chart if you can.
The brands that fall well to the right of S&W on the chart are much harder to defend since they cut a lot more corners. Also their price is very close to middle of the chart ARs like S&W and ArmaLite so I think it's not wise to buy one. If someone already has one, that's fine but when buying, stay away from the right side of the chart if you can.
christcorp
New member
Tragik; READ my post again, and you'll see that I said "LITTLE, to NO". That implies the same as "Little to None"; "Barely if any"; etc... Have you ever heard those expressions.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Not that there have NEVER been ANY complaints. Just that if is there were, they are "Far and Few Between" and usually isolated incidents. So please; don't take a figure of speech and try and go literal with it. You had one of the very first M&P15's "You said it just came out"; and you had problems with it. Would I consider that common? No, not really. Just saying that there aren't that many issues reported by owners. For what it's worth, I consider my M&P15 a "Tier 1" AR. Just as much as any other AR.
Quentin: You might be correct that it's not fair comparing an M&P15 to an Olympic Arms or Bushmaster. But there are plenty of happy Olympic and Bushmaster owners. But you are very much correct when you start talking price. I have said that way too many times too. "IF" an M&P15 was the same price as a Colt or BCM, I'd most likely get the Colt or BCM. But they aren't the same price, so balance must be found. Olympic, Bush, Double Star, and many of the "Known lower quality" based on customer feedback, are close to the same price as many of the "Known Higher Quality": $650-$800 price range. For that same price, you'd be better off with a higher known quality rifle. But each person has to decide that for themselves. Our Highway Patrol uses only DPMS rifles. Therefor, many of the patrolmen feel quite comfortable buying a DPMS for their own personal AR.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is that weapons and quality tend to evolve. A company could have had a major problem 5-10 years ago; could be doing great in the last 5 years; but there are some people that will hold on to those OLD OUTDATED quality issues and swear as God is their Witness, that that particular company totally sucks. They aren't open minded enough to look past earlier production runs. My wife has done that with so many restaurants. She'll try one, have a bad experience, and swear them off as totally being bad. I'll have to force her, years later, to try them again. She doesn't correlate that it could have been 1 bad day; or that there is new management.
Anyway; I think the first half of "The Chart" is very informative. It provides information on the various parts and quality reviews of an AR15. If it stays there, it's a useful tool. The minute someone lists actual manufacturers and ranks them according to Mil-spec/tdp, they are then just blowing smoke. I would say that my 1903 springfield is Mil-Spec. After all, it IS from the military. But there's no doubt that my Sako is a better quality 30-06. So I think individuals need to bounce what they need, what they want, and what they'll pay, with what's available. But the truth is; most people who buy the lower quality guns do so, because they either don't know any better; "They aren't on the forums"; or they are too impatient to shop around and/or look for sales.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Not that there have NEVER been ANY complaints. Just that if is there were, they are "Far and Few Between" and usually isolated incidents. So please; don't take a figure of speech and try and go literal with it. You had one of the very first M&P15's "You said it just came out"; and you had problems with it. Would I consider that common? No, not really. Just saying that there aren't that many issues reported by owners. For what it's worth, I consider my M&P15 a "Tier 1" AR. Just as much as any other AR.
Quentin: You might be correct that it's not fair comparing an M&P15 to an Olympic Arms or Bushmaster. But there are plenty of happy Olympic and Bushmaster owners. But you are very much correct when you start talking price. I have said that way too many times too. "IF" an M&P15 was the same price as a Colt or BCM, I'd most likely get the Colt or BCM. But they aren't the same price, so balance must be found. Olympic, Bush, Double Star, and many of the "Known lower quality" based on customer feedback, are close to the same price as many of the "Known Higher Quality": $650-$800 price range. For that same price, you'd be better off with a higher known quality rifle. But each person has to decide that for themselves. Our Highway Patrol uses only DPMS rifles. Therefor, many of the patrolmen feel quite comfortable buying a DPMS for their own personal AR.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is that weapons and quality tend to evolve. A company could have had a major problem 5-10 years ago; could be doing great in the last 5 years; but there are some people that will hold on to those OLD OUTDATED quality issues and swear as God is their Witness, that that particular company totally sucks. They aren't open minded enough to look past earlier production runs. My wife has done that with so many restaurants. She'll try one, have a bad experience, and swear them off as totally being bad. I'll have to force her, years later, to try them again. She doesn't correlate that it could have been 1 bad day; or that there is new management.
