AR15 - why so expensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Comparing construction is nuts. If I take a M-16 varient of any kind, and drop it off a 2 story building it would shatter. An AK can fall 2 stories and be run over by a double decker bus and still shoot. Cheap doesnt always mean poor quaility and in this case it is disproven.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious as to when you conducted your 2nd story window drop/bus crush test. Have any pics, or a write up? Thought so.

Look I havent had the experince of many of you. Plus I havent personally owned a M-16, even though I shot a good many of them. However the M-16 is better is propaganda. In the hands of a person who cleans and takes care, pampers and love the newer ones they work great. I however have shot a good bit of M-16s and every last A2 I have touched in my life has jammed. One AK has jammed. I dislike the belief that the M-16 is a great weapon because they have a 2000 dollar tricked out masterpiece. They can be a great gun, but pound for pound the AK beats it. Accuracy and all it seems to me the Russians did a far better job at creating a cheap battle rifle then anyone. You can make your own decision and a M-16 will kill just as well as a AK. By the way those of you buying Armor Piercers for home defense etc, need to read the original Black Hawk down and see what M-16 AP did compared to say a M-14.
Click to expand...

Where in this post did anyone say anything about a $2000 tricked out AR? We are talking about $600-800 ARs.

And as for the BHD reference, here's a rundown of the weapons references from the book: http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/bhdweaponreferences.msnw
 
Gee, so many easily bruised egos...

Buy what you like, defend it if you must. I've lived in three places in five years (no, I'm not staying a step ahead of the law, but I am staying in a job) and at each range I've been to, most AR shooters had scopes and heavy barrels and were working hard at putting together good groups.
I thought of buying an AK a couple times, I know the ammo is cheap and plentiful. So I bought a Ruger Mini-30. It's got a nice wood stock and fires the 7.62 x 39 round, mags are reasonable, accessories are plentiful and you can get it in stainless if you like. Best thing is, with a scope and a flush-mount 5-round mag it looks a lot more like a hunting rifle and a lot less like an assault rifle (please don't alarm the sheep!). Liked it well enough to buy a Mini 14 as well. More than one way to skin a cat.
 
One OBVIOUS point that no one has mentioned.

The reason that the AK is so cheap is that it is greatly subsidized by the governments of present and former Commie countries.

It's like the U.S. government suddenly decided to give Colt or Bushmaster $200 to cut the cost of every AR-15.

(Yeah, in our dreams!)

The simple economic facts are,

is that part of the plant, parts, and prexisting stocks of components, have already been funded by these present (or former) socialist governments.

(We are often buying surplus.)

What they have they already have.

Now they are hungry for U.S. dollars.

Essentially. they are exporting excesss weapons production to obtain Western currency.

That is the reason AK's are "cheap".

That does not , in this case, mean, low quality.
 
Even if you are involved in a righteous shooting, the cost differential between the AK and the AR is only about an hour's billing from your deefense lawyer.
Click to expand...
But evidently it's much more entertaining to argue about hardware than it is to improve the software. :rolleyes:
 
InfernoMDM wrote:

Comparing construction is nuts. If I take a M-16 varient of any kind, and drop it off a 2 story building it would shatter. An AK can fall 2 stories and be run over by a double decker bus and still shoot.
Click to expand...

LOL. :rolleyes:
 
IMHO, because it is the civilian version of the rifle the US Armed forces carry as their main weapon. That really matters.

Look at how much the M1 Garand (re-imported from Greece/Netherlands!) etc go for.

The average "gun nut" has a real appreciation/affinity for the armed forces of the US, and is apparently willing to pay for it.

I count myself as one of those people!
 
KW......KW......KW...... (shakes my head)

Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.

On that note I should say the M-16 varients are pretty nice. I have had some terrible times with them, and think that many over rate them for combat, and durbaility. They fire just fine and work pretty well if they are cleaned.

I remeber before the ban a good M-16 was about 2000 with all the bells. My apologies on that mess up.
 
When is the last time an egg tried to kill somebody?
Click to expand...
There is only about a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that you'll ever need to use your rifle to defend your world,country, or family against mutant zombie bears, space aliens, or the Chinese while fighting in waste deep mud or in a desert. That is why "only accurate rifles are interesting."
 
