Did you have your rifle camo-dipped?With the Smith M&P, you have a great "basic frame" from which you can have of fun modifying it to your whims...
Looking into getting an AR kit.
- Thread starter bigrico92
- Start date
- Status
fatcat4620
Member
Look up JSE surplus and Palmetto State Armory for build kits in your price range. I would recomend a mid length kit if you are looking for a carbine since they are much more reliable.
Quotes like this always make me chuckle. Someone forgot to tell my carbine it was supposed to be unreliable - it's been 100% from day one.
Serously, an midlengh may be ever so slightly softer shooting with a 16" barrel, but not enough to really make such grand claims about reliability, especially if using a properly-sized and well-made buffer (I use a Spikes ST-T2).
You make some good points, however you are mistaken on this one. The primary motivation for Armalite to develop the mid-length gas system was so that the FSB would be at the correct distance from the muzzle to mount an AR bayonet on a 16 inch barrel. It is true that this lowered the gas pressure at the point the barrel is tapped.
The 14.5 inch barrel is not the shortest length barrel a bayonet can be mounted to. As long as the bayonet lug can be set far enough from the muzzle the bayonet will mount. When they came up the M4, the developers kept cutting back a barrel until they found the shortest length they could possibly have with reliable functioning and mount a bayonet. That turned out to be 14 inches. They added a half inch just to be sure.
An AR carbine is only over gassed if it results in carrier velocities that cause failures in operation. The extra power is used to assure extraction in the most extreme conditions. (If this results in rims being torn off, that is a failure and yes, that's overgassed). There is a fairly wide margin between just enough gas to function and over gassed. When a shooter tunes an AR for "softer" recoil, the shooter is sacrificing some reliability
Gas length determines timing, and timing on the AR rifle is 5-7 inches from the muzzle. What happened with carbine gas on 16" barrels is the BATF requires an SBR tax stamp to purchase the 14.5" barrel that is military issue.
Makers side stepped it and assembled the parts on 16" barrels. The timing is too soon at a much higher pressure and that's why they are overgassed. There is no military issue midlength gas barrel - bayonets have nothing to do with it, it's about competent shooters demanding the gas timing being correct, not just accomodating the sales department. It's not just Armalite - they bought the name, it's not the same company - most of the AR makers use midlength gas, even with low profile gas blocks under full length rifle free floats, where bayonets won't be used.
Is it the full-auto BCG that's not the best quality? Being full auto has nothing to do with material selection, precision machining, or adhering to the appropriate types of surface treatment.
What uppper or lower receiver is of better quality than one made from a 7075 forging? Again, the type of material doesn't necessarily determine quality, the original M16's were 6061T6. Most new variants are using polymer lowers and extruded uppers, including the FN SCAR and Remington ACR. It's not necessary to forge 7075 and make that the receiver. It's a low stress part, anyway, the barrel extension is the stressed part.
How are military barrels lacking in quality? The choice of steel is determined by it's resistance to full auto fire, not accuracy, and the cheapest steel possible is specified- not the best performing steel.
Is the choice of steel? answered.
The machining? Issue rifles use the buttoning method, which basically is a carbide die pulled through a drilled bore. It's not the recommended best method for cut rifling, nor is it the least expensive on a per unit basis. The buttons deteriorate after a number of uses - but that doesn't mean the barrels are unacceptable, as the requirement is 2MOA.
Are they made out of tolerance? Yes, some have been, there's an administrative system to prevent it - but the Army did force Colt out of the bidding process due to major quality problems, and gave contracts to FN.
The chrome lining? Chrome requires the barrel to be buttoned oversized, then plated back - all to improve resistance to full auto fire eroding the throat, and to protect the bore from corrosion. Plating the bore to dimension is much harder to control, and the barrels that don't pass airgauging may not get shipped, but still contribute to the cost of manufacture. Hammerforging is much more reliable with less defects.