Anyway; I think the first half of "The Chart" is very informative. It provides information on the various parts and quality reviews of an AR15. If it stays there, it's a useful tool. The minute someone lists actual manufacturers and ranks them according to Mil-spec/tdp, they are then just blowing smoke. I would say that my 1903 springfield is Mil-Spec. After all, it IS from the military. But there's no doubt that my Sako is a better quality 30-06. So I think individuals need to bounce what they need, what they want, and what they'll pay, with what's available. But the truth is; most people who buy the lower quality guns do so, because they either don't know any better; "They aren't on the forums"; or they are too impatient to shop around and/or look for sales.
curmudgeon1
New member
I chose to buy from "the left" on The Chart because thats where all the design testing, development, improvements and millions of military test rifles came from. Just something about that name .......the emotion ...... and the tradition attached to it ........
Last edited:
christcorp - Yup. I had a first run AR, prior to S&W making them in house. But it's an AR. My 7 year old daughter could put one together and it function. The design is what, 50+ years old? And S&W couldn't get a first run right?
Yeah, I realize everyone makes a lemon once in a while. Stuff happens.
Consider my experience something to add to your few and far between list.
When I had problems with my M&P, I researched them (after buying it...ugh). I found exactly 4 reviews on them, and 3 of them had the same problems as me.
And if you read my entire post, I never once said M&P's were junk. It seems as if you're getting a little defensive about your pride and joy AR...and that's ok. They seem to be fine guns now...I just wouldn't own another.
And yeah, one terrible experience will keep me from going back to that particular resturaunt/gun/vehichle/etc. I WON'T own another Kahr, JR Carbine, M&P15, Dodge, or go to the local theatre anymore.
Yeah, I realize everyone makes a lemon once in a while. Stuff happens.
Consider my experience something to add to your few and far between list.
When I had problems with my M&P, I researched them (after buying it...ugh). I found exactly 4 reviews on them, and 3 of them had the same problems as me.
And if you read my entire post, I never once said M&P's were junk. It seems as if you're getting a little defensive about your pride and joy AR...and that's ok. They seem to be fine guns now...I just wouldn't own another.
And yeah, one terrible experience will keep me from going back to that particular resturaunt/gun/vehichle/etc. I WON'T own another Kahr, JR Carbine, M&P15, Dodge, or go to the local theatre anymore.
christcorp
New member
Nothing wrong with "Principles". But Pride and Principle only goes so far. Sooner or later you need to choose what's best for you. And I'm sure that if "The chart" or something similar said that the M&P15 was now at the FAR LEFT of the chart and considered one of the best, you'd probably reconsider it. Just like if a food review came out and mentioned a local restaurant was under new management and was one of the best in the area, you'd probably give them another try. If you honestly wouldn't, then you're allowing a misguided principle to affect your ability to make an educated choice.
thinkingman
New member
Christcorp, you'll never convince some people, because label worship and bragging rights are their primary motivation.
Your analytics are spot-on, but wasted here.
m.p.driver
New member
It would be great to be able to afford a $3000 AR or a $1500 Ed Brown .45,but it just isn't feasible.So I'll just have to stick with my $749 Bushmaster and my G21 .45.Which they might not be pretty anymore, but they have never left me hanging.
To be honest, I didn't know about the chart when I bought my bcm upper. I researched uppers and it was one of the few that I couldn't find anything bad about from several forums.
Would I buy a m&p if they moved to the far right? Probably not because there are other choices. Burn me once, shame on you...burn me twice, shame on me. I try to avoid the shame on me. With the m&p, it left such a bad taste in my mouth, I swore off ars altogether for 5 years.
Resturaunts are a bit different. Mainly because it doesn't cost me $800 - 1200 to try them a second time. Under new management? Sure...Id try them again...but its likely to cost well under $100 to do so.
Would I buy a m&p if they moved to the far right? Probably not because there are other choices. Burn me once, shame on you...burn me twice, shame on me. I try to avoid the shame on me. With the m&p, it left such a bad taste in my mouth, I swore off ars altogether for 5 years.