My point was that hitting eggs is great, but eggs don't shoot back. Accuracy can only be exploited if the rifle is reliable in adverse conditions. I would put an AK up against any AR for reliability, especially against one of Bill Wilson's overpriced baby s--- green pimp guns :). For the cost of one of his rifles, I could arm a squad of guys with AKs. Is it as accurate as an AR, no. Is it more reliable, yes. The choice is yours.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
When is the last time an egg tried to kill somebody?
Click to expand...

I dunno, these were rotten, I guess you could call them 'bad eggs' ;)

It's expensive, that's why it's bad now? I thought they were Matell built junk that was cheap and unreliable? :)

PS: I would not want to go up against someone who had a real rifle with an AK winging lead out there :) What's 3 MOA at 500yds? Oh, right, 7.62x39 is all but useless at 500yds :p :neener: Perhaps there's a reason that a AK weilding Taliban is no match for a Marine armed with a rack grade A2/A3/A4 and just an ACOG? No, it can't be, it's DUSTY over there, the AR would just clog up on the plane ride over in fear.
 
Mr. Artherd,

I never said ARs were bad, just not as reliable as an AK, and I think all of Bill Wilson's stuff is way overpriced.

As far as shooting somebody at 500 yds or farther, I wouldn't have an AK or an AR. I would have a big rifle like that one you have :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
I own both... While I've owned maybe a dozen AKs, the only one I thought enough of to keep is a poly tech "legend" (milled) definately one of the best quality AKs that were available. I've had most all the combloc offerings and the Norincos.... The Norinco's were the worst by far and the other east euro's were not far behind.

None of these guns could be described as "accurate" if you were talking about a run of the mill hunting rifle... The sights are horrid, the sight radius is something you'd find on a long barreled pistol (okay that's maybe a strecth but you get the point).

What ALL of these guns are/were is reliable. I have had a few failures to feed over the year with some of them which was mostly due to bad magazines.

I carried one of the early M16s in Vietnam. you know the ones that "jammed" every time you needed it? Well I fired at least 700rds under under combat conditions sometimes after having waded through a stream or right after diving into a muddy rice paddy and you know that damned piece of junk never jammed a single time.... imagine that.

Further, I don't recall a single soldier in my company having a single jam the entire 13 months that I was there... could have happened, but that kind of news would have been spread all over the company within minutes (what else was there to talk about?) LOL

Also I think few people on this board even realize tht since WWI, the vast majority of casualties are caused by indirect fire (artillery, mortars, bombs mines etc.) Only about 10% of them are from rifle fire... even in Vietnam the "jungle war" this was true.

IF (and I'm not a believer) you can throw your AK out a two story building and then run down there and pick it up and continue to fight (internet commandos don't you know) without getting your ass blown off trying to retrieve your weapon, good for you!

I'll not throw my AR off the roof, thank you very much! And if I were to be so stupid as to drop it out a window then I guess I deserve what's coming to me.

The best AK I've ever shot will shoot 3" groups at 100M. At 200M they become 8-10" groups.

My AR shoots under 1.5" at 100M and just over 5" at 300M. An AK is pretty much useless past 200M. But most rifle engagements happen at under 100M! so the AK is fine for what is was designed for, close range combat.

The AK doesn't hold a candle to the AR quality wise. That arguement is just fallicy.

The AR is much more expensive to build because it's built from quality components/metals, the AK is basically made from sheet metal and stampings. The AR is much more versatile than the AK and can be used in many senarios including longer range engagements and is well suited to fighting at night becasue of it's modular design.

I like them both, but the tired arguement that the AK is a superior weapon to the AR is just plain BS. Yep you gotta clean your AR just like any other precision peice of equipment... you have to take care of it. But nothing like some yahoo's on this thread would lead people to believe.
 
Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.
Click to expand...


You know I saw the same video on the error net, but I got to tell ya, that my SAR-1, I can flex the receiver between my thumb and fingers, same for my two SAIGAs. So my guess is that the video was edited after the truck ran the AK over, or the truck missed the reciever.

I would not like to try it with any of my three AKs, because I'm 100% sure running over the AK sheet metal receiver would result in a crushed flat NON functional AK.

As far as burrying it in mud goes the low quality carbon steel in an AK would be rusted to non function in a month or less.

Videos on the internet shouldnt be taken as evidence of the superiority of one weapon system over another. I'l rely on my own actual experience, and that of folks who use them every day. The AK is not even close to being the equal of the AR system, its a cheaply made weapon its reliable enough and durable enough for what it does.
 
