Right now the Magpul/Noveske MPL MOE is pretty high on my list of the best.
Best to Worst AR15 list
- Thread starter Ruger
- Start date
- Status
If you are looking to buy a 14.5 inch barrel with a fixed 1.5 inch flash suppressor, on a carbine with a flat top and removable carrying handle, if you want a chrome lined bore and chamber, and a collapsable stock, the carbine to be made very lightweight, then you are looking at an M-4, or some other companies civilian version of the M-4, then there are some accuracies to that chart. Take a look for yourself at these rifles in person and make your own mind up, most of all have fun with it.
If you are looking for features such as a 16 inch barrel, a heavy target barrel, a 20 inch or 24 inch barrel, a stainless steel barrel, a fluted barrel, another caliber other than 5.56x45, a free float handguard, a fixed carrying handle, a solid stock, an Hbar model, or any other of a million features that AR-15 type rifles come with, then dont allow the chart to influence your choices.
The real answer was already posted, the best AR is the one you choose to buy.
I spoke with a few people who run carbine courses (myself, not listening to others on the forum and their opinions) about which of these rifles would work better for carbine courses, and which would hold up, the answer was "all of them will, if you take care of them and maintain them they will all make it, and function perfectly".
Id be skeptical of the brand "vulcan" with plastic upper recievers, I saw one sell fast at a cheap price not long ago, but I dont think I would trust one.
Good luck with whatever you get, and post some pictures after you fire it.
If you are looking for features such as a 16 inch barrel, a heavy target barrel, a 20 inch or 24 inch barrel, a stainless steel barrel, a fluted barrel, another caliber other than 5.56x45, a free float handguard, a fixed carrying handle, a solid stock, an Hbar model, or any other of a million features that AR-15 type rifles come with, then dont allow the chart to influence your choices.
The real answer was already posted, the best AR is the one you choose to buy.
I spoke with a few people who run carbine courses (myself, not listening to others on the forum and their opinions) about which of these rifles would work better for carbine courses, and which would hold up, the answer was "all of them will, if you take care of them and maintain them they will all make it, and function perfectly".
Id be skeptical of the brand "vulcan" with plastic upper recievers, I saw one sell fast at a cheap price not long ago, but I dont think I would trust one.
Good luck with whatever you get, and post some pictures after you fire it.
HisDivineShadow
Member
My list of what I consider top quality MFgs is rather short: Noveske/LMT/Sabre
Thats first tier IMO, second tier would be Colt
Third tier is CMMG/RRA/BCM/Stag etc.
Fourth tier Olympic/DPMS/Del-Ton/etc.
I put Colt in second tier because while it's quality I think it's overpriced for what it is. It's not like they even offer mid-lengths like the other three MFGs do.
Personally I own a Spikes Tactical .22lr rifle now, will probably get a Sabre 5.56 upper for it later.
Thats first tier IMO, second tier would be Colt
Third tier is CMMG/RRA/BCM/Stag etc.
Fourth tier Olympic/DPMS/Del-Ton/etc.
I put Colt in second tier because while it's quality I think it's overpriced for what it is. It's not like they even offer mid-lengths like the other three MFGs do.
Personally I own a Spikes Tactical .22lr rifle now, will probably get a Sabre 5.56 upper for it later.
BsChoy
Member
Being a fellow NY'r I would reccomend "building" your upper through Del-Ton. Order it with all the compliant parts and you need not worry about a thing
shvar- can you mention the name of who you spoke with or what training program they are associated with? "every one will function perfectly" just doesn't sound like something an instructor would say. just curious. i'm always open to new opinions.
and the 16" bbl is absolutely related to the chart. as can be many of the other features that you say aren't.
after reading a bunch of your previous posts this is where i stand as of the moment. timmy=colt. shvar=dpms. both of you guys seem to blindly defend these brands no matter what.
and the 16" bbl is absolutely related to the chart. as can be many of the other features that you say aren't.
after reading a bunch of your previous posts this is where i stand as of the moment. timmy=colt. shvar=dpms. both of you guys seem to blindly defend these brands no matter what.
