Which AR15 to Get?

[Birddog1911]

It was asked "What's it for?" and answered, "home defense and plinking."

That means discussing features. The AR has better operator control layout than any other battle carbine. DI or Piston, whatever. As long as it's reliable, that's what counts. Modern well built DI guns work just fine, the Army has been using them for 45 years. Modern Piston adaptations to the AR have some problems. Designed from the ground up piston guns like the SCAR and ACR have less. SOCOM started the program and still dropped the SCAR -L. "It does the same thing as the M4, oh well, we get that for free already."

Moving on to features in a Home Defense and Plinking gun. First, there is no such thing as a Home Defense gun - unless you include all the millions of pistols, revolvers, and shotguns. Go to a home defense forum, those are the first line of firearms defense.

That really leaves plinking, a M4gery with handguards for $599 from CMMG, known as the Bargain Bin special, will do it all. Cheap ammo, looks pretty cool, shoots the range a couple of times a year or in the rural backyard. Spend the other $600 on a pallet of ammo. When it's gone, you had fun, and know a lot more about what you really want to do with it.

What you don't want to do is blow $1200 on a tricked out semi military gun with expensive useless bling features. A collapsible stock and quad rail are all the fad, quick way to blow $250 and get: a stock that creaks and rattles, is usually stuck in one position anyway, and does zip to improve real accuracy. The A1 stock would do as well. Quad rail? KAC, the contractor for the quad on the M4, says a civilian shooter doesn't need 48" of rail. It's a government compromise to meet a bunch of diverse needs. If you can hold an 8" circle at 400m, you could switch to a free float, still don't need all the rails. A better barrel would be money well spent.

What's up is that the fanboys have their favorite brand for a good reason, they got quality. Beware of the FADboy recommendations, those guys post a photo titled " I haven't taken it to the range yet."

Tirod, you have a point, but you also go off in a direction that many would disagree with. I shoot my guns hard, and I have certain requirements. As far as what KAC says about rails; I don't care what they say; I have what I like.

I don't think you could be more wrong about collapsible stocks. As far as a stock that rattles and creaks; hasn't been a problem with my stocks...ever. The stock collapses for handiness and storage, and can be adjusted for LOP for whatever I'm wearing. It has a far superior cheek weld compared to an A1 or A2 stock.

As far as a rail. There is a reason that many shooters run them. First; it free floats the barrel, which increases accuracy. Depending on optics platforms, it allows for an extended platform to keep everything in line. It also allows for the attachment of flashlight, forward grip, bipod, etc. For those running carbines with full length rails, it allows a longer sight radius which increases the potential for better accuracy and a standard M4 sight radius.

But let's get back to your excellent point. You are correct, the CMMG bargain bin rifle is a perfectly acceptable recreation rifle. If you're just going to be plinking with it, and you have no need for a platform for optics, lights, etc., you'd be hard pressed to go wrong with it. Though I would say get the mid length gas system for a softer shooting rifle.

 

[mudbrik]

Your metaphor has absolutely no basis other than internet BS, plain and simple. And yes, I've used the M16/AR15 platform in the field for 18 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the direct impingement gas system; never has been. There is no reason to replace them with some half baked, half tested piston system in a rifle that was never designed to be run that way. All it takes is some simple maintaining to keep it running like a top. Don't believe me? Just check out Filthy 14 that belongs to Pat Rogers. I haven't cleaned my latest BCM carbine since I purchased it, and it's still running flawlessly.

By the way, the ACR that you mention has not been adopted as a US military rifle platform, and they have been recalled by Bushmaster. The SCAR was dropped as an overall platform, other than the 7.62 version. I have yet to see anything on the ACR that could be called an improvement over the AR rifle platform. You're whole speculation of "needed improvements needed for a quality reliable field weapon" is absolute garbage. But don't let facts get in the way of internet speculation.

Who would want to do business with you. Sounds like you know it all, but you need a chill pill. We still live in a free country where everyone has the right to voice their own opinion. My my opinion is that AR's stink and need improvements. And I guarantee I have plenty experience in the matter. If it came down to my life, I would pick up my M70 before my Bushmaster, maybe you have had better luck than I. But Jeez man chill the F out. You are speculating as well by assuming you know my experience level.

 

[Birddog1911]

I've said nothing about your experience level, Mud. As far as your opinion, it is just that. It isn't based on any fact, where as I feel that I've stated and given examples of several facts. Sorry if you took it personally, but someone coming on and spouting the same internet rumors that have been hashed, rehashed, and discounted many times tends to bring the fire out in some. You say that in your experience AR's DI system is junk; I say that hundreds of thousands of GI's, thousands of competitors, and dozens of instructors disagree with your opinion.

As far as who would want to do business with me; well, I have enough to keep me busy when I'm not working my day job.

Edited to add: I'm far from a know it all. I simply stated some facts for the OP, and gave him a few options to go with.

 

[Zerodefect]

I gave the Bushy ACR and the FN good look over. Got to spend a day with each. I'm not buying either.

-Both are heavier than an AR
-Safety levers are slower on each (than an ambi & BAD equipped AR15)
-Less accurate
-More expensive
-Less customizable
-Poor swing weight
-No 14.5" versions?

Niether did anything that my Colt's and BCM's couldn't do better.

And reliability isn't a very good argument at all. All my Ar's are higher quality brands. And I don't shoot Wolf or any cheap ammo for fear of my hands getting blown off. Ironicly I allways seem to have one of the most reliable rifles at any run&gun or comp.

The FN Scar's short foreend is completely useless to a taller fella' like me. I need 12-14" railed foregrips on my carbines. The FN, seems a bit flimsy as well. Not as bad as the F2000 or my Ps90. But it's a step below a good AR. And parts? Nope, no way. have to send her back to FN for repairs last I checked. I avoid working my Ps90 over too hard in training. I don't want to wear it out. LOLz.

