im kinda laughing on this one. really am actually.
There is a really interesting thread currently on cost of ar versus quality of ar that you end up with. This is what gets me laughing.
in it, it was put out as scientific fact that that it would cost you 800 dollars to recreate a mil spec M4 carbine.
when i was in basic, my m16a3 cost the us government 600 max to purchase in the 1980s. yeah, it was old but it was fun. it was loose but.
It still had better metal to metal fit then 90 % of what i see in walmart gun counters and mc sports racks.
the sights are better then any 'mil spec" ive seen on a gun in a rack anywhere made since the newtown panic started.
ive foundled .308 sigs that were NICE. but had the cheapest cast flip up sights. then again most of the spots i have seen companies cutting the most corners in is
finish quality
metal to metal fit
stocks, soooo tired of the cheapo 50 dollar adjustable stocks on everything.
and cheapest possible flip up sights that make the cricket 22lr look like an olympic target rifle.
There is a really interesting thread currently on cost of ar versus quality of ar that you end up with. This is what gets me laughing.
in it, it was put out as scientific fact that that it would cost you 800 dollars to recreate a mil spec M4 carbine.
when i was in basic, my m16a3 cost the us government 600 max to purchase in the 1980s. yeah, it was old but it was fun. it was loose but.
It still had better metal to metal fit then 90 % of what i see in walmart gun counters and mc sports racks.
the sights are better then any 'mil spec" ive seen on a gun in a rack anywhere made since the newtown panic started.
ive foundled .308 sigs that were NICE. but had the cheapest cast flip up sights. then again most of the spots i have seen companies cutting the most corners in is
finish quality
metal to metal fit
stocks, soooo tired of the cheapo 50 dollar adjustable stocks on everything.
and cheapest possible flip up sights that make the cricket 22lr look like an olympic target rifle.