Resturaunts are a bit different. Mainly because it doesn't cost me $800 - 1200 to try them a second time. Under new management? Sure...Id try them again...but its likely to cost well under $100 to do so.
Well S&W has released a 1:8 barrel this year but I don't think it's offered on their higher end models. With so many quality barrels available today I don't know why they haven't offered a rifle that matches Colt spec for spec, after all they've duked it out for over a century so why not go into extra innings today! Also I can't understand why both Colt and S&W don't offer a midlength, seems like a natural. In fact it's the reason I scratched both off my list when building my two ARs. (Well, I did buy an M&P15 stripped lower so got my S&W middy anyway. Daniel Defense solved that little problem for me.)
christcorp
New member
Tragik: Personally; I think that is EXACTLY how an individual should shop for a firearm. Excellent choice.
FWIW: I think BCM, colt, DD, LMT, etc... make excellent AR's. And if my M&P15 cost the same amount of money as one of those, I probably would have bought one of those. But I have learned that everyone who has a firearm, has different needs, wants, and uses for that firearm. So when a person claims a certain manufacturer/model to be "BETTER"; that is totally subjective. "Better at WHAT???"
In another forum, I mentioned that many individuals buy certain products because they are accustomed to them and confident in them from past experience. Especially at work. I.e. Our agency has an exclusive contract with DELL computers. Everyone's computers are Dell. So it is natural that MANY of the workers, when they go out and buy a PERSONAL computer for home, feel comfortable buying a Dell computer. Many don't even really compare them. I work with the highway patrol. They use DPMS rifles. Now many people dog DPMS, but many of our troopers actually buy this brand when they buy a personal AR rifle. Why? Because they are accustomed to them and feel confident in them.
That brings us to the colt. Mil-spec is designed entirely so that there is a standard. Government contracts change all the time. Whether it's an M4 rifle or an armored personnel carrier. The military has always wanted to ensure that if they changed contractors, that future items bought, would be compatible, especially with parts, with old stock. Quality is developed strictly because of capitalism and competition. Government contract are the "Honey-Pot" of manufacturers. If you can get a government contract, you are set. And usually, government is willing to pay much more for requiring specific "Standards". So money isn't normally an issue. Well; many of the individuals on many of the forums, who have a hard-on for Colt and the "Left Side" of "THE CHART", do so because of the Mil-Spec / TDP compliance. Why? Just like our troopers who like DPMS or our workers who buy DELL Computers..... Because many of these people spent time in the military. As such, colt and Mil-Spec M4/M16 are what they are use to. It's what they trust. Therefor, it's natural that they will trust that for their civilian purchase.
Where the problem lies, is that many of these individuals forget that they are no longer in the military. There is a reason for Mil-Spec on military rifles. But I don't care who you are; you're civilian AR is not going to go through the same handling and environment that a military weapon will go through. Not even a swat team or similar will have their rifles going through the same environment.
So; would I trust a bushmaster, DPMS, Olympic, or many of the others as my Military M4 rifle if I was still serving? NO!!! Not at all. There are specs that I want, to ensure that my rifle can live up to the extreme conditions I put it through when I was in the middle east, central america, and south america. But the AR I buy today for civilian use is not going to be in those conditions. Mine will be stored in my house. It will be pulled out to shoot targets, varmints, and if necessary a person. It will be cleaned and lubed when not in use. It will be kept in great condition. The ones in our highway patrol service will be kept in a case, in the trunk of a vehicle. It won't be dragged in the sand or mud or rain forest. It won't get dropped on the ground as I dive behind a concrete wall. I won't be firing full auto.
So basically; all the things that make a Mil-Spec / TDP compliant rifle as "Compliant" or spec'd as it is; are very, very important for military service. The problem is; some people refuse to accept the fact that they are no longer in the military; and the role of their rifle and the environment that it is in, is not the same as it was when they were in the military. And therefor; those mil-spec / tdp compliance simply are not as necessary. They can definitely buy rifles with those standards and compliance. And they are free to spend the extra $300, $400, $500+ on their rifle because of it. But that doesn't make it "Better". You need to compare Apples to Apples to determine "Better". Unnecessary specs can't be compared and then determined that because they are there, that it makes the rifle better. But some people simply refuse to admit that there is a difference between military and civilian environments. But that's ok; because many people argue when discussing home defense, that civilians are subject to the same threats, dangers, and exposures that police are; and that's why they need to be armed the same as police. I don't know. I don't know too many civilians that walk out at night and say.... "Hmmmm, lets go kick down some drug dealer's door and bust them".
