ronto, one thing I will agree with most guys about is that you will get many differing opinions. There have been quite a few of these types of threads popping up lately, as interest in ARs rises with the up coming election.
You're gonna see some guys knocking or being critical about inexpensive rifles that some choose to buy; and you'll also see guys that bought budget rifles being critical toward those that bought higher priced models because they don't see where the benefit of spending the extra money lies.
I know that the inexpensive rifles being offered by Smith and Wesson have been the topics of many debates.
As has been mentioned, you're going to get lots of opinions, like CraigC's above.
My S&W M&P15OR cost me $600, shoots MOA with Federal XM193 and has been dead reliable. I've done a few things to it that made it much more useful to me and all it needs now is a good target trigger. Lots of folks will disagree without even really knowing why but I really don't see a reason to pay the Colt premium.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but this is a typical post. This is very vague. His rifle has been dead reliable, but over the course of how many rounds. 50? 500? 5000 rounds? Yes, it has been reliable, but in what circumstances? Just plinking at the range for a couple hundred rounds at a time or has it survived one or more carbine courses without failure.
I believe that many doing research to aid them in choosing a rifle that will meet their needs, often ask the wrong questions. I would first seek out a few rifles that I am interested in, because they have the options that I want.
I would then concentrate on those rifles. When asking those questions, you need to look for qualifications in the answers. If there is a claim of reliability, ask what this claim is based on. Find out how many rounds the example rifle has through it and what the internals looked like after having fired X number of rounds.
The only point that I'm getting to is this. Any manufacturer can have a lemon slip by. No matter what you look at, there's always going to be someone that was dissatisfied with it. The only thing left to you, as a buyer, to aid you in making a decision is to try to dig into the track record of the rifle that you are thinking about buying.
I don't consider a rifle with 2000 rounds through it as having any sort of track record, not from a longevity perspective. A rifle with 5000 rounds through it is a good start. At this point, the owner of the rifle can comment about the longevity of the components. Like, how's the barrel holding up? Any noticeable decrease in accuracy? What does the bolt look like? How's the bolt around the cam pin hole? What does the carrier look like? How's the cam pin slot? At what point did you have to change the cam pin? Is there any undue wear in the upper, lower? How did the trigger do? Did you break any trigger parts? Problems with any of these only show up with use.
A guy that bought a rifle and only has 500 rounds through it really shouldn't be commenting at all, or at least should say that he only has 500 rounds through it.
I also feel compelled to address Craigs claim of MOA with M193. This is the sort of claim that can leave some guys scratching their head because they don't get the same results. I'm not going to say that Craig is full of it, because I don't know. He may have a very special rifle.
I will say that I've shot LOTS of ARs and many of them were precision builds and none of them will hold MOA with any sort of consistency with M193. The fact of the matter is that M193 is a solid 2 MOA ammo and that's all it was ever intended to be.
