Which AR-15 to buy?

[tbreihan]

I am in the market for my first AR-15 (first rifle, in fact.) I have it narrowed down to two choices, both of which I've handled at my local gun shop:

Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport ($685)
-Carbine-length gas system
-Flat-top w/ Magpul folding rear sight
-Melonite bore/chamber
-"F" front site base
-Mil-Spec buffer tube (AFAIK)

CMMG Mid-Length ($899)
-Mid-length gas system
-Flat-top w/ Magpul folding rear sight
-Chrome-lined bore/chamber
-Cold hammer-forged 4150 barrel
-"F" front site base
-Mil-Spec buffer tube (AFAIK)
-FA and dust cover

I've handled both and they both seem really nice and like a lot of gun for the money. I also read this http://forums.officer.com/t81462/ comparative review, which is not fully representative of the current M&P15's. For me, the dust cover and FA are not deal breakers, but the CMMG appears to be an immaculately-constructed rifle inside-and-out (the M4 feed ramps, for example.) The S&W is cheaper, feels a little lighter and handier, but is it as good? On the other hand, is the CMMG worth the extra money?

My top-end budget is $1000, and I don't foresee significantly rebuilding this gun in the future. Primary use will be on the range and personal protection, should the need arise (but my primary HD guns are pistols and shotguns.)

I know there are other brands out there, but I am pretty much set on one of these, so opinions relevant to these brands are appreciated. I want to buy a gun that I have the chance to handle in person first.

Thanks in advance for the replies!

 

[Ramone]

Also (IMO) a strong 'PRO' for the M&P is the Melonite coating. Everything seems to suggest it's a better idea than chrome (granted, the jury is still out, and won't be back till about 2030).

Also, I *really* like 5R rifleing

And I am pretty sure the M&P I fired (belonging to a friend) did have M4 style feed ramps.

and while I do prefer a mid-length system, 214 bucks buy a lot of M855 to break it in with.

 

[tbreihan]

I generally agree with your points... from an accuracy standpoint, the 5R rifling and melonite seems to have an edge.

 

[3twelves]

M&P sport, FA and dust cover are overrated.

 

[horsemen61]

Id get the sport and you can spend the extra money buying ammo.

 

[Ro1911]

I would buy a stripped lower and build an AR, you can build a very nice AR for around $600-$700 and it will be much better at least looks and correctness wise then the smith sport and I would not pay $900 for a cmmg but maybe that's just me, you can get a DSA upper for $240 and every thing else is even cheaper, lower $99, BCG $140, stock kit $30, LPK $70, charging handle $20, rear sight $60, magazine $15, and everything else is optional! That's $674 plus tax

 

[adelbridge]

if you ever want to sell it or trade it in a Smith is going to hold its value.

 

[tomrkba]

Buy a gun from either Bravo Company or Colt.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but they're better guns. They're worth the wait for the extra $200-400 or so.

 

[megaton]

Just curious, is there anything specific that makes a Colt superior to other builds?.. or is it simply the name and prestige? I am looking for something tangible and specific not vague and subjective opinions such as "it is better quality". Why is it better quality and worth the extra $$$?

 

[sleepyone]

Save your money and buy some ammo. I have owned several M&P 15s over the years and they have ALL been excellent ARs. The Sport is no exception. Typical S&W quality and warranty.

 

[Quentin]

With a budget of $1000 I'd expand your field. As tomrkba pointed out, BCM and Colt should be considered. If you want to keep it around $800 then PSA is your rifle.

That article at officer.com is almost 5 years old so I'd scrutinize CMMG more. No way I'd pay $900 for one, there are too many better choices at that price point. I bet the author today would choose PSA over CMMG in a heartbeat.

 

[MachIVshooter]

With a budget of $1000 I'd expand your field

+1

Even if tax has to be included in that $1,000, it opens your options up to offerings from Armalite or Rock River (both lifetime warranty, quality guns), and a host of other quality manufacturers. Not that there's anything wrong with S&W, but if you can afford to take a step up from the Sport, I think you'll be happier in the long run.

Between the two options, I'd go CMMG middy. Mid length is just the better way to go if your barrel is going to be over 14.5".

That said, my only experience with CMMG stuff is a low profile gas block, and I have never actually fired an M&P sport (though my sister has the M&P-15T carbine, nice rifle).

The brands I can speak from ownership on are:

Armalite
BCM
Daniel Defense (Parts)
Noveske (Parts)
Bull Dog (Barrels)
DSA
WMD (Upper receiver)
RGuns


Those I have not owned but have played with enough to judge:

Colt
RRA
Del Ton
LMT
DPMS
Bushmaster

 

[henschman]

You think the Smith is lighter and handier?! I have handled a few Sports, and find them to be front-heavy with that heavy profile barrel. The CMMG should have a "gov't profile" barrel that is nice and light.

The CMMG is more along the lines of what I would want. The mid length gas system is a big improvement as well.

 

[tomrkba]

megaton,

Take a look at the technical details posted around the net. There are specific things that need to be done to an AR-15 to make it correct. Start with "The Chart" because it lists many important details and can serve as a checklist for inspection. It is not all inclusive, so you will need to research models not listed.

That said, if all you can afford is a lower end gun, then get one. Build it up over time as parts break or as money comes in. It is better to have a decent rifle than none at all.

