AR pros and cons, should I buy one? Your thoughts please.

As far as the "Should I buy an AR-15?", my short answer is NO!

I'm on the waiting list for two AR-15's and I don't need anyone else getting on the same list!


The .338 Edge might take over where the .50BMG leaves off as far as wind bucking and trajectory.

I never liked ARs, they're a hassle to clean (too many nooks and crannies) they're accurate enough I just don't like them.

Probably too many nights spent scrubbing an M-16 outside the arms room waiting for some D.A. 2nd Lt. ( yes I'm aware that was redundant) to decide they were clean enough to release us.

Aren't newer ARs easier to clean and have less problem with jamming than older or inferior models like Olympic Arms?

What are you looking to do at long range? If you are looking for something to take medium game or larger, no, an AR would be a poor choice. If for small game, or offensive pieces of paper, an AR can be an excellent choice. If you wish to prepare your self for the "Well Regulated Militia" then an AR would be an obvious choice.

Sure, buy it. Heck, buy two, or three. It's America's Rifle.

My Dislike For ARs is Purely Psychological

Aren't newer ARs easier to clean and have less problem with jamming than older or inferior models

Click to expand...

Two of the rifles I was issued were Colt's I saw no difference between them and the Harrington Righard's I was issued at Ft. Carson.

I had 2 A-1s ( full auto) and 3 A-2s ( three round burst)

Never had any reliability issues W/ any of them. Obviously the price was right and the Ammunition was free as well.

The problem was every time I got to shoot one it meant I had to lose sleep ( & maybe my day off) get up in the middle of the night, ride halfway across Germany ( or Fort Lewis, or Fort Carson or Fort Sill) usually in a snow storm or a rainstorm. get to the range at 4 am and wait till 9 for range control to get done W/ PT and open the range ( did I mention the rain and snow) Eat a nasty MRE for breakfast , a NASTIER MRE for lunch and suck it up for dinner. spend at least 12 hours on the range ( not counting drive time) to shoot 49 rounds usually in a foxhole full of mud & the ocassional rattlesnake and climb back in the Duece & a half ( did I mention the rain & snow ) to arrive at the barrack ( usually right after taps) just in time to spend 2 hours waiting for the arms room to open up ( for what that was worth ) and the rest of the night scrubbing that GD M-16. If I never shoot one again it'll be too soon.

My buddy loves them , I dont own one (cant afford one) they are fun and accurate but as mentioned not the be and end all , as your militia gun great as your hunting rifle go for a 700

Accuracy at distances, you don't need a semi auto. A modern bolt action will work fine for less cash.
I wouldn't have an AR, far too expensive for a varmint gun.

I agree with Treo, in that the army can take activities that sound like they should be fun, and manage to take all the fun out of them.

I doubt there's any significant difference between manufacturers and models of ARs in cleaning them, when the exception of big changes, like the piston-driven models. To be perfectly honest, I continue to be impressed by the AR design in its simplicity and versatility.

I think you will wind up wanting at least a few rifles. Maybe not overnight, or this year, but your interests are a bit broad for any one rifle to cover. Most of us agree that AKs and ARs are two different ways of looking at doing the same job, meaning intermediate powered rifles intended to give high-volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at short to medium ranges, using a meduim sized cartridge in order to be controllable by most users. The AR has a bit of an edge in controllability, accuracy, and ease of use, but at the same time, it's probably a little bit more accurate than it NEEDS to be for a rifle with this purpose. I recommend that you go to a rental range and try a few. Most people find they are genuinely fun to shoot, and don't hurt you. When you buy one, I strongly recommend getting one chambered in 5.56 mm rather than .223, they are NOT exactly the same, the 5.56 is more able to shoot the other than vice-versa.

Bolt-action rifles are a bit more accurate, but you will need to shoot a lot before you will see the difference. The higher-powered options you are looking at would probably be covered for now with a good, name-brand used 30-06 bolt rifle. (Remington 700 is where I always start.) Look in any pawn shop. This rifle will serve you out to 800 yards. You can use this for everything from varmints to elk.

I THINK, to need or want anything bigger means you are trying to hit something at a range an '06 can't go to, and/or something an '06 can't kill. The magnums, .50 BMG, .416 'Feinstein', etc, are honestly what you start using when you have maxed out your abilities with .30 caliber rifles.

i dont know, i have been on the fence about one for a couple of months. i want one, but the price is to high right now for me to go out and buy one. but honestly, i am having a hard time justifying that much money for a "pleasure gun". i do not need one for any type of hunting that i do, i have h.d. pistols, so that base id covered. so realy, it would just be to shoot for fun. kind of expensive in todays market also. even 22lr's are expensive these days.

