Looking to get into AR's

[mdauben]

When I buy a gun, I usually buy it as an investment, and plan to keep it my whole life.

These actually seem somewhat contradictory to me. If you are buying a gun as an investment, that implies you intend to sell it some day so resale value is important. If you intend to keep it your whole life, what difference does it make what happens to the value as long as the gun continues to reliably operate as long as you do?

That said, I just don't see any AR as being much of an "investment". A good one will surely hold its value pretty well, but given the positive glut of AR makers and guns on the market today, I would not expect one to increase in value (unless new manufacture is made illegal some day, like a return of the AWB. In such a case selling an irreplaceable gun would be the last thing I would want to do!).

If you are simply worried about not losing too much money if you eventually decide that the AR isn't for you and you end selling the gun, I would guess that a complete gun from Colt, DD, or one of the other more recommended brands would be the best choice. My guess is they would probably hold their value better than a "parts" gun, even if the parts were of similar quality.

If you are just dipping your toe in the AR pool, OTOH, I don't think you can really go wrong with the S&W M&P Sport. It's about the cheapest "good" AR you will find and it will be hard to beat the value. It lacks some "mil-spec" features that seem to set AR-purists on edge, but all the hands-on reviews of this gun I have found were uniformly positive.

I was in a similar situation to you just recently, having decided to spend around $1300 on my first AR. After getting much the same advice from THR as you have gotten, I looked over the guns at my LGS, including guns from Colt and DD. and wound up walking out with a Sport. It didn't have all the features I thought I wanted, but at hundreds of dollars less (it was actually on sale for less than $600 out the door), I just could not pass it up. I'll just spend the rest of the money I set aside on ammo. I took it out for the first time yesterday and not only was it a blast to shoot, it operated without a hitch using the bargain ammo I was feeding it.

 

[Mr.Blue]

Smart move, Mike.

 

[MistWolf]

Get yourself the S&W. It will serve you well as a first AR. Use the $$ saved to buy ammo for practice. No need to spend the extra cash for milspec. You aren't going to be running around a jungle or desert, are you? The S&W is a good rifle that will last you a long long time. Once you really get into ARs, you can buy an upper in another caliber.

If an S&W isn't good enough to run around the desert or jungle with, it's not worth having. Being able to withstand rough handling and exposure to the elements is a normal level of reliability

 

[karlb]

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy a Colt 6920. They are the standard by which all others are measured(either above or below). Everyone recognizes the prancing pony in case you decide to sell it. That being said, I have BCMs, DD, and some rifles that are MOSTLY Colt. I feel I can put together a better rifle than Colt.

 

[Rhyno37]

I should have specified more. I meant I keep it my whole life as I don't buy and sell guns on the regular. I've only ever sold one gun. I plan on keeping them a very long time, maybe even till I'm old in age, which if they still have a good value I would sell it then.

I'm thinking either a DDM4 or M&P 15 for my first rifle. I'm thinking I should wait to build until I know exactly what I want, since there is more customization. Also, if I would build I a coyote gun instead.

While I started off wanting the basic S&W M&P15, after seeing the Daniel Defense M4's/XV's and watching videos I'm taking a strong liken to them and don't know if I could go with something else without regretting it.

 

[OhioChief]

I didn't read many of the comments, so this has probably been stated many times. If you're familiar with guns (sounds like you are), go the next step and build one. Honestly, it's more rewarding than buying one. And it's so easy. Tons of video clips, documentation, instructions, etc... Parts and part manufacturers are endless. And you'll learn a lot about the platform. I really enjoy it. Then you can post what you did, and have 50 guys give you 90 opinions on what you did wrong. )

 

[mdauben]

If an S&W isn't good enough to run around the desert or jungle with, it's not worth having. Being able to withstand rough handling and exposure to the elements is a normal level of reliability

First off, its only the Sport (AFAIK) that omits the forward assist and dust cover so in that respect they should be able to withstand any environmental elements any other AR can.

Second, in one of the Sport review I read, the author was concerned about just this. He got "down in the dirt" with his test gun, even to the point of throwing handfuls of dust and sand at the open ejection port and the Sport never had a problem.

Third, personally, I find the ability to deal with a bit of rain or dust should indeed be a normal expectation. Being able to operate in true extreme conditions (covered with mud, assaulted with sandstorms, etc.) are to be expected from a true military arm, but hardly necessary for the recreational roll that most AR owners employ their guns in.

