Wanna buy my first AR
- Thread starter MolleMan
- Start date
- Status
If you just want to buy a box stock rifle and have your budget set, take a look at the offerings from Spike's. They sell good stuff and it's purdy. Or, of course, Bravo Company. That will leave you enough to get a good set of irons or a red dot.
Two things mentioned need justification: an adjustable stock, and quad rail. The DOD uses them because they have a wide variety of users and different uses. The adjustable stock is great if you wear body armor, or have a lot of different sized people. It's also a bit weak, has been known to be damaged in rough use, even bend, which causes an immediate stoppage. It's also more expensive, especially in the newer non military models. Lots of shooters like them, but when asked, cannot tell you with any precision how much it actually helps improve accuracy. The only ones with relevant comments seem to be real entry team guys, who actually do wear armor, and actually need the short setting.
For everyone else, it's just tacticool.
Same for the quad rail. DOD spends $300 for it, and it does two things: Adds nearly 48" of rail, and free floats the barrel. Again, an institutional answer to a problem the individual rarely needs. Very few train and use multiple light and sight options that require that much space, and those that do are in contact at short ranges. That means the free float precision aspect is a total waste, no advantage at all. The weight disadvantage is also pretty severe, load it up and many have to use a forward grip, it's the only way to hoist the thing into the air.
Carbine course instructors like to come onto forums with the constant feedback that the loaded guns constantly shed accessories in a weekend class as the break or the users dumps the useless weight. Putting out 1000/2000 rounds in a weekend teaches the user that all that tacticool gear is largely a waste of money and a source of embarrassment.
Note the various new weapons being designed are still offered in fixed stock and smooth handguards, with small rail sections to be added if needed. It's not a slam dunk that a adjustable/folding stock and lots of rail are #1 on the must have list. The stock has a horrible cheek weld, the quad needs ladders to keep from eating the support hand, and the combination is pretty much biased to vehicle/urban use at short ranges.
Give a good long thought to what you plan to do with this carbine, and go from there. Make it what will work for you, not what the government or internet has.
For everyone else, it's just tacticool.
Same for the quad rail. DOD spends $300 for it, and it does two things: Adds nearly 48" of rail, and free floats the barrel. Again, an institutional answer to a problem the individual rarely needs. Very few train and use multiple light and sight options that require that much space, and those that do are in contact at short ranges. That means the free float precision aspect is a total waste, no advantage at all. The weight disadvantage is also pretty severe, load it up and many have to use a forward grip, it's the only way to hoist the thing into the air.
Carbine course instructors like to come onto forums with the constant feedback that the loaded guns constantly shed accessories in a weekend class as the break or the users dumps the useless weight. Putting out 1000/2000 rounds in a weekend teaches the user that all that tacticool gear is largely a waste of money and a source of embarrassment.
Note the various new weapons being designed are still offered in fixed stock and smooth handguards, with small rail sections to be added if needed. It's not a slam dunk that a adjustable/folding stock and lots of rail are #1 on the must have list. The stock has a horrible cheek weld, the quad needs ladders to keep from eating the support hand, and the combination is pretty much biased to vehicle/urban use at short ranges.
Give a good long thought to what you plan to do with this carbine, and go from there. Make it what will work for you, not what the government or internet has.
again, we disagree. I'm 6'5 and all my collapsible stocks are set 1 or two positions out from fully collapsed. I don't own any body armor.
The reason collapsible stocks are encouraged is that the way people are taught to shoot in carbine courses these days has evolved from the way your dad learned to shoot a garand or m14.
when you shoot with your shoulders squared to the target, you need a very short stock. in my experience, shooting squared up is better for lots of reasons.
my $300 rails like DD lite and KAC URXII are pretty light. not substantially heavier than traditional handguards of the same length. it's a total slippery slope to claim that if you have 48" of rails it's heavier because you have to fill them up.
Having those rails lets you set the gun up the way you want it. And it's not just about where you put your light, though that's reason enough. The really important part is where you attach your sling. you don't get a lot of options with the standard handguards: pretty much a loop on the bottom of the gas block.
of course that doesn't matter if you think slings are bad
atblis
Member
The collapsible stocks are also convenient when clambering in and out of vehicles and also when caring slung.
Zerodefect
member
My Magpul ACS stock on my Carbine is set to 1 click from full short. Should my optic fail, and I switch to irons, I set the stock to full long for a better rear sight picture. Hopefully I'll never se my irons.
My Mk12 mod 3x SPR with a Trijicon 5-20x 50mm scope is set to work best with It's ACS stock 1 click out. When I go prone on a bipod I go full long, maybe one click in form full long at greater magnification settings.
