Purchase my first AR yesterday.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congrats on the 6920.

Groups tend to shrink with an optic. I've gone with Trijicon's (A TA-33 ACOG and an Accupoint 2.5-10x56) and a Steiner (1-4x24 P4Xi). Red dots are good for speed, but it sounds like you'd prefer the former.

Aftermarket triggers can also help (Geissele, AR Gold, Elftmann or even the lower cost triggers like ALG Defense, LaRue MBT or the Sionics Enhanced Mil-Spec).
 
I have never been impressed with the Colt M4 clones for what you get for $1k. That being said, they are very reliable and now that you have it, there is no reason to get rid of it.

Check out the Steiner P4Xi for a good quality optic that is lightweight and not hatefully expensive. Also the Burris RT6.
 
Congratulations and here’s to many years of enjoying it! As brands go, I understand the “thousands of owners can’t be wrong” thoughts behind a Colt AR (along with the military version and their service record). My advice however is to keep an open mind.

When I got my AR I was excited about the possibilities, read reviews, talked to the locals and bought a “boutique, paper puncher, tier 3, non-milspec, wannabe but isn’t even, joke of a toy, overpriced” Rock River (but feel free to swap nearly any other brand here).

The keyboard commandos proceeded to tell me I was delusional if I believed my rifle was even close to Colt/BCM/DD standards. The commercial receiver extension would bend or break, the twist rate wouldn’t fire heavier projectiles, the castle nut would fall off because it wasn’t staked, the bolt would break because of batch inspections, and it would absolutely positively fail if ever fired under adverse conditions because it didn’t rattle (yes the upper and lower have no play). None of the above has come to pass in nearly a decade of regular use in all sorts of weather with all sorts of ammo.

So don’t be afraid to explore a bit if you decide on a second or third. The Palmetto State I just ordered set me back $540, exactly half what I paid for my RRA and while it may not be as nicely appointed I don’t believe it’s only half the rifle. I feel sorry for that slice of the AR community that fears nice triggers or a precision stock simply because they aren’t “milspec”. ARs can be a lot of fun if you ignore the hype. Did you overpay? No, you got a darn good rifle.
 
JP, LaRue, pretty much anything I build...

Mil Spec is a minimum standard. In a nut shell it basically says, you must at least meet this standard to be considered for military contract. While the upper and lower may be pretty much identical the components that go inside or on can vary greatly.

Triggers. A mil spec trigger works fine. An aftermarket trigger will break cleaner, lighter and be overall a better trigger. But an aftermarket trigger is not mil spec. Same goes for barrels. While there are some decent mil spec barrels there are some amazing aftermarket barrels. But they are not mil spec. How do they exceed that, material used, accuracy, length, weight and overall quality.

We could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

Mil spec is just a buzz word as far as I'm concerned that means this was built to a standard. I'm not saying it is a bad standard, just that it is a starting point. A marketing phrase if you will.
 
Another example of where milspec doesn't necessarily mean better -- chrome-lined barrels. They may be better in terms of corrosion resistance, but they are widely regarded as less accurate than non-chrome-lined barrels. If you are building a rifle for utmost accuracy, then you most certainly don't want a milspec barrel for that reason alone.

(Caveat: I'm sure there are examples of chrome-lined barrels being just as accurate as other barrels, but generally speaking that's not the consensus that most precision shooters hold, at least in my research.)
 
Robert said:
JP, LaRue, pretty much anything I build...

Mil Spec is a minimum standard. In a nut shell it basically says, you must at least meet this standard to be considered for military contract. While the upper and lower may be pretty much identical the components that go inside or on can vary greatly.

Triggers. A mil spec trigger works fine. An aftermarket trigger will break cleaner, lighter and be overall a better trigger. But an aftermarket trigger is not mil spec. Same goes for barrels. While there are some decent mil spec barrels there are some amazing aftermarket barrels. But they are not mil spec. How do they exceed that, material used, accuracy, length, weight and overall quality.

