Rate the AR15 one to five stars

[1stmarine]

Keep it clean and lubed and it is a very accurate and dependable system.
Like any firearms it has pros and cons but more pros than cons in this case.
The AR would not be here 50+ years later if it wasn't a great firearm design.
The problem with ratings is that are based on opinions.
Opinions do not change facts that is why I give it the 5 starts.

 

[Llama Bob]

I gave 4 stars only because I wasn't quite sure what was meant by the design/ platform. If you mean a basic quality AR-15 then it gets 4 stars. It's ergonomic, reliable, easy to take down, and somewhat accurate. If you meant what an AR can be, like a fully decked out JP-15 then there is no way you can not give it 5 stars. With better triggers, better barrels, adjustable gas block, JP silent captured spring, free float handguards, ambi safeties, larger latch/ambi charging handles, and a myriad of stock choices it is hard to deny a fully decked out AR 5 stars. Since some of these upgrades make slight changes to the design I went with 4 stars but if you meant what an AR has the potential to be then it would get a full 5 stars from me.

This is a good point. The M16 as originally shipped has some issues - lack of an optics mount, non-free float fore end, a bad trigger with too long a lock time, too slow a twist barrel, and poor terminal ballistics for starters. What's really amazing is how comprehensively these issues have been fixed via 3rd party development. The only one that isn't completely resolved is terminal ballistics, and that has been radically improved via ammo development and just heavier loads.

The direct impingement decision was a very very good one. Pistons are a scourge.

 

[jmorris]

Depends on what category we are talking about it might be the most versatile platform in existence. It's the only receiver that I know of that one can buy an upper for from .177 pellet in precharged pneumatic pellet gun form, all the way up to and including a bolt action 50 BMG, with lots of rifle and pistol calibers in between.

 

[Hanzo581]

While I enjoy ARs and think it is a perfectly serviceable platform, I can't give it over 4 stars.

 

[briansmithwins]

The AR would not be here 50+ years later if it wasn't a great firearm design.

Plus that the government has been too cheap to do trials and field a replacement.

BSW

 

[olkowsr]

I gave it a two of five.... But it asked for my opinion.

Don't care for semi auto's too much myself so I'm biased to remove a star from the beginning.

The reason it earns 2 is because it is a relatively easy weapon to manipulate and its good at its intended purpose of being an overall capable of most things style weapon from close quarters tacticool stuff, to hunting small/medium sized game, and even a fun lil range toy.

With that being said above, there isnt a gun out there that can be the best at everything and I feel like some guys will get mad about that statement because "you can build one to do anything", but I personally disagree.

I'd rather have a shotgun or 22mag for everything under 100 yards and a 308/30.06 for everything between 100 and 300, and a magnum (300WM) for anything past that all being bolt guns with a purpose built hunting stock.

- Just my take, please dont hate.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

from a design/mechanical/engineering perspective: 5 stars.

Its like legos.
Put stuff on, take stuff off. customization beyond anything else.
Take a bucket of parts/pieces and put together a workable rifle.
Swap uppers and lowers for desired performance or purpose.

Cleaning and maintenance is the easiest of any semi auto rifle.

 

[1stmarine]

Plus that the government has been too cheap to do trials and field a replacement.

BSW

I don't think it has been a matter of being cheap but that the system has fulfilled the role fairly well to this day.
It has its shortcomings, no doubt, but still the best choice for a compact round and some of the original directives still apply like the amount of firepower / weight ratio that it provides.
After all major armies / military upgraded from light for caliber slow moving cartridges like the 7.62x39 the 5.56 and AR has remained pretty effective.
By design and in execution still superior to the 5.45 and not too far behind the DBP87 that has been a step in the right direction with 6mm.
For everything else we still have the 308 that works amazingly well as prescribed.

 

[1stmarine]

I gave it a two of five.... But it asked for my opinion.
...
I'd rather have a shotgun or 22mag for everything under 100 yards and a 308/30.06 for everything between 100 and 300, and a magnum (300WM) for anything past that all being bolt guns with a purpose built hunting stock.
- Just my take, please dont hate.

okkowsr,
nobody should hate any opinions. Your opinion is as valuable as anybody else.

I think the main issue here is that we cannot do objective ratings based on broad concepts subject to different personal philosophy's of use, views and opinions.
Of course the AR is not a good rifle for everything. It was never intended to be that. However it will do many things fairly decently between 5 yards and 500 yards
for the purpose of defense, tactical and military including punching through type III body armor and very hard barriers depending on ammo and barrel length.
Something a 22mag or shotgun cannot do.

