Economy AR

[meanmrmustard]

It was light-hearted, and posted with a .

It appeared to me very quickly that you were eager to engage in a discussion about Mil-Spec vs non-Mil-Spec, and ready to defend your Sport. So, yeah, it was pretty obvious, and no surprise to me, that you "...hate the term mil spec..."

I said in my first post that I was NOT an AR snob, and I'm not. I can barely stand to read a lot of the posts at m4carbine or even ar15.com with all of the condescending remarks about anything less than carbine XYZ, which is why I prefer reading discussions at THR.

So, I will reiterate: I was merely pointing out to the OP that the PSA rifle was closer to Mil-Spec if that was an important factor in his decision. It's really that simple. If any owner of a Sport took that the wrong way, that's their problem. I never said that either rifle was better or worse than the other, just different.

I believe that you should buy whatever suits your needs and ultimately makes you happy. I'm glad that you enjoy your Sport, that's all that really matters.

Sarcasm begot sarcasm, no worries.

I only defend the Sport where it needs defending, other than that, read reviews or articles in Book of th AR on its performance. It doesn't NEED me to defend it. Folks who shoot a few thousand rounds a year opt to buy "mil spec" rifles for longevity. These guys put that many through a Sport in something like 3 days without issue, purposely pouring sand into it to make it fail. It refused to quit. I don't hate the term mil spec soley for the Sport, I hate it because it's a frivolous phrase thrown at the average joe to convince him he HAS to have a very expensive rifle or IT WILL BE A FAILURE. Sure, I can get an AKM with bells and whistles and spend as much as a mil spec AR, but in the end it's still just a rifle with a scary price tag.

AR15.com is an elitist site, I only use it for FAQ on stuff I may not know. I do not frequent it's forum on purpose.

I will admit, however, I do appreciate a properly staked gas key. You can immediately get an idea of QUALITY buy the staking job on a rifle.

 

[Tex4426]

Built my lower myself...i didnt stake it either used red locktite and put lines so i know if it moves...put lines on all stuff that can move...also...their barrels cant be that bad considering they are 3/4 moa and 90% of ppl ive heard from get 1/2 or less when they find the right load....they use wilson barrels as well..also come standard with match 2stage triggers...the stock they use is far better than everyone elses standard stock....there standard gtip comes witg hogue overmold..ther standard parts are better than most others hence the higher price tag....if i ever hear of one coming apart due to normal wear and tare then maybe ill get something else

And they dont chrom their barrels because u lose accuracy that way...unless you plan on shooting 40,000 rounds thers no need for chrome...i have stainless which is even shorter life span because i will never hit the 15,000 mark anyways


Also just to throw it out ther mil spec only requires a 4 moa....thats not that good...so obviously mil spec standard are not as great as everyone thinks they are

 

[Tex4426]

I would also like to throw out any though that u may think i dont like colt....colt set the standard and everything else is just a clone...the are the original makers of the AR 15...armalite is the original design but was called the m16...then in i think 59 the sold there designs for the AR 10 and 15 to colt who gave the semi auto civilian version rifle the AR 15 tag....so no i dont think colt is a bad rifle...i do think they are overpriced for a standard mil spec AR

 

[Bigkrackers]

To OP - a thread like this is going to get you many opinions. Nothing brings out the experts more than an AR or 1911 thread.

That's said, I'll throw out my opinion. You don't need to spend $2000 for a custom build to get "go to war" quality - whatever that means. A basic mil-spec or better AR like a Colt 6940, DD, BCM - that can be had for $1000 to $1200 - is a high quality weapon that you can stake your life on. If that's what you want then buy once, cry once.

If you want plinker then get any other AR that you can find in the $600 range.

 

[gatorjames85]

A basic mil-spec or better AR like a Colt 6940, DD, BCM - that can be had for $1000 to $1200 - is a high quality weapon that you can stake your life on.

I would stake my life on my $800 PSA build referenced above. Given, some parts are not PSA, the most notable being the BCG, which is BCM.

 

[jrdolall]

What is the intended purpose of this AR? If, like me, you want one for the "cool" factor and intend to shoot it occasionally at 100 yards or so then there are quite a few in your price range. I personally have a DPMS and have never had a single misfire using the cheapest ammo I can buy. It is as accurate as I want it to be considering I have a 2x scope on it and can barely see 100 yards. If you want to shoot in matches or plan to carry it to battle in the swamps of Louisiana then there is probably a better built rifle available.

