What is your AR-15 quality list?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly part of the reason I asked this is because I was talking to someone about buying a used HBAR and he was insisting selling it for $1300. He bleated endlessly about the quality of Colt AR-15, and I didn't mention that I was in the military and was actually issued two different Colts while in service. I'm probably going to catch a lot of crap for this, but I really found the S&W M&P Sport to be much more accurate and generally higher quality than both weapons I was issued in military service. I don't know if it was stress or what, but my performance with this rifle I borrowed is superior to the ones I had in the army

Still, everyone talks about Colt like they're God's Gift to shooters. I do like Colt, but I'm just not seeing the shock and awe because a Rock River National Match LAR-15 A2 literally shoots sub MOA with all the holes touching at 100 meters with open sights from a kneeling position. I have no experienced that accuracy with colts.

It is not fair to compare an issue M16/M4 to a National Match rifle... off the shelf or otherwise... they are two very different firearms. My issue M16A1's (yes, I'm that old...) were sloppy, banged up, loose fitting, and certainly a parts mix-master after years of service. Colts are good rifles, but they are also a mechanical device, assembled by humans... so they are not always perfect. When I was in the Army, I never had a Colt... always GM HydroMatics and a single H&R... but they were all made under contract and were interchangeable with the Colt as far as I was concerned.

Civilian AR's are something else entirely.
 
Do you have this graphic?

IFor the record, I think "Milspec" is a starting point. As in, There are plenty of AR-15s that do not meet military specifications because they're not accurate enough. When someone tells me a weapon is "milspec," I expect at least 1 MOA performance..

Here's a pretty good article on the definition of Mil-Spec/TDP and has an older version of the chart included:

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-con..._about_MilSpec_by_David_Crane_Summer_2008.pdf

You'll note that a lot of what goes into the TDP and mil spec are the inspection requirements.

BTW Your accuracy expectation for military specifications are way, way, out of line with reality. The "mil-Spec" accuracy requirement for an M4 with with 885/SS109 is probably around 4MOA.
 
straight up anything you can buy from beownells, olympic , mod 1 sales, buy it build it, and its gonna WORK!:D
I rank the phrase 'MilSpec' right up there with 'the check is in the mail,' along with a few others that I won't enumerate here. MilSpec is probably one of the most abused terms in all of Firearmdom. What is MilSpec?
Mil spec is short for military specification, right?
 
have an Armalite that has been a solid, reliable rifle for me
Back a gazillion years ago when AR’s were spanking new, you could count on quality if it was one of the ABC’s

Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt

In the FWIW category, I have a Windham Bushmaster that has never had a hiccup and is the most accurate rifle I have.
 
I used to get all into the minutia of ARs and lists, and tiers. Nowadays I just don’t care enough to keep up with what’s new and who’s doing what in the world of ARs.

All I can say is my experience and knowledge are limited, I like BCM based on personal use, and I’d buy another one without reservation.

There’s probably a million other makes/models that are every bit as good or better but I’m satisfied enough to stick with a plain Jane, FSB equipped BCM and I no longer try to keep up with lists.
 
Mil spec is short for military specification, right?

Right...

But. You see all manner of parts claiming to be MilSpec, but are they really? Did they actually have a copy of the specifications and drawings from Ordnance? Did they go through the inspection process? Are they made from the specific material outlined in the original drawing? Just because it's Parkerized and fits on an AR, doesn't mean it's truly MilSpec. Does it matter? Probably not so much.
 
Right...

But. You see all manner of parts claiming to be MilSpec, but are they really? Did they actually have a copy of the specifications and drawings from Ordnance? Did they go through the inspection process? Are they made from the specific material outlined in the original drawing? Just because it's Parkerized and fits on an AR, doesn't mean it's truly MilSpec. Does it matter? Probably not so much.

Well, "mil-spec" also has to do with design, and true mil spec includes a selective fire trigger system which is forbidden to the commercial guns we can buy at Academy or elsewhere. A AR-15 may be mil spec in the barrel, bcg, front sight, and everywhere else but it will not really be true "MIL-SPEC" without that fun switch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: md7
It is not fair to compare an issue M16/M4 to a National Match rifle... off the shelf or otherwise... they are two very different firearms. My issue M16A1's (yes, I'm that old...) were sloppy, banged up, loose fitting, and certainly a parts mix-master after years of service. Colts are good rifles, but they are also a mechanical device, assembled by humans... so they are not always perfect. When I was in the Army, I never had a Colt... always GM HydroMatics and a single H&R... but they were all made under contract and were interchangeable with the Colt as far as I was concerned.

