ghostman1960
Member
You left out BCM.
AR15 favroite brand poll
- Thread starter Apocalypse-Now
- Start date
- Status
Chris Rhines
Member
Again, what are you going to use the rifle for, and how much shooting do you plan on doing with it? Until you answer these questions, no one can give you any useful advice.
I'm also wondering why Bravo Company is off your list...
-C
I'm also wondering why Bravo Company is off your list...
-C
Apocalypse-Now
Member
^^see my post #17 on BCM. long irrelevant story lol
also, my OP mentions i have no interested in building one, and i don't shoot matches.
that leaves defense, light hunting, and target
also, my OP mentions i have no interested in building one, and i don't shoot matches.
that leaves defense, light hunting, and target
kwelz
Member
I apparently isn't irrelevant if you claim i is the reason for not purchasing their weapons. Right now they are considered one of the top companies on the market. I am curious as to your reason for not dealing with them.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
A-N,
Daniel Defense, Colt, LMT, & BCM are to AR-15s what Baer, Wilson, and Brown are to 1911s.
ETA: Didn't vote either. I could care less about brand popularity - I want build quality. Check out the THR Rifle Forum reading library, and read Bartholomew Roberts thread "34 Ways to Cut Corners on Manufacturing an AR-15" if you want a good start. Then read the rest of the AR-15 stickies in the library.
Daniel Defense, Colt, LMT, & BCM are to AR-15s what Baer, Wilson, and Brown are to 1911s.
ETA: Didn't vote either. I could care less about brand popularity - I want build quality. Check out the THR Rifle Forum reading library, and read Bartholomew Roberts thread "34 Ways to Cut Corners on Manufacturing an AR-15" if you want a good start. Then read the rest of the AR-15 stickies in the library.
Last edited:
I'd find a gun store or a gun show and go from there and find a vendor, if you don't want to deal with an FFL transfer, or build a custom rifle yourself.
The Stags and RRAs will probably do fine for your needs though, and yeah, they are nearly everywhere it seems.
The Stags and RRAs will probably do fine for your needs though, and yeah, they are nearly everywhere it seems.
ANY input or experiences appreciated?
The play between the upper and lower means NOTHING about the quality or accuracy of the gun. If you see space, so be it. If it wobbles, it makes NO difference. My point of reference is 22 years Army Reserves, Infantry/Ordnance/MP. I was issued an H&R, Colts, and FN over the years, and shot Expert with them all. The play observed between lower and upper exists to some degree in all well used M16's and M4's.
Why doesn't it make any difference? The barrel is screwed into the barrel extension, which is held on to the upper by the barrel nut, which is screwed onto the upper receiver nose. The sights are attached to the barrel and upper, an optic is attached to the upper. In any conceivable manner you use the gun, if the upper moves on the lower, it moves both the sights and barrel simultaneously - never independently. That makes the sight picture move with the point of impact No Matter What. The lower can be as loose as moving 1/8" and it won't affect anything except the actual contact point of the hammer face impacting the firing pin. It's NOT a bedded stock wood gun at all. Completely different.
It does follow that a free float should help accuracy - the problem is that moving the point of impact with a tight sling is the real problem. It's the application of a target gun practice to a combat rifle where it has no place. Up until the recent conflict, the Infantry didn't use ANY sling in the field. It has other drawbacks besides being attached to the barrel - where no target gunner would. What has happened is that use in urban conflict - the MP mission - requires handling detained personnel for searches and transportation. Doing that means slinging the weapon, preventing the muzzle from being grounded, or keeping it under control so that it can't be snatched away - presenting a host of problems in CQB because it can be used against the soldier. Hence, the Infantry eliminating it altogether in combat.
Considering the military requirement for accuracy is only 2MOA, about an 8 inch circle at 400 meters, a free float doesn't offer any documented accuracy improvement significant enough to justify the high cost. Adding quad rails is even more expense - to mount equipment most carbine course shooters literally discard after the first morning shoot, because it fails, hangs up in doorways, makes the gun weigh pounds more, and is largely unnecessary. The quad rail is an Army institutional answer to satisfying numerous demands from a wide user base to attach something - and KAC, the supplier, is in print on record telling us it's pretty useless for the average shooter. I.E., bling.
