Help me pick out an AR for a buddy, $1500 including red dot

Status
Not open for further replies.
<*(((>< said:
Well we'll have to agree to disagree at the necessity of an AR15 being mil-spec. Fancy coatings are no more a marketing term then milspec is, you said it yourself mil-spec is a minimum standard. Great so if I buy a Colt I'm getting the minimum standard that meets the military, whom is consistently behind today's commercial AR15 market. Just this last year the military adopted the "non-milspec" PMAG, or talks of them including the "non-milspec" keymod or m-lok. The military is also rumored to be considering adjustable gas blocks for use with suppressors. But only the Colt version of all those standards will be milspec.

Right now the military is talking about creating the M4A1+ which will include several improvements that have been used in "non-milspec" commercial AR15's for the past decade. So I guess all the Colt milspec fans won't be milspec anymore until they upgrade to the new milspec. Tough work keeping up with all those changes to be considered in compliance with milspec.

Milspec is specifications, measurements, materials list to make the rifle, it's not some miracle label that everyone makes it out to be.

I'm guessing the only 1911 worth having is a Colt as well?
Click to expand...

You're looking at it all wrong. You're saying Colt is the minimum, and the minimum is already substandard, so that means go out and buy something sub substandard??? That just doesn't make any sense.

We're not talking about extras here, like rail systems, enhanced mags, fancy coatings, etc. We're just talking about the minimum standards to make an AR15 work right and last as long as possible, like not having a bolt lug sheer off at 5k rounds without any warning, or snap in two at the cam pin, or have the gas key come loose, or have the extractor break, or get a shell stuck in the chamber because it was slightly out of spec, or have the chrome lining not hold up, etc. etc.

Is milspec the be all end all AR? Of course not. There's better, but it's spendy. LMT and Knights are two prime examples. They are undoubtedly way ahead of milspec, but look at their prices for crying out loud.
 
Arma Lite M15-TBM or Windham VEX-SS or Anderson NO lube These are some very good guns The Arma Lite is a 1/2 MOA the Windham is a 1/2 MOA the Anderson is a NO lube gun that is cleaned with water I have all three and they do shoot 1/2 MOA at 100 yards I am 77 so the gun can out shoot me a young man has shoot less than 1/2 with them. Good luck on what ever you do
 
There is so little difference now, just get what is on sale that day at Slickguns. All of the brand name manufacturers have their accolytes and critics. Colt, S&W, Sig, Ruger, PSA, Spikes, Rock River, Windham and others all make quality products.

If your friend is like most of us, his malfunctions will be due to a lack of lube or "improvements," he makes to the gun, as opposed to improper staking or microscopic cracks in the bolt not discovered by the MPI.
 
The malfunction an off brand AR is likely to have is poor extraction due to a failed extraction spring
 
MistWolf said:
The malfunction an off brand AR is likely to have is poor extraction due to a failed extraction spring
Click to expand...
What is an off brand AR. Is that an AR built by someone that did not design it. That would cover every AR on the market, even COLT.
My co-worker is a Firearms and Tool Mark Examiner. Back in 2012 while going to school, one of the firearms factories his class toured was Colt. Colt has it's own LAB to test all metal that comes in. He said that they made most of their upper and lowers, but some were made elsewhere. The same with barrels and some other parts.
A lot of people don't know that Colt had subcontractors making AR parts over the years on their military contract rifles.
Areo makes a nice rifle also. The Areo Gen 2 lower is very nice and is a step or two above milspec.
 
GunnyUSMC said:
What is an off brand AR. Is that an AR built by someone that did not design it. That would cover every AR on the market, even COLT
Click to expand...
Whether or not the maker actually designed the AR has nothing to do with it. "Off brand" is a polite way- ok, lazy way- of including AR makers who don't quite get it right without people thinking I'm personally disrespecting their favorite economy brand or putting them down because they aren't a Brony. I'm trying to minimize the emotional derailment of the discussion to improve the signal to noise ratio
 
GunnyUSMC said:
What is an off brand AR. Is that an AR built by someone that did not design it. That would cover every AR on the market, even COLT.
My co-worker is a Firearms and Tool Mark Examiner. Back in 2012 while going to school, one of the firearms factories his class toured was Colt. Colt has it's own LAB to test all metal that comes in. He said that they made most of their upper and lowers, but some were made elsewhere. The same with barrels and some other parts.
A lot of people don't know that Colt had subcontractors making AR parts over the years on their military contract rifles.
Areo makes a nice rifle also. The Areo Gen 2 lower is very nice and is a step or two above milspec.
Click to expand...