You can probably get a "better" rifle if you want to spend more money but isn't that true of everything? I drive a Ford F150 but for more money I could have gotten a Toyota Tundra. I use an HTC cell phone but for more money I could have gotten an Iphone. If your budget is $600-$700 then I see no reason to look at one that costs $750 because then your budget is $750 or $2k or whatever it is. For MY purposes the $600 rifle was an excellent choice.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Your best bet is to find a good used Stag or Rock River. Wait untill after the November elections and there will be a flood of slightly used AR's on the market.

 

[Warp]

What is the intended purpose of this AR? If, like me, you want one for the "cool" factor and intend to shoot it occasionally at 100 yards or so then there are quite a few in your price range. I personally have a DPMS and have never had a single misfire using the cheapest ammo I can buy. It is as accurate as I want it to be considering I have a 2x scope on it and can barely see 100 yards. If you want to shoot in matches or plan to carry it to battle in the swamps of Louisiana then there is probably a better built rifle available.

You can probably get a "better" rifle if you want to spend more money but isn't that true of everything? I drive a Ford F150 but for more money I could have gotten a Toyota Tundra. I use an HTC cell phone but for more money I could have gotten an Iphone. If your budget is $600-$700 then I see no reason to look at one that costs $750 because then your budget is $750 or $2k or whatever it is. For MY purposes the $600 rifle was an excellent choice.

RE: Better.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[jrdolall]

RE: Better.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
__________________

There are several definitions that come to mind but I will go with "Improved in quality or performance". "More attractive or effective" could also apply.

"Greater than half" probably does not apply here and neither does "improved in health".

Semantics are such fun.

 

[Dean1818]

I am planning to use the M&P stripped reciever

PSA has some great kits for the lower that has a great trigger with magpul grip.

They also have good pricing on the magpul stocks.

You can add the upper of your choice later


The benefit would be to build it exactly like you want, vs a complete rifle that you would have to upgrade

 

[ugaarguy]

Built my lower myself...i didnt stake it either used red locktite and put lines so i know if it moves...put lines on all stuff that can move...

So you building an AR-15 improperly makes it okay for RRA to build them improperly too?

also...their barrels cant be that bad considering they are 3/4 moa and 90% of ppl ive heard from get 1/2 or less when they find the right load....they use wilson barrels as well..

S&W uses T/C 5R Melonite bbls in sme of their rifles, and those group sub MOA too.

also come standard with match 2stage triggers...

Which are nowhere near as durable as standard triggers. Giessle SSA triggers are better, and more durable.

the stock they use is far better than everyone elses standard stock....

That stock is a copy of the LMT SOPMOD. Colt is also shipping their carbines with the very similar Rogers Super Stock. It's a good stock, but it's not better than a SOPMOD or Rogers SS; and it's not like the MagPul MOE stock DD and several others is that far behind either.

there standard gtip comes witg hogue overmold

And that does nothing to increase the accuracy or reliability of the rifle. It's also no better than a MagPul MOE grip. It's strictly a preference thing.

..ther standard parts are better than most others hence the higher price tag...

Except that their parts aren't any better. They're just different.

.if i ever hear of one coming apart due to normal wear and tare then maybe ill get something else

Go do some reading M4C and other sites. Normal wear and tear for you isn't the same as normal wear and tear for many others.

And they dont chrom their barrels because u lose accuracy that way

There's a potential to lose accuracy if the hard chroming isn't done to uniform thickness, but compaies like LMT have gotten very good at hard chroming to uniform thickness. Nitrocarburizing processes don't change the part dimensions at all, so accuracy isn't affected by that process.

...unless you plan on shooting 40,000 rounds thers no need for chrome

Round count isn't the whole story. You have to look at how fast you're shooting, corrosive environments, ease of case extraction under harsh coditions, etc.

...i have stainless which is even shorter life span because i will never hit the 15,000 mark anyways

On a match rifle that makes far more sense than plain 4140, or even plain 4150 steel.

Also just to throw it out ther mil spec only requires a 4 moa....thats not that good...so obviously mil spec standard are not as great as everyone thinks they are

That's the rejection standard, but most will group around 2 MOA. That's not match accurate, but we're talking about a fighting rifle, not a bench rest bolt gun.

