How far are we from quality $299.99 AR15s?

[newfalguy101]

Pretty close I think.

http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/catalog/product/view/id/1213/
http://palmettostatearmory.com/inde...olt-carrier-group-with-charging-handle-1.html
http://palmettostatearmory.com/inde...1-9-upper-without-bcg-or-charging-handle.html

You do realize that's $460 plus shipping ( probably didn't really look that close ) and transfer, so closing in on $500 by the time its all said and done.


To answer the OP's question, its not going to happen, PSA already sells so cheap they don't make squat per unit, ( and destroy profit margins in the process ) and even they are still over $400.

I honestly don't think prices will drop much if any more, the profit margins are already slim on AR's.

 

[MIL-DOT]

You're not going to see a new $300 AR with any form of acceptable quality.
Period.
Denis

I agree completely. In fact, I think it's unlikely we'll see even crapola AR's selling for $300 brand new, but no way/no how we see decent quality AR's going for that little.

 

[readyeddy]

If anything, I would expect prices to rise once the excess inventory is depleted.

 

[HankC]

$400 AR is promising. Now it is not hard to find $450 ARs even with no foreigner manufacturers in the game. Imaging 3rd countries start to make ARs and pour into US market! Actually, we don't really know if any so called US made parts are actually US made or they import 80% parts from overseas and just do the final machining in US. Other industries have been doing it for a long time, why not gun industry.

 

[orionengnr]

About as far as we are from $150 Glocks.

The law of supply and demand is immutable.

Two-three years ago, ARs were going $1200. Not because they cost that much to make, but because that is what the market was demanding.

Today, that has dropped to $600 (at the bottom end).

Do you think that demand will dry up to the point that the supply side is that overstocked?

It could happen, but I have a picture of Ben Frankin, printed on green tinted paper, that says otherwise.

 

[Kynoch]

The mil-spec aspect is a guarantee that Ar parts will fit your AR. So yes, it matters.

It's sad that some have come to equate "mil-spec" with a level of quality. In any event unless the arms are coming from Colt, FN or whomever else has/had access to the actual Technical Data Package for the M16/M4, all the parts are reverse-engineered anyway. "Mil-Spec" indeed.

Quality isn't ignoratio elenchi, either. Be it $299 or $49, I wouldn't want an unreliable, inaccurate or downright dangerous AR. And I don't think I'm alone. Can guns be made dirt cheap? Of course. And we all know what you get. You either end up with the horrendously ugly and heavy but safe and reasonably reliable Hi Point, or you get something of the Lorcin/Jennings/Davis variety that are dangerous paper weights at best.

You're equating price to product quality which is simply wrong. The MSRP of the AR-556 is $749. The MSRP of the Tavor 5.56 is $1999.00 Using your logic the Tavor is nearly triple the product quality of Ruger and that it must cost at least triple as much to build. I suspect the actual difference in production costs is less than $100 -- certainly less than $200/rifle. Their costs are similar yet their prices are drastically different not because of their product quality but because of a lack of real competition in the market the Tavor serves. That will change in time if IMI sells a lot of Tavors.

You're operating under the mistaken assumption that everyone cares what the current price of a product is relative to what they paid X number of months or years ago. Sure, a few folks might, knowing that they'll likely never recoup their investment if they sold. The overwhelming majority of us, however, would prefer that prices be as low as possible. It's ridiculous to think that just because I spent $900 on my first AR, I'd somehow be upset that I can build the same gun for $600 today. It's equally silly to think that I'd be unhappy if I were able to do another one for $300 tomorrow.

Naw. Your assumption is false. But I doubt very few here with actual knowledge of product design and manufacturing here have torn apart both types of rifles and laid them side by side and studied the different parts and sub-assemblies. How about looking at drawings comparing the AR-556 and the Tavor? Anyone see what justifies ~$1,200 MSRP difference based on each rifles' constituent parts? Heck, compare the Ruger to its SR-556 brother at $1,900/unit...

I do sense a certain level of tension from some now that firearms prices are dropping. I suspect what you mention might be part of the reason for their uneasiness.

I'd love to see $300 ARs with forged 7075 receivers and decent barrels/BCGs. I just understand that it's not gonna happen. To drive costs down significantly, manufacturing changes in two ways: Faster processes and/or reduced tool wear. That means materials that are more easily formed with less costly methods, and materials that are easier on tooling. At $300, you'll get 6061 extensions, die cast aluminum or polymer receivers, button rifled heavy profile parkerized 4140 barrels and 1045 extruded bolt carriers.

Two ways? You missed: less expensive (not merely faster) processes, less direct labor involvement/process, less expensive direct labor, lowered overhead rates, lowered taxation rates, etc.

I'll pass.

Alrighty.

 

[Robert]

More pointless bickering kills yet another thread.