Semi-Auto Rifles: The "Range Toy" Lie?

Much of nothing

This is the same as a Hybred driving yuppie asking a red neck why he own a gas guzzling 4x4.....much of nothing to do with anything.

mac66 said:

Most of my guns are range toys. Nearly all my black rifles are. I hunt but not with them. I don't ever expect a TEOTWAWKI of SHTF situation. I am not going to go out and save the world by clearing my neighborhood of zombies. I am not in denial, I am not an armchair commando. I just like modern weapons. I just like to shoot cool guns. What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like what I would write ... and if anyone asks "Why?"

I simply tell them ... "Because I can."

I actually find this thread quite humerus in some parts. Some of you guys have legitimate reasons and others just want to play. Nothing wrong with that!

Now my reason for building an AR and keeping my AK is because I like range toys that work. I have a knack for all purpose guns and all the guns I own are capable of filling multiple roles. Where I live is a relatively decent town, however both sides of me are crappy towns, and when something goes down, the bad people come out. Even if I never have to use them, I'm still glad to have them around.

My AR's, AK's, SKS's, MAS 49/56, etc are all range toys. Should the Barbarian hordes uprise, and attack they will quickly become defensive weapons, and that is exactly what I tell my latte drinking, white wine, and brie cheese friends.

I'm a lover of single shot rifles and have 3 2 Browning 1885 45/70and 40/65 and a Shiloh Sharps 45/70. When i went to the range I took a considerable amount of kidding about joining the 21st century. So a couple of years ago I bought an AR and after having it a while I decided "this is fun". Since then I aquired a few more ARs 3 in 223,a carbone,standard A2,a heavy barrel version,2 in 22lr and 1 in 300 Blackout. I have a few bolts in military calibers as well.

Unfortunately, it seems that this practice leads to the purchase of a bottom rung firearm, which is fine for a true blue range toy, but...

Click to expand...

I'll take a cheap gun that functions with cheap ammo (steel case) over an expensive gun that chokes on cheap ammo every time!

^ I agree with this. Functioning in 80% of situations on 97% of what can be obtained is great, even if you can't get much more than 4 MoA.

Anyway I will say this. In my limited exposure to real high power rifle competition, those AR15's can sure perform, and it's comforting/amazing to see real marksman using them.

Click to expand...

I've noted elsewhere before that the AR isn't limited to just High Power. Not only is that platform accurate enough to be the dominant choice of HP shooters, it's also robust enough for 3 Gun competition as well. For the most part, the AR tends to become the dominant choice in whatever sport it can play in, and with good reason.

Whatever the media-and-video-game-crazed stigma on these "assault rifles" may be, at the end of the day it's the CMP shooters I remember.

Click to expand...

Video games haven't contributed to any stigma about "assault rifles." If anything, videos games stand as one of the few forms of mass media that tends not to have an industry-wide ideological stance or the hubris to use the medium as a soapbox. If anything, video games, especially some of the extremely popular military first-person shooters, have contributed to the mainstream acceptance of military-style firearms.

^ The Call Of Duty effect is a double-edged sword. While it raises positive gun interest and awareness, the backlash against younger shooters who want guns featured in it can be rather vexing to say the least.I'm not complaining because it's a net good. At least it gets people into guns who otherwise would remain clueless, and I accredit video games with bringing the new generation into guns, now that they are no longer a necessary fact of life for so many of us.

Semiauto rifles are mature, very reliable tools. I look at manual reloading like i look at manually shifting gears in cars. Something the machines got pretty good at doing reliably. Why shift your way through gears for day to day driving if you don't have to. In the past, auto transmissions were not as performant as the manual ones, and in the begining they were very unreliable. This days, you can't really beat a modern auto transmission with manual shifting and they last in most cases as long as the car.
The same with self loading rifles. They started way before auto transmissions and had much longer time to become mature technology. There are plenty of semiautos out there that will last longer than us.
Why chamber rounds manually, if you don't have to, and the machine does it better and faster than us anyway?

Times change, people don't. In many ways we get stuck on what was cool in our prime time.

The world around us evolves constantly. It's natural.
Get used to it.