Also, I had terrible luck with several Bushmaster rifles between 1999-2005. Never again.

 

[gotigers]

Both are great values for their prices. I love S&W, but i would prefer a midlength. I already have a carbine.

 

[Babarsac]

With your budget I'd get the S&W and use the leftover funds on ammo.

 

[mrdemal]

Mid-length is easier on the innards.

 

[meanmrmustard]

With your budget I'd get the S&W and use the leftover funds on ammo.

The voice of reason. If not ammo, an optic or other useful accessories.

While $1000 gets you a fancier rifle, that's all you get. So, truthfully, if your budget is $1000, which I've not found any Colt or BCM for that price to my door, then you've essentially forced yourself to begin saving even more for the basics.

For that same price, you get the Sport (damned fine carbine in my experience), an optic, AND ammo to begin practicing with. I've taken the Sport seriously as a do-all carbine, many others have, and it doesn't hurt that it leaves some dough in your pocket.

 

[megaton]

I am familiar with "the chart" and my $600 del ton seems to fit the bill. M4 feed ramp, perfectly staked gas key, chrome lined barrel, ect. Have never had a malfunction of any kind and it shoots sub moa at 100 yards too.

But according to conventional wisdom my rifle is inferior to the big name brands. Though I cannot figure out how it is inferior???

Dont get me wrong if at the time I was piecing together my rifle I had the cash I would own a Colt but I would have understood that I was (largely) paying for the name and the prestige that comes with that name as opposed to some tangible difference.

 

[Henry45]

I have a M&P Sport 16" , along with two Armalites (20"). The M&P is a nice shooting rifle, maybe not with the bells and whistles my others have, but would not hesitate to buy another one again.

 

[Ro1911]

Just curious, is there anything specific that makes a Colt superior to other builds?.. or is it simply the name and prestige? I am looking for something tangible and specific not vague and subjective opinions such as "it is better quality". Why is it better quality and worth the extra $$$?

Yes there is a difference and yes the difference is quality, its build quality and quality controls. When you have a higher build quality you get a few things like proper headspace on bolts, staking on gas keys, barrels properly installed and chrome lined, bolts MPI and HPT tested and better steels and grades of aluminum used throughout the build. Better quality controls insures that things like canted sights, unrifled barrels, weak bolts, loose barrel nuts, and malformed parts don't get into end users hands.

all that being said I would say smith, colt, bcm, daniel defense, sig, H&K, and FN are all way above the nessary QC and quality levels that you will probably need. As a civilian shooter a "franken gun" will probably serve you just fine. As would the smith sport it is a great gun, but for the money you could build a very nice "franken gun" IMO.

 

[MachIVshooter]

There are specific things that need to be done to an AR-15 to make it correct. Start with "The Chart" because it lists many important details and can serve as a checklist for inspection.

Once you understand the AR, you realize that, while certain things on "the chart" are important, many aren't. In point of fact, some of the things found on commercial guns are not mil-spec, yet are better. You think a mil spec chrome lined barrel will shoot as well as BCM's machine gun rated, match grade 416 stainless barrels? Do you believe the addition of Nickel boron to bolt carriers and uppers is not as good as straight anodizing just because it isn't a military specification?

As well, the guy who plinks on the weekends to the tune of a couple thousand rounds per year simply doesn't need the toughest AR on the market. If he wants and can afford it, great. If not, he'll do fine with something like the M&P sport, or an economy Del Ton or DSA unit.

In short, please try to contribute useful information instead of just referencing the danged chart.

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

I'd say save up another 500 bucks over the course of the next few months allow all the current t price gouging and back order logs to go down and get something of a better quality like a Noveske or LWRC. But I'd go with the M&P over the CMMG any day of the week.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yes there is a difference and yes the difference is quality, its build quality and quality controls. When you have a higher build quality you get a few things like proper headspace on bolts, staking on gas keys, barrels properly installed and chrome lined, bolts MPI and HPT tested and better steels and grades of aluminum used throughout the build. Better quality controls insures that things like canted sights, unrifled barrels, weak bolts, loose barrel nuts, and malformed parts don't get into end users hands.

all that being said I would say smith, colt, bcm, daniel defense, sig, H&K, and FN are all way above the nessary QC and quality levels that you will probably need. As a civilian shooter a "franken gun" will probably serve you just fine. As would the smith sport it is a great gun, but for the money you could build a very nice "franken gun" IMO.

Some of this is half truth. Everyone has the possibility of getting a lemon, even from a reputable manufacturer.

Colt, to this day, has sold me the only lemon flavored AR I've purchased.

 

[tbreihan]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies! I have looked at a handful of others not originally considered since I first posted, including Bushmaster, Windham, CORE-15, DPMS, and Colt. The Colt seems like a nice, albeit basic (in terms of bells and whistles, not quality) rifle, but it is out of my price range. The others did not impress me over either the Sport or the CMMG.

At this point, I am leaning heavily toward the Sport. I've heard some very good things about them (haven't heard anything bad, really) and after having looked over the innards, they seem to well-built every place it counts. I think I can live w/o the forward assist and the dustcover. I don't like the forward assist and actually prefer it without. Dustcover would be nice, but nothing convinces me it is necessary.

I am going to look at both again tomorrow. Thanks again for the replies!