 

[Gtscotty]

If you really like the DD and want a 16 inch gun I don't think you can go wrong getting it.
You will not be giving anything up to colt gun other than a prancing pony stamp on the receiver, and possibly some resale value among those who don't really know what they are looking at, but might recognize a colt symbol. I personally have an M&P 15, and if I wanted to pick up a slightly more expensive AR, it would definitely be a DD.... I don't really see that happening though, as the S&W has proven to have excellent construction quality and flawless function in my experience.

 

[Mr.Blue]

If an S&W isn't good enough to run around the desert or jungle with, it's not worth having. Being able to withstand rough handling and exposure to the elements is a normal level of reliability

The S&W is plenty reliable enough. My point is that for 99.9% of us that get ARs we don't need milspec rifles. Most wannabe commandos just want the same gun as the troops, but they don't need it. They will NEVER be in the type of environment that our troops are put in. Are you planning a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Korea?

 

[kwelz]

Mr.Blue, by that argument nobody should own a house bigger than they absolutely need or a car that goes faster than the speed limit. Some people want the best they can get. It isn't about going into combat. It is about having the best tools for the job. In the case of an AR it is generally HD/SD. Why would you settle for something less reliable just to save 100-200 bucks.

 

[Robert101]

I recently made this decision by buying the DPMS Panther in 308. I'm new to ARs but heard good things about this manufacturer. I'm not an AR purist nor military but I wanted what this type of rifle offered.

 

[mdauben]

Mr.Blue, by that argument nobody should own a house bigger than they absolutely need or a car that goes faster than the speed limit.

Not at all. Its just a matter of want and need. Nobody needs a house bigger than just big enough for their family, no one needs a car that goes 120+ MPH. If they want it, that's fine, but don't mistake it for a need.

It is about having the best tools for the job. In the case of an AR it is generally HD/SD. Why would you settle for something less reliable just to save 100-200 bucks.

It could be easily argued that for probably 99% of the people in this country, an AR isn't the "best tool" for HD/SD. That would arguably be a good handgun or shotgun. I would also argue that no matter what their owners might say, most civilian ARs bought in this country are 1000X more likely to be used for recreational, hunting, or sporting purposes than for HD/SD.

All that aside, what I was trying to convey is that all available evidence is that the M&P Sport is a reliable gun at an amazingly low price. In this case, there is just no need to spend $100-200 more for a reliable gun. If you want a more mil-spec rifle, or if you want the tactical extras that's fine, but again generally that's a want, not a need.

 

[kwelz]

The problem is that there is no available evidence supporting your claim. Till we see a number f high round cow t examples then it is just speculation. Anytime a company starts cutting corners I start to doubt them.

 

[Mr.Blue]

This guy is starting out with ARs. He would be better served to use the money saved on ammo to practice with.

 

[saddlerocker]

Buy the colt if you dont want to build.

But you can build one that has everything you want (handguard/stock ect...) and pay the same. And it will be "Mil-Spec" Just like the colt.
Its very easy to put together if you buy a complete upper/stripped lower/ lower parts kit/stock assembly/BCG.
No tools required

BCM and Daniel Defense are the best bargain imo, spikes it good too and should be all up to spec.

The upper is the important part imo. BCG and barrel being the most important part of the gun. Pay for a good BCG if nothing else (BCM/DD/Spikes)

 

[kwelz]

You are best served by starting out buying good quality gear. I have lost count of the number of people I have seen buy DPMS, Doublestar, BM, etc. They then wonder why they have problems and get turned off to the AR platform. Considering the small price difference between quality and not there is no reason to skimp.

 

[ugaarguy]

Kwelz, the M&P-15s are one of the brands Pat Rogers recommends. They're close to mil-spec, priced reasonably, and the corners are cut in the least critical areas

 

[Mr.Blue]

S&W is hardly in the same class as those low end ARs. If it breaks, it's covered by the best customer service in the business. If I was going to war then I'd spend $2500 on an AR. For home defense I want a reliable weapon too, but I'm realistic enough to know I won't be in 130 degree heat and a sandstorm. If the M&P AR is good enough for many police departments, it's good enough for my purposes.

I don't think you understand my point. A quality AR is necessary. A MilSpec weapon is not. MilSpec doesn't necessarily mean best or most reliable. Companies like RRA, Stag, and S&W make excellent ARs, but they aren't MilSpec. That said, they are more than enough to get the job done.

