What is the best 223 battle rifle for me?

Status
Not open for further replies.
From another perspective, what about at 5.56 AK such as the Arsenal SLR-106 series?

http://www.k-var.com/shop/SLR-106-Series-5.56x45-Caliber-Bulgarian-Stamped-Receiver-Rifles/

It'll fulfill your needs about as well as an AR15. It's simpler to maintain, easy to change optics just by swapping a side mount (much quicker and easier than an AR15), and still plenty accurate.

I own both AK's and AR's. There's things I like better about the AK and things I like better about the AR. I prefer the AK's ability to swap optics and its simple disassembly but I like the level of customization you can easily do on an AR.

So which is better? It depends on what you want to do. The AK is still plenty fast at changing mags if you know what you're doing, and you can more easily change its role by switching to a different optic via the quick release side mount. The AR, on the other hand, has the potential to be a little more accurate and can be customized to your heart's content, but lacks that flexibility.

So decide what you want. If you envision changing the optics on your one rifle regularly, the AK may be best for you. If you envision setting it up with an Aimpoint and leaving it, the AR may be best.
 
I am a little late in this thread but echo those suggestions that you invest in:
1. Colt 6920. (Not the new cheaper AR they came out with)
2. Smith and Wesson Sport II

The Colt is well made with mil spec parts that will last a lifetime, the Smith is manufactured with economy in mind but still is of a quality the average shooter will not wear out in a lifetime of shooting.
Good luck with your choice.
 
The M4/AR is your best bet, and by far the best bang for your buck these days OP. Plenty of parts can be had to keep it running if something does break, and good carbines probably won't break.

The gold standard for M4 pattern non NFA carbines is the Colt LE6920. If you want the most bang for your buck in a properly assembled carbine, made from mil-spec materials with all the associated quality control tests done this is what you want to buy. Period.

If you can spend more money and want all the Colt offers quality wise plus some upgrades, then look at Bravo Company Machine, and Daniel Defense. There are a few others that also make high quality AR/M4 carbines but Colt, BCM, and DD are all hard to beat.

I own a Colt and a Daniel Defense, and both are more accurate than they have any right to be and have been 100% reliable thus far. Plus everything is correct on both, both are built to the standards of a fighting rifle not a range toy. Between the two the DD is the more refined weapon with tighter upper and lower fit, and nicer attention to finishing detail. Plus the cold hammer forged barrel on the DD is probably a bit tougher than the Colt, and is slightly more accurate. Both of them will have a service life that will exceed lesser rifles so we are splitting hairs here.
 
Either the Ruger AR-556 or the S&W MP Sport II can be bought right now for less than $600, and both are fine basic ARs and are a lot of gun for the money. If you go online and read reviews on them, it's hard to find a bad one.
 
A 16" AR15 with midlength gas is all you need.

AK? No. The controls aren't as user friendly to learn up front. The major advantage in using the AR15 is the bolt hold open - you aren't forcing a loaded magazine against a locked bolt and then required to charge the gun EVERY time you do.

The AUG and Tavor, no. Boutique rifles and share the same problem as the AK. There isn't as much variety butt to muzzle in accessories to customize them, most of it is AR based anyway. The AK is a pressed barrel/trunnion affair that doesn't allow the user to make barrel changes when they want or need to, and requires gunsmith level shop equipment to do it. The AUG and Tavor simply don't have the depth of resources either.

M1A - see ALL the above. It's another gun you mostly leave along and shoot the way it is, instead of tuning it to shoot the way you NEED it. There is also the major disadvantage of it being a long distance "battle rifle caliber." There is a very specific reason that has been delegated to specialist soidiers who get extensive training in marksmanship - or unit machine guns. The problem is higher recoil, and the evidence is that nobody takes the big rifle out and matches the round count shooting it recreationally that you can with the AR15. Big "battle rifles" were proven long ago to be a detriment in combat, not an aid, as the average human dislikes the recoil and won't shoot them enough. As if they had much ammo to carry with them anyway, the system deprived them of half the rounds because of the total weight involved.

The best 5.56 rifle is the AR15, and you CAN build or buy a good one for less than $600 - which is the CONTRACT PRICE for the M4 without the expensive bulky and uneccessary quad rail. In fact, be very careful choosing any exterior accessory that is "milspec" as most of the are institutional compromises - and a lot of them get stripped off when fitting the rifle to a shooter for a specific purpose.