We could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

Mil spec is just a buzz word as far as I'm concerned that means this was built to a standard. I'm not saying it is a bad standard, just that it is a starting point. A marketing phrase if you will.
Click to expand...
To give you an idea where I'm coming from, I work as a civilian contractor on military aircraft and have to deal with milspec, TDPs, tech data and quality control all the time.

I'll grant you there are aftermarket triggers that do the job better and are at least as reliable, durable and safe as a milspec trigger. (When I say milspec, I include the standard semi-auto trigger along with the issue full auto & burst triggers.) I agree that "milspec" has devolved into just another buzzword. But saying milspec is nothing more than the minimum standard isn't true. Milpsec is the standard and (for the M4) it sets the standard pretty high for durability and reliability. (We won't talk about "milspec" for such items as toilet paper. I don't know about today, but when I was in the military, we did not dare rely on issue TP.)

What materials, processes and parts do AR makers offer that are objectively better than milspec? There are subjective improvements, of course. Take the A2 pistol grip, for example. Anything is better than the A2 grip. But that's subjective. (Some people actually like the A2 grip.) But, what are the objective improvements? Why are they improvements? What does any maker offer that would be a measurable improvement to my (civilian) milspec AR that are not simply trade-offs (such as barrel length, trading handiness & velocity)?

To the point I'm looking for a more specific answer than "material used, length etc." for better understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: md7
Robert said:
JP, LaRue, pretty much anything I build...

Mil Spec is a minimum standard. In a nut shell it basically says, you must at least meet this standard to be considered for military contract. While the upper and lower may be pretty much identical the components that go inside or on can vary greatly.

Triggers. A mil spec trigger works fine. An aftermarket trigger will break cleaner, lighter and be overall a better trigger. But an aftermarket trigger is not mil spec. Same goes for barrels. While there are some decent mil spec barrels there are some amazing aftermarket barrels. But they are not mil spec. How do they exceed that, material used, accuracy, length, weight and overall quality.

We could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

Mil spec is just a buzz word as far as I'm concerned that means this was built to a standard. I'm not saying it is a bad standard, just that it is a starting point. A marketing phrase if you will.
Click to expand...

The problem with some aftermarket triggers is that their hammer spring will give light primer strikes when using military ammo. In the rush to get a better trigger (often lighter) the springs are weakened. To put it another way : Pull trigger gun no go bang.

Some also aren't drop safe (the AR Gold, Geissele and a few others are exceptions to this).

Still others (like the Hiperfire) use proprietary springs in their design which means that you can only get those from one source...That specific company. I have scads of spare parts and springs, but most of it is mil-spec because that's the easiest to find, it's 'THE' standard and it's the least expensive.

So if buying such a trigger, hammer, springs etc the phrase of the day should be 'Test and Evaluation' to make sure all sorts of ammo is reliable in your gun after you install such a trigger system. I imagine that most here do that simply because we're gun nuts, but some guys just put those parts in, run one mag through it and call it good and into the closet it goes.

Same thing with the SS barrels in regards to cleaning them and barrel life vs chrome lined and other such barrels.

....just saying. Sometimes for good or ill the standard is a fairly good thing. I'm all for slicking up my guns, but it can't be or shouldn't be at the expense of reliability or longevity.
 
Robert said:
JP, LaRue, pretty much anything I build...

Mil Spec is a minimum standard. In a nut shell it basically says, you must at least meet this standard to be considered for military contract. While the upper and lower may be pretty much identical the components that go inside or on can vary greatly.

Triggers. A mil spec trigger works fine. An aftermarket trigger will break cleaner, lighter and be overall a better trigger. But an aftermarket trigger is not mil spec. Same goes for barrels. While there are some decent mil spec barrels there are some amazing aftermarket barrels. But they are not mil spec. How do they exceed that, material used, accuracy, length, weight and overall quality.

We could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

Mil spec is just a buzz word as far as I'm concerned that means this was built to a standard. I'm not saying it is a bad standard, just that it is a starting point. A marketing phrase if you will.
Click to expand...

No trigger you will get on a civilian M4 will be mil spec, even on a Colt, since mil spec for the AR is a full auto trigger group, not semi auto. Sometimes it's not about quality, it's about design.
 