Anyway; there's a reason that some people are passionate about what they have and what they recommend. Most of it is because it is what they are accustomed to using, and they are the most confident in it.
I saw that thread on the other site you're referring to. There is a LOT of snobbery over there, but tons of good info.
My only complaint with non-milspec stuff is, if they're not building to that standard, what standard ARE they building it to?
A few of the things on the chart are, imo, insignificant to civilian use. Mainly barrel twist. Most people don't shoot 70+ gr ammo, so 1:7 twist doesn't matter. I wanted 1:7 so I COULD shoot it, but I doubt I'll ever shoot any.
Also, if I were a die hard "chart" guy, I'd own a M4. I don't.
The chart is a good reference on what to look for imo, but not the "Bible" on what you should buy. I DID want 1:7 twist, staked gas key, chrome lined, etc. It just so happens that my BCM was on the far left of the chart. Completely coincidental in my case.
My only complaint with non-milspec stuff is, if they're not building to that standard, what standard ARE they building it to?
A few of the things on the chart are, imo, insignificant to civilian use. Mainly barrel twist. Most people don't shoot 70+ gr ammo, so 1:7 twist doesn't matter. I wanted 1:7 so I COULD shoot it, but I doubt I'll ever shoot any.
Also, if I were a die hard "chart" guy, I'd own a M4. I don't.
The chart is a good reference on what to look for imo, but not the "Bible" on what you should buy. I DID want 1:7 twist, staked gas key, chrome lined, etc. It just so happens that my BCM was on the far left of the chart. Completely coincidental in my case.
christcorp
New member
What some people don't understand; especially some of the snobs on some of the other sights, is exactly what mil-spec actually is. The purpose behind mil-spec has nothing to do with quality. Quality is a result of production. Mil-Spec is simply continuity and compatibility. The M1-Garand and Carbine are perfect examples. The military contracted out for a semi-auto rifle to be designed and built. They didn't develop mil-spec on it until a producer developed a rifle that was acceptable. THEN; because the military will use multiple contractors to build their rifle, they wanted to make sure that each manufacturer built exact replicas of the rifle. There was no way that springfield armory could produce as many M1-garands that the military needed and wanted. So the mil-spec is there so that whether it's a springfield, winchester, H&R, or whoever that made it, that they were identical. Every part could be interchanged if needed. And because of the mil-spec, if a known issues arose, it would affect all rifles, and the corrective action would benefit all rifles.
The first m-16's used in the 60's by the military were "Mil-spec". And they were a total piece of crap. Mil-Spec doesn't ensure quality. It was 50 years of continuous feedback and improvements by the manufacturer that improved the quality. And at that point, it now became the NEW Mil-Spec. Mil-Spec was designed for compatibility and continuity. Including quality once it was developed.
Again; the main problem with mil-spec are the people who want to pretend they're Rambo, and their needs are the same as the military. They aren't. My Weatherby is a HIGH QUALITY rifle. But it isn't mil-spec. But the military had no need for the weatherby V 30-378 either. But there are too many civilians that believe that they have the same needs for home defense as the military does. That the police officer who has an AR in a case in his trunk, has the same need as the military. Even SWAT/ICE/DEA/etc... would be hard pressed to believe that the environment and conditions that their AR goes through is similar to the military.
Now; does that mean that some AR's out there aren't better QUALITY than others? No, not at all. Some are definitely better quality. Would I buy a Bushmaster TODAY? No. Not because it isn't mil-spec, but because it is known for being very picky with the ammunition that it eats. I personally want a rifle that will shoot steel case as well as brass case, and any brand of each. Would I buy an AR from atlantic, star, or certain others? No. Not because they aren't mil-spec. Because they admittedly build AR's from many numerous suppliers of parts. Including refurb parts. In other words, I've seen that their rifles are a crap shoot. Some are excellent; some aren't. You take your chances. I didn't want to do that. If I wanted to go through that, I'd just buy all the parts and build my own.