 

[kwelz]

Most I would agree with you on. The sport however is still questionable.

And I disagree with you that stag or RRA are quality ARs.

 

[ugaarguy]

Kwelz, I fully agree on RRA. Their parts & assembly are a joke. RRA is all show & no go. I haven't handled a Stag lately, but the last time I did I wasn't impressed. Their plus package looks good on paper, but it pushes the price up into LMT / Colt / BCM / DD territory. Like you, I'll stay with those brands over Stag at that price.

 

[pwhfirefighter]

I can think of only one negative to assembling an AR, once you do it, you will want to do it again. I assembled my second one (a BCM) and had a nicer weapon, for less money, than the first one I bought complete.

Just my opinion, not that it means anything.

 

[browneu]

The OP should decide what length gas system he wants. (I don't remember seeing it posted.) That will help determine which brands are available to him.

If possible he should shoot both the carbine and midlength systems to see if the difference is enough to eliminate some of the weapons mentioned.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

 

[helotaxi]

WAY too much importance is placed on the idea of mil-spec and "the chart". Mil-spec is hardly a list of what makes the "best" firearm. It is Uncle Sam's list of priorities with regard to cost and performance. The gov. priorities aren't the same as my own. Mil-spec triggers are junk (yes even the ones that are truly mil-spec with the "fun switch"). I can do better with regard to finish on the bolt and carrier. I hate the mil-spec buttstock. I'm not a fan of the mil-spec handguards, pistol grip or trigger guard. From an accuracy standpoint you can do better than the 4150 chrome lined barrel and can actually exceed mil-spec with regard to the chrome lining and the steel alloy (Lothar Walther is one).

In other areas, the mil-spec merely relates to military desires to fill a specific narrow purpose that 99% of troops don't need but one specialized unit in one specialized environment have a requirement for (the 1:7 rifling is only needed to stabilize the 64gn tracer round in arctic environments where MV is low because of the cold and the upset forces are significant because of the very low density altitude) or was simply a cheap solution to a need and certainly nothing special (the A2 flash hider).

That said a mil-spec carbine is not a bad place to start. It will be a good rifle. For that you're looking at a Colt, BCM, PSA, DD or Spikes for bigger names. If you shop around and buy the upper and lower separately (which rules out Colt) you can get in under $1k. I would recommend a built upper and lower for a first rifle. Get to know the platform and figure out what you want and need in a rifle and use those specs to build your second and subsequent.

 

[tahunua001]

oh god it's another ar question. the cheapest route to go is to get a lower receiver and buy a build kit and do it yourself and you'll end up with a gun that's completely tailored to your personal tastes. the downside is that you will also stand a higher chance of running into issues if you go with anything other than 223/5.56mm. you can build a working, functional, reliable AR15 for around $600 you can build one that becomes a part of your body and speaks volumes about your personal tastes for about a grand or you can go buy a colt for $1600-2000 just because it's a colt and it'll go bang every time.
both my ARs are buildem yourself. my 5.56 has never had a failure that wasn't ammo related(hot loads that bowed out the casings to the point that they couldn't extract). my 9mm needs to have the mag block tweeked every once in a while to alleviate FTFs and needs a little more lube than most but once it gets dialed in it's good for a few hundred rounds.

 

[helotaxi]

My "failure is not an option" rifle has less than $1k in it including the floated quad rail, the EMOD stock and the chrome BCG. It has never failed to feed, extract or eject anything I've fed it. My 24" barreled .204 Ruger chambered AR has likewise been reliable to the point of boredom but is also a $1500 rifle + optics.

In contrast I have a .223 match chamber carbine that is (or was) picky in the extreme with regard to ammo. It was WAY overgassed originally and adding an adjustable gas block required tailored adjustment to every different load to get reliable operation. I added an Adam's gas piston system and it is boring reliable now as well. I've got over $1k in that upper alone.

All of the above were built from parts starting with a stripped upper. The upper does require some specialized tools to assemble. I've built two and bought two lowers. Special tolls aren't required but are helpful for lower assembly. Neither are difficult, but I wouldn't recommend building a first AR if you're looking for one to shoot a lot. Me personally, I like the building almost as much as the shooting so the parts shopping and assembly process was its own reward but in the case of the match chambered rifle was a royal headache and I had no one to turn to buy myself to figure it out since it wasn't a prebuilt with a warranty.