Unfortunately, it seems that this practice leads to the purchase of a bottom rung firearm, which is fine for a true blue range toy, but...

Click to expand...

I find myself perplexed by people who point out bottom rung firearms, are these the same as bottom rung vehicles? There is no issue with someone purchasing something they can afford, it may in fact mean the person has some common sense.

Regarding the "do-dads and gadgets", again, this is just not something I have seen myself. I have seen lots of shooters at the range with ARs and I can't remember ever seeing one with any gadgets what-so-ever.

Click to expand...

Someone ribbed me a little at a local USPSA-style rifle match a couple months ago because I shot the match with a light mounted to my AR (not turned on, just there). The light is on there at a lot of my range sessions too.



Thing is, I shoot matches not only for fun, but to learn how to handle the guns I own in situations other than square-range static shooting. The light changes the balance and sight picture of the rifle a little, and if I ever have to use that rifle defensively it's going to have the light on it. So I want to know how the rifle swings with the light out front, what the sight picture looks like, whether it changes zero at all (it doesn't), etc.

In one carbine match I shot a couple years ago, a guy who I am pretty sure is an active duty Marine ran the entire match with a rifle that had about a 42mm scope on it, even though the entire match was shooting IPSC targets at 5 to 15 yards against the clock. He wasn't doing it because he was stupid or because he didn't know that a magnified scope is less than ideal for shooting at targets 5 yards away. I believe did it because he realized he might have a need to use a scoped gun in close in an emergency, and wanted to identify and overcome the difficulties. He actually did well, using a far-forward support hand and looking just over the top of the scope. He didn't win, but that's not why he was there.

I feel like a lot of people are blowing by the OP's point. There is undeniably a consumer culture narrative out there that you should start out with an "entry level" $400-$500 AR, then as your interests change and grow, you should add or trade in for a $600 AR, an $800 AR, then a $1200 AR, and on and on... I think it's wise to question this.

I have yet to see this phenomenon that the OP explains. As far as the deep-seeded psychological approach behind other's firearm purchases - I could not care less. It changes nothing in my world. Greetings.

Logan5 said:

I feel like a lot of people are blowing by the OP's point. There is undeniably a consumer culture narrative out there that you should start out with an "entry level" $400-$500 AR, then as your interests change and grow, you should add or trade in for a $600 AR, an $800 AR, then a $1200 AR, and on and on... I think it's wise to question this.

Click to expand...

Well that's one way of doing it, but there's another way to play the gun game.

Some people start out truly wanting just a "range toy." If they put 3K rounds through the gun with absolutely no issues, why trade their $600 gun towards a $1500 gun? After all, the gun has functioned perfectly for that time frame, so why switch?

On the other hand, there are certain guns that solely serve as a range gun. Key: Jam-O-Matic AR's, mare's leg lever actions, pistol grip only shotguns, and tactical .22's. Eventually you come to see that the fun is over and its time to get a real gun, or you just hold onto it for the fun factor.

If I put 3K rounds of whatever crap I could find through a Olympic Arms AR, you can bet I would put that next to my bedside a lot faster than a brand new Daniel Defense AR with only 200 rounds through it. Confidence comes when a weapon proves itself. If the underdog proves itself, I'll take it over the assumed superior weapon any day.

I disagree with the premise that a "Entry level" Ak (WASR) or my AR is any less reliable. The lack of a happy button and automatic trigger group does not make it a pile of junk, destined to fall apart at 1,000 rounds. In-fact without full auto, they likely will last longer. "Mil-spec" only refers to the military's (Typically U.S.) specifications. It does not mean everything else is bad, or even that "mil-spec" is the best...

I have no problem stating that I own such devices "just in Case". Yes they go to the range, yes they are fun, but they are also a bit of insurance. Insurance I hope I never need......but have the GOD given right to keep and bear.

I dont think there is any issue with turning a "range toy" into a home defense weapon. A smart person who, gets a gun for a toy and realizes its what they want as a defensive gun, should also be smart enough to go over it and make sure its reliable and a viable option for what there "defensive situation" is likely to be. Really If the damn thing goes bang when you pull the trigger, and your comfortable with it then who cares what it cost, and who made it.
Now that said, If the gun is unreliable, dosent mater if it cost 10 bucks or 10 grand, it has no place as a defensive weapon. THAT sort of firearm, can only be a range toy.

