AR snobbery...why?

[M&PVolk]

It is amazing to me the amount of gun snobbery I see on this forum sometimes, and nowhere is it more apparent than with the AR platform. It seems AR owners are worse than even Colt and 1911 fans! The thing I don't get is why? The AR arguments tossed about on this board don't even make sense! The Bushmaster bashing thread is a classic example.

It breaks down like this:
Off chart guy: "I have a BM and it is rock solid and accurate".
Chart guy: "Well, it doesn't meet the mil-spec definitions as outlined by the chart. Get a real gun, buy a Colt."
Off chart guy: "What's the big deal with the chart?"
Chart guy: "If it doesn't meet all the specs on the chart, it is unreliable and crap. It will not survive a carbine course and is a poor combat gun".

...and that's where they lose me. Is the true measure of an AR only that it meets the specs set forth in the chart? If so, the opinion of the AR snobbery must be that the AR's primary civilian purpose is to be a dedicated battle rifle and must reach the chart's specs to achieve maximum reliability. The laughable thing about that is that the AR isn't even the best choice from the list of dedicated battle rifles! The AK meets that task much better with a better round and you don't have to carry lube and meticulously maintain the gun to make it through your beloved carbine scenario! Stop bashing one AR and praising another...go to a real battle rifle...the AK!

See how ridiculous it is? The snobbery turns people off, especially new gun owners and keeps them from joining a community of firearms owners that can help protect our gun rights and just enjoy shooting together. If you want to spend top of the line money on your AR, cool, but don't bash someone who realizes he has less than a .5% of ever using it as a battle rifle. Accept that some people want a plinker. Some want a coyote gun. Some want a cool looking customizable gun. There are tons of other interests in the AR that the good old mil-spec isn't necessarily the best design for, not even including the new piston systems if you want a true battle AR rifle.

Honestly, this is the kind of attitude that keeps gun owners on the back burners as kooks and really hurts the case that gun owners are good folks with a common interest.

 

[kamagong]

A valid question. I suspect that as gun enthusiasts we may get carried away with our opinions at times. It happens with many things -- 9mm vs. .45, AR vs. AK, Glock vs. 1911s, Colts vs. "copies," ad infinitum.

That said, there are qualitative differences between the different AR brands. To pretend otherwise is foolish. Whether to buy an Olympic, Stag, Smith & Wesson, or Noveske is a decision each person has to determine for himself as only he knows what he needs the AR for. One person may want an AR for a range toy. Another may want a long range varmint gun. A third may want a self-defense/SHTF carbine. Whatever you want the most important thing is to be honest with yourself. And that means admitting that not all ARs are created equal.

 

[Big_E]

You don't get it. Every AR is crap. Colt's may be good but they are not great. Colt fanboys are blinded by price tags and a history of military service. The only AR that is the best is BCM, but its not that great because not everyone has heard of it. Even though it meets everything on the "chart".

See what I'm getting at.

 

[R.W.Dale]

You mean paukerizing under the front sight base isn't critical to not only function and reliability but how I previeve my manhood as well?


OH! Dear I'm feeling kinda depressed and confused now

 

[JDGray]

Alot of civillian Mil Spec snobs, forget about the happy switch! Its not real, till you got one of those

My non Mil spec RRAs, will suit me just fine

 

[madcratebuilder]

You mean paukerizing under the front sight base isn't critical to not only function and reliability but how I previeve my manhood as well?


OH! Dear I'm feeling kinda depressed and confused now

+1

I find some of the "rabbit season... duck season" threads very amusing.

Pride in ownership is one thing, but some go to far.

 

[jl1966]

It is just a thing with gun owners, usually a friendly rivalry about ones prefered type of weapon. As with anything though, some will make it about money, and must disparage someone with a lesser priced item, especially if said item may perform as well as their higher priced one. Lets all say it together,"We are not going to use our weapons in a prolonged battle, we just like to play with them and debate about them." I am a glock, and S&W revolver fan, I use them in competition, they have proven to be the best for me. I have been bested by users of cheaper guns, and was glad to learn a little about a reliable gun which was available at a lower price, we need all of that we can get. I have shot a few carbine courses, I use an armalite. Others had DPMS, LMT, BM, RRA, and Colt. Sights included various open styles, including my hastily purchase American Tactical, which were problematic (cheap and hard to zero), Eotech, and a BSA scope, all performed suitably. More rounds expended than probably 80% of owners will ever shoot through there rifles, and no problems to speak of. I enjoy the debate as much as anyone though.

 

[DMK]

That whole chart thing is a bunch of BS. It compares certain models to specs of the M4 carbine. Unless you want an M4 carbine, it's not really appropriate. Sure a staked gas key is important, but things like "F" marked front sight, barrel twist rate, stock and handguard type may not matter, depending on what you want.

 

[jimmy0622]

Stop bashing one AR and praising another...go to a real battle rifle...the AK!

Last time I checked, AR-15's and AK-47 clones were assault rifles, not battle rifles. If you want a "real" battle rifle go for a G3, CETME, FAL, M14, etc.

 

[Rembrandt]

As I've understood it, the mil-spec issue is more important for consistent cycling in full auto mode than anything else....especially when in a life or death combat scenario. For the hunter/recreational shooter who's life is not on the line, mil spec does little other than allow for part uniformity.

If wrong, enlighten me....

 

[Balrog]

Colt will always have better resale value than a Bushmaster.

 

[jpwilly]

I don't get it either. The AR is a good platform but this is a very subjective topic. I own 3 AR platforms and could care less what you want to use, who made it, what bells and whistle are have on it. Yea there's some garbage out there but for the most part good quality products are out there for very little money. The CMT, RRA, DPMS, BM etc is all pretty good stuff IMO.

In the military you are issued your Colt or FN weapon and given a good amount of instruction. To go along with it. They've done their testing and determined what pockets to line along the way. I don't have to consider that.

 

[61chalk]

Nothing wrong with being passionate about what you own an shoot.
Something wrong when telling someone else their passion is wrong.
I always enjoy a little debate an entertainment on threads....after all
anyone with any sense at all knows the M1 Garand is much better than
any AR or AK ....................ok just kidding! Couldn't help my self.

 

[Motodeficient]

I don't own an AR, never have, but probably will someday. And it will be a "cheap" one.

I think there are a couple of reasons for AR snobbery. Perhaps people that own the high-end mil-spec ARs get upset that they could have spend 1/2 the money on a gun that would do everything they need it to? Maybe in the military they used a colt so in their mind thats the only AR someone should own?

 

[dom1104]

ok so you talk about gun snobbery, then bash the AR and say the AK is better.


Whatever. passing this one over lol.

I think someone is mad he doesnt have the scratch for a top tier AR.

 

[taliv]

Let's give this topic a rest for a while. Maybe it will give some of you a chance to get some experience so you can speak intelligently in the future.