MistWolf said:
What materials, processes and parts do AR makers offer that are objectively better than milspec? There are subjective improvements, of course. Take the A2 pistol grip, for example. Anything is better than the A2 grip. But that's subjective. (Some people actually like the A2 grip.) But, what are the objective improvements? Why are they improvements? What does any maker offer that would be a measurable improvement to my (civilian) milspec AR that are not simply trade-offs (such as barrel length, trading handiness & velocity)?

To the point I'm looking for a more specific answer than "material used, length etc." for better understanding.
Click to expand...


It's hard to explain if you haven't handled them. But lay hands on a JP bolt carrier sometime.

My 3-gun rifle contains a LMOS JP carrier, a silent captive buffer, a JP adjustable gas block, and a JP single stage trigger.


Anytime I take a buddy shooting who has a box stock M4gery, and they set down their rifle after a string of fire, and I hand them mine. They take a shot, usually stop to say wow, then shoot a few more rounds before asking me, "How do you get it to shoot/feel like that?"



There are a lot of makers out there that make rifles that are far superior in many ways to a bone stock 6920. That doesn't mean the 6920 is bad. It does what it needs to do. It also sells for more than it is worth because of the prancing pony on the side and the allure of it being similar to the M4.
 
IndianaBoy said:
It's hard to explain if you haven't handled them. But lay hands on a JP bolt carrier sometime.

My 3-gun rifle contains a LMOS JP carrier, a silent captive buffer, a JP adjustable gas block, and a JP single stage trigger.


Anytime I take a buddy shooting who has a box stock M4gery, and they set down their rifle after a string of fire, and I hand them mine. They take a shot, usually stop to say wow, then shoot a few more rounds before asking me, "How do you get it to shoot/feel like that?"



There are a lot of makers out there that make rifles that are far superior in many ways to a bone stock 6920. That doesn't mean the 6920 is bad. It does what it needs to do. It also sells for more than it is worth because of the prancing pony on the side and the allure of it being similar to the M4.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing how a shooter is just paying extra for the Prancing Pony when buying a Colt. However, right out of the box, the Colt 6920 and 6933 shot much smoother than my PSA 16 inch middy ever did and the PSA I had was a nice AR. When I tore down the Colts and put them back together, I noticed small details that were better than the ARs I built from other parts, such as the tongue & groove fitment between the RE and the endplate. When I installed the RE and endplate on the PSA, the RE would turn as I tightened the castle nut because the tongue of the endplate didn't fit the groove in the RE very well. That wasn't a problem with the Colt. The fit of the tongue in the groove kept the RE from turning.

A milspec carbine RE is better than a commercial RE because 7075 is a better material than 6061. That's a quantifiable improvement. But some feel that a milspec carbine RE isn't needed, that a commercial RE made from 6061 is more than adequate. That is an opinion.

So, how do you quantify a JP carrier and captive silent spring as better? What do they do better? What was the trade off? Are they better for all applications, or are they better for a 3 gun AR? One of the smoothest ARs I've shot uses a milspec bolt carrier group, H2 buffer, Colt action spring, suppressor and adjustable gas block. Other shooters, novice, experienced and expert agree. That's using 5.56 ammo. Which setup is better? Is it quantifiable? Or an opinion? Or are they both better but for different applications?
 
Bigmike79 said:
I got to be honest, I'm not really all that impressed.
Click to expand...
I have one and hunt with it on occasion but, overall, I've never understood all of the AR hype. It's just another semi-auto, nothing special.
 
420 said:
I have one and hunt with it on occasion but, overall, I've never understood all of the AR hype. It's just another semi-auto, nothing special.
Click to expand...

I think people that say that miss one of the biggest benefits of the AR-15 platform -- its modularity/customizability. Sure, an M4gery is a fairly bland rifle, and if that's all you are going on then I understand the sentiment. But can you show me another semi-auto rifle (or even a bolt action -- Savage comes closest) that allows the user to literally customize every aspect of the rifle without needing a workshop full of gunsmithing tools?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly an AR-15 fanboy. I think the ergonomics absolutely stink for a precision rifle compared to a standard bolt action, but I still built a 6.5 Grendel that is capable of being far more accurate than I am.