I bought a 591 mini, for both. Its comfortable for me, and has cycled around 1000rnds without a hickup. If im forced to use it to defend myself or family it will be fired at a range of less then 30yds. Thus the fact that i can hit a pie plate at 200 and change dosent matter, but i DO know i can do it because i take it to the range every time i go to play with.

1- It’s Americas rifle
2- It’s very versatile
3- It has about the best ergonomics of any rifle
4- It has low recoil
5- Most are very accurate
6- They are very customizable without a gunsmith
7- Ammunition is relatively inexpensive
8- They are just a lot of fun to play with.

OK OK they look cool

Click to expand...

If I was makeing a list that would be it...

Wife has a NM and a SAM-R Clone and a 7" pistol

I have a 16 pinned, 16 legal, 18" 3-Gun and a .308 tac-20/SR-25 clone.

Also have a Warsaw AK that's never been fired, also have a glock 19 that's never been fired... what I had when I lived with the Iraqi Army, novelty guns. She used to shoot competitively, I used to shoot competitively and used the 16 pinned for 'buisness training" and we like to play, We're both Marines. I took the .308 deer hunting, was a nice gun, smoked a hand full of varmints rather quickly one night, but at 14lbs dressed it's just "too much gun" and get's caught too much in the brush, light weight 7lb Rem 700 has replaced it.

To each his own... kind of like my 4" Champion BBQ pistol.

I feel like a lot of people are blowing by the OP's point. There is undeniably a consumer culture narrative out there that you should start out with an "entry level" $400-$500 AR, then as your interests change and grow, you should add or trade in for a $600 AR, an $800 AR, then a $1200 AR, and on and on... I think it's wise to question this.

Click to expand...

I notice this "entry-level-and-then-move-up" mindset more at the Trap range than at the local rifle range.
"Yeah, that BT-99 is a good gun to start with." Makes one wonder.

Most shooters that I have talked to have the habit of purchasing the best tools that they can afford....that seems to extend to their firearms.
When I bought my AR (a Colt Match Target) it was so that I could shoot HighPower/Service rifle matches. It was and is a piece of sporting goods, nothing more. I had tried both a Mini-14 and an SKS (that was a range toy) before the Colt. Neither was accurate enough (something that I had to learn myself), the Colt was the best tool for the job. The Mini went away; the SKS, since it was such a good buy stayed....it sits in the gun cabinet, unfired for years now.
Pete

I'm going to take some exception to your post.

1- It’s Americas rifle

Click to expand...

There's no denying that. It has been America's longest serving rifle ever.

2- It’s very versatile

Click to expand...

It works for HD, Hunting, Trolling, and Competition.

3- It has about the best ergonomics of any rifle

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but I positively hate the control scheme. I will never consider a central charging handle natural, and in my honest opinion, I prefer the AK by miles.

4- It has low recoil

Click to expand...

Undeniably, but it also makes it annoying when people my age talk about the AR as a big manly gun and then moan about the recoil from a 91/30.

5- Most are very accurate

Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever found an inaccurate AR. What is an inaccurate AR anyway? Is it one that can only achieve 1.5 MoA?

6- They are very customizable without a gunsmith

Click to expand...

I won't dispute it.

7- Ammunition is relatively inexpensive

Click to expand...

That's true, until you get into match grade loads.

8- They are just a lot of fun to play with.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, they make excellent toys for an hour or two, but I still prefer a pair or skis or an SVT.

OK OK they look cool

Click to expand...

Agreed!

This is the same as a Hybred driving yuppie asking a red neck why he own a gas guzzling 4x4.....much of nothing to do with anything.

Click to expand...

That's about the best comparison I've heard yet. Why worry about what other people want to own or shoot?

Guns don't always need a "purpose" - everything need not always be serious. I think too many many have gotten so wrapped up in the self-defense segment of the firearms market that they forget that some people do buy guns and just go out shooting for FUN. Sometimes just getting to the range and shooting some can be a goal unto itself. It doesn't have to be practice, "training", or any other defense related activity. Some people just wanna shoot, and there's no harm in that.

