Sorry, cost is of no concern is foreign territory to me. You better ask the Federal Gov. or the taliban. I heard they left them some nice guns to try out
Good AR?
- Thread starter JCooperfan1911
- Start date
Sorry, cost is of no concern is foreign territory to me. You better ask the Federal Gov. or the taliban. I heard they left them some nice guns to try out
Electrod47
Member
Rock River "Tactical Entry".......a solid AR
.455_Hunter
Member
We have three (2 lefties, 1 righty) Stags in the family from the 2008-2012 timeframe and they have been outstanding. At the time, they had a great reputation for a high quality to cost ratio, plus were a components supplier to several other brands.
When did the snobbery start?
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
Cost no concern…
Knights Armament
Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT)
Knights Armament
Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT)
Yep. I don't even know how many PSA's I've had but not one has ever let me down.
WestKentucky
Member
I have had a few and shot a bunch of ARs. Basic functionality with a “government” setup is pretty generic and a little confusing. Are we talking original Vietnam m16, cold war m16, desert storm m4, modern m4… the barebones rifle is the same throughout (with exception of barrel length) so the only difference is furniture. There are companies selling exactly that, a gun without furniture installed which allows a buyer to finish the gun out exactly as they wish. Bad thing about it is that with economy of scale you end up paying basically the same for a 90% complete gun as you do for a complete gun because plastic bits are cheap when bought by the thousands.
I’m gonna throw out a suggestion that I haven’t seen on this thread, Billet Precision. I personally know the owner and they use quality stuff. Small changes if any would yield as good of a gun as you could ever want.
I’m gonna throw out a suggestion that I haven’t seen on this thread, Billet Precision. I personally know the owner and they use quality stuff. Small changes if any would yield as good of a gun as you could ever want.
There was no such thing as the M4 carbines before 1994. The exception of a few old XM177E2 carbines or newer carbines bought or built specifically for SOCOM units, but they were not M4 carbines. The military did not start issuing the M4 until 1994 and only SOCOM units, 82nd Airborne Div and 101st Airborne Division. It wan't until 1995 before other units started to get issued the M4 and those were only as replacements for the M3A1 SMG used by combat vehicle crews (tracked vehicles). It wasn't until sometime after 2003 before the M4 started getting issued to a majority of combat and combat support troops.
The M16A1 and M16A2 rifles were used during Desert Storm with the exception of a very few National Guard units showing up in Saudi with M14 rifles. I saw at least two NG battalions that had M14 rifles. I don't know if they were issued M16's before the ground war started or not. We didn't have any NG units supporting us at that time.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
Well i have a SW MP 15 223/556 i love it. Very accurate with my loads. And i have a 7.62x39 PSA lower with a bear creek upper. Im very happy with it too. It's accurate as well with my loads.
.455_Hunter
Member
My unit replaced the M3A1s with M4s in mid-1998, about 6 months before my arrival
. In 2001, I had the M4/M9 combo going for issued weapons. In all honesty, being a lefty, my preference was for the M16A2 if a long-gun was needed.
JeeperCreeper
Member
I really saw snobbery on the Facebook gun forums. Especially when people get wrapped up into the "tier lists".
But it's funny how fast the winds change on the trendy internet group think
Stag sucked but Aero was awesome (ironic). Then Aero sucked. Sons of Liberty was high tier. But then it's not because they use ballistic advantage barrels. Then Daniel defense sucks. Spikes is cringe.
The last goes on...
WestKentucky
Member
I stand corrected. Thanks for the thorough correction and thank you for your service.
Either way, my point remains that govt issue is a different specimen depending upon what era of what standard issue equipment was. Even further to that point, different groups have been known to use different variations on the same basic rifle. CIA, Army, Marines, special combat groups within those groups. So Lego rifle it is and Lego rifle it will be. Put together whatever version of govt issue you would like, including a mixed up conglomeration which suits your fancy.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
Not so much on this forum, but in others, as well as in some popular gun magazine writers.
They always rank Stag along with PSA, Anderson and a few others on the very bottom rank..with either a warning to avoid all together or "test thoroughly" before trusting, while always listing Knight, Daniel, Giessele, JP, LMT on the very top...mostly just because they cost the most..with very little else.