This is what I've heard as well. I don't have verifiable sources, but it would not surprise me if Colt outsources some of their parts.

I'm fine with those that have to have a Colt, I'm not and will never be one that HAS to have a Colt. There are too many good options on getting parts from reputable companies in fierce competition against other reputable companies in the marketplace for me to say I'm only going with Colt because its what the military uses. But to each his own, I'm not refuting that Colt makes a good AR. Colt's best decision was to PURCHASE the plans from Eugene Stoner and getting a government contract the rest is history along with all the other manufacturers creating parts from design plans of Stoners.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see other manufacturers of commercial AR's attempt to break into the government contract with Colt eventually. But I have my own reservations on whether or not having the government contract is good for business or not, just look at Colt recently. I think US government contracts in certain areas are tough to manage business wise.

But I understand where GrandpaJack and MistWolf are coming from, buying a Colt for the price they are currently selling for one can do much worst.

If I were given the choice of a Colt LE6920 vs a premium PSA, mid-length gas, 1:8 FN 4150v chromed barreled upper with M-Lok rail, and a PSA Magpul lower with Geissele trigger (which would come out to about the same price). The choice is exceedingly simple in my mind it would be the latter every day. And I would shoot it until some part breaks which may or may not ever happen and replace said part with the same part (depending on round count) or an upgraded part if one is available. But America...we all can have our choices.
 
Last edited:
Look for a lightly used bcm or dd and go with an aimpoint pro. Should have enough left over to buy some mags and ammo.
 
The Colt Trooper is a hell of a gun for under 800 bucks. Throw an Aimpoint PRO on it and you have enough left over for a nice sling, a light, mags, and even some ammo.
 
<*(((>< said:
This is what I've heard as well. I don't have verifiable sources, but it would not surprise me if Colt outsources some of their parts.

I'm fine with those that have to have a Colt, I'm not and will never be one that HAS to have a Colt. There are too many good options on getting parts from reputable companies in fierce competition against other reputable companies in the marketplace for me to say I'm only going with Colt because its what the military uses. But to each his own, I'm not refuting that Colt makes a good AR. Colt's best decision was to PURCHASE the plans from Eugene Stoner and getting a government contract the rest is history along with all the other manufacturers creating parts from design plans of Stoners.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see other manufacturers of commercial AR's attempt to break into the government contract with Colt eventually. But I have my own reservations on whether or not having the government contract is good for business or not, just look at Colt recently. I think US government contracts in certain areas are tough to manage business wise.

But I understand where GrandpaJack and MistWolf are coming from, buying a Colt for the price they are currently selling for one can do much worst.

If I were given the choice of a Colt LE6920 vs a premium PSA, mid-length gas, 1:8 FN 4150v chromed barreled upper with M-Lok rail, and a PSA Magpul lower with Geissele trigger (which would come out to about the same price). The choice is exceedingly simple in my mind it would be the latter every day. And I would shoot it until some part breaks which may or may not ever happen and replace said part with the same part (depending on round count) or an upgraded part if one is available. But America...we all can have our choices.
Click to expand...
You keep confusing "Because it's gotta be what the military uses" and "It's gotta be Colt" with "It works right every time".

What's the big deal about Colt PURCHASING the AR from Fairchild? It's no secret that Colt subcontracts parts and have been doing so for years. Subcontracting out to certain companies helps to keep your own government contract.

A premium PSA with FN barrel and M-Lok rail with a PSA lower would make a very nice rifle- once the extractor spring, action spring and buffer were upgraded. But you'd have the same buying a Colt Trooper without having to change a thing.

