Do you TRULY want a good AR-15 or do you want crap?

[ditcherman]

Budget guns are awesome. Yes some crap is - well, crap. It's almost like a game of jack-in-the box but instead of box opening with a puppet, your AR15 has an OOBD or a catastrophic failure in general. I will give PSA credit for making guns that seem well built, and last. There's a few 1000+ round reviews out now so it's not as obscure. I have an Andro Corp ACI15, a $600 gun on certain days. But it works and for the price the fit-n-finish is nuts. All-American, small company. They make higher end stuff, too. As long as the gun doesn't blow up in my hands I could care less.

First in with -
So, you could care less you say? Hmmm.


Also, 1000 round plus reviews? So a nice weekend?

 

[zbloxzoid]

First in with -
So, you could care less you say?

If the gun performs its action without a catastrophic failure - then yes. I should have specified I could care less about ergonomics and EXTREME accuracy. It should be accurate within reason, but in a SHTF scenario it doesn't need to be 1 MOA at 400 yards. The low-end civilian market rifles are still better than the Military's, although QC issues exist. The firearm functioning is what matters. Nice guns are nice - until an extreme cost. a $4000 rifle will be 5% better than a $3000 rifle, and so on. But maybe a $1000 rifle will be 10% better than a $500 rifle. To me - there becomes a point where you pay for a name or a coating or a gimmick, rather than actually getting a measurably better gun.

 

[ditcherman]

If the gun performs its action without a catastrophic failure - then yes. I should have specified I could care less about ergonomics and EXTREME accuracy. It should be accurate within reason, but in a SHTF scenario it doesn't need to be 1 MOA at 400 yards. The low-end civilian market rifles are still better than the Military's, although QC issues exist. The firearm functioning is what matters. Nice guns are nice - until an extreme cost. a $4000 rifle will be 5% better than a $3000 rifle, and so on. But maybe a $1000 rifle will be 10% better than a $500 rifle. To me - there becomes a point where you pay for a name or a coating or a gimmick, rather than actually getting a measurably better gun.

I don’t really disagree with your logic, to a point. I do build my BCM’s with ergonomics and paint scheme all in mind, it agree with you on the point of diminishing returns.

The phrase “I could care less” is a part of an old INGO classic - it means the exact opposite of what the speaker is trying to convey, in most cases. Somebody pointed that out and someone else got all worked up about it IIRC. Kind of an inside joke, if you will.
Not a big deal, everyone knew what you meant, just pointing it out for those that have been around here for a bit.

Welcome to the inside.

Also, I think that MOA knows no yards.

 

[zbloxzoid]

Gotcha, I'm in college so that expensive guns are just not an option. The best price is what I can afford. Not saying good stuff ain't good - I'm a musician. But I think the idea of diminishing returns is not considered a lot when talking about gear. I think less of it is with rifles nowadays and more of the optics and lights/LAMs you toss onto them.

Ergonomics, aesthetics, and accuracy are important to an extent like I mentioned. In a life or death situation it just needs to function. I like a rifle with good feel and functional accessories. I hate A2 style pistol grips and the cheap "M4A1" stocks. Will I use a gun with those if I needed to? Of course. But if I have the option, nah.

Oh and thanks.

 

[Creedmoor]

If the gun performs its action without a catastrophic failure - then yes. I should have specified I could care less about ergonomics and EXTREME accuracy. It should be accurate within reason, but in a SHTF scenario it doesn't need to be 1 MOA at 400 yards. The low-end civilian market rifles are still better than the Military's, although QC issues exist. The firearm functioning is what matters. Nice guns are nice - until an extreme cost. a $4000 rifle will be 5% better than a $3000 rifle, and so on. But maybe a $1000 rifle will be 10% better than a $500 rifle. To me - there becomes a point where you pay for a name or a coating or a gimmick, rather than actually getting a measurably better gun.

Since you are so aware of what rifles our Armed Services uses, you gained this knowledge where please?

 

[zbloxzoid]

My buddy in the Army, combat medic. He is friends with their small arms repairmen. More or less cheapest equipment gets the contract, but that's his anecdotal evidence. Other than that, it's just heard from multiple sources all over the internet. I wouldn't be willing to believe that but so many say the same thing - it's not junk but it's not extravagant. Prove me wrong then - it means I learn and I don't say anything false in the future.

Obvious note this excludes potentially every single specialized unit - where there's more freedom/a higher standard of gear.

Since you are so aware of what rifles our Armed Services uses, you gained this knowledge where please?

 

[actaeon277]

Since you are so aware of what rifles our Armed Services uses, you gained this knowledge where please?

MANY people have said that "Mil Spec" doesn't impress them.

I'm one.

 

[zbloxzoid]

MANY people have said that "Mil Spec" doesn't impress them.

I'm one.

I like Milspec triggers. Rather, I like single stage triggers. They work and are almost universal.

 

[88E30M50]

It all depends on the mission. Pat Rogers reminded us that the 'Mission drives the gear train', right. If all you need is a fun plinker to hit the range with on weekends shooting with your buddies, then a pretty low end gun will fit that mission. If you ever think that you'd depend on that gun for defense of your family or the community, requirements might change a bit.

Suddenly, details matter. MilSpec becomes a good guideline to use as the baseline for specs. Is this a weapon that you'll be using within the confines of your house? Or, did you put this together thinking that you'd like to hit a target at 400 yards? Mission drives the gear train.

Again, if the mission is to burn ammo with your buddies on weekends, then that mission can be accommodated without too much of an investment.

 

[Creedmoor]

My buddy in the Army, combat medic. He is friends with their small arms repairmen. More or less cheapest equipment gets the contract, but that's his anecdotal evidence. Other than that, it's just heard from multiple sources all over the internet. I wouldn't be willing to believe that but so many say the same thing - it's not junk but it's not extravagant. Prove me wrong then - it means I learn and I don't say anything false in the future.