Also know that you can't steer a line of questioning and expect to get good results. If you ask me why I bought my AR, I'll tell you (honestly) that it's a range toy.

Now, if you "steer the witness" so to speak and ask:

"If the SHTF and you had to take out one of your rifles, which would it be?"

Well, in all honesty I'd probably take the AR, because it's my own high-capicity semi-auto rifle. That doesn't mean that I think that scenario is likely or that it played any role in its purchase though - the question itself took us to an area where the purchaser wasn't necessarily considering at all when they bought the gun.

I resisted the AR movement for a long time, just had no use for a .223 caliber rifle. That said none of my rifles are range toys, and I own an AR-10 clone (DPMS LR308) and I am building a .300AAC AR-15. Just got a DD upper receiver and am awaiting my barrel.

My reasons had nothing to do with TEOTWAWKI or SHTF,(I personally think those guys all have a misguided Red Dawn Fantasy but so what)
I shot an M-110 in Afghanistan and I wanted something similar, I hunt a lot and if my rifles don't fulfill one my hunting roles I don't buy them. I don't spend a lot of time on the range and i don't shoot competitions, would rather spend my limited spare time hunting. I don't need safe queens and I am not a gun collector, I am a firearm user.

I like the AR platform, I enjoy the ergos , the light weight and low recoil and maybe because other than bolt actions, due to the Army I have spent a lot of time with it. I know it really well and I know what it can do.

I guess we all have reasons for what we buy and like, thats the fun of being a firearms enthusiast we all have a seat at the table. For example my brother is a pistol guy, shoots USPSA, etc. I have no use for handguns, I own a couple but its not my firearm hobby, Im a rifle guy doesn't mean i think people shouldnt own handguns, just like my brother doesn't think people shouldnt own ARs or AKs. To each his own regardless of what they intend to do with it.

I think there is a lot of misguided criticism regarding price and AR reliability. For example, many 1911 handgun owners dislike the lesser cost of the plastic guns and tend to see them as a compromised firearm. I own a few 1911’s and appreciate them, however, my most reliable handgun is a Glock gen4 27. My point goes directly to my DPMS Panther 308. Some might be critical of my rifle due to cost. It doesn’t have a chromed barrel, etc. The thing shoots great, never had a miss-feed(even with my reloads) and is a good accurate hunting rifle as well. I guess my rifle is akin to my Glock – nothing fancy but a bargain for the money (to me at least). Why an AR? Because that is the type of gun I wanted to buy regardless of who and whatever someone else is choosing to buy.

I think there is a lot of misguided criticism regarding price and AR reliability. For example, many 1911 handgun owners dislike the lesser cost of the plastic guns and tend to see them as a compromised firearm. I own a few 1911’s and appreciate them, however, my most reliable handgun is a Glock gen4 27. My point goes directly to my DPMS Panther 308. Some might be critical of my rifle due to cost. It doesn’t have a chromed barrel, etc. The thing shoots great, never had a miss-feed(even with my reloads) and is a good accurate hunting rifle as well. I guess my rifle is akin to my Glock – nothing fancy but a bargain for the money (to me at least). Why an AR? Because that is the type of gun I wanted to buy regardless of who and whatever someone else is choosing to buy.

Click to expand...

That's not really an apt comparison. You are comparing price differences in two completely different handgun platforms to a single rifle platform. Glocks were designed with modern mass production techniques in mind, and they are cheap as a result of that. The 1911 was designed when low cost, skilled, hand labor was the norm, and they are expensive to produce because of that.

A more apt comparison would be a $400 Rock Island 1911 to a $900 Colt or even a $1700 Les Baer. The Rock Island may shoot well, and may be reliable for the use it sees, but is it of the same quality of materials, fit, and finish as the other two?

I'm not advocating that everyone out there buy the top quality most expensive guns out there. Not everyone is in need of a Colt or Noveske. However there is a quality difference between the low priced guns and the high priced guns, and telling oneself over and over there isn't won't change that.