Last edited:
againstthagrane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 505
damn, i was about to chime in about the resident colt expert timmy rad. haha.
i mean once he found out they were "decent", it was only a matter of time. haha
BEST FIGHTING RIFLE EVER!
i mean once he found out they were "decent", it was only a matter of time. haha
BEST FIGHTING RIFLE EVER!
just read customer reviews. Most companies out there that you've heard of have good reviews. The reason is because even you're bottom-barrel Olympic or Del-Ton is made with parts of some degree of great quality.
At the very worst, you'll end up with a rifle that could have had more chart x's. If that matters too much to you, then either buy one of the top three or do what I did and build your own for whats available and fill in the x's yourself. so far my CMMG 'build' has just about all the X's checked in. Just gotta get the rest of the parts in.
At the very worst, you'll end up with a rifle that could have had more chart x's. If that matters too much to you, then either buy one of the top three or do what I did and build your own for whats available and fill in the x's yourself. so far my CMMG 'build' has just about all the X's checked in. Just gotta get the rest of the parts in.
To all members who have given info and related thoughts I thank you and my applys to not being able to forum with you the other day, while this post was still fresh. I lost service for quite some time and was not able to interact. Not being in the AR circut of shooters. Now I can take what I have learned and read to decide what specs I 'm looking for and combined it with all the other info I already have. Trouble is what I like I may need to move into another state to have. Next time I have a post I'll try not no ruffle any feathers. Once again thanks
What SHvar is saying mirrors what those I know who work on m16/m4s in the army would say. I can't imagine any instructor not saying that if a weapon is assembled properly and the operator does their part that the weapon will not malfunction.
Last edited:
kino- "perfectly" is the part that's interesting, considering he quoted an instructor of some sort. every instructor i've ever talked to or read about has basically said that any rifle can break. some more than others, of course. it's a human built machine afterall. being properly built and maintained isn't a guarantee for "perfect reliability".
Lloyd Smale
Member
ive had two olys in the past and if i judged them by those two guns id say there junk. I just bought a brand new flat top oly m4 and i have to say its one of the best fit up ars ive owned. I havent tested it for accuracy but its ran about 300 rounds through it of mixed reloads without a bobble and the gun does have a stainless barrel so im guessing when i have time it to try it it will end up being a good shooter. One other thing good about an oly is that they do have the best warantee in the industry and a service dept that honors it.
quote
gunmaker2872
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-18-08
Posts: 102 Ive owned an olympic arms k16 and was very happy with it, I shot over 5000 rounds through it and didnt have one single problem and didnt require much cleaning either, also own a bushmaster carbine and so far havn't had any issues with that either, in my opinion both good guns for 99% of us
quote
gunmaker2872
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-18-08
Posts: 102 Ive owned an olympic arms k16 and was very happy with it, I shot over 5000 rounds through it and didnt have one single problem and didnt require much cleaning either, also own a bushmaster carbine and so far havn't had any issues with that either, in my opinion both good guns for 99% of us
Let's hear what instructor and what course that was at. I know you won't ever hear anything like that from the likes of Larry Vickers or Pat Rogers - or anybody else who knows what kind of corners cheap manufacturers cut to keep costs down.
Actually, that sounds kind of like what Bushy/CMMG/RRA owners way when they're trying to argue (against proven fact) that they ARs are "just the same as" Colt, LMT, or Noveske.
Saying every carbine made to substandard specs is just as good as one made to the M4 TDP specs (sans auto sear) is just plain foolishness. So again, I'd like to hear what instructor said that so I know who to avoid...
Joe Demko
Member
What is your personal experience, Shooter88? Also, rather than telling us what Pat Rodgers et. al. would say, give us a source where we can see for ourselves. Otherwise, you tossing out their names seems like simple appeal to authority.
What would be really cool is if anybody here could provide some numbers. What_exactly_is the difference in failure rate between parts that qualify for an "x" and those that don't? What rifles were tested? Who did the testing? How were the rifles tested? Why was the testing done?
Maybe "x" parts are a better bet. Maybe they aren't. I've yet to see anything substantive on the topic in one of these chart-heavy threads. I'm willing to be convinced "x" parts/rifles are better. Just bring out the hard evidence and show me.