What choice of receiver extension is of better quality than one forged from 7075? Specifying an alloy has nothing to do with production accuracy or final acceptance. For an interesting discussion on whether it even means anything: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_27/207725_AR10_Receiver_Extension.html
Are the small parts, springs, fire control groups, pins, or controls sold to the military not the best quality? The parts are cast for the least possible cost, not necessarily for the best overall longevity, or finish. It's a combat weapon with a 20 year life, and then refitted, placed in another army as Lend/Lease, or destroyed. They're commodity tools, not heirloom keepsakes.
If not, what are? That invites an incisive answer pointing out the merits of stainless steel target barrels, hammerforged nitrided barrels, 9510 alloy superbolts, any of a half dozen specialty drop in triggers, Tubbs springs, Wolff springs, and need I mention Magpul magazines, which outclass issue mags so much they are what the Marines issue exclusively in Afghanistan.
Milspec means standardized contract language that was negotiated with the makers, not leading edge methods of gunmaking. Please note, the majority of European rifle makers use hammerforging and have since the 1970's, and most American handgun and sporting arms makers do, too. If anything, the AR15 is about the last large scale production barrel that's button rifled. Once the spec changes, that will go away too, leaving just a few specialty barrel makers doing small production lots for custom guns.
FN offers hammerforged barrels on all the rest of it's production. And those rifles are classed as 1MOA guns. Which is higher quality, a barrel that shoots a 5 inch group at 500 yards, or one that shoots a 10 inch group? Milspec is ten inches at 500yards, with issue ammo. Is milspec ammo the most accurate and highest quality? No, and neither are issue M4's or M16's.
Entirely the reason for the National Match parts used in that competition. They provide much more accuracy and enhance reliability.
Makers side stepped it and assembled the parts on 16" barrels. The timing is too soon at a much higher pressure and that's why they are overgassed. There is no military issue midlength gas barrel - bayonets have nothing to do with it, it's about competent shooters demanding the gas timing being correct, not just accomodating the sales department. It's not just Armalite - they bought the name, it's not the same company - most of the AR makers use midlength gas, even with low profile gas blocks under full length rifle free floats, where bayonets won't be used.
Is it the full-auto BCG that's not the best quality? Being full auto has nothing to do with material selection, precision machining, or adhering to the appropriate types of surface treatment.
What uppper or lower receiver is of better quality than one made from a 7075 forging? Again, the type of material doesn't necessarily determine quality, the original M16's were 6061T6. Most new variants are using polymer lowers and extruded uppers, including the FN SCAR and Remington ACR. It's not necessary to forge 7075 and make that the receiver. It's a low stress part, anyway, the barrel extension is the stressed part.
How are military barrels lacking in quality? The choice of steel is determined by it's resistance to full auto fire, not accuracy, and the cheapest steel possible is specified- not the best performing steel.
Is the choice of steel? answered.
The machining? Issue rifles use the buttoning method, which basically is a carbide die pulled through a drilled bore. It's not the recommended best method for cut rifling, nor is it the least expensive on a per unit basis. The buttons deteriorate after a number of uses - but that doesn't mean the barrels are unacceptable, as the requirement is 2MOA.
Are they made out of tolerance? Yes, some have been, there's an administrative system to prevent it - but the Army did force Colt out of the bidding process due to major quality problems, and gave contracts to FN.
The chrome lining? Chrome requires the barrel to be buttoned oversized, then plated back - all to improve resistance to full auto fire eroding the throat, and to protect the bore from corrosion. Plating the bore to dimension is much harder to control, and the barrels that don't pass airgauging may not get shipped, but still contribute to the cost of manufacture. Hammerforging is much more reliable with less defects.
What choice of receiver extension is of better quality than one forged from 7075? Specifying an alloy has nothing to do with production accuracy or final acceptance. For an interesting discussion on whether it even means anything: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_27/207725_AR10_Receiver_Extension.html
Are the small parts, springs, fire control groups, pins, or controls sold to the military not the best quality? The parts are cast for the least possible cost, not necessarily for the best overall longevity, or finish. It's a combat weapon with a 20 year life, and then refitted, placed in another army as Lend/Lease, or destroyed. They're commodity tools, not heirloom keepsakes.