Last edited:
For civilians, does the ability to throw an AK off a roof, pick it up, and have it fire, really matter? No. Not one bit. But it's nice to know it could do it, which is why I like the AK.

I like the AR as well, there is no substitute for accuracy. Being able to hit your target where you want to hit it is what it's all about, eh?

I will say this though, I have a feeling that the soldiers in Jessica Lynch's squad that were ambushed, killed, and captured probably would have given their left, er, arm for an AK during that battle. Something about driving 18 hours in a sandstorm just doesn't sit well with the M-16 methinks. Most of their weapons didn't work, and the ones that did, they were shooting single shot. Would that have happened if they were cleaned? Nope. Did they have time to clean them in the 18 hour drive north out of Kuwait? Nope. Did it cost lives? Yep.

Both weapons are exceptional at what they do, obviously, or they wouldn't have stuck around so long. Like everything, it is a trade-off.
 
I have seen people who shoot a AK at 500 yards just fine. Thats propagandist bullcrap. Granted its no M-16.

The Teliban didnt loose because of weapons they lost because of training. Pure and simple. A US soldier shoots thousands of rounds in training most of the enemy shoot less then 500 before combat.

Making the comparison is like trying to compare a ACE pilot and a guy thats never sat in a airplane, not a F-16 to a biplane. Sorry thats a terrible point.

To Master Blaster: I post this here since he degraded me in public and instead of being a Man and PMing me.

Since you wanted to call me 12-13 I guess you dont want to play on the HIGH ROAD. Seems interesting a senior member as yourself cant stay on the high road, and understand opinions over your personal prejediouses toward a weapon. Further more I see you cant stay on the HIGH ROAD and keep your prejedious and myself seperate. Attacking me shows your maturity, and I dont think its necessary to say anything bad about you. You already have.

Yeah I am 23 been to Iraq and seen US soldiers carrying the AK a good bit. Tell me again how the M-16 is such a great weapon and I dont know my ????. Then tell me why a good many soliders in Iraq and vietnam liked the AK's reliability of the M-16. Ganted not everyone likes them and some commanders restrict use. I may not be some old individual as yourself with years of experince on the range, and I may not be a marine, but I learn from others mistakes. I have seen tons of mistakes in the average M-16. So love your M-16 its not a terrible weapon, but reliability isnt there when you compare it with a AK.

THE M-16 is not a terrible weapon! For Christ sakes I just think reliablity isnt on par, and history proves this time and time again.
 
Its in a print book, at home, so you have to trust me, but a machine rest test of a stack of battle rifles put them all around the same accuracy. The rest is all man-machine interface. The AK is trying with its little notch, but it can get there.

The AR-15 was very specially designed to be both light and cheap to make. It wins a lot of the overseas contracts because of the price (yes, the government also provides no cost loans for them). But saying that machining it means its expensive is wrong. Its one of the cheaper guns to produce now.

So, why's it so expensive? A little bit because they are not the M16/M4, and those differences induce manufacturing inefficies. A bit for marketing, packaging, middlemen and retail markup, and so on.But mostly: because we pay it. Market forces entirely. You and I have decided that $800 is the price we will tolerate for an AR-15.
 
The proper place to work out personal differences is in PMs, not in thread. There are no "he started it first" exceptions to this rule. We have no shortage of AR vs. AK threads archived at THR, so I have no qualms about locking this one if we can't keep it civil and somewhat on topic.
 
ok...here comes my opinion.

based on fact of course, although i think it might be kinda hard to prove. take it or leave it.

israelis...people who have been fighting since the dawn of time. they wanted a battle rifle. their test was to take all the major battle rifles, and store them about 30 feet deep in salt water for 30 days. at the end of that test, the weapons were to be taken out, shaken for excess water removal, loaded and fired. only 2 weapons survived. the AK. obviously. and the Galil. the ONLY reason why they carry M4's today...is cause of their relationship with the US. verified.