When folks talk about alternative calibers and uppers is great and clear representation of the modularity of the AR but it is a complete different subject IMO.

That is why I think things should be evaluated based on what they are designed to do and not what they are not designed to do.

I don't go and buy a ferrari when I have a family of 6 and they say it is horrible for family trips. This is an exaggeration but it represents
how this type of threads can go if we are not more pragmatic and have a criteria to evaluate something.

I still think all opinions are good and nice to read about everyone views but then the outcome of the survey/rating is meaningless.

 

[olkowsr]

okkowsr,
nobody should hate any opinions. Your opinion is as valuable as anybody else.

I think the main issue here is that we cannot do objective ratings based on broad concepts subject to different personal philosophy's of use, views and opinions.
Of course the AR is not a good rifle for everything. It was never intended to be that. However it will do many things fairly decently between 5 yards and 500 yards
for the purpose of defense, tactical and military including punching through type III body armor and very hard barriers depending on ammo and barrel length.
Something a 22mag or shotgun cannot do.

When folks talk about alternative calibers and uppers is great and clear representation of the modularity of the AR but it is a complete different subject IMO.

That is why I think things should be evaluated based on what they are designed to do and not what they are not designed to do.

I don't go and buy a ferrari when I have a family of 6 and they say it is horrible for family trips. This is an exaggeration but it represents
how this type of threads can go if we are not more pragmatic and have a criteria to evaluate something.

I still think all opinions are good and nice to read about everyone views but then the outcome of the survey/rating is meaningless.

Thank you, I'm glad we can be civil about this

Your analogy is a good one too.

 

[md7]

It's light, reliable, easy to customize, and effective within the ranges it's designed to be used.

I think it's a nice defensive/general purpose carbine.

5 stars in the capacity mentioned above in my humble opinion.

 

[1stmarine]

Lets take the personal opinions, surveys and emotions aside for a second and see how the AR impingement system
fairs when submitted to millions of rounds.

These are some interesting facts presented by professionals that might represent a paradigm shift for some.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/09/08/ar-endurance-findings-at-a-rental-range/

Very rare to see this type of round count unless someone is doing scientific or military testing.
Nothing in real life comes close not even at war with heavy fighting and training.

 

[rskent]

I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t give the AR or the AK 5 stars.

For you guys that think the AR comes up short, why?

What would you have to change to give it that extra star or two to make at a five?

And since it’s an AR you can change whatever you don’t like, so what do you have to change to make it a solid five?

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ I think virtually everyone who rated it explained their opinion-based score.

 

[DeepSouth]

I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t give the AR or the AK 5 stars.

For you guys that think the AR comes up short, why?

What would you have to change to give it that extra star or two to make at a five?

And since it’s an AR you can change whatever you don’t like, so what do you have to change to make it a solid five?

The thing is opinions are subjective, the very things that many people like are things I strongly dislike. As far as What would have to change to get it to a five?
Well almost everything, if it gained several pounds, had no plastic, grew several inches, got more accurate (or just met the current claims), got a smother action, grew bigger bullets, had better ergonomics, developed more recoil and looked better I may like one. But it wouldn't be an AR, it would be a Sharps lol.

I understand it's fine rifle for some people and I do see why some people like it. But when I think about what I like in a rifle the AR meets almost none of those things. In short my view is it's ok for lots of things but excellent at none. No matter what I find myself doing there seems to always be a better option in my safe.

 

[1stmarine]

One thing the AR is excellent at is accuracy in an auto-loading rifle.
Nothing comes close and it is this way by design.
To this, you add the modular versatility and it is very hard to beat.
If you look closely many of the most innovative and latest small arms designs incorporate one or more
features inherited from stoners design. Stoner himself got some of ideas from preceding designs. Everyone does the same as it is part of the evolution process.

Of course some people will appreciate these attributes, and some others won't. I just think we should be pragmatic and
evaluate things for what they are and not what they are not.

 

[1stmarine]

I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t give the AR or the AK 5 stars.

For you guys that think the AR comes up short, why?

What would you have to change to give it that extra star or two to make at a five?

And since it’s an AR you can change whatever you don’t like, so what do you have to change to make it a solid five?

I can understand why someone would not give 5 stars but also if we are pragmatic why we would not give it 5, whatever 5 stars means anyway?

I am sure most folks would have some small enhancement would like to see in their AR like any other firearm whether it ergonomics,
accuracy, weight, whatever... That is why the AR enjoys unprecedented aftermarket.