 

[Tex4426]

Like i said i take ur comments with a grain of salt thanks for wasting ur time trying to put me down....rock rover was never intended for war like colts was.....and if the military only requires such a crappy moa what else are they cutting to save money....if u have nothing better to do than bash rock river and show no proof u need to rethink ur life...and i have done plenty of reading...ther are few bad reviews on rock and most lack credibility...kinda like yours

 

[Tex4426]

Now that weve gotten off topic again back to ccaleb original question..

Do u have anymor question on any of the rifles ur looking at have we answered them all or do u still have more

 

[madcratebuilder]

I see.

I didn't follow because I just immediately jump to the 'good stuff' at about $1,000 (not $1,200). Unless, of course, it is going to be nothing more than a range toy and you don't mind if it hiccups here and there, or maybe have to get little issues fixed. If reliability and dependability are not terribly important, the cheap stuff is viable.

Could you point out any deficiency in "reliability and dependability" with the $600 PSA AR? Other than the roll mark

Cost does not always equate to quality in the AR market.

 

[ugaarguy]

Like i said i take ur comments with a grain of salt thanks for wasting ur time trying to put me down

I'm not trying to put you down, and I'm sorry if you think that I am. I'm just offering a counter point.

....rock rover was never intended for war like colts was.....and if the military only requires such a crappy moa what else are they cutting to save money

Match accuracy is far less important than durability in a battle. The USMC still qualifies at 500 meters with iron sights with these "crappy moa" rifles. The mil spec on the M16 and M4 are a set of minimum standards put in place to prevent the lowest bidder from cutting corners in the manufacture of those rifles. What's sad is how many commercial AR style rifle manufacturers won't even meet those

minimums.

....if u have nothing better to do than bash rock river and show no proof

Actually I have shown proof. I've presented examples of where Rock River cuts corners. RRA isn't a bad rifle, but based upon the parts and assembly quality I don't believe their price is justified.

u need to rethink ur life...

Please refer to the forum rules:

4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

and i have done plenty of reading...ther are few bad reviews on rock and most lack credibility...kinda like yours

So stating independently verifiable facts about parts, materials, and assembly methods lack credibility? Here's a little more reading for anyone interested - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=243382

 

[Tex4426]

I wanna se research on how the corners cut are gonna make my rifle not fire when needed...i was see research on rifle failing because the said part didnt hold up to normal use...we r not talking about a rifle im gonna take to war here...we are not talking about a rifle thats gonna br track through the desert ...we are talking about civilian AR 15s here....y would i pay more because mil spec is a slightly better steel used for full auto when im not gonna use full auto....i have no problem with a cut corner here and ther because y pay more for a gun that was meant for full auto desert conditions when u can spend 300 bucks less and have a gun that is at the spec it needs to be shooting semi auto and used for civilian use...its not gonna fail in the conditions it was made for....and sorry i dont consider soneone on the internet saying things to be credible...anybody can make something uo...i own s colt le 9620 that piece of junk jams up all the time my dpms runs circles around...see how that works..i dont own either...one of these days i may own a colt if i find a used one for a goid price just to say i got one..

 

[Teachu2]

I’m looking for a basic no frills inexpensive AR, like $600-700 inexpensive, what would be the best buy for that price range?

In the $600-700 range, basic no frills best buy category, it's pretty hard to beat the M&P Sport. Those that actually own them find them to be reliable, surprisingly accurate guns. If you get one and decide that you don't enjoy it, I suspect you won't lose much selling it.

I enjoy taking mine out, getting sneers from the serious AR owners - and then comparing targets.

ARs are not my primary focus, and I had no intention to modify the weapon in any way. I was looking for a basic no frills inexpensive AR, like $600-700 inexpensive, that would STAY that way. The Sport fit the bill for me. It's still box-stock, fun to shoot, accurate, trouble-free, and all I've added was ammo.

 

[Warp]

Could you point out any deficiency in "reliability and dependability" with the $600 PSA AR? Other than the roll mark

Cost does not always equate to quality in the AR market.

I have done a ton of reading about PSA. Please do not insult my intelligence by implying that I am judging quality purely based on price. As a result of my research I decided that, as a result of the number of problems I read about, and especially as a result of the number of people that had less-than-stellar interactions with PSA's customer service (or lack thereof), there was a good reason the PSA was so much less expensive. Or should I say, a good reason the Colt was so much more.