What would be really cool is if anybody here could provide some numbers. What_exactly_is the difference in failure rate between parts that qualify for an "x" and those that don't? What rifles were tested? Who did the testing? How were the rifles tested? Why was the testing done?
Maybe "x" parts are a better bet. Maybe they aren't. I've yet to see anything substantive on the topic in one of these chart-heavy threads. I'm willing to be convinced "x" parts/rifles are better. Just bring out the hard evidence and show me.
Timradcliffe345
member
We should start posting failure rates, including the type of failure, for our AR style carbines and rifles. Including information such as ammo and magazine manufacturer would be helpful too. This info would provide the average shooter with some valuable info on the typical failure rate of several AR manufacturers, enabling them to make an educated purchase decision. God Bless.
Joe Demko
Member
Now there is an excellent idea. Such a database would be less useful than a systematic study, but it is stll light years ahead of anything else available. I'm in. All this requires is honesty on the part of the participants. That means posting about it when your gun fails no matter what brand you have. Maybe we can get the mods to sticky a thread exactly for that purpose and no other. Who's ready to do something more substantive than just make claims?
"Testing"
as proposed in post #89 a non-starter and you know it.
Those that will never accept fact will continue to trumpet the same "show me the testing" line because they either are educated enough to know that it will never, and pragmatically could never, happen or are ignorant enough that they don't grasp this fact.
To do the math, again...
10 makes/models, 10 examples of each (which is still statistically insignificant) is 100 rifles. Figure on an average cost of $1,000 per rifle means a $100,000 cash outlay in firearms only.
Now how many rounds do you want to fire per rifle? According to the sidebar in the article "Malfunction Reduction Part II" by Pat Rogers in the January issue of SWAT magazine (page 71), "Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, states in an Engineering Bulletin to consider swapping the bolt out at 6,000 rounds, and definitely by 10,000 rounds." Based on this, I'd propose that you'd need to fire at least that 10,000 rounds per rifle in order to reach a relatively certain failure point for all guns. That's 10,000 rounds per rifle over 100 rifles, or 1,000,000 rounds total, or 1,000 cases.
At $400/case (let's assume you can get a discount for ordering 1,000 of them) that's $400,000 in ammunition for the test.
Now you're up to a $500,000 cash outlay just to even start the test, and that doesn't include magazines, lube, and hourly wages for shooters. Which brings us to...
1,000,000 rounds at 1 round per second is 277 hours of shooting. That's optimistic as hell. Figuring in magazine changes etc. you'd be lucky to average 1 round per every 5 seconds. That's 1,385 hours of shooting. Ten man team, that's 139 hours of team shooting, or just over seventeen 8-hour work days. At $20/hour that's another $27,700 in labor costs.
So what people want is some mysterious benefactor to step up, put out $600k+ of their own money, and 3 weeks of their time with a squad of 10 shooters, just to "prove" something that they would ultimately STILL want to argue about.
People should educate themselves as to what drives the cost of the more expensive guns, and decide for themselves if they think that the benefits are real or not, or if those benefits apply to their type of shooting or not, and buy what best meets their needs. This ain't rocket surgery.
as proposed in post #89 a non-starter and you know it.
Those that will never accept fact will continue to trumpet the same "show me the testing" line because they either are educated enough to know that it will never, and pragmatically could never, happen or are ignorant enough that they don't grasp this fact.
To do the math, again...
10 makes/models, 10 examples of each (which is still statistically insignificant) is 100 rifles. Figure on an average cost of $1,000 per rifle means a $100,000 cash outlay in firearms only.
Now how many rounds do you want to fire per rifle? According to the sidebar in the article "Malfunction Reduction Part II" by Pat Rogers in the January issue of SWAT magazine (page 71), "Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, states in an Engineering Bulletin to consider swapping the bolt out at 6,000 rounds, and definitely by 10,000 rounds." Based on this, I'd propose that you'd need to fire at least that 10,000 rounds per rifle in order to reach a relatively certain failure point for all guns. That's 10,000 rounds per rifle over 100 rifles, or 1,000,000 rounds total, or 1,000 cases.
At $400/case (let's assume you can get a discount for ordering 1,000 of them) that's $400,000 in ammunition for the test.
Now you're up to a $500,000 cash outlay just to even start the test, and that doesn't include magazines, lube, and hourly wages for shooters. Which brings us to...