If not, what are? That invites an incisive answer pointing out the merits of stainless steel target barrels, hammerforged nitrided barrels, 9510 alloy superbolts, any of a half dozen specialty drop in triggers, Tubbs springs, Wolff springs, and need I mention Magpul magazines, which outclass issue mags so much they are what the Marines issue exclusively in Afghanistan.
Milspec means standardized contract language that was negotiated with the makers, not leading edge methods of gunmaking. Please note, the majority of European rifle makers use hammerforging and have since the 1970's, and most American handgun and sporting arms makers do, too. If anything, the AR15 is about the last large scale production barrel that's button rifled. Once the spec changes, that will go away too, leaving just a few specialty barrel makers doing small production lots for custom guns.
FN offers hammerforged barrels on all the rest of it's production. And those rifles are classed as 1MOA guns. Which is higher quality, a barrel that shoots a 5 inch group at 500 yards, or one that shoots a 10 inch group? Milspec is ten inches at 500yards, with issue ammo. Is milspec ammo the most accurate and highest quality? No, and neither are issue M4's or M16's.
Entirely the reason for the National Match parts used in that competition. They provide much more accuracy and enhance reliability.
Last edited:
Zerodefect
member
Thanks Tirod. Good stuff.
I like Chrome lined barrels on my carbines, and higher quality SS on my larger SPR's, AR10's, bolt actions etc. I swear that unlined carbon steel barrels don't extract as well. I can't explain it, just a pattern I've noticed. One possible explaination is that unlined steel barrels are usually cheap budget barrels. But in todays age of quality machining, most barrels are pretty good.
As ofr gas ports, in my experience, If the gas port on the carbine 14.5-16" is sized correctly it should work fine. Middy would be optimal with 16", I'm starting to prefer carbine gas with 14.5" systems. Better reliability with weak ammo.
A longer dwell time (length from port to barrel tip) with lower pressure (smaller gas port hole) can be optimal. Lower pressures but longer dwell times offer more power but gentler operation in many quick pneumatic operations.
But the timing is still a bit off. Nothing can be done about that. Then again......is it even a problem to begin with? I don't really think it is.
Bottom line, it works or it deosn't. If you have a perfect Colt6920ish ejection pattern, don't fix what ain't broken.
I like Chrome lined barrels on my carbines, and higher quality SS on my larger SPR's, AR10's, bolt actions etc. I swear that unlined carbon steel barrels don't extract as well. I can't explain it, just a pattern I've noticed. One possible explaination is that unlined steel barrels are usually cheap budget barrels. But in todays age of quality machining, most barrels are pretty good.
As ofr gas ports, in my experience, If the gas port on the carbine 14.5-16" is sized correctly it should work fine. Middy would be optimal with 16", I'm starting to prefer carbine gas with 14.5" systems. Better reliability with weak ammo.
A longer dwell time (length from port to barrel tip) with lower pressure (smaller gas port hole) can be optimal. Lower pressures but longer dwell times offer more power but gentler operation in many quick pneumatic operations.
But the timing is still a bit off. Nothing can be done about that. Then again......is it even a problem to begin with? I don't really think it is.
Bottom line, it works or it deosn't. If you have a perfect Colt6920ish ejection pattern, don't fix what ain't broken.
Last edited:
fatcat4620
Member
Fishbed77 and Mistwolf please read this. http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-199626.html before you spread any more miss information.
Tirod, well written, but misses the point of my question. I asked specifically about the quality of parts and of the whole M4 our military is using. QUALITY. Not fine accuracy, not if it's the best configuration for every need, but quality as specified by the specs it's built to.
However, to touch on a few points- Milspec specifies 4150 CMV steel. It's not the cheapest steel out there and as a matter of fact, makes pretty good barrel and an accurate one too. So does 4140 which does cost less. Stainless steel barrels are not any more accurate than barrels made of steel, they are just more consistent until they erode enough they suffer a sudden loss of accuracy. Carbon steel barrels lose accuracy gradually as the throat erodes. But the question remains- Does making a M4 barrel of 4150 CMV make it a lower quality barrel than one made of 4140? Or 416 stainless?
