for a moment when I was looking at Wilson Combat's M4. I have been shopping for a AR-15 but I know almost nothing about them. I have been wanting one for informal target shooting and to carry in the truck. Maybe one day shooting 3 gun with.
Wilson Combat only guarantees 2 MOA at 100 yards yet they want $2K for their gun. I thought holy cow, am I going to have to spend a mint to get an 1 MOA AR?? Then I went and looked ar Rock River Arms and they guarantee 1 MOA for $1K.
The reason that I looked at Wilson in the first place is that I have experience with their 1911s. I am a 1911 fanboy and generally in my opinion you get what you pay for. I have several $2K plus 1911s and they were worth it IMO.
Now the question I have is, are ARs' generally the same way? Is there a certain price point of diminishing returns, especially for someone who is not going to be in any kind of long range precision rifle competitions?
The only way I know to compare is this. You can get a Springfield TRP for say $1300. It is a great gun and will meet most people's needs for plinking and some IDPA, but a skilled marksman with a better gun can shoot tighter groups if the gun were capable. However, you can spend another $400-$500 and get a Les Baer TRS. These are hand fit guns that will outshoot just about anybody. And yes I can and have outshot a TRP with a Les Baer at 25 yards. Then you add another $400-$500 and you can get a gun like my Guncrafter No Name. Hand fit well made gun, cannot really outshoot a Les Baer with it but it is definitely more refined and has a better fit and finish to it and I prefer the No Name over the TRS because of those things.
Do ARs kind of work that way? In your opinion what is the point of diminishing returns on an AR?
FWIW I know that I want one with a 16" barrel. I am currently leaning towards a Daniel Defense or Rock River but I will spend the money on something like a Noveske if I am gonna to get better accuracy out of it. Per my illustration I am looking for the Les Baer TRS on the AR world.
Wilson Combat only guarantees 2 MOA at 100 yards yet they want $2K for their gun. I thought holy cow, am I going to have to spend a mint to get an 1 MOA AR?? Then I went and looked ar Rock River Arms and they guarantee 1 MOA for $1K.
The reason that I looked at Wilson in the first place is that I have experience with their 1911s. I am a 1911 fanboy and generally in my opinion you get what you pay for. I have several $2K plus 1911s and they were worth it IMO.
Now the question I have is, are ARs' generally the same way? Is there a certain price point of diminishing returns, especially for someone who is not going to be in any kind of long range precision rifle competitions?
The only way I know to compare is this. You can get a Springfield TRP for say $1300. It is a great gun and will meet most people's needs for plinking and some IDPA, but a skilled marksman with a better gun can shoot tighter groups if the gun were capable. However, you can spend another $400-$500 and get a Les Baer TRS. These are hand fit guns that will outshoot just about anybody. And yes I can and have outshot a TRP with a Les Baer at 25 yards. Then you add another $400-$500 and you can get a gun like my Guncrafter No Name. Hand fit well made gun, cannot really outshoot a Les Baer with it but it is definitely more refined and has a better fit and finish to it and I prefer the No Name over the TRS because of those things.
Do ARs kind of work that way? In your opinion what is the point of diminishing returns on an AR?
FWIW I know that I want one with a 16" barrel. I am currently leaning towards a Daniel Defense or Rock River but I will spend the money on something like a Noveske if I am gonna to get better accuracy out of it. Per my illustration I am looking for the Les Baer TRS on the AR world.