You are free to come to your own conclusion. If you really believe the $600 PSA is just as good as the $1,000 Colt, go for it.

So stating independently verifiable facts about parts, materials, and assembly methods lack credibility? Here's a little more reading for anyone interested - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=243382

 

[atomd]

You can spend $600 on an AR...but then you'll get the bug. Pretty soon you'll have a $500 optic on it, a $200 trigger, a $300 quad rail, and a $150 stock. After you shoot through as much as you spent total in ammo in no time...and then look at your bin full of takeoff parts....your initial investment doesn't matter as much.

 

[Warp]

A $500 optic if you're lucky, just get a red dot, or cheap out. Optics are freaking expensive.

My AR isn't even here yet and the optic I think I want, on the mount I think I want, will be another $1k. Not to mention the ammo and other 'stuff' to get. 'The hell will I get that money?

 

[gatorjames85]

'The hell will I get that money?

Priorities, priorities. You aren't going to die if you go without dinner occasionally or don't have hot water in your house.

 

[Warp]

I dunno, have I told you about my wife?

 

[gatorjames85]

I dunno, have I told you about my wife?

That does complicate the issue. I have this sixth sense that lets me know when I have accumulated enough good will to buy a new gun without getting in too much trouble. For some reason, accessories and ammo don't seem to count against me (go figure).

 

[TonyAngel]

Oh man. Someone kicked the hornet's nest.

When considering an AR, you should keep a few things in mind. First, the AR-15 (or M-16) is a battle rifle that is designed to be shot. A LOT. With that in mind, the powers that be (or were) came up with a set of minimum specs meant to ensure that the weapon would run and continue to do so under rigorous use.

So, should "mil spec" mean anything to you? I don't know. Lots of guys on this thread posted positive comments about their DPMS, Rock River, PSA and Smith rifles. I'm sure that they are all happy with their purchases. Mil spec does mean something to me because a rifle that meets minimum specs is assured to have been built of parts that are manufactured using superior materials and processes.

For many, the question is whether they will ever see the benefits of having a rifle that meets the minimum mil spec. For most, it won't matter; but you can do searches here and on other sites and find threads of guys asking whether shooting their rifle to some extreme will hurt the rifle. I believe that having a rifle that meets minimum mil spec will decrease the possiblity of having a failure under extreme use.

The only AR that I have left is a parts rifle that I put together from extra parts that I had laying around; but if I was going to buy a new (or used) AR, I'd look for a few things.

Is the bolt carrier group the commercial or full auto version? If it is the full auto version, is it mil spec? Is the buffer tube commercial or mil spec? Is the barrel mil spec?

Personally, if I was to buy a complete rifle, it would be either a Colt, Bravo Company or Daniel Defense. I think you get a good bang for the buck. They are rifles built with quality components.

If I had to choose between a Smith and a PSA, I'd go with the PSA. The barrel and BCG are the heart of any AR and PSA's parts are superior.

Of all of the brands that I've worked on and "fixed", I can think of several instances of having to work on the likes of Rock River, DPMS, Bushmaster and Olympic to fix what should have been caught at the factory. Problems ranged from replacing inferior small parts to improperly torqued barrels. I've never had to do anything more that regular maintenance on rifles from Daniel Defense, Bravo Company or Colt.

I know that the term "mil spec" has come to be overly used, but it still has some meaning.

One thing that does bug me about the Smith Sport is the lack of the dust cover. Although the rifle probably doesn't need it, I've always thought that it was a nifty little device that helps to keep crap out of the action. Yeah, I know that the Smith is supposed to run with gobs of sand in the action, but why would you want to?

It's not unusual for me to have to wipe the mud off of my rifle after a day on the four wheeler and I appreciate the fact that the dust cover was there.

 

[meanmrmustard]

When your dust cover comes open after either chambering a round, or after firing the first, the cover is open and just as susceptible to any ailing element that would stop a slick side AR. Dust covers are pacifiers and there were plenty of rifles that saw wars in distant lands much harsher and much more treacherous than the shooting range or deer woods. But, I'm biased as far as this whole thread goes. Supposedly PSAs suck because they don't cost a $1000, and weirder still is PSA is better than the Sport? I've seen too many instances of the point I was trying to convey earlier in this thread, that no one paid attention to but Tex. The OP is looking for an AR at a price point. Respect that.

Or rather, looked. He got a PSA, good for him.