6061 is not a good choice for a forged part as the process tends to damage the granular structure of the alloy and it becomes susceptible to intergranular exfoliation. Properly designed forged parts are stronger pound for pound than billet. Be that as it may, the question remains- Does specifying a 7075 forged receiver compromise the quality of the military M4? Is there an M4 receiver made to a higher quality specification?
Does chrome lining the bore hurt the quality of the rifle? Does the milspec require a poor quality process to apply the chrome? I do not speak whether or not chrome lining affects accuracy as that is a separate issue.
Button rifling may not produce the most accurate barrel, but the barrels are functional and will shoot accurately enough for the mission. Fine accuracy is not the question, it's quality.
The whole point is to challenge the idea that the specifications of our military issue M4 results in a rifle lacking in quality, not to assert that all ARs need to be built to those specs. MISSION DRIVES THE GEAR. If the mission requires fine accuracy, then a barrel capable of delivering that accuracy is required. If ultimate compactness is required, then a barrel of a shorter length than the 14.5" M4 spec barrel should be used.
Some specifications are more critical to fit & function than others and people would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the details. Changing spring rates, gas port sizes, carrier and/or buffer weights, sear angles and so on can result in a malfunctioning rifle. Changing the materials certain parts are made of can lead to early failure, such bolts, springs and pins. The material of other parts isn't as big of a deal as long as the choice is appropriate, such as choosing stainless or carbon steel for the barrel.
It boils done to this- Does following the TDP, the specification how it is built, result in a poor quality M4 for our military? According to most who stake their lives on the M4 everyday, it does not.
Civilian M4s deviate from the TDP as they lack burst fire and full auto. Colt is the only manufacture who currently holds the TDP for the M4
PS-I remember when the M4 was developed and when Armalite introduced the 16" middy, and I remember the articles on the subject explaining why they came to be
However, to touch on a few points- Milspec specifies 4150 CMV steel. It's not the cheapest steel out there and as a matter of fact, makes pretty good barrel and an accurate one too. So does 4140 which does cost less. Stainless steel barrels are not any more accurate than barrels made of steel, they are just more consistent until they erode enough they suffer a sudden loss of accuracy. Carbon steel barrels lose accuracy gradually as the throat erodes. But the question remains- Does making a M4 barrel of 4150 CMV make it a lower quality barrel than one made of 4140? Or 416 stainless?
6061 is not a good choice for a forged part as the process tends to damage the granular structure of the alloy and it becomes susceptible to intergranular exfoliation. Properly designed forged parts are stronger pound for pound than billet. Be that as it may, the question remains- Does specifying a 7075 forged receiver compromise the quality of the military M4? Is there an M4 receiver made to a higher quality specification?
Does chrome lining the bore hurt the quality of the rifle? Does the milspec require a poor quality process to apply the chrome? I do not speak whether or not chrome lining affects accuracy as that is a separate issue.
Button rifling may not produce the most accurate barrel, but the barrels are functional and will shoot accurately enough for the mission. Fine accuracy is not the question, it's quality.
The whole point is to challenge the idea that the specifications of our military issue M4 results in a rifle lacking in quality, not to assert that all ARs need to be built to those specs. MISSION DRIVES THE GEAR. If the mission requires fine accuracy, then a barrel capable of delivering that accuracy is required. If ultimate compactness is required, then a barrel of a shorter length than the 14.5" M4 spec barrel should be used.
Some specifications are more critical to fit & function than others and people would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the details. Changing spring rates, gas port sizes, carrier and/or buffer weights, sear angles and so on can result in a malfunctioning rifle. Changing the materials certain parts are made of can lead to early failure, such bolts, springs and pins. The material of other parts isn't as big of a deal as long as the choice is appropriate, such as choosing stainless or carbon steel for the barrel.