Point is; the average civilian; including LE agencies, aren't going to be crawling under barbed wire, diving into foxholes in 2 feet of water, having a concrete wall blow up in front of them, etc... Therefor, mil-spec isn't important.
So; if i had someone asking my recommendation on how to buy an AR, I would give them certain things to look for.
1. Reputable company; preferably a direct manufacturer; so if there was a problem with the rifle, the company would work with you to fix the problem.
2. If you planned on deer hunting or competition/marksmanship shooting at 300+ yard range; and/or using bullets above 70 grain; get a 1:7 twist barrel. If it doesn't apply, then get a 1:9 twist barrel and save money.
3. Get a chrome line chamber and barrel. Better resistance to rust, and much easier to clean. Also makes shooting steel case ammo easier.
4. Make sure the gas-key is properly staked. If not, the screws can start to back out. This will create lowered gas pressure issues and possibly cause ejection and feeding issues.
5. KNOW the gas system. It's ok if it's a carbine-length gas system. It's ok if it's a mid-length gas system. But KNOW that a mid-length has a larger diameter gas port than a carbine. That's because the gas tube is longer and thus, requires more gas to operate the bolt. HOWEVER: Some companies, like S&W, us the carbine-length gas system, but with a gas port that is the diameter of a normal mid-length gas system. Basically, it's a little "Over-Gassed". Just KNOW THIS. If you shoot mainly .223 ammo; which 90%+ of AR owners do, then it's not a big deal. The .223 is less pressure than 5.56, and the manufacturer made the gas port larger, specifically so the increased gas would assist even the weakest .223 ammo. If you shoot mainly 5.56 ammo, which is hotter; no big deal. Just spend $20-$30 and replace the buffer with a slightly heavier buffer. This way, the bolt doesn't receive too much added pressure and wear from the additional gas.
These are the things I would recommend to most AR buyers in the marker. Actually, because of Mil-Spec, some of the higher end rifles like Colt and DD have some issues with some .223 ammo. Of course the owner says it's "CRAP AMMO". They don't want to admit that their gun WANTS 5.56 MILITARY AMMO. "That's what mil-spec was designed around". They won't admit their rifle is not intended for civilian .223 ammo. But if people looked at these things as a minimum, they'd have a decent AR. And yes, a mil-spec rifle meats all these things. But they also meet a lot of other specs that you wind up paying so much more for. Even if you don't need them.
The first m-16's used in the 60's by the military were "Mil-spec". And they were a total piece of crap. Mil-Spec doesn't ensure quality. It was 50 years of continuous feedback and improvements by the manufacturer that improved the quality. And at that point, it now became the NEW Mil-Spec. Mil-Spec was designed for compatibility and continuity. Including quality once it was developed.
Again; the main problem with mil-spec are the people who want to pretend they're Rambo, and their needs are the same as the military. They aren't. My Weatherby is a HIGH QUALITY rifle. But it isn't mil-spec. But the military had no need for the weatherby V 30-378 either. But there are too many civilians that believe that they have the same needs for home defense as the military does. That the police officer who has an AR in a case in his trunk, has the same need as the military. Even SWAT/ICE/DEA/etc... would be hard pressed to believe that the environment and conditions that their AR goes through is similar to the military.
Now; does that mean that some AR's out there aren't better QUALITY than others? No, not at all. Some are definitely better quality. Would I buy a Bushmaster TODAY? No. Not because it isn't mil-spec, but because it is known for being very picky with the ammunition that it eats. I personally want a rifle that will shoot steel case as well as brass case, and any brand of each. Would I buy an AR from atlantic, star, or certain others? No. Not because they aren't mil-spec. Because they admittedly build AR's from many numerous suppliers of parts. Including refurb parts. In other words, I've seen that their rifles are a crap shoot. Some are excellent; some aren't. You take your chances. I didn't want to do that. If I wanted to go through that, I'd just buy all the parts and build my own.
Point is; the average civilian; including LE agencies, aren't going to be crawling under barbed wire, diving into foxholes in 2 feet of water, having a concrete wall blow up in front of them, etc... Therefor, mil-spec isn't important.