There are usually howls of protest, bluntly, stock handguards and NO sling work just as effectively, for a lot less money. The only reason I have a sling on the dissipator I built is exactly for that - to sling my gun walking into a deer stand or returning to the vehicle after dark. Using one in a tree stand, in a blind, while still hunting, or stalking means having one more thing to hang up in the brush, snag, or get in the way of getting a sight picture. It's a compromise - not to be used in shooting when attached to the barrel.
Since you asked for input and experience, not only a career in the Reserves, Infantry and MP's, Veteran deployed to GTMO, plus a lifetime of hunting with an HK, Rem 700, Win 94, and now my AR that I built in 6.8SPC.
Might want to read up on the sticky threads at arfcom and follow the professional trend away from the ancient M4 - there's a lot better stuff on the horizon.
The play between the upper and lower means NOTHING about the quality or accuracy of the gun. If you see space, so be it. If it wobbles, it makes NO difference. My point of reference is 22 years Army Reserves, Infantry/Ordnance/MP. I was issued an H&R, Colts, and FN over the years, and shot Expert with them all. The play observed between lower and upper exists to some degree in all well used M16's and M4's.
Why doesn't it make any difference? The barrel is screwed into the barrel extension, which is held on to the upper by the barrel nut, which is screwed onto the upper receiver nose. The sights are attached to the barrel and upper, an optic is attached to the upper. In any conceivable manner you use the gun, if the upper moves on the lower, it moves both the sights and barrel simultaneously - never independently. That makes the sight picture move with the point of impact No Matter What. The lower can be as loose as moving 1/8" and it won't affect anything except the actual contact point of the hammer face impacting the firing pin. It's NOT a bedded stock wood gun at all. Completely different.
It does follow that a free float should help accuracy - the problem is that moving the point of impact with a tight sling is the real problem. It's the application of a target gun practice to a combat rifle where it has no place. Up until the recent conflict, the Infantry didn't use ANY sling in the field. It has other drawbacks besides being attached to the barrel - where no target gunner would. What has happened is that use in urban conflict - the MP mission - requires handling detained personnel for searches and transportation. Doing that means slinging the weapon, preventing the muzzle from being grounded, or keeping it under control so that it can't be snatched away - presenting a host of problems in CQB because it can be used against the soldier. Hence, the Infantry eliminating it altogether in combat.
Considering the military requirement for accuracy is only 2MOA, about an 8 inch circle at 400 meters, a free float doesn't offer any documented accuracy improvement significant enough to justify the high cost. Adding quad rails is even more expense - to mount equipment most carbine course shooters literally discard after the first morning shoot, because it fails, hangs up in doorways, makes the gun weigh pounds more, and is largely unnecessary. The quad rail is an Army institutional answer to satisfying numerous demands from a wide user base to attach something - and KAC, the supplier, is in print on record telling us it's pretty useless for the average shooter. I.E., bling.
There are usually howls of protest, bluntly, stock handguards and NO sling work just as effectively, for a lot less money. The only reason I have a sling on the dissipator I built is exactly for that - to sling my gun walking into a deer stand or returning to the vehicle after dark. Using one in a tree stand, in a blind, while still hunting, or stalking means having one more thing to hang up in the brush, snag, or get in the way of getting a sight picture. It's a compromise - not to be used in shooting when attached to the barrel.
Since you asked for input and experience, not only a career in the Reserves, Infantry and MP's, Veteran deployed to GTMO, plus a lifetime of hunting with an HK, Rem 700, Win 94, and now my AR that I built in 6.8SPC.
Might want to read up on the sticky threads at arfcom and follow the professional trend away from the ancient M4 - there's a lot better stuff on the horizon.
- Status