It boils done to this- Does following the TDP, the specification how it is built, result in a poor quality M4 for our military? According to most who stake their lives on the M4 everyday, it does not.
Civilian M4s deviate from the TDP as they lack burst fire and full auto. Colt is the only manufacture who currently holds the TDP for the M4
PS-I remember when the M4 was developed and when Armalite introduced the 16" middy, and I remember the articles on the subject explaining why they came to be
Last edited:
I would also like to add that the following statement, from the link provided by fatcat, is inaccurate-
The Lock Time, or the time that the action remains locked with no attempt to start unlocking is very important... on the rifle, the lock time is about 550 microseconds, the lock time for the carbine is about 375 microseconds -- this may not seem like much, but it is much shorter of a time, also keep mind that the chamber pressures are twice as high in the carbine when the unlocking starts.
The action of the AR does not begin unlocking when the bullet clears the gas port. No part of the action even begins moving until after the bullet exits the muzzle
The Lock Time, or the time that the action remains locked with no attempt to start unlocking is very important... on the rifle, the lock time is about 550 microseconds, the lock time for the carbine is about 375 microseconds -- this may not seem like much, but it is much shorter of a time, also keep mind that the chamber pressures are twice as high in the carbine when the unlocking starts.
The action of the AR does not begin unlocking when the bullet clears the gas port. No part of the action even begins moving until after the bullet exits the muzzle
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
You definitely shouldn't step into AR's by building your first one. I started building mine because my tastes and needs developed to the point that I couldn't find one that suited me anymore. Nobody makes a rifle like I use.
To build a good one, you will need the gear, a vice, barrel wrench (and torque wrench until you've built a few to understand you don't need it --until then though, you need it) the various punches, and depending on the barrel, a drill press, jig, etc. I got the tools working on them over time, then started building them.
Unless that describes you, buy one. I'd recommend getting a good one though, you'll be happier in the end and it will hold its resale value. Try to stick with "mil spec". You want mil spec for a basic rifle, that should be your minimum requirement.
Check Rainier Arms. They specialize in AR's and have complete rifles but will also do some custom work for you. They'll even build you a rifle the same as you would yourself, same parts I mean.
These rifles get called "Lego Guns" and in some ways they have become that, but unless you know what you are doing just stick with a quality mil spec rifle. Expect to spend about $1000 give or take on a good AR.
I won't give you any more suggestions, I'm not up to snuff on prices or the quality of ready built rifles these days, but I will say that you should stay away from Olympic Arms. That junk isn't worth the scrap metal it is made from.
To build a good one, you will need the gear, a vice, barrel wrench (and torque wrench until you've built a few to understand you don't need it --until then though, you need it) the various punches, and depending on the barrel, a drill press, jig, etc. I got the tools working on them over time, then started building them.
Unless that describes you, buy one. I'd recommend getting a good one though, you'll be happier in the end and it will hold its resale value. Try to stick with "mil spec". You want mil spec for a basic rifle, that should be your minimum requirement.
Check Rainier Arms. They specialize in AR's and have complete rifles but will also do some custom work for you. They'll even build you a rifle the same as you would yourself, same parts I mean.
These rifles get called "Lego Guns" and in some ways they have become that, but unless you know what you are doing just stick with a quality mil spec rifle. Expect to spend about $1000 give or take on a good AR.
I won't give you any more suggestions, I'm not up to snuff on prices or the quality of ready built rifles these days, but I will say that you should stay away from Olympic Arms. That junk isn't worth the scrap metal it is made from.
Stricky
Member
to the op:
Here is a good page full of info for you:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/492084_AR15_Discussions__FAQ.html
Here is a good page full of info for you:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/492084_AR15_Discussions__FAQ.html
The TDP isn't milspec - it's Colt's value engineered and negotiated recipe to meet the milspec. They build them to make a profit, and if they don't have to buy a multimillion dollar barrel hammerforge, more money in their pocket.