So; if i had someone asking my recommendation on how to buy an AR, I would give them certain things to look for.
1. Reputable company; preferably a direct manufacturer; so if there was a problem with the rifle, the company would work with you to fix the problem.
2. If you planned on deer hunting or competition/marksmanship shooting at 300+ yard range; and/or using bullets above 70 grain; get a 1:7 twist barrel. If it doesn't apply, then get a 1:9 twist barrel and save money.
3. Get a chrome line chamber and barrel. Better resistance to rust, and much easier to clean. Also makes shooting steel case ammo easier.
4. Make sure the gas-key is properly staked. If not, the screws can start to back out. This will create lowered gas pressure issues and possibly cause ejection and feeding issues.
5. KNOW the gas system. It's ok if it's a carbine-length gas system. It's ok if it's a mid-length gas system. But KNOW that a mid-length has a larger diameter gas port than a carbine. That's because the gas tube is longer and thus, requires more gas to operate the bolt. HOWEVER: Some companies, like S&W, us the carbine-length gas system, but with a gas port that is the diameter of a normal mid-length gas system. Basically, it's a little "Over-Gassed". Just KNOW THIS. If you shoot mainly .223 ammo; which 90%+ of AR owners do, then it's not a big deal. The .223 is less pressure than 5.56, and the manufacturer made the gas port larger, specifically so the increased gas would assist even the weakest .223 ammo. If you shoot mainly 5.56 ammo, which is hotter; no big deal. Just spend $20-$30 and replace the buffer with a slightly heavier buffer. This way, the bolt doesn't receive too much added pressure and wear from the additional gas.
These are the things I would recommend to most AR buyers in the marker. Actually, because of Mil-Spec, some of the higher end rifles like Colt and DD have some issues with some .223 ammo. Of course the owner says it's "CRAP AMMO". They don't want to admit that their gun WANTS 5.56 MILITARY AMMO. "That's what mil-spec was designed around". They won't admit their rifle is not intended for civilian .223 ammo. But if people looked at these things as a minimum, they'd have a decent AR. And yes, a mil-spec rifle meats all these things. But they also meet a lot of other specs that you wind up paying so much more for. Even if you don't need them.
Christcorp, I agree that today's AR-15 variants are better than those of 50 years ago but the first M16s in Vietnam were not crap. (The biggest fault of the rifle itself was the lack of chrome lining in the chamber/barrel.) They functioned just fine if maintained properly and if good magazines and proper ammo were used. Unfortunately our government cheaped out as usual and didn't provide proper training, cleaning supplies, magazines - then worst of all, over the objections of Eugene Stoner/Colt, used the wrong powder in M16 ammo. In spite of all this many soldiers figured out how to keep their rifles working but it took more effort than it should have.
Today, the AR family is very reliable but I would not consider buying one that didn't do well on the M4 chart. S&W is more than acceptable as you know but those that fall to the right start exhibiting real problems that I don't want to deal with. Why pay as much for a Bushmaster as S&W or maybe even BCM? I want my new rifle to meet a minimum standard acceptable to me but I don't know what standard the low end ARs meet. Of course this is all about buying/building a new AR, if the one you already have is good then who cares what other people say!
It's kinda like buying an HDTV, do I want to pay $1000 for a Sony or other top brand - or save a couple hundred and go with Sanyo, Dynex, etc. and hope it meets some acceptable standard and is reliable. In the end everyone chooses for themselves. If you do the research you'll probably do all right no matter what you choose. It's the lazy folks out there that grab anything without doing their homework who will make the big mistakes.
bfskinnerpunk
New member
I'm the original poster... (not that this is a relevant)...but,
Sometimes, it seems "safest" to buy the rifle that many/most recognize as a damn fine build.
If you've got the cash, why not?
I'm expecting inflation to hit us hard... but can't tell win.
In the mean time, I want to purchase important things even though I have not amassed a vast knowledge of the thing. I can see clearly that the BCM and DD are well liked on everything except price. Fine. I merely need to swallow that pill, and I can at least rest knowing that I have a good quality rifle on which I can focus my attention later.
In addition, it is possible that our rifles will serve the same function as other commodities (silver, bullets, cotton, food). The "better" rifles are likely to command a higher price no matter the situation. In the end, you probably are not "losing" much if you needed to sell your DD as compared to Olympic.