Keep in mind that milspec isn't the minimum spec. It is THE spec. That means if the milspec is green paint and brown paint is used instead, it's not milspec. It's not that green is the minimum color, it means green is milspec
 
Sure, you don't have to have Colt. But IMHO you need full milspec (well, as close to it as SA can ever be) as a minimum standard, at least where it counts. It's fine to have a mid-length barrel, keymod rail, non mil profile barrel, etc. Those are all great improvements, so long as they keep up the quality control where it counts. So no, you don't have to have Colt. BCM, LMT, DD, KAC, FN, etc. are all very fine rifles. As good as Colt in terms of quality control, plus modern features. But the starting price of those rifles is the OP's entire budget, whereas you can get the LE6920 OEM for around 700. Sure, you have to put up with the carbine length gas system and A2 profile barrel, but it's a heck of a lot better than buying a pig with lipstick on it, and especially better than paying the same price for a PSA premium that is sub par in the QC department.

It's like I've said before, there are plenty of reasons to hate Colt, but quality and value are certainly not among them. In this class of SA M4 type rifle, we have Colt, FN, and LMT. If you buy an M-forgery from any of those three you're basically getting the same rifle with a different roll mark on it. But the Colt is almost half the price of the other two. What's not to understand here? People don't recommend Colt because of fanboyism; it comes up in every thread because the OP always wants a high speed AR for pennies on the dollar, and there's only one AR manufacturer in the world that fits that description. It really is that simple.

Now if it were me, I would go in a radically different direction, and that's why I don't have any LE6920s. My solution will always be to build my own. But 9 times out of 10, the OP isn't willing to do that. So this is what we're left with.
 
I dont get the big deal people make about the difference between carbine and midlength gas. Do I think the mid is better on a 16 inch barrel? Usually. However there is no standard for midlength gas port size so you gotta hope the manufacturer really did their homework on it.

Ive been shooting a carbine system for work since 2008 maybe late 2007. Ive owned several mids since around 2009 (Noveske and BCM). Actually using the gun I dont notice a difference unless Im shooting from the bench and have both side by side. The difference is felt recoil is minimal. You want a big difference get a 20 inch rifle with an A1/A2 stock.

As far as Colt and milspec goes... Milspec is THE standard. If you dont have standard parts you should be able to tell why it's different and why it's better. Some companies definitely do that. BCM, Daniel Defense, KAC, Noveske, Sionics, SOLGW, all can tell you why they differed from Milspec and why it's better.

Most AR companies differ to save money. Use a YFS screw in the bolt carrier because it saves them like 4 cents per rifle. Use Loctite on the castle nut instead of staking. Use a different steel for the bolt instead of Carpenter 158 because it's cheaper. Batch test bolts and barrels instead of every unit. Use oversized gas ports because they dont want to get complaints that it wont shoot crap underpowered ammo. Use a carbine buffer instead of a H buffer because its cheaper. Dont use corrosion resistance treated springs because it's cheaper not to and most users wont be out in the elements for days/weeks/months on end. Dont parkerize under the FSB to save money. Use an aluminum low profile gas block because it's cheaper.

Ive used one of the "just as good" brands for a while at work. We had rifles go down every training day. Multiple rifles every time. The problem was so bad my department worked out a deal with a distributer for a 2 for 1 trade for more Colts. In the last 4 or 5 years since I got my new Colt, I can only remember a few rifles going down in training.

That's not to say if you buy a different brand that you will have a bad experience. I had 3 personally owned Bushmasters that I never had issues with. But I never ran them as hard as we run our duty guns.

The question always is does the difference matter to you? Some say yes some say no. Only you can decide. But whether or not the differences matter to you, there are differences and that's what you pay for. And in my opinion a Colt Trooper for under 800 bucks is an amazing deal for what you get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
grampajack said:
Not even close. There are only a handful of companies doing full milspec, and Colt is by far the cheapest in that category. I don't understand the point of doing fancy coatings and stuff when you can't even get milspec right. Well, I do, it's marketing, but it still doesn't make good sense. Milspec is the absolute minimum standard to produce a consistently reliable rifle. It's just basic quality control standards for the platform.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a commercial AR that is MilSpec, even if most of the parts are identical to MilSpec parts being used in Colt’s M4s and M4A1s that are delivered to the government. Even Colt will admit that their commercial AR's are not MilSpec. Colt has exclusive rights to the TDP (technical data package). FN pays Colt for the right to manufacture using that TDP.