Button rifling microscopically scores the bore, which scrapes brass off the bullet as it engraves the rifling and is pushed down the it. Hammerforging compresses the blank against a mandrel by hammering it down against it. The mandrel is polished, as the material is compressed against it, it's flattened and compresses to shape. Hammerforged barrels don't exhibit scoring along the rifling, and don't abrade the bullet in it's passage. They can also be slightly compressive, with a taper that can improve the delivered ballistics. Button rifling can't do that.
If the subject is quality, the vague assertions that a commodity issue rifle somehow sets the supreme standard in that regard is sadly mistaken. Specific requirements in material do contribute, but the method of fabrication is MORE important, and what standards of measurement, what shape, and the DELIVERED results are what are judged. The military specifications are NOT the ultimate in overall accuracy, longevity, or performance. They are deliberately slanted for full auto durability in a combat environment, but that alone doesn't make them supreme.
If the M4 was the quality firearm we have to issue, then NSWC Crane wouldn't be getting multimillion dollar contracts to improve it. And those improvements are in specified materials, parts, and upgrades. All of which mean the TDP and milspecs were found deficient. Not to mention, the M4 currently made does not have the M203 cuts in the barrel. Another defect addressed and corrected.
I wouldn't insist on diehard support of a standard that changes with each project Crane completes. Attempting to anchor a discussion on the merits of technology that is questioned and under review means having to change with it. Milspec is not an absolute standard, simply because it's the negotiated expression of what a maker is allowed to supply at a minimum.
Button rifling microscopically scores the bore, which scrapes brass off the bullet as it engraves the rifling and is pushed down the it. Hammerforging compresses the blank against a mandrel by hammering it down against it. The mandrel is polished, as the material is compressed against it, it's flattened and compresses to shape. Hammerforged barrels don't exhibit scoring along the rifling, and don't abrade the bullet in it's passage. They can also be slightly compressive, with a taper that can improve the delivered ballistics. Button rifling can't do that.
If the subject is quality, the vague assertions that a commodity issue rifle somehow sets the supreme standard in that regard is sadly mistaken. Specific requirements in material do contribute, but the method of fabrication is MORE important, and what standards of measurement, what shape, and the DELIVERED results are what are judged. The military specifications are NOT the ultimate in overall accuracy, longevity, or performance. They are deliberately slanted for full auto durability in a combat environment, but that alone doesn't make them supreme.
If the M4 was the quality firearm we have to issue, then NSWC Crane wouldn't be getting multimillion dollar contracts to improve it. And those improvements are in specified materials, parts, and upgrades. All of which mean the TDP and milspecs were found deficient. Not to mention, the M4 currently made does not have the M203 cuts in the barrel. Another defect addressed and corrected.
I wouldn't insist on diehard support of a standard that changes with each project Crane completes. Attempting to anchor a discussion on the merits of technology that is questioned and under review means having to change with it. Milspec is not an absolute standard, simply because it's the negotiated expression of what a maker is allowed to supply at a minimum.
An M4 isn't "milspec" if it isn't built to the TDP. The TDP determines the configuration of the rifle. I don't claim the TDP is the ultimate in quality but how is it poor quality? How does it hurt the function of the rifle?
Is a button rifled barrel poor quality? No. Colt does make a hammer forged barrel. It's made in Canada. Colt says they do not see an increase in performance when comparing their hammer forged barrels to their other barrels. We cannot get Colt hammer forged barrels commercially in the US because of the "sporting purposes" stupidity. I remember when having a CHF barrel on a rifle was the kiss of death because the CHF processes created internal stresses and delivered poor accuracy.
Crane is making upgrades. Ok, what upgrades? Are they changing barrel steel? Changing receivers alloys? Changing barrel profiles from the M4 to the heavier (which I believe is designated as) M4A1 profile which is built to a military specification? Who are the making these upgrades for? If it's the military, it's according to that TDP & milspec.
Although the milspec/TDP does not result in the ultimate AR, it isn't poor quality and it's better quality than many of the deviations. Following the TDP/milspec for an M4 as closely as allowed by law, such as the one built by Colt, gives you a good quality, basic AR carbine.
