"TOP Tier" AR15

[holdencm9]

I get your point. However that was not his/hers...

Not exactly, but Welding Rod, Warp and Quentin expanded/clarified.

Knowledge/experience is not directly based on your wallet/credit limit as you so succinctly put it. But think about it. Maybe you are a former GI, a pro with the AR platform, you will want to buy a Colt because that's what you used in the service. Or if you are running a DD or BCM, maybe it is your 2nd or 3rd AR. A lot of people buy "starter" AR's and upgrade.

Then as the others said, if you refuse to drop big money on an AR, you will probably buy cheaper mags, and not practice as much with it because let's face it, ammo is pricey. But you can save money on ammo by buying crappy ammo. It's also expensive and time-consuming to clean it all the time and all that nonsense.

I am not saying that really experienced people have never taken a cheaper AR to a class and done everything they should have done and STILL had issues. I am just saying, chances are if someone is running a DPMS or BM or <insert your least favorite low-mid-tier brand here> at a class, it is most likely (a) their first AR, (b) their only AR, and (c) probably not an expert at the ins and outs of the platform.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Not exactly, but Welding Rod, Warp and Quentin expanded/clarified.

Knowledge/experience is not directly based on your wallet/credit limit as you so succinctly put it. But think about it. Maybe you are a former GI, a pro with the AR platform, you will want to buy a Colt because that's what you used in the service. Or if you are running a DD or BCM, maybe it is your 2nd or 3rd AR. A lot of people buy "starter" AR's and upgrade.

Then as the others said, if you refuse to drop big money on an AR, you will probably buy cheaper mags, and not practice as much with it because let's face it, ammo is pricey. But you can save money on ammo by buying crappy ammo. It's also expensive and time-consuming to clean it all the time and all that nonsense.

I am not saying that really experienced people have never taken a cheaper AR to a class and done everything they should have done and STILL had issues. I am just saying, chances are if someone is running a DPMS or BM or <insert your least favorite low-mid-tier brand here> at a class, it is most likely (a) their first AR, (b) their only AR, and (c) probably not an expert at the ins and outs of the platform.

Based on what? Exactly where are there stats on the mags people buy vs what brand AR they own? You guys are spitballing.

Edit to add: ARs are simplistic, that's the beauty of them while not as mechanically Spartan as other semi autos, I could teach a monkey how to field strip, maintain, and shoot an AR. Unless one hasn't ever shot nor owned one, I wouldn't be quick to turn your pinkies up at a "novice" when there isn't much there to learn.

 

[tarosean]

Not exactly, but Welding Rod, Warp and Quentin expanded/clarified.
Knowledge/experience is not directly based on your wallet/credit limit as you so succinctly put it. But think about it. Maybe you are a former GI, a pro with the AR platform, you will want to buy a Colt because that's what you used in the service. Or if you are running a DD or BCM, maybe it is your 2nd or 3rd AR. A lot of people buy "starter" AR's and upgrade.

I see the points they made.. Maybe I just read too much into your post.. (wouldnt be the first time Ive done that)
For the record, Ive only owned two AR's a Bushmaster in the late 80's that I sold to fund my honeymoon with my X (yeah Im a **** in retrospect) and I currently have a LaRue in 556. I bought the LaRue because the cheap stuff looked like it came out of cracker jack boxes.

So I would probably be considered a novice on the platform. However, I dont buy the knockoffs or lower tier in other Rifles or Handguns either. Course I drive a beat to hell 98 dually but refuse to own weapons that look cheap.. Priorities! LOL

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Your standard Colt 6920 is about $950-1050 if honestly priced. $1200 includes an extra $200 in dealer markup for fun if that's what your buddy paid. The people who seem most upset and hostile to the most expensive AR offerings are people who can't, or don't want to buy one. Considering how popular the platform is now, everyone and their grandma make rifles and rifle parts. They aren't all the same quality or keep the same tolerances and processes.

As others have mentioned, being in the military doesn't make you an expert on weapons. Not everyone who enlists is a "gun guy". If you want to talk to someone that HAS seen a large statistical sampling of a wide range of firearm makes and models under harsh conditions, talk to firearm trainers and ask them what types of rifle makes and brands go down under fire-intensive carbine courses.

 

[holdencm9]

Based on what? Exactly where are there stats on the mags people buy vs what brand AR they own? You guys are spitballing.

Speculatin' or spitballin' or whatever you want to call it. That's all any of this really is. Exactly where are the stats on failure rates of various brands? Even talking to trainers about which brands go down during courses only goes so far. They are limited by what they can readily see and observe, what they know (did that Stag have the plus package that makes everything mil-spec or was it the base package? etc) and are susceptible to their own biases. And unless they know the number of each brand and which ones malfunction then they won't know the rates

 

[meanmrmustard]

Speculatin' or spitballin' or whatever you want to call it. That's all any of this really is. Exactly where are the stats on failure rates of various brands? Even talking to trainers about which brands go down during courses only goes so far. They are limited by what they can readily see and observe, what they know (did that Stag have the plus package that makes everything mil-spec or was it the base package? etc) and are susceptible to their own biases. And unless they know the number of each brand and which ones malfunction then they won't know the rates

Exactly. So the statement holds no water.