1,000,000 rounds at 1 round per second is 277 hours of shooting. That's optimistic as hell. Figuring in magazine changes etc. you'd be lucky to average 1 round per every 5 seconds. That's 1,385 hours of shooting. Ten man team, that's 139 hours of team shooting, or just over seventeen 8-hour work days. At $20/hour that's another $27,700 in labor costs.
So what people want is some mysterious benefactor to step up, put out $600k+ of their own money, and 3 weeks of their time with a squad of 10 shooters, just to "prove" something that they would ultimately STILL want to argue about.
People should educate themselves as to what drives the cost of the more expensive guns, and decide for themselves if they think that the benefits are real or not, or if those benefits apply to their type of shooting or not, and buy what best meets their needs. This ain't rocket surgery.
For those that don't venture there often, Pat Rogers has been replying in a thread entitled "What Parts Break in a Carbine Course?" on ar15.com for quite some time now. There is a lot of good information there.
Joe Demko
Member
Claims sans testing are unsubtantiated claims. "x parts/rifles are better" is a non-starter unless you can define "better" and quantify how much better. The chart is your work, I know, and you_no doubt_have a huge emotional investment in it. Until there is data to quantify how much better "x" is than "no x" your chart remains a guide for how to spend more money.
You can use terms like "appeal to authority" all you want; those two men get more trigger time in behind AR-type rifles in a year than most shooters do in their entire lifetimes. They are the two most respected authorities on the AR platform, period. You can go over every one of their posts on every forum either of them has ever visited, and NOWHERE will you find them agree that Oly, Bushmaster, etc rifles are "just as good" as a Colt or LMT. My personal experience is with only a handful of rifles, as is most of yours. Small statistical samples are irrelevant. Given that Pat Rogers sees God knows how many ARs go through his training courses from all kinds of manufacturers, I'd suggest that he'd be the one who'd know what fails and what doesn't.
And it amuses me to note that these "just as good" people always want some empirical (and let's not forget expensive and impractical) study. Why can't you just use some common sense?
Consider rifles which are built to the TDP, at least on the important points for reliability:
Staked carrier key
HPT/MPi'd bolt and barrel
Shot peened bolt
Staked receiver extension castle nut
Correct steels used as per mil-spec
Consider rifles built to substandard specs:
Unstaked keys and castle nuts that can vibrate loose
Untested bolts and barrels that could have microscopic cracks just waiting to let go
Cheaper, weaker steels used for cost reasons
Tell me, what on Earth makes you think that the second group of rifles won't be more likely to fail under hard use?
Think about this for a minute: nobody is saying that a Bushmaster rifle can't be run hard. What is a fact, however, is that getting a top-tier AR like a Noveske, greatly reduces the chance of having a rifle that won't go bang every time you pull the trigger.
And it amuses me to note that these "just as good" people always want some empirical (and let's not forget expensive and impractical) study. Why can't you just use some common sense?
Consider rifles which are built to the TDP, at least on the important points for reliability:
Staked carrier key
HPT/MPi'd bolt and barrel
Shot peened bolt
Staked receiver extension castle nut
Correct steels used as per mil-spec
Consider rifles built to substandard specs:
Unstaked keys and castle nuts that can vibrate loose
Untested bolts and barrels that could have microscopic cracks just waiting to let go
Cheaper, weaker steels used for cost reasons
Tell me, what on Earth makes you think that the second group of rifles won't be more likely to fail under hard use?
Think about this for a minute: nobody is saying that a Bushmaster rifle can't be run hard. What is a fact, however, is that getting a top-tier AR like a Noveske, greatly reduces the chance of having a rifle that won't go bang every time you pull the trigger.
When I went looking for an M4gery, I ended up getting an LMT because of the research done by people like Rob_S and many of the folks at m4carbine.net.
I also purchased a POF with an 18 inch barrel. I wanted to see the differences between the direct impingement and piston cycled rifles.
Of course seeing how ammo and magazine prices have gone up, I was under no delusion that I could do any of my own testing on any valid level like the military could do or for that matter some magazine gun guru or self-proclaimed "subject matter expert".