Snobs. Pure Snobs.
My unit replaced the M3A1s with M4s in mid-1998, about 6 months before my arrival
I did not get issued an A2 until I got to Germany in Jan 1992 and was assigned to the 1st Armor Division. I was assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team in Baumholder Germany. We were considered forward deployed and had priority on supplies, weapons, and repair parts. We were also designated the rapid reaction force for Europe and Africa in 1993. They made us turn our 1911A1's and M3A1's in for the M9 and future M4 in late 92 - early 93. I left Germany in late December of 1994 and we still had not received the M4s that were suppose to replace the M3A1s.
I went from Germany to The National Training Center/Ft Irwin and was assigned to the third shop service and recovery section. I was supposed to get issued a M4 since I was the commander of both our M88A1 and M936 recovery vehicles. I medically retired in Feb 96 and we still did not have any M4s in our battalion at NTC.
As far as the A1 versus the A2. I found the A2 to have a more accurate barrel and better range but hated the trigger pull. The A2 trigger pull was bad due to the 3 round burst cam. I liked the A1 over all and it had a better trigger than the A2. Though I did like the A2 rear sight better. The one thing that I absolutely hated about the A1 (along with most other lefty's) was always getting hit with hot brass when shooting from almost any position.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
I learned here about seeking mill spec made. When i just got into AR'S.
Buzznrose
Member
Duty grade reliability?
BCM, Daniel Defense both come to mind (I own both).
But I also own a Sons of Liberty Gunworks and without question they make an outstanding AR-15 and will be my next quality AR going forward.
https://sonsoflibertygw.com/m4/
BCM, Daniel Defense both come to mind (I own both).
But I also own a Sons of Liberty Gunworks and without question they make an outstanding AR-15 and will be my next quality AR going forward.
https://sonsoflibertygw.com/m4/
Yes there were allowed variances when it came to weapons for SOCOM units and non military government agencies, and there still is. But for the main forces (Army and Marines) it was the A1 or A2 until the mid to late 90's. And the Marines decided to update the A2 into the A4 version more than using the M4 at that time.
Remember that MIL SPEC is normally the bare minimum specifications that the military will accept.
And when it comes to the M16 series (to include M4) and AR15's - MIL SPEC is MIL SPEC no matter who's name is on the receiver. The parts either meet spec or they don't.
Now what you do get with more expensive AR's is a better finish, better fit between upper and lowers and normally a better barrel along with a tighter barrel to upper fit. But as long as the lower priced AR's meet industry and/or MIL SPEC then they will function and last just as well as higher priced AR's
The long thread over on ARFCOM about high round counts in full auto AR's done by Henderson Defense in Las Vegas has proven that AR's such as PSA last as long, if not longer, as Colts or other higher prices rifles.
In the end it is the individual's choice and money so buy what makes you happy. Just don't get stuck on having to have a certain name engraved on your AR15. There are only a handful of foundries that make receivers and some of the big names in the industry sub contract the machining of their lowers out to other companies that make budget friendly AR's
And when it comes to the M16 series (to include M4) and AR15's - MIL SPEC is MIL SPEC no matter who's name is on the receiver. The parts either meet spec or they don't.
Now what you do get with more expensive AR's is a better finish, better fit between upper and lowers and normally a better barrel along with a tighter barrel to upper fit. But as long as the lower priced AR's meet industry and/or MIL SPEC then they will function and last just as well as higher priced AR's
The long thread over on ARFCOM about high round counts in full auto AR's done by Henderson Defense in Las Vegas has proven that AR's such as PSA last as long, if not longer, as Colts or other higher prices rifles.
In the end it is the individual's choice and money so buy what makes you happy. Just don't get stuck on having to have a certain name engraved on your AR15. There are only a handful of foundries that make receivers and some of the big names in the industry sub contract the machining of their lowers out to other companies that make budget friendly AR's
Can't recommend other as I have no experience with them, I do own RRA and Smith and Wesson either company are good. For a basic model RRA has this.
https://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=72
https://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=72
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
Have you studied Knights or LMT? They aren't just your run of the mill AR selling as a top-tier. These are not mil-spec rifles.
I don't own one and probably never will but understand quality and attention to detail when I see it.