I know there are crappy mags, but unless we get a focus group here to list mags with which they've experienced failures. It'd still be flawed, but it's a start, getting an idea of which rifles fail with what mags. Sounds exhausting, but it's the only way I can see to get rid of the dreaded "x" variable, which is folks OPINIONS.

 

[holdencm9]

Exactly. So the statement holds no water.

I know there are crappy mags, but unless we get a focus group here to list mags with which they've experienced failures. It'd still be flawed, but it's a start, getting an idea of which rifles fail with what mags. Sounds exhausting, but it's the only way I can see to get rid of the dreaded "x" variable, which is folks OPINIONS.

You're right. I would love love love LOVE to get a research grant to take 100 "equivalent" AR's from each brand and run them each through the exact same rigorous 10,000 round course with the same cleaning and maintenance routines, same ammo, mags, everything. Sadly NSF doesn't do those kinds of things

 

[meanmrmustard]

You're right. I would love love love LOVE to get a research grant to take 100 "equivalent" AR's from each brand and run them each through the exact same rigorous 10,000 round course with the same cleaning and maintenance routines, same ammo, mags, everything. Sadly NSF doesn't do those kinds of things

Then we are right back where we started. Hearsay.

 

[minutemen1776]

To my understanding, amongst manufacturers who otherwise meet mil-spec, the top-tier producers are those who use higher quality parts and materials, and who also have more rigid inspection processes to ensure the overall quality of the end product. The end result should be a more consistently quality product.

I doubt anyone here can speak to the relative quality of all brands across the spectrum of ARs, but I have experienced the top and bottom, and I refuse to return to the bottom. I began with an Olympic Arms rifle that performed reasonably well, but it often malfunctioned and required constant tweaking to keep it running. I sold it and built a rifle with an LMT lower, BCM upper, and a DD BCG, which is all top-tier stuff. For the few hundred dollars in price difference, I can now use my range time to shoot rather than to clear malfunctions and wonder what's wrong with my carbine on that particular day. I still regularly enjoy my new rifle, but I've long forgotten the extra cash I paid for it. Maybe I overbought, but I don't care since the result has been precisely what I wanted all along.

 

[mshootnit]

man if I had the money I would get a Noveske sure or another high end unit. but what is important to me is to get an upper with a good chrome lined barrel, put known quality BCG in it. I know that's simple but I look for good m4 feedramps, f marked front sight post, 7075, and quality parts.

Granted I don't use one for a living.

 

[Warp]

Based on what? Exactly where are there stats on the mags people buy vs what brand AR they own? You guys are spitballing.

Most things in life don't have "statistics" to back them up. And most statics aren't all that great anyway. What's that old "lies, damn lies, and statistics" saying?

This is based on good sense, logic, and years of observing and talking to real people in person, as well as online.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Most things in life don't have "statistics" to back them up. And most statics aren't all that great anyway. What's that old "lies, damn lies, and statistics" saying?

This is based on good sense, logic, and years of observing and talking to real people in person, as well as online.

Then that's saying stats are about as useless as what you hear on the webz. I don't advocate crap, but I do humor a good web poll on occasion. I do, however, buy based on real world experiences of others and my own. Inexpensive rifles and cheap mags causing failures isn't one I'm privvy to. I've heard of cheap mags failing in expensive rifles, in turn causing a stoppage, and the same with (very rare occasion) proprietary mags, as in the case of Bushmaster, and my own Savage 340 mag (it is crap). But, I personally cant say that I've experienced where owning a less expensive rifle is synonymous with owning cheap mags ergo causing failures. I'm at the range...alot. People are more and more buying the hell outta ARs, and it isn't strange to see every flavor of the platform out at the local range. I'm not saying youse guys' theory is unfounded, as it is generalized. That's where I don't agree.

I used nothing but Magpuls with the Sports. Don't consider them "cheap" in that they aren't shoddy. Never a failure from a $16 mag. Cheap mags can suck, doesn't speak for the rifle.

 

[Warp]

Then that's saying stats are about as useless as what you hear on the webz.

No, it isn't. It's saying that a lot of stats are not useful. Hopefully you can look at the stats and get a good idea how useful they are, or are not, with a little critical thinking and investigation.

 

[meanmrmustard]

No, it isn't. It's saying that a lot of stats are not useful. Hopefully you can look at the stats and get a good idea how useful they are, or are not, with a little critical thinking and investigation.

Hopefully indeed. But, there aren't really any studies of this "phenomena" around.

 

[Warp]

Hopefully indeed. But, there aren't really any studies of this "phenomena" around.

Of course not. Most things don't have studies. Studies only exist when somebody thinks it's worth spending the money to do the study so they can then make money off of it, or use it to further their own interests.