The Bushy ACR just plain stinks. The Masada was a decent concept, but the ACR is far from a Masada. Was supposed to be priced like Colt or BCM, but came out way too expensive. No folding stock! No 12" foreend! No proper barrel! A 14.5" ACR with a 1/7 BCM CHF barrell, better safety, and pinned A2x would be the cats MEOW, but Bushy cut away alot of Magpuls great ideas instead. I think Magpul dumped the Masada when the projected price rose, and when they realized that the bottom line was: It didn't do anything better than an AR, but it looked cool.

I couldn't come up with a single reason for either. Apparently the .mil agrees. The AR is still the best carbine IME. So that budget will probally go to a LMT .308 MRP.

 

[alemonkey]

this:
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1STSL&groupid=53

Plus this:
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=XSTLPK&groupid=53

plus this:
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=XAR6Stock&groupid=57

and this:
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=XSTU5035&groupid=55

will build him a top quality AR in about an hour. Add some mags and the rear sight of his choice and he's good to go for a cheap price. Building a lower receiver is a piece of cake for anyone with the mechanical aptitude to change their own oil. I highly recommend it, you'll learn a lot about your rifle.

If he wants an optic he'll have some money left over, but I would spend the rest on ammo.

 

[jsimmons]

For home defense, you want something that's utterly reliable - it needs to go bang every time you pull the trigger. I can only speak from personal experience, and I have to say that my S&W M&P15 fits that category. If you get one, get it online. CDNN frequently has deals on S&W rifles (in the last one they had, S&W's were going for $599).

If your friend knows pretty much nothing about ARs, getting a S&W is a good bet for him (and getting one online will be a lot cheaper than buying one from a local gun shop).

The one thing he should do (if he doesn't buy a S&W) is to ensure that the rifle he buys will shoot 5.56 ammo. Some of the lesser rifles cannot handle the extra pressure from the 5.56 round, but will shoot .223 fine.

 

[PR-NJ]

I would not suggest an AR platform of any brand.......maybe a RUGER SR556(maybe). Get a SIG556 or ACR or SCAR. Wanting to own an AR is like wanting to date a cheerleader. She looks hot, but you find out real quick she is quite bitchy and superficial. Smile everyone, it's the truth.

Even so, I still want to date a cheerleader...

 

[Tirod]

Agreed, mid length is the better gas on an 16". Carbine was engineered for 14.5", it just got translated to the legal 16 inchers because fadboys wanted the tough M4 look more than understand actual function.

Not everyone has to love the DI system, but claiming it's broke and needs more work is speculative. A lot of what people criticize is a direct result of the caliber - nothing at all to do with the M16.

When informed users complain about the M16, what usually comes up are 1) the horrible GI mags 2) a huge lack of maintenance support to the troops, oil and cleaning kits are STILL a major deficit item 3) no replacement parts available for malfunctioning weapons until they just break down and fail completely. Again, not much to do with the design of the gun, major fail issues with support and maintenance.

Owners who lube them, replace worn parts, and use good mags are going beyond 30k rounds without major problems. Thats in a gun built to good standards, but not certified milspec, cause it aint owned by Uncle Sam. My experience over 22 years Reserves was than any stoppage I suffered was due to my own malfeasance. Thats what training is for, get you fatigued, then point out what is really important.

Segregate all the stupid stuff from the blanket accusation the M16 is junk, and you find 1) it's the users, not the gun, and 2) Most users don't really have a clue about the gun. They aren't gun designers. They don't have that MOS, they aren't really qualified to make blanket statements about something they only carried.

I wouldn't expect knowledgeable comments about their cell phone packeting protocols, or whether their Hyundai has DLC coated flat tappet lifters, or what refrigerant is used in their home heating system. Using something doesn't mean they know what's going on inside. With 22 years in the Reserves, I do know for a fact the Army doesn't maintain the M4/M16 correctly, like so many things taught there, you learn it right when you get out.

The control layout is superior, the straightline stock really reduces muzzle rise, and it's extremely easy for the soldier to maintain when he can. Used with the correctly spec'd ammo - full power military for the full power port and timing location, it works. As the revised and properly conducted 2d Dust Test shows, when you rotate all the mags in all the test guns, it doesn't suffer stoppages to a much higher degree and choke - proving the first test was rigged. The new guns submitted got handpicked new mags only, the issue guns more used mags from the footlocker - and we know the armorer will not crush defective mags.

Anyone who wants to discuss the blanket failings of the M16 will need some detailed knowledge and more than the anecdotal experience of owning one, good or bad. It's going to take good communication skills and demonstrated empirical test results to refute the fact the M4/M16 is pretty good.

 

[HKGuns]

There is nothing wrong with the Ruger 556, if he likes it, let him buy it.

I own a Delton and for the price, you can't beat it, lumping it in with Vulcan etc... is simply incorrect.

 

[Girodin]

I own a Delton and for the price, you can't beat it, lumping it in with Vulcan etc... is simply incorrect

Re-read what he wrote. Seriously. He did not say a del ton is the same as a Vulcan. He said I would not recommend any of the following and then enumerated a list. They could all fail to garner his recommendation for various reasons. If that wasn't clear from his first post (and it really was) he then clarified and stated what I have written above explicitly.

As for my preferences I like Noveskes. I also like BCM and think dollar for dollar they are probably one of the best buys for a hard use gun.

As others have said use really drives what will satisfy a particular end user. My uses are why I like Noveske. You can go run it very hard and it is reliable and durable. You can run it with a suppressor and that is still true. It is also very accurate.