Buy a Colt 6920 for $1000 and you get about $300 in parts removed and set aside to make it an easier to use hunting or competition gun. That is a waste of money when the gun could be either chosen from the legion of AR's already kitted out more appropriately - or built to suit.

Which is the point of AR's, and it's not the icing, it's the substance of the cake. The shooter can do about 95% of the work themselves. About the only problematic assembly issue is headspacing a barrel extension - and most barrels come with them already done, and do NOT require a bolt matched to fit. Even so, you can get them that way. All other assembly is kitchen table based, not gunsmith shop bench procedures.

To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore the huge and growing market the AR has developed over the last 30 years. A lot of that is simply because it's the superior choice - and as time continues on, we see more and more countries adopt it, for good reasons. It's the ergonomic choice, the others slavishly copy the control layout and even the magazine, for all its faults. It's easier to assemble, easier to modify, and easier to shoot. It replaced the "legendary" battle rifles which actually occupied the shortest period of use in weapons history - because they were ALL WRONG for the job.

AR15 is the only choice all things considered. Otherwise it's a personal agenda of denial that requires accepting second best answers, often based on a completely unprofessional assessment of what is needed.
 
Given your criteria, spend the little extra they cost and get a Colt 6920. There are better rifles to be had for specific purposes in the AR-15 field, but the 6920 is a mil-spec rifle built by the company that has built more for the military than anyone else. Out-of-the-box it will be ready to go and (my experience w/ 2 examples) the fit and finish was very good to excellent.
 
PowerG said:
Following the crowd I guess, but at your budget it would be hard to go wrong with a 6920 and a red dot sight. You could get one of the better sights, a good sling, and a light mounted on the gun and stay well below your $1500 budget and have a really first-rate self-defense carbine and worthwhile range gun all in one.
Click to expand...
What he said.

Colt 6920 or 6720 for around 800. Aimpoint Pro, 400. Light like the surefire P2x or streamlight TLR and mount. Good quick adjust 2pt sling like the Vickers, blue force gear or gear sector. You are under 1500 with a set up for HD you can bet your life on.

Later, add a magnified optic in a QD mount for varmints, maybe different furniture if you like and definitely mags, ammo and a carbine course. Start with at least 10 mags, good ones can be had for as little as $7 ea.
 
I'm looking at an AR for a similar purpose, self defense at the extremely long range of 20 feet or less. What are the advantages of going with the Colt 6920 over something like a DPMS Oracle?
 
Grunt said:
I would say it's a toss up between a Tavor or AUG. The conventional M-4 style muskets are awkward to use in close quarters when compared to a good bullpup design rifle. Both of these rifles are rugged, reliable and proven designs. My Tavor with its 16.5" barrel is still a shorter overall length than an AR with a 10" barrel yet I retain the superior ballistics of the longer barrel length. My Tavor is also a LOT faster to get on target than my M-4gery. The trick is you don't carry it at a high ready or port arms position. Keep it at a low ready with the muzzle down and the butt in your shoulder (I prefer a Blue Force Tactical 2-point sling here) and it is extremely fast to get into action.
Click to expand...
A Tavor for sure. If only I could find an excuse to buy one.
 
My suggestion like others is an AR15 however I'm not a fan of the Colts. Very limited experience but the factory ones I've finger banged had very crunchy triggers and I just didn't see any reason to choose that over other brands.

As far as economical AR's go, I like the Core15's quite a bit. Not as widely known but good quality. I've got one of their nicer ones I chose for my primary rifle over POF's, Daniel Defense and others. I have thousands of rounds through it so far without any issues. Done several courses with it where it got pretty grubby too.

Ruger's new direct impingement AR seemed very promising at a very good price point the little I used it.

I tend to always upgrade my bolt carrier groups to a nickel boron, black nitride or NP3 coated for a little extra reliability.
 
Skribs said:
I'm looking at an AR for a similar purpose, self defense at the extremely long range of 20 feet or less. What are the advantages of going with the Colt 6920 over something like a DPMS Oracle?
Click to expand...
The colt is built to higher standards with better materials and will hold up in combat conditions. The DPMS may, or may not. That said, HD is pretty easy duty, it is a sheltered environment and only a few rounds will be fired.