An adjustable stock is a must have when your shaped like me I guess.
My Mk12 mod 3x SPR with a Trijicon 5-20x 50mm scope is set to work best with It's ACS stock 1 click out. When I go prone on a bipod I go full long, maybe one click in form full long at greater magnification settings.
An adjustable stock is a must have when your shaped like me I guess.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not on an entry team and don't own any armor, and I find that an adjustable stock is a very helpful accessory indeed. And my carbine isn't a safe queen; it is a dual purpose HD and USPSA gun, and being able to adjust the stock to fit me makes a big difference when moving as well as when shooting. For me, an A2 style stock is simply too long and doesn't work all that well with a 2-point sling, and a shorter fixed stock is going to be the wrong length half the time, depending on clothing and shooting position.
I generally run mine 1 click out from full short outdoors, and full short inside the house.
MolleMan
Member
yeah i have a collasible stock on my sks, mossberg shotty, and NEF shotty (for my son) and all i have to set the stock differently, so yeah other than looks it does serve a purpose to me
Aaron2091
Member
My favorite "do everything" complete package rifle out there for the AR platform rt now is the Bushmaster MOE carbine package. Good for a first AR and you can find it for around 900.00 with all the cool Magpul furniture on it. Also the MOE front hanguard is lighter than a quadrail and you can mount lots of cool toys to it.
possum
Member
spike's tactical is selling tier one quality complete rifle for $800 right now, that is a heck of a deal. they are on par with colt, lmt, bcm quality wise, you can't go wrong.
1) Adjustable stocks do allow shooting squared up - for CQB use. It's a technique that is taught to improve the presentation of body armor protection. It reduces the openness of the off hand arm aperature in the armor. It's been criticized as making yourself a bigger target to let the plate take the hit. I wouldn't know, as I don't plan on doing that. It's definitely not the proper stance for range and target shooting for precision.
2)Quad rails are just one answer to the options - a handguard tube is the other, and quite common. Rails can be added where needed as needed, which can make tubes lighter than quads. Ladders won't be needed to cover the aggressive CNC machining, and the expense is reduced overall. Again, quads are an institutional answer, pretty much a fad in the civilian world where everyone copies the military answer without thinking through whether it's of any value to their use.
3) I don't propose saying slings are inherently evil and should be banned, they have a purpose. I am saying most shooters picking one are doing so because they copy the latest tacticool fad without thinking about their application. It's not wrong to use the carbine without a sling at all until a NEED is identified that a sling will address. In tactical training, the Infantry School had us remove them to promote keeping the weapon at the ready. The obvious disadvantage was that soldiers on patrol get tired, and fatigue would cause some to just sling the weapon on their shoulder - when it was supposed to be at the ready, at all times.
Considering the source of the training and policy were experienced combat vets, I have to ask why their recommendation isn't valid? I'm passing along the same thing I was taught - learn the weapon and it's use, then address needs or weak points when the user knows what they are.
Just popping off saying "This or that is a mandatory tactical item" is pointless without the shooter knowing when it will be necessary or why. If they are a day one user with little to no education or experience, the finesse points of advanced tactical use is premature.
As soldier in an MP unit my last 4 years, I got a good idea of when slings would be helpful - in urban use. Not while IN a vehicle, like a HMMV, or low crawling under a foundation. In those conditions, they can and will be negatives, and have to be controlled. They were also the typical silent type, attached at the swivel on the gas block. That is not the best type, nor the best place. For my unit at the time, they were redundant, as we were never armed with both carbine and pistol. The weapons were considered in two separate and distinct uses, fighting tactical, or street use admin. LEO's don't do that - they can and will have both.
This is where the three gun competition view muddies the water, as transition training from carbine to pistol and use scenarios make having a sling almost mandatory - but that doesn't happen for the majority of armed soldiers and citizens. They usually choose one OR the other.
It boils down to making the mistake of applying advanced tactical techniques as a blanket answer to any situation or use. My opposition to adjustable stocks, quad rails, and slings is because of that mindset. It ain't necessarily so. They have disadvantages a pro has to compensate for, and their use - such as a squared fighting stance - may not even be known to the public.
Advanced accessories and techniques aren't for newbies. They need the basics first, not a "hit your credit limit or you aren't a man" mindset.
2)Quad rails are just one answer to the options - a handguard tube is the other, and quite common. Rails can be added where needed as needed, which can make tubes lighter than quads. Ladders won't be needed to cover the aggressive CNC machining, and the expense is reduced overall. Again, quads are an institutional answer, pretty much a fad in the civilian world where everyone copies the military answer without thinking through whether it's of any value to their use.