Anyway doing valid scientific testing is an exhaustive and terribly expensive proposition and I must agree with Rob_S on this issue.
Neither of my rifles have failed, yet, and I am confident that they will continue to give me satisfaction with the proviso that I do periodic maintenance and have spare parts in case of parts failure.
I also purchased a POF with an 18 inch barrel. I wanted to see the differences between the direct impingement and piston cycled rifles.
Of course seeing how ammo and magazine prices have gone up, I was under no delusion that I could do any of my own testing on any valid level like the military could do or for that matter some magazine gun guru or self-proclaimed "subject matter expert".
Anyway doing valid scientific testing is an exhaustive and terribly expensive proposition and I must agree with Rob_S on this issue.
Neither of my rifles have failed, yet, and I am confident that they will continue to give me satisfaction with the proviso that I do periodic maintenance and have spare parts in case of parts failure.
Joe Demko
Member
Look up "appeal to authority." It is a logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with how many rounds Pat Rodgers has put through an Ar-15 today.
See, I don't even particularly like the AR-15, regardless of who made it. The Savage Model 99 is more my style.
Before I went into teaching, though, my background was in science. When a person makes a claim in science, that claim has to be backed up by hard, statistically valid data. If you can't do that, you don't make the claim.
I'm not seeing data in any of these threads. I'm seeing mostly heresay and the occasional personal anecdote. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
What I'm looking for here is to raise this discussion from mere partisanship to something more fact based.
Are "x" parts/rifles better? I don't know. I'd like to find out and "the chart sez" or "Pat Rodgers sez" really doesn't cure my ignorance.
See, I don't even particularly like the AR-15, regardless of who made it. The Savage Model 99 is more my style.
Before I went into teaching, though, my background was in science. When a person makes a claim in science, that claim has to be backed up by hard, statistically valid data. If you can't do that, you don't make the claim.
I'm not seeing data in any of these threads. I'm seeing mostly heresay and the occasional personal anecdote. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
What I'm looking for here is to raise this discussion from mere partisanship to something more fact based.
Are "x" parts/rifles better? I don't know. I'd like to find out and "the chart sez" or "Pat Rodgers sez" really doesn't cure my ignorance.
helz_mcfugly
Member
isnt the top failing part the extractor/extractor spring, then the gas key?
Lloyd Smale
Member
I must be lucky. Ive been shooting ARs since vetnam if that gives you an idea how long and ive yet to have a part break on one. now ive had jams and had extractors wear but never break. Ive never bought a top end ar as a matter of fact the first couple that i shot the snot out of were old olys that are consider crap. Sure they failed to feed and gave me a few other headaches but never a part breakage. You can buy what you want and pay what you want but dont think because someone else buys a 800 dollar ar its going to fall apart. Now before you ask. My Ars get shot. ALOT im not talking a few thousand rounds im talking ALOT. if you doubt this or my word look around on the other guns sites some and youll see im pretty well know and am a man of my word. Like ive said before ive got custom 6 guns that cost twice what a high end ar cost. Did i buy a majic gun that is less likely to fail then your ruger. Not on your life. I bought a gun and paid big money for it becuase it was what i wanted. If thats why you want to spend 2 grand on an ar more power to it but ive yet to see a type of gun that brings out more snob appeal then an ar. Lots of dreamers buying them thinking there going to go to war. Bottom line is if **** hits the fan your probably going to be dead before you get a hundred rounds out of your gun. Protecting your home? maybe you will get off two shots, anymore then that and your probably going to be carried out. Figure what your getting for your money over say a rra gun for twice as much. Maybe some fancy rails and a slightly better barrel but youll never convince me that its a 1000 dollars worth of work. Someone building those fancy ars is having a good laugh. They too are just building a milspec gun. Hell for the price of one i can throw two good guns in my truck and if a part does break throw it away and grab another.
you mean how to spend more money on a rifle that meets minimum military spec, right?
here's a snip from the wikipedia page on "appeal to authority".
you see, there isn't a half million dollar test of hard statistical evidence in existence. so until we have one, it only makes sense to "appeal to authority". there are those that see thousands of rifles every year and have more personal experience with regards to what breaks and what doesn't than the guys on this forum who can't get over that their dpms isn't as good as some others.
- Status