To me, it's a pretty remarkable rifle for its intended purpose, and even more remarkable considering what people are doing with them now. I'd love to see 1950's Eugene Stoner see what the market has done with his design.
 
I agree.

1000 yard milk jug shooting with AR15



Build list:
Total Before Optics, Mount & Accessories: $1,960
 
Last edited:
Bigmike79 said:
Being that I live in a state that is starting to get stupid with the gun control stuff, I decided to buy an AR yesterday. I had been considering getting a mini 14 or 30, but got talked out of it after posting a thread on the subject.

Anyways I bought a Colt M4 carbine. I picked her up for a little under a grand, and took her out to the woods this morning. While I'm shot plenty of AR variants, this is my first time shooting one that wasn't covered with a bunch of tacticool stuff.

I got to be honest, I'm not really all that impressed. It feels cheap for $1,000 gun, the round feels weak when compared to my AK or SKS, and the accuracy isn't anything special with iron sights (for me). I'm sure if I keep shooting it my accuracy will improve, but after getting it sited in, I was no more accurate at 75 yards than I am with my AK or my lever 30/30.

I'm still glad I purchased it, as this is one of those rifles that undoubtably won't be available at some point. I'm thinking about putting some type of Optics on it. I figure if I'm just as accurate using iron sights with my AK, I might as well utilize the range of the 5.56 cartridge on my new AR with Optics.


I've used red dot systems with 22 long rifle and on some of the ARs that I have shot. I thought they were pretty neat, but they were made for closer Ranges than I'm looking to shoot.

What are my options with Red Dot sights designed for longer ranges? Any suggestions on smaller tactical style traditional scopes instead?
Click to expand...

You did well to buy the LE6920. For your money you got:

1.) Forged mil-spec upper and lower receivers made from 7075-T6 aluminum.

2.) The receiver extension/buffer tube is also 7075-T6 with the appropriate dry film lube inside. Most el-cheapos use 6061 aluminum which is not nearly as strong, but saves money.

3.) The castle nut on your receiver extension/buffer tube will have been properly staked. A step many el-cheapo hobby grade gun makers skip or don’t even know they should do.

4.) You got a mil-spec bolt, made of Carpenter 158 steel. This bolt is properly heat treated, shot peened, and parkerized. It has been fired with a proof load and individually magnetic particle inspected. El-cheapo AR builders usually don’t individually inspect bolts like this. In addition you have the correct up to date Colt M4 extractor spring powering a good tool steel extractor.

5.) You got a good mil-spec bolt carrier. The inside is hard chromed. The gas key nuts are properly torqued down and a very heavy staking has been administered to them. It will not shoot loose. Believe it or not most budget hobby grade AR’s have no staking or half-assed staking here.

6.) The barrel on your carbine is made out of MIL-B-11595E steel, also known as chrome moly vanadium 4150. This is a considerably tougher grade of steel than the more common CM 4140 found in hobby grade guns. CMV 4150 is commonly used for making machine gun barrels. In addition the bore and chamber are hard chrome lined for durability, ease of care, and reliability. This barrel is also proof tested and magnetic particle inspected, again a step many cheaper makers do not bother with. Additionally Colt doesn’t drill giant gas ports in their barrels, so your carbine is properly gassed. Hence the soft recoil.

7.) You have a pinned gas manifold and front sight post made of steel. It will never come loose, or be at risk of suffering damage or losing zero from normal mis-haps. Colt went to the trouble of actually pinning it after the barrel was parkerized, so you don’t have bare steel under there waiting to corrode.

8.) Colt specs an H, H1, or H2 buffer in their carbines, where most cheaper builders use the lighter CAR buffer. Those tungsten weights cost money, but smooth out recoil and make life easier on your bolt, extractor, cam pin, and bolt carrier. The other half of your low recoil equation.

You did good. Did I mention that?

Acquire good magazines, feed it good ammo, and keep it lubed. Generously lubed. Now use more lube. A well lubed AR will run a shockingly long time without cleaning. Not saying you shouldn’t clean it, just be generous with the lube. CLP or a similar weight oil works great, really light runny oils not so much.