If you are going to practice a lot and perhaps attend a high round count training course, the differences will evident then. The DPMS will start having problems quicker, many lesser quality ARs don't make it past day 1 of a class. If you just plink on occasion, it will likely last a lifetime.

It is like fitness equipment. Do you need a commercial quality treadmill or just a typical home quality one? Either one will work the same for a given number of hours. Most people don't actually use the fitness equipment they buy so it isn't made to a very robust standard and the typical purchaser isn't willing to pay for it. Same with ARs.
 
To the OP: I'd recommend looking into an M&P Sport 2. That should allow room in your budget to put an Aimpoint or other quality optic on it.
Click to expand...

My first AR I built it with quality parts and spent above $1K all told. It's a great rifle and I'm happy with the outcome. As a backup I bought a S&W M&P Sport 2 and in all honesty it shoots just as good and has been just as reliable as my custom build. There are very good quality ARs out there under $1K that to me would be your best bet. The S&W can be had for under $700. With the rest of your budget you can pick up a decent Aimpoint, many mags and a case of ammo.

In a self defense situation you will need multiple mags and spare ammo.
 
I have the Colt 6920 and I bought my career military daughter the same same. However, I have 2 S&W M&P Sports with thousands of rounds through them. One has ridden in my truck for the last 4 years. They are tough, functional and to my thinking one of the best buys available in the AR type category.

YMMV
 
"There are better rifles to be had for specific purposes in the AR-15 field, but the 6920 is a mil-spec rifle built by the company that has built more for the military than anyone else."

But many companies build "mil-spec" rifles in the same price range which are superior to the Colt 6920 as currently sold...most of which are nowadays being shipped as a stripped-of-furniture carbine with a truncated front sight base for their "bargain" price. Think about how you can "fix" that without involving removal of certain parts and substituting others. The limitations are rather substantial.

I appreciate your presumption that the Colt is a superior rifle for the price, but Colt [just emerged from their latest bankruptcy debacle] doesn't have the military contract anymore. FN-USA has that contract and is producing a truly superior product. And the likelihood that they will be around to address any warranty issues with a carbine/rifle is more than a bit higher with anything with the prancing pony rollmark.
 
Blade First said:
"There are better rifles to be had for specific purposes in the AR-15 field, but the 6920 is a mil-spec rifle built by the company that has built more for the military than anyone else."

But many companies build "mil-spec" rifles in the same price range which are superior to the Colt 6920 as currently sold...most of which are nowadays being shipped as a stripped-of-furniture carbine with a truncated front sight base for their "bargain" price. Think about how you can "fix" that without involving removal of certain parts and substituting others. The limitations are rather substantial.

I appreciate your presumption that the Colt is a superior rifle for the price, but Colt [just emerged from their latest bankruptcy debacle] doesn't have the military contract anymore. FN-USA has that contract and is producing a truly superior product. And the likelihood that they will be around to address any warranty issues with a carbine/rifle is more than a bit higher with anything with the prancing pony rollmark.
Click to expand...
I'll take you seriously when you can get your facts correct.

Both Colt and FN currently share the contract.

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/28/colt-fn-win-212-million-army-m4-contract/

Furthermore, you can't even adequately describe the LE6920, which is shipped with a full front sight post and furniture. Colt is also offering stripped models for a lower price so that users who know they will be changing things can save some money and time. The core of the rifle is still there, and is still better than most any M4 clone that can be had for less money.

Show me an M4 clone, with furniture and sights, that is superior to a Colt LE6920 or other Colt Defense offering for less money.

Check all of these boxes for less money, better them if you can:

1.) 4150 CMV barrel, 1:7" twist, chrome lined bore and chamber. Individually high pressure tested and magnetic particle tested. The barrel should also be parkerized prior to installation of the front sight base. Personally nitrocarburizing in lieu of chrome lining and parkerizing would be more than acceptable here as well, but an unlined or non salt bath nitrided barrel in a rifle capable of a high volume of fire is not acceptable. So bare chrome moly or stainless need not apply. CM 4140 grade barrel steel also need not apply.

2.) Certified Carpenter 158 (or better) bolt, shot peened, also individually high pressure tested and magnetic particle tested.

3.) Current black extractor spring insert.

4.) Properly staked gas key on bolt carrier.

5.) Properly staked castle nut on buffer tube extension.

6.) Appropriate H or H2 buffer installed.

7.) True 5.56mm NATO chamber.