Civilian AR's are something else entirely.

The S&W M&P Sport 15 is NOT a national match rifle through.

I have an Armalite that has been a solid, reliable rifle for me.

It usually doesn’t get mentioned in these “AR Ranking” threads, and that’s fine with me.

Which is ironic.
 
Still, everyone talks about Colt like they're God's Gift to shooters. I do like Colt, but I'm just not seeing the shock and awe because a Rock River National Match LAR-15 A2 literally shoots sub MOA with all the holes touching at 100 meters with open sights from a kneeling position. I have no experienced that accuracy with colts.

The S&W M&P Sport 15 is NOT a national match rifle through.

Sorry, I thought you were comparing that RRA NM to an issue piece... my bad...

I would opine that if you flopped down prone with that MP-15 next to my Colt H-bar, and used quality match ammunition, the Colt would outshoot the M&P, particularly at longer ranges... horrible trigger not withstanding. I'm not a Colt fanboy at all... but unless the planets align, I find it unlikely an AR with a standard weight barrel would outshoot an H-Bar AR with good ammunition. Now... you slip in some 55grn FMJ... then all bets are off in that 1:7 twist barrel.
 
Mil spec is short for military specification, right?

Mil Spec is an abbreviated way of saying Military Specification.

In regards to the M4/M16 family of weapons, Mil Spec is defined within the Technical Data Package (TDP) and lines out certain materials, testing protocol, assembly, design, finish, etc. Everything M4/16 related is in there.

In regards to marketing, Mil Spec has come to mean whatever the company using the term defines as Mil Spec for themselves or whatever an unknowing purchaser defines it as for themselves.

In reality, I’m unaware of any company that produces a purely mil spec rifle for civilian use or sales though some come close to it in many aspects such as barrel material, chrome lining, testing protocol, finish, etc.

So there you have it. What it actually is, what marketing sells it as, and what the shooting public wishes it to be. It’s the shooters equivalent of an ink blot test in many ways.
 
Ranking something that's been mass produced for generations is going to be an exercise in futility.
An Anderson that was built on Wednesday might be a better gun than one of the top tier guns thrown together Friday afternoon.
 
Ranking something that's been mass produced for generations is going to be an exercise in futility.
An Anderson that was built on Wednesday might be a better gun than one of the top tier guns thrown together Friday afternoon.

That's why the "old chart" was useful. It didn't rank, it just laid out features found in the TDP and whether or not manufacturers followed them. Here's a snip from the article I posted above:

iJPUNpml.jpg

This was compiled by gunsmiths and shops that worked on AR15s, a buyer could review and figure out IF that specification from the TDP was important to him or not. It also went a ways to end the "just as good as" type statements because the manufacturer adhered, or didn't.
 
That's why the "old chart" was useful. It didn't rank, it just laid out features found in the TDP and whether or not manufacturers followed them. Here's a snip from the article I posted above:

View attachment 980150

This was compiled by gunsmiths and shops that worked on AR15s, a buyer could review and figure out IF that specification from the TDP was important to him or not. It also went a ways to end the "just as good as" type statements because the manufacturer adhered, or didn't.
A few critiques of that particular chart. Instead of referencing "mil spec barrel steel" it should simply list the actual spec for the steel. Same for the barrel extension: what makes it "spec?" list the actual spec. Next: no spec listed at all for the bolt steel? Seems an oversight.
 
Thanks for everyone's replies! These have definitely been very helpful.






Honestly part of the reason I asked this is because I was talking to someone about buying a used HBAR and he was insisting selling it for $1300. He bleated endlessly about the quality of Colt AR-15, and I didn't mention that I was in the military and was actually issued two different Colts while in service. I'm probably going to catch a lot of crap for this, but I really found the S&W M&P Sport to be much more accurate and generally higher quality than both weapons I was issued in military service. I don't know if it was stress or what, but my performance with this rifle I borrowed is superior to the ones I had in the army

Still, everyone talks about Colt like they're God's Gift to shooters. I do like Colt, but I'm just not seeing the shock and awe because a Rock River National Match LAR-15 A2 literally shoots sub MOA with all the holes touching at 100 meters with open sights from a kneeling position. I have no experienced that accuracy with colts.



May I asked where you worked where you were issued a Bushmaster AR-15?