Do I think this results in the ultimate AR? No. The reason I did not buy a Colt carbine because one isn't offered in the configuration I want (not because it's lacking quality)
(Tirod, I suspect we are closer to agreeing than it appears. While I agree there is a faction that slavishly insists on an AR being "milspec" or justifies a lower quality rifle because the maker markets it as "milspec" I also think there are those who simply scoff at "milspec" and equate acceptable standards as being something less than good to justify touting lesser quality firearms as being "as good as". I know a good AR can be built without following the milspec to the letter, but one must carefully choose what deviations are made. Neither of my ARs are 100% milspec-nor do I want them to be-, but they follow the specifications that impact reliable function)
Is a button rifled barrel poor quality? No. Colt does make a hammer forged barrel. It's made in Canada. Colt says they do not see an increase in performance when comparing their hammer forged barrels to their other barrels. We cannot get Colt hammer forged barrels commercially in the US because of the "sporting purposes" stupidity. I remember when having a CHF barrel on a rifle was the kiss of death because the CHF processes created internal stresses and delivered poor accuracy.
Crane is making upgrades. Ok, what upgrades? Are they changing barrel steel? Changing receivers alloys? Changing barrel profiles from the M4 to the heavier (which I believe is designated as) M4A1 profile which is built to a military specification? Who are the making these upgrades for? If it's the military, it's according to that TDP & milspec.
Although the milspec/TDP does not result in the ultimate AR, it isn't poor quality and it's better quality than many of the deviations. Following the TDP/milspec for an M4 as closely as allowed by law, such as the one built by Colt, gives you a good quality, basic AR carbine.
Do I think this results in the ultimate AR? No. The reason I did not buy a Colt carbine because one isn't offered in the configuration I want (not because it's lacking quality)
(Tirod, I suspect we are closer to agreeing than it appears. While I agree there is a faction that slavishly insists on an AR being "milspec" or justifies a lower quality rifle because the maker markets it as "milspec" I also think there are those who simply scoff at "milspec" and equate acceptable standards as being something less than good to justify touting lesser quality firearms as being "as good as". I know a good AR can be built without following the milspec to the letter, but one must carefully choose what deviations are made. Neither of my ARs are 100% milspec-nor do I want them to be-, but they follow the specifications that impact reliable function)
Last edited:
Rico, yes there are $500 build kits available. For the average shooter these should be fine. If you are planning on competition then you would need a higher level of rifle.
In reply to your question I assembled my first rifle from a doublestar kit with the upper premade. I believe DTI (Delton) now makes a good kit for a good price, I recommended this to my brother. I myself am assembling another rifle from PSA (Palmetto State Armory) parts this time around as my needs will be more demanding.
If you see a S&W sport, I have heard these are good rifles for the money.
If you are new to the game a basic rifle is a good entry point. Later you will be looking at a different rifle with a different task, it is a disease.
In reply to your question I assembled my first rifle from a doublestar kit with the upper premade. I believe DTI (Delton) now makes a good kit for a good price, I recommended this to my brother. I myself am assembling another rifle from PSA (Palmetto State Armory) parts this time around as my needs will be more demanding.
If you see a S&W sport, I have heard these are good rifles for the money.
If you are new to the game a basic rifle is a good entry point. Later you will be looking at a different rifle with a different task, it is a disease.
thank you all for the responses, as of now since it will be my first im looking at the s&w/m&p15 sport and will move on from there.
Rshooter. I know its a disease, since I was legally able to buy a gun i haven't been able to stop. once i know im getting one, saddly i already start planning on the next one. it was just knives, now knives and guns. Once i get my first hand gun i think it will slow down.
probably not..
once again thank you all.
Rshooter. I know its a disease, since I was legally able to buy a gun i haven't been able to stop. once i know im getting one, saddly i already start planning on the next one. it was just knives, now knives and guns. Once i get my first hand gun i think it will slow down.
probably not..once again thank you all.
- Status