...and it's kinda cool to have a higher end AR
Sometimes, it seems "safest" to buy the rifle that many/most recognize as a damn fine build.
If you've got the cash, why not?
I'm expecting inflation to hit us hard... but can't tell win.
In the mean time, I want to purchase important things even though I have not amassed a vast knowledge of the thing. I can see clearly that the BCM and DD are well liked on everything except price. Fine. I merely need to swallow that pill, and I can at least rest knowing that I have a good quality rifle on which I can focus my attention later.
In addition, it is possible that our rifles will serve the same function as other commodities (silver, bullets, cotton, food). The "better" rifles are likely to command a higher price no matter the situation. In the end, you probably are not "losing" much if you needed to sell your DD as compared to Olympic.
...and it's kinda cool to have a higher end AR
bfskinnerpunk, if you do a build, you can bring a BCM or DD in for $8-900. I did it a few months ago buying a DD M4V3 LW CHF upper with no rails then added MOE midlength handguards then put it on a S&W stripped lower that I built up with a Stag LPK and BCM receiver extension/M4 stock kit/H buffer. After adding a rear sight, sling and PMAG the price was $850 including tax and shipping (a lot was free shipping).
Alas, today it's getting pretty hard to buy BCM and DD uppers or complete rifles. Low stock all over except for the mass market brands. Tax returns or something else???
Alas, today it's getting pretty hard to buy BCM and DD uppers or complete rifles. Low stock all over except for the mass market brands. Tax returns or something else???
christcorp
New member
Agreed Quentin. But that's why I use "REAL" feedback instead of some analytical review based on numbers or specs. I go to the manufacturer specific forums and similar places to see what REAL customers of the products have to say. If you're on a Bushmaster ONLY forum, you don't have posters rationalizing what they have. They don't have others telling the right off the bat that they have junk. Then, I start looking for key words. "Help, Why, How, How Come, Can't, Need, etc..." If I see a considerable amount of posts; "Subjective, but my perception of considerable amount"; that are asking how to fix something, improve something, problems encountered, etc... Then that's a "RED-FLAG" for me to reconsider. On the other hand, if I see that the overwhelming majority of posts are more like: "Look at my new toy"; "What kind of optics"; Tweaks; Mods; Accessories; etc..., and very few with problems or issues, then I gain confidence in those.
I do this with EVERYTHING I buy. Cars, Computer equipment, Guns, TV's, Vacuum Cleaner, etc... Literally, I research this way. I don't ever believe reviews or comments from supposed "Pros". Most "Pros" don't know as much as they'd like to believe they do. But actual users and their experiences are REAL. They aren't hypothetical or biased. Mil-Spec and TDP are great tools, but they are biased. They are a set of standards that are designed for a particular use for the item. MILITARY. Nothing wrong with that, but unless I plan on crawling under barbed wired, in the mud, diving into fox holes in 2 feet of water, diving behind a concrete wall, and banging my weapon around; then I'm comparing apples (Mil-spec and use) with oranges (Civilian use and need).
But you are correct that if the price is close to the same, then it's a no brainer. If I can get 2 F-250 pickups; one with a 351 engine and stock, and the other has a 460 engine, towing package, lift kit, 5th wheel hitch, etc... and they're the same price, (Assuming I didn't care about fuel mileage), then I should take the "BETTER" one. Even if I don't need all it's other capabilities. But sometimes, the price isn't the same. And for some people, $200 ISN'T considered CLOSE or the SAME.
What I have noticed is that complete AR's, ready to shoot, tend to fall into 4 price categories.
1. $600 ($599) to $800
2. $850 to $1100
3. $1150 to $1300
4. Freaking Stupid!!!!! (Usually because of accessories, but sometimes not)
Now; under NORMAL everyday RETAIL prices, I can understand some people paying for a low end $600-$700 rifle. However; there are 2 things that I think are stupid and inexcusable on the part of the buyer.
1. Buying the $600-$700 gun when a noticeably higher quality AR (F-250 with 460) is on sale for the same or better price; and they don't consider it.