Probably too many nights spent scrubbing an M-16 outside the arms room waiting for some D.A. 2nd Lt. ( yes I'm aware that was redundant) to decide they were clean enough to release us.

Click to expand...

As a former butterbar I resemble that remark! Seriously though, are you telling me that the part-time armory officer was a harder inspector than the SP4 or NCO full time armorer? My job as the armory officer was essentially to verify that the arms inventory was complete so that if anything came up missing there would be somebody for the commander to blame. It was the armorer who was responsible for the level of cleanliness of the weapons in his charge.

^ Sounds like a bunch of officers I know. Ramble on about something that was said and not say anything on topic.

Have you considered the FNAR?

Jockey,

You say

Why a bolt action? They really aren't any more accurate than many of the modern autos

Click to expand...

Right. Maybe the best compromise for a high precision semi-auto with take-down power at a distance is the FNAR in .308 Win, "new" from FNH USA:
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/group.asp?gid=FNG022&cid=FNC01
There's a favorable review:
http://www.gunblast.com/FN-AR.htm
Jeff is fun to read even if you don't buy the rifle.

A number of us on THR either own or are considering one - just search on "FNAR", "FN AR" or "FN-AR". Some good thoughts, including a lot of negative ones early on (gun intro'd ~ Jan '08). The concept of the gun is hard to get your mind around, we see.

I would say that the FNAR is likely the best for now at retaining your sight picture after the first shot, with a low/mid-power scope. Recoil is mild for a ~.30 cal round with approx. equiv. effect-at-range of the .30-06. Why have a semi if not to take rapid follow-up shots? The FNAR .308 is evidently designed to be lethal in rapid aimed fire at 50-300 yds distance. It is precise out to 600-800 yds, slower rate of fire.

Mine is going to be my new deer rifle (with multiple other purposes as well). I'd be laughed off the back of the truck if I showed up with an AK or an AR of any flavor, but the FNAR (based on the 40-year-old Browning BAR hunting rifle action) with 5 or 10-round mag should be respectable among my good ole boys, though edgy, to be sure.

Price is $1500 +/- $200 which is $500 less than other .308 semi-autos (if you can find any to choose from) but is a lot more than a used bolt-action. Price is the biggest consideration.

I like my AR. I don't own an AK but have fired them. The experience is quite differant. Both are good guns in thier own right. AR's shoot like laser guns.
I am a cleaning nut. That being said, I can break them down and clean mine in about 30 minutes. (including taking the bolt down)
Tons of parts availability make upgrades a snap.
Any reliability issues are IMHO in the mind, not the gun. I have had no reliability issues w/ mine (Olympic Arms) even being a "second rate" version.

If you want a .223 autoloader that's accurate, the AR is the easiest way to get it.

Fun, still relatively cheap to shoot, Lego-block customization ability, easy to break down and clean, huuuuge aftermarket support, accurate, diverse ammunition loads and basically endless available uppers from .17 Fireball to .50BMG to 6.8mm to .204 Ruger, great carbine to take a defense course with, reliable, etc.

They're not the "perfect" gun, but they sure are a good compromise of everything that makes a good gun great.

considering cost plus features, the AR is the most versatile, modular, and handy rifle out there that doesn't require dropping 1800 bucks on it (unless you want to)

I'm a long-time shooter but only a recent convert to the Cult of the Black Rifle. Fun to build, fun to shoot, mine's "sub-moa" with good ammo (so it's certainly interesting). With the depth & variety of AR- related options & accessories...it's tough to think of reasons why NOT to have an AR or two (or five) around the house.

It's just plain un-American not to own an AR. Buncha commies!

I wouldn't have an AR, far too expensive for a varmint gun.

Click to expand...

I bought a LMT made kit & receiver from MAparts for $600. AR's don't have to be all that expensive. Granted Saiga's are a heck of a lot cheaper... but you really don't need to spend 1K on an AR to get something that's of good value.

These days AKs are starting to become as expensive as ARs, and for what? A gun with much less accuracy and inferior parts? I always thought the advantage of an AK was its power and LOW price. Now that a converted Russian AK costs more than an AR, are you really getting as much bang for your buck with an AK over an AR? I would think a .308 AR would make up for any of the lack of firepower people claim than an .223 AR would have.

Aren't newer ARs easier to clean and have less problem with jamming than older or inferior models like Olympic Arms?

Click to expand...

Care to expound on or explain this? I'm just tired of all the unsubstantiated Olympic Arms bashing. I don't understand how something that is built to milspec could be considered an "older or inferior model." Reading stuff like this, you'd think that Olympic Arms had made the original M-16s that had issues in Vietnam. I can remember when Olympic Arms was a respected brand and no one had heard of many of the hot nameplates that are all the rage today. That said, if someone is going to use the Olympic Arms brand as toilet paper around here, can we at least get the benefit of some supporting facts?