There is a reason why Knights Armament AR's never hit the civilian market and when they do they are snatched up very fast. They cannot keep up with sales to Tier 1 operators in the military, why is that? Just snobbery?
The only reason I suggested those two was because "cost was no concern" of the OP. Otherwise they wouldn't have probably made my list because no common civilian really needs them IMHO; as there are a host of good AR's out there for 1/3 the cost.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
I've never seen a Knights in the flesh. I have seen a LMT at my range in the hands of a off duty PSP officer (heck of a nice guy to boot!), and while the finish was perfect, and it looked good, it performed no better where it counted...down range. He and it, shot just as well as my Anderson build. He even joked about the cost himself...
I've also seen a few Daniel Defense at my range, and again, while nice, I saw nothing that justified the extremely high price.
One brand that is worth the cost..in my opinion, because they ACTUALLY do use better material, yet stick to the Mil Spec fitment...is JP Rifles. In my opinion, they are the real deal. I have one of their bolt carrier groups in one of my builds...and it is, indeed quite a few steps above Toolcraft and Microbest...but it also set me back $450 bucks, compared to a $150 Toolcraft. For chizniks and giggles, I even swapped out that carrier with my spare cheapo..just to see if the rifle shot better or worse. It didn't. Same holes. So..was the extra expense worth it? Depends on your point of view....
So..if Knights isn't Mil spec...then it's not really AR pattern, hence your answer as to why they would cost more. That puts them into the custom side of the equation...
Why they can't keep up with demand...well, that could be from a lot a factors. The cost would come from supply and demand...plus the selling point that Seal teams and special forces use them (and frankly..if any one REALLY needs a top notch custom weapon...it's those guys), which drives those in Meal Team six to lust after them..creating even more demand...which is where the snobbery comes in.
So..to sum it up...
Real world Dark ops operators= legit need for state of the art gear..
Meal Team Six= Willing to pay top dollar just because real operators use them...for reasons of ego and bragging rights....
C-grunt
Member
OP.
You've gotten a lot of responses to this question. If you want a good basic run of the mil AR-15 look for one that meets or exceeds milspec. Lot's of company say they are milspec when they are not. Milspec not only covers the type of part but also the materials of the parts, the QC of the part, and testing of the part. The one change that is arguably as good or better is the switch to the nitride type barrel treatments. I wouldnt buy one rifle over the other just because it hasd a nitride barrel, but I also wouldn't pass one up for it either.
If a bolt carrier group doesnt have staked screws, isnt using proper grade 8 screw, isnt using a chrome lining on the inside of the carrier, isnt using a Carpenter 158 steel bolt, and the bolt isnt individually high pressure tested and magnetic particle inspected... than it isnt milspec. I use those examples for the BCG particularly because there are A TON of BCGs out there that are labelled "milspec" that dont do one or more of those things.
Other things to look for are the buffer. Many rifles come with a carbine buffer. For a 16 inch gun that is too light. You want a H or maybe even a H2 buffer.
Many cheaper rifles have larger gas ports than needed. They do this to help cycle cheap ammo. But when you run good full powered ammo through the gun it increases the action speed which decreases reliability and increases parts wear.
Small parts sourcing is another way that some companies will cut cost. Cheaper springs, lower grade metals, etc...
The military has been fine tuning the AR15 for 60 years now. There is a reason things are the way they are. It's not because they wanted the smoothest shooting gun to shoot good groups at the range. They wanted the most reliable fighting rifle they could make. A cheap rifle that cuts corners will probably run fine for the normal person. Going from the closet to the range isnt a stress test. Fighting in the mountains and deserts of the Middle East for years on end is. Hell, running a 4 day 3500 round carbine class in June in Phoenix was enough to down my "just as good" Bushmaster multiple times. Every quarterly training day we would have rifles go down. In the summer it got worse as the rifles would get hot really fast. When the department got their butts handed to them financially to replace the Bushmasters with (it's just a name on the side) Colts and Daniel Defense rifles, the problems went away. Weird. Rifles still go down every so often... we use them. But it went from me seeing 4 or more per training day to 1 or 2 a year. And that was mostly at the end of their 10 year service life.