I'm not bad mouthing Colt. That would be my choice for <1K.
 
Last edited:
C-grunt said:
I dont get the big deal people make about the difference between carbine and midlength gas. Do I think the mid is better on a 16 inch barrel? Usually. However there is no standard for midlength gas port size so you gotta hope the manufacturer really did their homework on it.

Ive been shooting a carbine system for work since 2008 maybe late 2007. Ive owned several mids since around 2009 (Noveske and BCM). Actually using the gun I dont notice a difference unless Im shooting from the bench and have both side by side. The difference is felt recoil is minimal. You want a big difference get a 20 inch rifle with an A1/A2 stock.

As far as Colt and milspec goes... Milspec is THE standard. If you dont have standard parts you should be able to tell why it's different and why it's better. Some companies definitely do that. BCM, Daniel Defense, KAC, Noveske, Sionics, SOLGW, all can tell you why they differed from Milspec and why it's better.

Most AR companies differ to save money. Use a YFS screw in the bolt carrier because it saves them like 4 cents per rifle. Use Loctite on the castle nut instead of staking. Use a different steel for the bolt instead of Carpenter 158 because it's cheaper. Batch test bolts and barrels instead of every unit. Use oversized gas ports because they dont want to get complaints that it wont shoot crap underpowered ammo. Use a carbine buffer instead of a H buffer because its cheaper. Dont use corrosion resistance treated springs because it's cheaper not to and most users wont be out in the elements for days/weeks/months on end. Dont parkerize under the FSB to save money. Use an aluminum low profile gas block because it's cheaper.

Ive used one of the "just as good" brands for a while at work. We had rifles go down every training day. Multiple rifles every time. The problem was so bad my department worked out a deal with a distributer for a 2 for 1 trade for more Colts. In the last 4 or 5 years since I got my new Colt, I can only remember a few rifles going down in training.

That's not to say if you buy a different brand that you will have a bad experience. I had 3 personally owned Bushmasters that I never had issues with. But I never ran them as hard as we run our duty guns.

The question always is does the difference matter to you? Some say yes some say no. Only you can decide. But whether or not the differences matter to you, there are differences and that's what you pay for. And in my opinion a Colt Trooper for under 800 bucks is an amazing deal for what you get.
Click to expand...

There's quite a bit of difference. Pressure at port for carbine is around 34000 psi, and around 27000 psi for mid-length. That's still 7000 psi in the wrong direction, but it's 7000 psi better off than carbine.

I personally would like to see a ~10.5'' gas system for a 16'' barrel. That would reduce pressure at port another 3-4000 psi, and I think it would leave plenty of dwell time to reliably cycle. If 9'' works for a 14.5'' barrel, then 10'' should work okay for a 16'', especially considering rifle length 18'' barrels are common and mostly problem free.

The mid-length gas system was actually very arbitrary. It was designed to put the FSB in the right spot to allow for a bayonet on a 16'' barrel. As far as I know, there was never any scientific thought that said 9'' was the perfect length for a 16'' barrel.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
There is no such thing as a commercial AR that is MilSpec, even if most of the parts are identical to MilSpec parts being used in Colt’s M4s and M4A1s that are delivered to the government. Even Colt will admit that their commercial AR's are not MilSpec. Colt has exclusive rights to the TDP (technical data package). FN pays Colt for the right to manufacture using that TDP.

I'm not bad mouthing Colt. That would be my choice.
Click to expand...

We get it. If it's not an NFA M4 then it's not milspec. TECHNICALLY.

Practically speaking, an LE6920 is as milspec as an M4 in every category that counts. It differs only in the dimensions of a few parts. That is not a valid reason to just throw milspec out the window. Besides, it's the Bolt and barrel that is important. Regarding the barrel, it's the chamber and chrome lining that are most critical. And these are the areas where off brand ARs fall flat on their face. Namely they cut corners with the BCGs and that's the one area of the AR that is super critical to get perfect.
 
grampajack said:
There's quite a bit of difference. Pressure at port for carbine is around 34000 psi, and around 27000 psi for mid-length. That's still 7000 psi in the wrong direction, but it's 7000 psi better off than carbine.