3) I don't propose saying slings are inherently evil and should be banned, they have a purpose. I am saying most shooters picking one are doing so because they copy the latest tacticool fad without thinking about their application. It's not wrong to use the carbine without a sling at all until a NEED is identified that a sling will address. In tactical training, the Infantry School had us remove them to promote keeping the weapon at the ready. The obvious disadvantage was that soldiers on patrol get tired, and fatigue would cause some to just sling the weapon on their shoulder - when it was supposed to be at the ready, at all times.
Considering the source of the training and policy were experienced combat vets, I have to ask why their recommendation isn't valid? I'm passing along the same thing I was taught - learn the weapon and it's use, then address needs or weak points when the user knows what they are.
Just popping off saying "This or that is a mandatory tactical item" is pointless without the shooter knowing when it will be necessary or why. If they are a day one user with little to no education or experience, the finesse points of advanced tactical use is premature.
As soldier in an MP unit my last 4 years, I got a good idea of when slings would be helpful - in urban use. Not while IN a vehicle, like a HMMV, or low crawling under a foundation. In those conditions, they can and will be negatives, and have to be controlled. They were also the typical silent type, attached at the swivel on the gas block. That is not the best type, nor the best place. For my unit at the time, they were redundant, as we were never armed with both carbine and pistol. The weapons were considered in two separate and distinct uses, fighting tactical, or street use admin. LEO's don't do that - they can and will have both.
This is where the three gun competition view muddies the water, as transition training from carbine to pistol and use scenarios make having a sling almost mandatory - but that doesn't happen for the majority of armed soldiers and citizens. They usually choose one OR the other.
It boils down to making the mistake of applying advanced tactical techniques as a blanket answer to any situation or use. My opposition to adjustable stocks, quad rails, and slings is because of that mindset. It ain't necessarily so. They have disadvantages a pro has to compensate for, and their use - such as a squared fighting stance - may not even be known to the public.
Advanced accessories and techniques aren't for newbies. They need the basics first, not a "hit your credit limit or you aren't a man" mindset.
MolleMan
Member
I find myself drawing weapons up at night due to strange noises or varmints (which is a regular problem). so i would want to mount a light, laser isn't needed but might be alright to have for intimidation in a SD situation, a mil-dot scope or a HWS like EoTech is optional, more likely to mount a low powered scope. not sure yet. and i have a sling on every gun I regularly pull out of the safe due to the fact that walking around my 100 acres or when I need both my hands free.
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
Molleman, if you want one quality from the start, I suggest you ask or search at M4carbine.net
$600 AR15's have never been nor will ever be quality rifles. The AR15 design is not allowed to be $600 or else the manufacturer is cutting corners.
And for the people saying "I put 100rds into my $2 AR and its reliable" How about you try 1,000 or more before making a claim like that. A thousand rounds minimum for any system is the way to go.
$600 AR15's have never been nor will ever be quality rifles. The AR15 design is not allowed to be $600 or else the manufacturer is cutting corners.
And for the people saying "I put 100rds into my $2 AR and its reliable" How about you try 1,000 or more before making a claim like that. A thousand rounds minimum for any system is the way to go.
ZCORR Jay
Member
I'd suggest the Colt M4 Carbine .22 Tactical Rimfire. Would be a good step up from the pellet gun and wont cots you a ton to learn how to use. I've read a lot of good comments on the gun.
here is a link http://www.colt22rimfire.com/index.php?page=colt-m4-carbine
here is a link http://www.colt22rimfire.com/index.php?page=colt-m4-carbine
So, what you gonna get? Get a good rifle first, then worry about what you need to put on it. I like the MOE grips and handguards, but being the clutz that I am, I'm always burning myself on the gas block, so I usually go with some sort of free float tube. They are light and comfortable. If I need to add a rail for something, I just drill and tap the tube.
I also find a collapseable stock to be convenient for storage and carry purposes. If you are worried about bending the tube, get a good tube. I'm running an ACE tube with my CTR. I have a UBR on my other rifle and don't think that bending that tube is a concern.
I also find a collapseable stock to be convenient for storage and carry purposes. If you are worried about bending the tube, get a good tube. I'm running an ACE tube with my CTR. I have a UBR on my other rifle and don't think that bending that tube is a concern.
MolleMan
Member
I think a Colt or RRA will be at the top of the list.
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
You'd better go with a colt. From what I read on M4carbine.net, RRA is a known corner cutter.
Get it right the first time.
Get it right the first time.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...y-an-AR-15-huh
might wanna read before purchase
might wanna read before purchase
- Status