my own personal philosophy? i want reliability every time. never gonna happen no matter what gun i put in my hand. BUT i'm better off with the AK. i fired the M4 in iraq, and a small bit in Afghanistan. i had my share of problems, thankfully never when it mattered. but i came to a conclusion...any weapon DESIGNED with a forward assist, has a flawed design to begin with. but that's my opinion. i know how to take care of the rifle, to such a degree that even the "used and abused" M4's could save my ass in combat. but that was my own personal preferrence to maintain the weapon that highly. i watched AK's yawn at the chance to fire while nearly completely covered in sand. most of our M4's would hiccup at the thought. and i think that comes down to the design tolerance. your accuracy comes from how tight your parts fit together. i think. but the tighter the tolerance, the higher capability for problems.

in the end...i think a blend of the two rifles is the best course. the reliability of the AK matched with the modularity of the AR. to that end, i'm building an "AR-47...or an AK-16" its gonna have the rails in places i like to mount things, and its gonna have the innards tweaked to match my demands. after i take the 300 dollar AK, and attach to it all the doodads, and thingy's i want, i'll have basically "squandered my money" on an AK. BUT...the AK i'm going to build will have its legendary reliability from history, blended with the legendary modularity.

i'm running out of time to reply here, i've got to go to work and carry an AR-15. not a bad gun...not the best. one last note...from the dark recesses of MY mind, i consider the AR to be the GLOCK of rifles. which is also saying i consider the AR to be the HONDA of rifles. make the VOLVO more cheaply...and you have an AK.
 
In the late '70's I was a an infantry LT in the U.S. Army. I had to do the occasional "report of survey", where a soldier lost govmint property.

If a soldier lost an M-16 (full auto), how long he spent in jail depended on "how" he lost the weapon.

But the charge against his pay was $125.

So that's the real cost in the late '70's.
 
israelis...people who have been fighting since the dawn of time. they wanted a battle rifle. their test was to take all the major battle rifles, and store them about 30 feet deep in salt water for 30 days. at the end of that test, the weapons were to be taken out, shaken for excess water removal, loaded and fired. only 2 weapons survived. the AK. obviously. and the Galil.
Click to expand...

Boy I'd like to see that statement proven! You've obviously never put anything in salt water for any length of time....

Same BS as the one they "buried" for a month and dug it up and it just worked great....

I've recovered them that had been laying in a rice paddy for no more than 2 days after an engagement and they rusted to hell.... yeah 30 days in salt water.... I'm believing it..... really, I am....

Same with the russian "tests", probably a sales tool.... i got a kick out of that too. We used to disable AKs by pulling the bolt carrier and then stomping the reciever with our boot on either a rock or concrete...

If you don't think it will work, TRY IT! LOL


I carried an M16 for 26yrs, fought one war and two "battles" if you wanna count Grenada and panama... and never used the FA.... don't know anyone that's ever had to use it either...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by c22m22c
your accuracy comes from how tight your parts fit together. i think. but the tighter the tolerance, the higher capability for problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Well, mostly.

There is something about the AR-15 design that makes it as accurate as it is. Could be the gas system, could be the locking system, could be the alignment of the stars and moon (but more likely the former... ;) ). Example: My competition AR-15 has a float-tube and a good-quality barrel. Other than that, there is nothing about it all that different from my dad's old SP-1. My Armalite rattles nicely when shaken, lotsa light visible between the recievers. Yet any group larger than 1.5 MOA (with good ammo) is purely the result of operator error. There is no further tightening of reciever fit, lapping of bolt lugs or any other gobble-dee-guk. None of the traditional pain-staking care required to get "match" accuracy out of many other semi-autos.

Additionally, I've never had a malfunction with this rifle, and it sure isn't from keeping it scrupulously clean. Sure, I haven't had blowing Middle Eastern-style sand storms (and man is that stuff fine over there, I've been to Egypt and seen the Sahara), but rain, freeze, snow and light sand blown up on the range have never bothered. Yet oddly I have seen an SKS, an M-1 Garand, a Ruger M-77, a Mauser 98 and a G3 choke under the friendly conditions of shooting at the range. Go figure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
AR15 vs AK47 vs Mosin Nagant
Replies
2
Views
1K
nalioth
N
B
  • Locked
Why are bakelite ak47 mags so expensive?
Replies
16
Views
8K
HorseSoldier
H
E
  • Locked
First AR15 "build"
Replies
5
Views
793
Everready73
E
S
  • Locked
Why Is The Steyr AUG So Damn Special?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
9K
Zangetsu
Z
T
  • Locked
Ok. AR15 it is... Or maybe AR180B Now, few questions.
Replies
13
Views
892
alphach64
A
Back
Top