I personally would like to see a ~10.5'' gas system for a 16'' barrel. That would reduce pressure at port another 3-4000 psi, and I think it would leave plenty of dwell time to reliably cycle. If 9'' works for a 14.5'' barrel, then 10'' should work okay for a 16'', especially considering rifle length 18'' barrels are common and mostly problem free.

The mid-length gas system was actually very arbitrary. It was designed to put the FSB in the right spot to allow for a bayonet on a 16'' barrel. As far as I know, there was never any scientific thought that said 9'' was the perfect length for a 16'' barrel.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's why I said I think it's a better system, usually. My personal 16 inch rifles are all mids but that's more because the barrels I wanted were mids, not because I was looking for a mid.

I do believe that theoretically the mid is a better option because of port pressures and dwell time. However I dont think anyone has actually done a scientific test of the two. That would be cool to see.

Looking at my notes from my AR armorers course, midlength gas ports range in size from 0.076 to 0.082. That's a huge difference when you are talking about 27k PSI..
 
C-grunt said:
Yep. That's why I said I think it's a better system, usually. My personal 16 inch rifles are all mids but that's more because the barrels I wanted were mids, not because I was looking for a mid.

I do believe that theoretically the mid is a better option because of port pressures and dwell time. However I dont think anyone has actually done a scientific test of the two. That would be cool to see.

Looking at my notes from my AR armorers course, midlength gas ports range in size from 0.076 to 0.082. That's a huge difference when you are talking about 27k PSI..
Click to expand...

I always use an adjustable gas block. For the most part, gas ports are oversized to allow reliable cycling of .223 like PMC and Wolf. I've never bothered to measure my gas ports, but I've never had to open one up, and always get away with closing them off a little. A properly gassed mid length with a heavy buffer feels almost like a rifle. The A5 system has taken mid-length to new levels IMO. Side by side in a blind test, I don't think anyone could tell the difference between an A5 middie and a rifle. There's a good reason why the A5 systems are always sold out. They're the cat's pajamas and then some. How such an obvious thing could go unnoticed for so many years is beyond me.
 
There are four differences between the Colt commercial M4 and the military M4
1) Barrel length
2) Fire control group
3) Third hole in the lower for the auto sear pin
4) Buffer weight

When the barrel is ported right, there is little difference in function, reliability and felt recoil between the carbine gas system and the mid length
 
MistWolf said:
There are four differences between the Colt commercial M4 and the military M4
1) Barrel length
2) Fire control group
3) Third hole in the lower for the auto sear pin
4) Buffer weight

When the barrel is ported right, there is little difference in function, reliability and felt recoil between the carbine gas system and the mid length
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your definition of little. As a percentage thing I guess I see where you're coming from, but on a practical level it makes a big difference to me. A carbine always feels harsh to me, but once you get a mid-length dialed in it just feels so sweet.

My personal opinion is also that it buys you a significant amount of increased reliability. I don't have any technical data to support that opinion, but what I do know is that the shorter your gas system the more wear there is on parts. For example, I've never seen a broken rifle bolt. I don't know how long a milspec bolt will last in an M16, but my impression is that it's dang near forever. Scale down to an M4 and you're looking at 20k rounds or so. Scale down further to a Mk18 and you're looking at more like 6k rounds.

I have to believe this can only mean that the bolt is unlocking at higher than ideal pressures. If it were true that you could reliably reduce gas system length by merely squeezing down the gas port, then it would stand to reason that all ARs should have short gas systems regardless of barrel length, as the gas block being closer to the chamber would improve harmonics, especially on lighter barrels. A lot of people say the original AR15 was given a 12'' gas system because that's simply where it ended up working with the bayonet. So they're arguing that the FSB and bayo were designed first, then the gas system was designed around them. I find that very difficult to believe. Not only is it impractical to have done it that way, but if that were the case I don't think the port pressure for an M16 would have just magically happened to have ended up at a perfect 20k psi. Until I see something concrete I'm always going to believe that the engineers were consciously aware of what they were doing when they decided on barrel and gas system length, and that it really does matter.