I agree with this almost wholeheartedly.




Honestly I really believe this is a very important point. I've brought this up in other posts before (usually resulting in an angry mob trying to crucify me), but I've owned 3 Ruger weapons in my entire life. Each one had a catastrophic failures. I sold every one of them. Not saying Ruger is a bad company (I carried a Ruger for years). I just really think that even good companies sometimes turn out a lemon.



Dude I agree with this 100%. Which is why nobody is talking about Rock River. Like why does nobody cares.




Do you have this graphic?



Honestly I'm seeing this to be a pretty common assessment -- particularly for SHTF rifles. Even WASR AKMs are selling for more than Mid-Quality ARs at this point.







I've heard this before too.




Why do you say this? Just curious because the Rock River I shot was back in 2009. :rofl:



I've always wanted to bring this up. It seems like a lot of civilians flex on the concept of "Milspec" when I sincerely believe civilian firearms are manufactured to higher quality. Like I said in this post (and expect people will want to start a fight over), I really honestly feel like I got better performance out of the S&W M&P 15 I shot a few months ago than either the Colt M16A2 or Colt M4 I was issued in the military.

For the record, I think "Milspec" is a starting point. As in, There are plenty of AR-15s that do not meet military specifications because they're not accurate enough. When someone tells me a weapon is "milspec," I expect at least 1 MOA performance..



Holy cow dude you beat those rifles to death! I baby all my firearms. If they sit for a few weeks without being cleaned after firing I feel bad!




I'm beginning to think that this is the answer. That is, the consumer market in the US has created such a high demand for reliable ARs at this point that you can basically expect pretty awesome performance from even "low" quality AR-15s. More money usually means you'll get a better product, but the accuracy and reliability from most of those is probably more than sufficient.
For example there were several federal law enforcement organizations who did issue Windham Bushmasters to their officers. I will attest.
 
One of the CIA guys that was at Benghazi did a video years ago about his rifle. It was a cheap Bushmaster that he calls a "Frankengun", put together out of whatever parts he could find and afford. He used it as a contractor around the world and claims to still use it to this day.
 
I was highly impressed with DPMS, the MOE Warrior (Model # 60529 and 60530) I purchased one new for $700 and it arrived with a fine finish and comes with: 1/7 Twist, 5.56 chambering, 4150 Chrome Lined Barrel, M4 Feed Ramps, 16" Barrel with the M203 Cut and the hammer and internals all look very solid. If you compare that to the $1200-1300 COLT LE6920 (or new CR6920), which comes with all the same 1/7 Twist, 4150 Chrome Lined Barrel, M4 Feed Ramps and 16" Bbl with M203 cut.

Both Carbines are MilSpec and have Square Forge Upper Receivers, the DPMS MOE Warrior even comes with the same M16 Full Auto Bolt Carrier as the LE6920. About the only difference, the COLT had the tapered cut on the inside edges of the magazine-well for rapid loading and the laser engraved T Marks on the upper. Having said that, just about every COLT AR I've seen lately comes new with slop in the upper/lower fitment, factory blemishes or rough edges on the top side corners of the lower or in the milling of the (FIRE/SAFETY Tabs). The COLT lowers (every one I have seen) show some rough business in the manufacturing, like they are handled rough for mass production, without quality finishing or handling. The DPMS on the other hand is flawless in appearance and $600 cheaper.
 
Last edited:
The thing is most people don't build ARs - they buy them already assembled as a model. That's kind of what I'm fishing for here. I guess to start things off, here's my list (best to worst):


Sig Saur
Daniel Defense
Rock River
Smith & Wesson
Colt
Ruger
DPMS (these things are not so great in my opinion)

The list is small but I can only draw from my personal experience as an armorer, infantry soldier, and firearm's enthusiast who has shot each.
Springfield Saint rifles are very popular in my groups too
 
Most of the AR15s are forged lowers & I was told at one time that there was only three forging companies in the US that made these. And that the all made the same quality forgings according to mil specs. So It the quality would depend on the machining company & they have to cut the lowers to military specifications. So some may be just slightly better fit but they will all should function because of the Mil Spec.
So as far as being a snob because you paid $$$ more dollars than the guy that just bought the best gun he could afford, you could be snobbing for the wrong reason. It's what goes on your lowers that makes the rifle or pistol worth the dollars not what brand it is.
Like the RF85 nano-technology treatment that Anderson puts on their parts to make a lube free rifle brings their products up a few notches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top