Nobody ever said it was a proven thing, now did they? It's a theory. It's a possibility. It is something presented as a potential for consideration. That's all.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Of course not. Most things don't have studies. Studies only exist when somebody thinks it's worth spending the money to do the study so they can then make money off of it, or use it to further their own interests.

Nobody ever said it was a proven thing, now did they? It's a theory. It's a possibility. It is something presented as a potential for consideration. That's all.

Wish someone would. But, wishful expensive thinking.

Yes, it is just a theory. Which is a shame.

 

[Warp]

Wish someone would. But, wishful expensive thinking.

Yes, it is just a theory. Which is a shame.

Another theory is that we seem to see more malfunctions and KBs in non-top tier rifles because their quality and consistency are kinda crappy by comparison. Perhaps you prefer that theory.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Another theory is that we seem to see more malfunctions and KBs in non-top tier rifles because their quality and consistency are kinda crappy by comparison. Perhaps you prefer that theory.

That's what I love about theories: they lack any factual basis until proven.
One theory I do favor: Top tier rifles having inconsistent quality, and hearing the "lemon" excuse.

Contemplative, abstract thinking.

 

[Warp]

That's what I love about theories: they lack any factual basis until proven.

Incorrect.

Just because a theory isn't "proven" that doesn't mean it lacks any factual basis. It just means it isn't proven.

 

[holdencm9]

I think we can all agree that you are less likely to get a lemon if you buy a Colt, BCM, DD, Noveske, etc. How much disparity, no one knows. But for some, it makes perfect sense to spend more to reduce the risk of getting one of these lemons.

The next logical question to ask is, assuming you do not have a lemon on your hands, what is the benefit of a Colt et al versus S&W et al? Some may argue the Colt & Co "feel better" or "more solid" or what-have-you. Some may say that with x-thousand round count subjected to xyz abuse, the Colt is less likely to suffer a malfunction. Neither reason may ever matter to the person buying the rifle, so if they choose to go with the mid-tier rifle, more power to them. Some people it definitely matters, and they should absolutely buy the high-end gun. Some people, it will never matter, but they still like having the high end model, with the peace of mind that their piece of hardware could handle 50-thousand rounds and tons of abuse, maybe, even if they never plan to subject it to that abuse and round count.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Incorrect.

Just because a theory isn't "proven" that doesn't mean it lacks any factual basis. It just means it isn't proven.

That makes no sense. Next you'll tell me Sasquatch and Nessie are an item.

Only lemon I've owned, AR anyway, was a Colt. Not so much a lemon, but a less than expected manufacturing error slipping through the cracks of an otherwise sterling, reputed company. Crappy CS to boot, so call me the anomaly in an otherwise status quo. Can't speak for the other coveted rifles, those I've shot weren't stripped and inspected by myself.
The Colt didn't meet it's own standards. Smith met every expectation, exceeded some. That's not theory, it's personal, proven fact. Not a fanboy hypothesis based on pocket change spent and soldier of fortune thinking.

Lastly, as I said, if I had the funds at any given time, I'd buy LaRue. I'll never buy from Colt again.

All you, Warp.

 

[Warp]

That makes no sense. Next you'll tell me Sasquatch and Nessie are an item.

Only lemon I've owned, AR anyway, was a Colt. Not so much a lemon, but a less than expected manufacturing error slipping through the cracks of an otherwise sterling, reputed company. Crappy CS to boot, so call me the anomaly in an otherwise status quo. Can't speak for the other coveted rifles, those I've shot weren't stripped and inspected by myself.
The Colt didn't meet it's own standards. Smith met every expectation, exceeded some. That's not theory, it's personal, proven fact. Not a fanboy hypothesis based on pocket change spent and soldier of fortune thinking.

Lastly, as I said, if I had the funds at any given time, I'd buy LaRue. I'll never buy from Colt again.

All you, Warp.

Yes, we know. You had a bad experience with Colt and a good one with S&W, therefore anybody who says Colt makes higher quality and more consistent guns than S&W is a fanboy. We get it.


BTW: Plenty of things that have some kind of factual basis aren't proven. Sometimes things (theories, if you will) have a factual basis without being proven.

 

[ndh87]

LWRC. nuff said

 

[Auto426]

Yes, we know. You had a bad experience with Colt and a good one with S&W, therefore anybody who says Colt makes higher quality and more consistent guns than S&W is a fanboy. We get it.

We've certainly heard it plenty of times.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yes, we know. You had a bad experience with Colt and a good one with S&W, therefore anybody who says Colt makes higher quality and more consistent guns than S&W is a fanboy. We get it.


BTW: Plenty of things that have some kind of factual basis aren't proven. Sometimes things (theories, if you will) have a factual basis without being proven.

Never said any one who liked colt was a fan boy. No where did I state specifically a brand that generated a fan boy response. You'd do well to read, and attack the argument not the arguer.

What is factual, that doesn't exist? I'm confused, I guess maybe I am as dumb as I look.

If we are debating semantics, you can have this one. Otherwise, I doubt that something factual (as in true to its form in existence in general knowledge) can be just that without having been proven to be all but false or nonexistent.