2. Buying a lower quality weapon that is living off of "Past Name Recognition" and are charging the same OR HIGHER for their rifles, than a well known BETTER rifle. The biggest culprit of this is BUSHMASTER. Their Cheapest rifle is $850 and goes into the $1300 range. Buying a Bush over a Colt at the same price, is just plain STUPID.
Here's where the problem comes in:
1. SOME manufacturers, like S&W, have many very good sales. Their $1000 gun, which I'd normally buy a BCM or colt with, is all of a sudden a $650-$700 gun. Sales like that make the Colt, BCM, DD, etc... NO LONGER WORTH the extra $300-$500. (Not for my needs/wants). If a Bushmaster was on sale for $599 (like the carbon-15 was at Christmas time, compared to $850 normally), it would be difficult to justify the $1000 colt.
2. Most people getting into AR15's, have heard of Colt, Bushmaster, and well known Gun Manufacturers like S&W. They don't recognize BCM, DD, and some others. So when they see a Bush for $1000 and a DD for $1000, they will take name recognition.
3. Most people aren't going to order a weapon. They want to see it, touch it, and walk out with it.
4. Except for forums, there's very little out there comparing different AR's.
When you put all this together, it's understandable why a person would buy a rock river or bushmaster over a M&P, BCM, or DD.
I do this with EVERYTHING I buy. Cars, Computer equipment, Guns, TV's, Vacuum Cleaner, etc... Literally, I research this way. I don't ever believe reviews or comments from supposed "Pros". Most "Pros" don't know as much as they'd like to believe they do. But actual users and their experiences are REAL. They aren't hypothetical or biased. Mil-Spec and TDP are great tools, but they are biased. They are a set of standards that are designed for a particular use for the item. MILITARY. Nothing wrong with that, but unless I plan on crawling under barbed wired, in the mud, diving into fox holes in 2 feet of water, diving behind a concrete wall, and banging my weapon around; then I'm comparing apples (Mil-spec and use) with oranges (Civilian use and need).
But you are correct that if the price is close to the same, then it's a no brainer. If I can get 2 F-250 pickups; one with a 351 engine and stock, and the other has a 460 engine, towing package, lift kit, 5th wheel hitch, etc... and they're the same price, (Assuming I didn't care about fuel mileage), then I should take the "BETTER" one. Even if I don't need all it's other capabilities. But sometimes, the price isn't the same. And for some people, $200 ISN'T considered CLOSE or the SAME.
What I have noticed is that complete AR's, ready to shoot, tend to fall into 4 price categories.
1. $600 ($599) to $800
2. $850 to $1100
3. $1150 to $1300
4. Freaking Stupid!!!!! (Usually because of accessories, but sometimes not)
Now; under NORMAL everyday RETAIL prices, I can understand some people paying for a low end $600-$700 rifle. However; there are 2 things that I think are stupid and inexcusable on the part of the buyer.
1. Buying the $600-$700 gun when a noticeably higher quality AR (F-250 with 460) is on sale for the same or better price; and they don't consider it.
2. Buying a lower quality weapon that is living off of "Past Name Recognition" and are charging the same OR HIGHER for their rifles, than a well known BETTER rifle. The biggest culprit of this is BUSHMASTER. Their Cheapest rifle is $850 and goes into the $1300 range. Buying a Bush over a Colt at the same price, is just plain STUPID.
Here's where the problem comes in:
1. SOME manufacturers, like S&W, have many very good sales. Their $1000 gun, which I'd normally buy a BCM or colt with, is all of a sudden a $650-$700 gun. Sales like that make the Colt, BCM, DD, etc... NO LONGER WORTH the extra $300-$500. (Not for my needs/wants). If a Bushmaster was on sale for $599 (like the carbon-15 was at Christmas time, compared to $850 normally), it would be difficult to justify the $1000 colt.
2. Most people getting into AR15's, have heard of Colt, Bushmaster, and well known Gun Manufacturers like S&W. They don't recognize BCM, DD, and some others. So when they see a Bush for $1000 and a DD for $1000, they will take name recognition.
3. Most people aren't going to order a weapon. They want to see it, touch it, and walk out with it.
4. Except for forums, there's very little out there comparing different AR's.
When you put all this together, it's understandable why a person would buy a rock river or bushmaster over a M&P, BCM, or DD.