You've gotten a lot of responses to this question. If you want a good basic run of the mil AR-15 look for one that meets or exceeds milspec. Lot's of company say they are milspec when they are not. Milspec not only covers the type of part but also the materials of the parts, the QC of the part, and testing of the part. The one change that is arguably as good or better is the switch to the nitride type barrel treatments. I wouldnt buy one rifle over the other just because it hasd a nitride barrel, but I also wouldn't pass one up for it either.
If a bolt carrier group doesnt have staked screws, isnt using proper grade 8 screw, isnt using a chrome lining on the inside of the carrier, isnt using a Carpenter 158 steel bolt, and the bolt isnt individually high pressure tested and magnetic particle inspected... than it isnt milspec. I use those examples for the BCG particularly because there are A TON of BCGs out there that are labelled "milspec" that dont do one or more of those things.
Other things to look for are the buffer. Many rifles come with a carbine buffer. For a 16 inch gun that is too light. You want a H or maybe even a H2 buffer.
Many cheaper rifles have larger gas ports than needed. They do this to help cycle cheap ammo. But when you run good full powered ammo through the gun it increases the action speed which decreases reliability and increases parts wear.
Small parts sourcing is another way that some companies will cut cost. Cheaper springs, lower grade metals, etc...
The military has been fine tuning the AR15 for 60 years now. There is a reason things are the way they are. It's not because they wanted the smoothest shooting gun to shoot good groups at the range. They wanted the most reliable fighting rifle they could make. A cheap rifle that cuts corners will probably run fine for the normal person. Going from the closet to the range isnt a stress test. Fighting in the mountains and deserts of the Middle East for years on end is. Hell, running a 4 day 3500 round carbine class in June in Phoenix was enough to down my "just as good" Bushmaster multiple times. Every quarterly training day we would have rifles go down. In the summer it got worse as the rifles would get hot really fast. When the department got their butts handed to them financially to replace the Bushmasters with (it's just a name on the side) Colts and Daniel Defense rifles, the problems went away. Weird. Rifles still go down every so often... we use them. But it went from me seeing 4 or more per training day to 1 or 2 a year. And that was mostly at the end of their 10 year service life.
hoardingthemanual
Member
i get angry when someone spends a lot of money on things i wouldn't. i'm a serious guy. power suit, power tie, power steering. i'll tell you why i think they're snobs. i like to insult them.
that said, buy a very expensive rifle, OP. it's worth it.
that said, buy a very expensive rifle, OP. it's worth it.
InTheSwamp
Member
With that I agree. I see no reason why they're so expensive, nothing "extra" worth paying the extra money for. Lots of fanfare, Vicker's endorsements and a healthy number of ads. When you buy Knight's and LMT, you're getting the extra work done, e.g., KAC proprietary bolt, LMT monorail and tougher steel bolt with a "better" designed extractor, etc. They put the + in the Mil-Spec+ DD brags about. But mostly, you're getting War proven rifles. While 90% of DD sales go to the civilian market, we have to wait for LMT and KAC to fulfill their military contracts...the market does the rest.
Yes, JP is worth paying for, but so are the other two. One is a proven game winner, the other two walk the talk in the trenches.
Edit: I got this from LMT's CS a few weeks ago...
The MARS-H stripped lower is still being made and is still a part of our commercial catalog. We do not have any available at the moment but we will have more products available for the commercial market this year now that we have finished our contract with Estonia
Disclaimer: My only Cool AR is a DD.
Last edited:
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
Exactly. KAC and LMT are the only two top tier AR's that have design improvements that improve on design "weaknesses," of standard AR15/M4 weapons. I put weaknesses in "" because milspec AR's do very well on maintaining their ability to put lead down range. It is evident however, that the two aforementioned companies looked at the potential weaknesses and placed effort there.
When one looks at KAC's E3 bolt and barrel extension it is a clear advantage from a physics, metallurgy and reliability standpoint over milspec. One only has to decide whether that is necessary for one's desires/needs for the rifle. Hence, getting back to the OP, "money is no concern."
LMT's metallurgy has always been a cut above on their bolts and their lobster tail dual extractor spring setup is a great setup for reliability. And as said above the monolithic upper is great for durability as well as minimizing POI shift's on PEQ-15, and other optical sighting systems.