I realize everyone who isn't a devotee of the concept of the M4 as a no nonsense fighting rifle above all else will scoff at this stuff, but for the most part you will get what you pay for and most M4 clones that come in beneath the price of a Colt LE6920, which can be had advertised for $850.00, are quite frankly demonstrably inferior in either grade of materials, or quality control, often times both. For example perusing the latest issue of Rifle Shooter magazine we find a review of a CMMG MK4 RCE, which the monkeys at CMMG have tarted up with some Cerakote in FDE and slapped a free float rail on. The barrel is listed as being medium contour, made from 4140 Chrome Moly not chrome lined evidently and no mention of a salt bath nitride. MSRP $1500! Are you f***ing kidding me? $1500 for that? To make it even better the best it could manage for accuracy was 1.79" for an average 5 shot group at 100 yards. Newsflash but a box stock Colt LE6920 is made from better materials, will shoot just as well or better in most cases, and costs less!

I have a Colt M4A1 SOCOM II that is also free floated and also has a medium contour made of 4150 CMV, fully chrome lined, and with the QC testing done as mentioned. I've seen 10 shot groups average around 1" with good ammo, not 5 shot groups, but statistically significant 10 shot groups. You know like Col. Townsend Whelen would test rifles with back when men were men.

For the record I also own a CMMG, and it was a steaming pile of dog crap. After some upgrades like a Daniel Defense barrel it is still a pile of dog crap, just no longer steaming. It also needs a new bolt carrier and gas key since they didn't bother to stake it. The castle nut was installed backwards, and is not staked. Oh, and the chrome lined barrel flaked out and was thus replaced. Now I realize there are better manufacturers than CMMG, and I may have just been unlucky.... but you'll be hard pressed to buy a Colt that doesn't work right or that is poorly assembled from defective crap parts.
 
The contract for the m4 is held jointly by Colt Defense and FN-USA. Both companies will provide the m4 through 2020. It's my understanding that Colt retained the TDP, and FN pays a royalty to Colt Defense as part of the contract. So both are, technically I suppose, mil providers for the m4 carbine.

I think Colt builds a nice, basic carbine using quality materials, testing protocol, and assembly methods. At the time of my purchase, 6920's were $1,000 +
I ended going with BCM.

However, I think the Colt at the current price point has a lot going for it.
 
With a Colt Carbine I believe you are still stuck with a carbine length gas system. I don't know why that would be anyone's first choice.
 
I have a mid length BCM and carbine length BCM. Subjectively, recoil feels the same to me in both. Both have been reliable performers. In theory, component lifespan should increase in mid length gas systems as compared to carbine gas systems. But, I've not seen hard figures or studies to indicate how much longer parts should last or that they even do. ( I believe that they likely do, btw.)

In short, if both systems are reliable and one might have longer parts life/less recoil it makes sense to go mid length. However, well made carbines are still a viable option in my opinion and I feel adequately armed with either of my rifles.
 
A novice is not going to 'build a rifle' at home from parts with quality control better than a Colt, not at the price point they can be had at now.

Colt and Smith and Wesson stand by their products, a basket full of parts doesn't come with a warranty.

You can swap out stocks, forends etc. all you want later.
 
Blade First said:
I appreciate your presumption that the Colt is a superior rifle for the price, but Colt [just emerged from their latest bankruptcy debacle] doesn't have the military contract anymore. FN-USA has that contract and is producing a truly superior product.
Click to expand...
Colt got part of their military contract back. The military issue FNs are no better or worse than the military issue Colts; they're made to the exact same specs. However, the civilian Colts appear to be built better than the civilian FNs. Colt builds their civilian rifles to the same specs as their military rifles except for obvious differences like full-auto and barrel length. However, all the civilian FNs I've seen appeared to be built to a lower level than a near-mil-spec rifle like Colt or LMT when you look at things like staking, dry-lubing, anodizing, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
.223/5.56 carbine for self defense
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
chaim
C
M
  • Locked
Recommendations for 223 ammo?
Replies
9
Views
1K
knoxx45
K
P
  • Locked
A home defense .223 rifle?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
3K
PaisteMage
P
M
  • Locked
Inexpensive .223 Defense Ammo
Replies
15
Views
865
wnycollector
W
D
  • Locked
.223 Choices
Replies
8
Views
615
mpmarty
M
Back
Top