On the accuracy front, once you get optics you’ll probably be pleasantly surprised. My Colt 16” barrel has given me sub 1” at 100 yard 10 shot groups with 69gr Matchkings. You might not see that, but it will smoke your AK. If you free float the barrel (mine is) that Colt barrel will strut its stuff, Colt makes a pretty dang good barrel.

If you want to make meaningful upgrades you could do a lot worse than a quality optic, quality free float rail, and a Geissele 2 stage trigger.

As it is your carbine is good to go.
 
Last edited:
Bigmike79 said:
Will I need to remove the Front A2 sight to be able to utilize a small scope like this? Or is it at least recommended? What are my options for backup sights if I mount a scope like such?
Click to expand...

Nope no need to remove the front sight post for optics. Just use a mount with at least a 1.40” height (measured to the center of the optic above the receiver). A 1.40” or 1.50” mount are pretty common. If you go with a magnified optic some will have eye relief that is a bit long and you may need a cantilever mount to get the glass forward for proper eye relief.

On optics it’s tough to go wrong with a low power variable with a 1-1.25X bottom end and a 4,5,6,7, or even 8X top end. Be warned the good ones are $$$. I’ve got about $1200 in a Nightforce 1-4X24 for example.
 
Everything Coal Dragger said above. These are generally the differences between an AR that adhere's to the TDP to make it Mil-Spec and hobby rifles that don't. Mil-spec doesn't make it the "best" AR you can buy, but it assures that the gun is always built to a minimum standard that not all are. You won't have gas keys that come loose, the buffer tube is staked, etc. Nothing wrong with a hobby AR to shoot casually on weekends up at the cabin and costs a few hundred dollars less, but there are demonstrable differences between them and a mil-spec AR (Colt, BCM, DD, etc.). Generally in life, things cost more for a reason. You have a fine rifle.

p.s. regarding lube, Google "filthy 14". You'd be amazed how long an AR will run when properly lubed (and how filthy it can be).
 
MistWolf said:
So, how do you quantify a JP carrier and captive silent spring as better? What do they do better? What was the trade off? Are they better for all applications, or are they better for a 3 gun AR? One of the smoothest ARs I've shot uses a milspec bolt carrier group, H2 buffer, Colt action spring, suppressor and adjustable gas block. Other shooters, novice, experienced and expert agree. That's using 5.56 ammo. Which setup is better? Is it quantifiable? Or an opinion? Or are they both better but for different applications?
Click to expand...


I've used JP carriers, Colt carriers and FN carriers, and I am still using all three today.

Brief rundown:

The QPQ finish on the JP carrier is far superior to the phosphate on standard bolt carriers. It is harder, it is slicker, it cleans easier. The action on my rifles equipped with the JP components feels like it is on ball bearings.

My earliest and highest round count (at the time) AR had a standard carrier. Always well lubed, and never abused with long round counts without proper lubrication. Comparing similar round counts, the amount of surface wear (on the inside of the upper)I see on that standard carbine compared to my 3 Gun rifle equipped with the JP carrier is substantial. Not really a big deal, uppers are cheap, and it would probably take 40k plus or more to wear one out. Except I just put together a build using a Mega Monolithic upper receiver. Those uppers retail new for around $650. That upper got a JP carrier, because of how impressed I am with my other 2, and to protect that receiver.

Captive spring, you really have to shoot one to see. It isn't about the 'raspy' noise of standard action springs. I took care of that on my other rifles with a little grease on the spring. No big deal. But it does change the way the rifle feels when you shoot it. Best way I can describe it, it eliminates the perception of the rifle cycling. It feels like you are shooting a single shot, every time you pull the trigger. At first it seems strange but now when I shoot ARs with standard carrier/buffer components, they feel sluggish to me as I am shooting them.


Reliability? A wash. In my experience the AR is an astonishingly reliable platform IF the person who puts it together has a modicum of mechanical aptitude and an understanding of what is crucially important. Plenty of idjits out there with a misaligned gas block because cousin Cooter was halfway through a case of Busch Light when he was putting the upper together.


