1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pre-ban assault rifles- worth the extra?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by natedog, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. natedog

    natedog Well-Known Member

    As much as I disagree with the AW laws, I think it's kind of stupid to spend $500+ extra :rolleyes: on buying a rifle to get the bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock, etc. For example, a bayonet on an AR15. It looks cool, but the AR is not the ideal handle for a spear. Flash suppressor- from what I understand, the flash suppressor only widens the flash out over an area, making it less bright but bigger. Not much advantage there. Folding stock- these are less accurate and less comfortable than a regular full stock. They do fold, though, which is only advantageous for storage reasons (like reducing the lenght from 30" to 25" is going to allow you to carry it under a trench coat). The parts that I hate though, are the pistol grip laws and the mag restrictions :cuss: . Thoughts?
  2. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    No, they are not. For a shooter, save the money and buy a postban. For the sake of having a real collapsible/folding stock and flash suppressor, wait until the ban goes away next year. Unless normal capacity magazines are banned by local law, there are plenty of preban magazines around that can be used in a postban rifle.
  3. Jack19

    Jack19 Well-Known Member

    Not really. I know professional, well regarded, instructors who use post ban rifles as their personal weapons.

    Trust me, whatever you're shooting at will be just as dead with a post-ban.
  4. hksw

    hksw Well-Known Member

    Unless you're a collector or are a stickler for wanting the real deal or the post-ban firearm is physically restricted to a lower ammo capacity in some way, not worth it, IMO.
  5. Marko Kloos

    Marko Kloos Moderator Emeritus

    I'd only ever spend the money on a pre-ban gun if I really wanted it, and it wasn't available as a post-ban (i.e. HK91). If the rifle is available in pre- and post-ban configurations, I'll take the post-ban. I can't bring myself to spending 50%-100% more for essentially the same capabilities.
  6. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Most assuredly. BTW, I have several for sale.:D
  7. Mannlicher

    Mannlicher Well-Known Member

    Having to own a preban rifle is a mall ninja thing.
  8. AR-10

    AR-10 Well-Known Member

    Whether or not it is worth it depends on what you want on your rifle.

    A flash suppressor can be very handy under low light conditions. When I shoot my postban Dissipator with hot loads, it produces a fireball the size of a basketball. It is clearly visible to the shooter in bright daylight. You see it using iron sights. You see it using a four power scope. It can be very distracting at dusk. A friend of mine shot it once with his support hand up by the front sight and singed his hand. A carbine with a flash suppressor does not produce any fireball visible in daylight. The flash at dusk is much less noticeable as well.

    Is that feature worth an extra five hundred dollars? To some people it is not. To some people it is.

    Collapsable stocks and folding stocks are not really usefull for most of us either, but they are fun. They have a distinctive look, and lots of people put a non functional model on a postban. If you want the look of that type of stock, the extra five hundred you have to pay to get one that will actually collapse might save you hours of excruciating embarrassment explaining why that uber-cool looking stock only has one position.
  9. BusMaster007

    BusMaster007 Well-Known Member

    YES. If you WANT it, it's worth it.

    Besides, it's good for the ecomomy because you'll spend a ton of $$$ for goodies that only fit on PRE-BAN firearms.

    It's good for everybody! :)
  10. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Mannlicher! Geez, I'm working here.:D
  11. Warner

    Warner Well-Known Member

    Sure they’re worth it, mostly

    While it doesn’t transfer over exactly, they’re "worth it" much the same way a Lexus, BMW or Camaro has it all over a Ford Taurus; or a Colt 1911 has it all over a Glock (Hehe). You pay for snob appeal (no slam) and for an item with a mechanical “soulâ€.

    Like the cars and depending on the models in question, there could also be a “performance†advantage in a pre-ban. An example that comes to mind would be the folding stock on the FN Para; many think it feels and fits better than the fixed butt stock associated with that series - and there are countless other examples.

    Hey - I don’t like the high prices either, but the pre-bans both look and act the way they were intended (except maybe for the full/semi-auto aspect).
  12. 444

    444 Well-Known Member

    I recently bought a pre-ban. Why ? Because I want to register the lower as an SBR and I also want to suppress it. It is not legal to suppress a post ban rifle. So, in this case, it is not only worth it, it is the only way to legally accomplish what I want to accomplish.
    So as is always the case, blanket statements are wrong again.
  13. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Well-Known Member

    I thought it was worth it, then I sold my Pre Ban and got a post ban lower, FAL and some cash to boot. :D

    They are nice to have, but I'll see what next year brings us before considering another purchase.

    Good Shooting
  14. Robby from Long Island

    Robby from Long Island Well-Known Member

    You also have to remember that a lot of us bought our guns long before there was such a thing as "pre-ban" or "post-ban".

    When I purchased my Colt Sporter Match HBAR 11 or 12 years ago, it was not known as pre or post, but simply what was available.

    I didn't buy it to sell at a profit many years later, but bought it because I wanted it and still have it.
  15. JG

    JG Well-Known Member

    For collecting I think prebans are neat, for shooters I wouldn't bother (even though a folding or underfolding stock looks cool).

    Chris at AK-USA has American made K-var AK stock sets on his post sample machine guns.....he actually prefers them.
  16. MiniZ

    MiniZ Well-Known Member

    In general, no. They both will function the same, and I held that belief for a long time.

    However, I like the flexibility a pre-ban provides. Its a "nice to have" to be able to use a collapsable/folding stock or a flash hider. Is it a necessity? No. Would I have a pre-ban if I didn't get an incredible deal? Probably not.

    It comes down to personal preference in most cases-unless you really NEED a flash suppressor or folding/collapsable stock.
  17. 3 gun

    3 gun Well-Known Member

    In at least one case I can say YES without a doubt. A preban SA M1a is worth the time and money to find. Even the standard M1a rifles were built with USGI parts before the ban. The QA problems with new post ban rifles (many non-GI parts) have been well detailed here and on other boards. It isn't the flash suppresser or lug that make it worth the money it's the quality of the build.
  18. BHP9

    BHP9 member

    The answer is both Yes and No depending on what your purposes are.

    Investment wise you are way better off with a mint condition pre-ban, they have risen and will continue to rise dramatically in value.
    The problem is that they have already become too valuable too shoot. Shooting a pre-ban makes no sense whatsoever because you are destroying a very expensive and valuable future investment.

    Shooter wise it is very unwise to spend the extra money on a few doodad's like a bayonet lug or flash hider. As a matter of fact it is a proven fact that flash hiders on some weapons and recoil reducers (compensators) often are a detriment in accuracy.

    I have a FN ABL that throws cast bullet loads sideways with the original flash hider/recoil reducer screwed on and with it off it shoots 1 inch groups all day long. It does shoot jacketed bullets out of it with or with out it on but seems to give a little better accuracy and more cosistant accuracy with the compensator off rather than on. I have also experienced the exact same loss of accuracy with a compensated AR15. It shot better with it off rather than on.

    For target competition I use a post ban gun and generally burn it up after about 3 years of shooting and about 10,000 rounds fired through it (cal. 223 AR 15.) It would be very unwise to buy a very fine and very expensive pre-ban and then burn it up on the target range. Yet you would not believe how many people do just exactly that.
  19. 444

    444 Well-Known Member

  20. Smoke

    Smoke Well-Known Member

    I looked at this thread fully expecting to hear the opposite of what the majority has said. I fully agree that pre-ban is not worth the extra cost or the hassle of "proving" its pre-ban if the need arises. (which, I know, it probably won't)

    Once again THR has surpassed my expectations.

    Keep up the good advice

Share This Page