Then there's port erosion. Not really an issue with a rifle length gas system. But when you get down to carbine, the gas port opens up excessively while there's still life left in the barrel itself. So your barrel is still shooting decent groups, but your bolt velocity is increasing. At the very least, longer gas systems give the gas more time to cool, and that certainly can't hurt anything.
 
Grandpajack, I mean little as in subtle. Gas port diameter is far more critical than gas port location and the higher the pressure, the more critical gas port diameter becomes. Middy and rifle gas systems are much more forgiving of port diameter. But, when the gas port diameter is right, there is little difference in felt recoil between the carbine and middy.

Tapping higher pressure gas does have an affect on durability of the bolt, extractor and extractor spring and increases port erosion. The differences between the carbine gas system and the rifle gas system is documented and is significant. I've yet to see any documentation of the difference in durability between carbine and middy. I'm certain the difference will fall between carbine and rifle, but I cannot say how much that difference is.

When it came to shooting, I didn't see much difference between a Colt 6920 and a PSA 16" middy. The PSA had a pinned front sight base, so I didn't take it off to measure what the gas port diameter was. But, in playing around with different types of ammo and swapping between a carbine buffer and an H buffer, my conclusions are that the gas port diameter was about right. From this experience, combined with experiences tuning an over gassed 10.5" barrel with an adjustable gas block, with and without suppressor, has lead me to the conclusion that gas port diameter is far more important than if it's a carbine or middy. I think the right spring and reciprocating mass may also be more important than carbine or middy.

Personally, I prefer a middy over a carbine for a 16" barrel, but I don't think it's that important when both are tuned right. But I like a 14.5" carbine even better
 
The Colt 6920 is the best sub-$1000 fighting carbine on the market today. Put a Vortex or Burris red dot on it and it should do about everything you need from a 5.56 carbine.
 
MistWolf said:
Grandpajack, I mean little as in subtle. Gas port diameter is far more critical than gas port location and the higher the pressure, the more critical gas port diameter becomes. Middy and rifle gas systems are much more forgiving of port diameter. But, when the gas port diameter is right, there is little difference in felt recoil between the carbine and middy.

Tapping higher pressure gas does have an affect on durability of the bolt, extractor and extractor spring and increases port erosion. The differences between the carbine gas system and the rifle gas system is documented and is significant. I've yet to see any documentation of the difference in durability between carbine and middy. I'm certain the difference will fall between carbine and rifle, but I cannot say how much that difference is.

When it came to shooting, I didn't see much difference between a Colt 6920 and a PSA 16" middy. The PSA had a pinned front sight base, so I didn't take it off to measure what the gas port diameter was. But, in playing around with different types of ammo and swapping between a carbine buffer and an H buffer, my conclusions are that the gas port diameter was about right. From this experience, combined with experiences tuning an over gassed 10.5" barrel with an adjustable gas block, with and without suppressor, has lead me to the conclusion that gas port diameter is far more important than if it's a carbine or middy. I think the right spring and reciprocating mass may also be more important than carbine or middy.

Personally, I prefer a middy over a carbine for a 16" barrel, but I don't think it's that important when both are tuned right. But I like a 14.5" carbine even better
Click to expand...

Pat Robertson claimed the bolt was good for 40k rounds for a middie, which sounds believable.

I'll tell you what I would really like to do is take a Noveske 18'' "intermediate" and cut it down to 16''. I'm not sure exactly how long they are, but I'm thinking it's gotta fall right around 10.5'' if it's between mid and rifle. Dang, I'm gonna have to do that someday when I have time and money to burn. I bet it would be sweet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
AR-15 Red Dot
Replies
16
Views
866
kfgk14
K
S
  • Locked
AR scopes and red dots
Replies
12
Views
845
gotigers
G
D
  • Locked
Critique my AR-15 plan
Replies
15
Views
799
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
U
  • Locked
Assistance picking out parts for ar15
Replies
10
Views
1K
Sheepdog1968
S
Acera
  • Locked
Red Dot help needed.
Replies
24
Views
3K
Acera
Acera
Back
Top