I have a factory Colt M16 (everything but the lower) that came back as a kit from somewhere in Asia (I neutered the FCG myself) and a couple of highly tuned competition rifles, and one in the middle, a 16" midlength that is shot suppressed 95% of the time that is tuned for reliability as such. They all run and run and malfunctions are so rare as to be noteworthy.

I'm not trying to be high-falutin when I tell you that you need to shoot a JP rifle to see what I am talking about. Because it ain't really about reliability at this point it is kind of like the difference between riding in a Cadillac or in the backseat of a Jeep.


I'm going to attach a link to a short clip from a 3-gun match below. Now I was getting a lot of after-barrel burn on this ammo because I was shooting up some stuff I loaded with dumped military H4895 powder. I don't think it had flash suppressant, or maybe it was because 4895 is a bit on the slow side for 55gr 223, so I am throwing some fireballs. But watch how miniscule the movement of my rifle is as I am shooting. I was hitting double and a few triple taps on target with one sight picture at pretty good speed, and it was EASY because of how that rifle shoots.

 
MistWolf said:
I keep hearing how a shooter is just paying extra for the Prancing Pony when buying a Colt. However, right out of the box, the Colt 6920 and 6933 shot much smoother than my PSA 16 inch middy ever did and the PSA I had was a nice AR. When I tore down the Colts and put them back together, I noticed small details that were better than the ARs I built from other parts, such as the tongue & groove fitment between the RE and the endplate. When I installed the RE and endplate on the PSA, the RE would turn as I tightened the castle nut because the tongue of the endplate didn't fit the groove in the RE very well. That wasn't a problem with the Colt. The fit of the tongue in the groove kept the RE from turning.
Click to expand...


That is a fair point. And one that I often miss because while I source parts like uppers, barrels, and bolt carriers from places like Palmetto, I don't buy complete rifles. And some of the small components where they may well be an advantage from Colt, is a part that I don't see because I am using aftermarket stocks like a Magpul UBR or a Tacmod.


You can tell I have an affinity for particular stocks, grips, handguards, etc....

h88h7ki.jpg
 
edwardware said:
It IS; the AR is as practical as it is soul-less. Not even Gaston Glock's tactical tupperware pistol is as devoid of elegance or soul as an AR. . . but I don't think you can find a more practical rifle for 'the security of (our) free state.'

I bought my third last night.
Click to expand...


Boy.... I sure do disagree.

The genius of Stoner to be able to delete the heavy op-rod or piston, and find an expanding gas solution, is engineering beauty.

And the originals are as iconic as they are good looking. :)

HIc7kGs.jpg
 
IndianaBoy said:
The genius of Stoner to be able to delete the heavy op-rod or piston, and find an expanding gas solution, is engineering beauty.
Click to expand...

I agree, the engineering is first class, especially the gas system made mostly of the space in between other parts. As a mechanical system, designed to meet a spec, with maximum reliability and minimum parts, it's brilliant.
 
I don't understand why no other rifles since the AR have used DI. It seems like a really good way to save weight and eliminate the piston.
 
1) The AR does NOT use a direct impingement system. It even says so in the patent.
2) The AR DOES use a piston. The bolt is the piston, specifically the tail of the bolt is the piston.

Indiana, I watched your video. Your AR has really flat recoil. I tried the first gen UBR and liked it, especially the cheek weld. But it was heavy and after thinking about long and hard, finally sold it and got a lighter stock.
 
"like a Colt", "as good as a Colt", "does everything a Colt will", etc.

Just like comparing a car to a Mercedes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Carbine-Length Iron Sights On an AR? Good Enough?
Replies
3
Views
399
H2O MAN
H
C
  • Locked
Shot my first AK yesterday...
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
nathan
N
M
  • Locked
Optics for your AR
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
CharlieDeltaJuliet
C
Jbird45
  • Locked
My first AR. Fixed sights or no?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Z
  • Locked
Can we be honest about what kind of accuracy you are getting from your AKs (esp WASR)
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
7K
czarjl
C
Back
Top