But should that preference for personal use impact the overall rating as a firearm and design? I don't know anyone who likes the AKs dust cover rattling.

It is like if I buy a car at a great price and I complain it doesn't have nice chrome rims. The factory tires and wheels work great so we
cannot blame the design if the standard package doesn't meet our wishes and desires. If the wheels were square then that would be a different story.

There are some obvious upgrades that are quite inexpensive or almost standard today and from there the sky is the limit.

IMHO when rating something it is best to prepare an objective criteria rating specific features or characteristics individually
and with a philosophy of use or context in mind. Otherwise things will start to go in all sort of directions.

I still like to read about people's opinions why people might like one thing over another and specially after use and experience and with a purpose in mind.

To me the why is more important than the what and it should go beyond personal likes and dislikes.

 

[Ramone]

The AR-15 rifle is the greatest battlefield implement ever devised by man.

- Me ( who actually carried one, unlike Dug Out Doug, who never carried an M1)

 

[Hanzo581]

I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t give the AR or the AK 5 stars.

For you guys that think the AR comes up short, why?

What would you have to change to give it that extra star or two to make at a five?

And since it’s an AR you can change whatever you don’t like, so what do you have to change to make it a solid five?

To me, rating something 5 stars (perfect score) means it is so good it can't be improved upon. I think the problem is everyone has their own definitions of scale systems.

 

[readyeddy]

I voted 5 stars. The gun is reliable, durable, accurate, ergonomic, 5.56 has an effective range beyond my ability to shoot, optics ready, compact, light weight, cost effective, inexpensive ammo and magazines, for me the GI trigger feels ok and overall the gun is easy and comfortable to shoot. I'm a righty and using the left hand to pull back the charging handle comes natural. Safety lever and mag release is a flick of the thumb or quick index finger press. Having back up aperture sights is pretty cool imo (versus blade or buckhorn sights).

 

[z7]

4 stars for "standard"

i have 2 that i give 5 stars to, a daniel defense and a rock river arms. With the right ammo, they are sub moa accurate, 100%reliable over 2k rounds, capable of taking deer and pigs and anything smaller, they are both examples of the only rifle many people would ever need

The platform is legendary, does anyone know how many are in circulation in the US? Tens of millions i can only guess

 

[Bobson]

To me, rating something 5 stars (perfect score) means it is so good it can't be improved upon.

Hit the nail on the head.

Is it a good/great/whatever design? Yeah, sure, it's great. Like I said, I bought one for myself as my SHTF/TEOTWAWKI rifle, over all the competing firearms out there (and not because I found one for $300). But is it perfect, to the point that I'll never see a firearm in my lifetime that improves on it in any dramatic way? I sure hope not.

 

[olkowsr]

Do they make a bolt action ar?

If so then I might give it 3 or 4 stars.

 

[chicharrones]

I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t give the AR or the AK 5 stars.

For you guys that think the AR comes up short, why?

What would you have to change to give it that extra star or two to make at a five?

And since it’s an AR you can change whatever you don’t like, so what do you have to change to make it a solid five?

For me, the charging handle location is not natural to use at all. I dislike how easy it is for the bolt to slam shut if you barely rap the butt of the gun with the magazine out. Also, the chamber locking lugs are a slight PITA for me to clean.

So, 4 stars from me with those three "issues", but it's a great gun otherwise.

 

[coloradokevin]

So after watching the responses in the "Who doesn't have an AR15?" thread. I found it interesting the wide variety of opinion, I was honestly surprised.

So I got to thinking we're all very accustom to a 5 star rating system these days. I mean really, everyone from Amazon to Buds guns uses the 5 star rating system.
So if the AR15 as a basic design/platform was rated on a standard 5 star system where would it fall, so logically I want another poll.

Feel free to leave your reviews as well, that'll at least make for interesting reading.

Wow... this is a tough question to answer. As a pheasant hunting gun, I give it one star. As a canoe paddle I give it one star. As a versatile ranch rifle I give it four stars. As a defensive weapon and for purposes as a front-line infantry weapon, I give it four stars. In terms of overall versatility for the average owner, I give it a solid five stars. As a sniper rifle, I give it one star (depending on configuration, this could go up -- we're talking stock configuration for one star).

I guess my point here is that you really have to look at the purpose of the rifle before you can grade it with a star rating... but, it does what it is supposed to do, and does it well. It's also an incredibly versatile platform, which probably explains its popularity. I remember back in the early 1990's it seemed like few shooters (as a percentage) owned AR-15's. Now it is really tough to find a shooter with more than three guns that doesn't have one!