Obvious note this excludes potentially every single specialized unit - where there's more freedom/a higher standard of gear.

Ahh the internet.
Most dont understand specs and purchasing.
Purchasing is done by companys meeting certain specs set in the contract/purchase order. Why would one pay more to a manufacturer than needed, to meet those set specs?
I used GI issue from 76 to 82 never haad a failure do to inferior equipment.
Both of my sons were/are infantry Marines, both still use US issue weapon platforms. Both have had a few combat deployments, all of there issue equipment has not failed either of them.
Think about those specs when you pick up any surplus USGI firearm or gear thats 10 to well over 100 years old.

 

[Creedmoor]

MANY people have said that "Mil Spec" doesn't impress them.

I'm one.

Seems that mil spec submarine must haave been reasonably water and radiation free. Your still here.

 

[actaeon277]

Seems that mil spec submarine must haave been reasonably water and radiation free. Your still here.

mil spec is not special.
It means, the minimum necessary.
That's all.

It does not mean it's bad.
It does not mean it's great.

mil spec blanket... this long, this wide, this weight, this material.
not better
not worse


mil spec toilet... these dimensions, this material, holds up to X amount of pressure, etc
not better
not worse

These were created because manufacturers would try to create more profit.
Make blankets that were short.
or thin

make rifle stocks that would break too easily

stuff like that.

Thus the mil-spec was born.



As for submarines.
Yes, they were designed with machinery that was mil-spec.
And guess what... it was NOT the best.
It was "ENOUGH" for what they wanted.
It was not better
It was not worse

 

[Creedmoor]

mil spec is not special.
It means, the minimum necessary.
That's all.

It does not mean it's bad.
It does not mean it's great.

mil spec blanket... this long, this wide, this weight, this material.
not better
not worse


mil spec toilet... these dimensions, this material, holds up to X amount of pressure, etc
not better
not worse

These were created because manufacturers would try to create more profit.
Make blankets that were short.
or thin

make rifle stocks that would break too easily

stuff like that.

Thus the mil-spec was born.



As for submarines.
Yes, they were designed with machinery that was mil-spec.
And guess what... it was NOT the best.
It was "ENOUGH" for what they wanted.
It was not better
It was not worse

Would we rather as taxpayers consistantly overpay for the specs that we set?

With that comes the $469.00 toilet seat.

 

[zbloxzoid]

Ahh the internet.
Most dont understand specs and purchasing.
Purchasing is done by companys meeting certain specs set in the contract/purchase order. Why would one pay more to a manufacturer than needed, to meet those set specs?
I used GI issue from 76 to 82 never haad a failure do to inferior equipment.
Both of my sons were/are infantry Marines, both still use US issue weapon platforms. Both have had a few combat deployments, all of there issue equipment has not failed either of them.
Think about those specs when you pick up any surplus USGI firearm or gear thats 10 to well over 100 years old.

It's not about the fact it's the internet - it's the fact I see and hear dozens of anecdotes all saying the same thing and knowing people who are in the military right now. The equipment usually DOESN'T fail; I never said that. I stated that MilSpec is not bad, but not good. It is literally the bare minimum as actaeon277 stated. But also I would wager the maintenance behind the guns in use by the US Military - they are ALL being maintained 24/7. A $2400 Daniel Defense rifle is measurably better for many small reasons, and it's mostly due to higher end parts. A $600 AR15 will be the same, if not better, than a MilSpec M4 (minus select fire). Below $500, I can see where Milspec trumps. But, this is assuming you're buying a fully assembled rifle.
Milspec never did anything wrong. But civilian rifles - especially above the $1000 mark - are more than likely higher quality between material choice, manufacturing processes, and fit 'n finish.
I say this rocking a MilSpec rifle, too.

 

[actaeon277]

Would we rather as taxpayers consistantly overpay for the specs that we set?

With that comes the $469.00 toilet seat.

Your statement has NOTHING to do with my statement.

my statement is that mil spec is not some super duper greatest of all things.

It is merely... good enough.
Minimum necessary.


It is NOT the best
It is NOT the worst.

 

[Creedmoor]

Your statement has NOTHING to do with my statement.

my statement is that mil spec is not some super duper greatest of all things.

It is merely... good enough.
Minimum necessary.


It is NOT the best
It is NOT the worst.

I never said it was, all manufacturing has "set specs" as a minium that things are manufactured to. Is it a bulldozer blade or a jet turbine fin.
No one is going to manufacture a product that has higher specs than what they are getting paid to make.

 

[zbloxzoid]

I never said it was, all manufacturing has "set specs" as a minium that things are manufactured to. Is it a bulldozer blade or a jet turbine fin.
No one is going to manufacture a product that has higher specs than what they are getting paid to make.

I think we are back where it started - MilSpec is to the lowest bidder.

 

[Creedmoor]

I think we are back where it started - MilSpec is to the lowest bidder.

All specs gennerally go to the lowest bidder.
It makes no difference if its a Yogo or a Rolls Royce. Everyone has "Specs"

If you were a buyer and you sent out bid packets with the specs of what and how many parts you needed made.
Would you be willing to pay more than necessery for parts you could have paid less for?
If so why?

 

[zbloxzoid]

All specs gennerally go to the lowest bidder.
It makes no difference if its a Yogo or a Rolls Royce. Everyone has "Specs"

If you were a buyer and you sent out bid packets with the specs of what and how many parts you needed made.
Would you be willing to pay more than necessery for parts you could have paid less for?
If so why?

More or less - is it important? Yes, if it’s a part that is vital. If it isn’t then maybe, since each part should be tested. There’s a curve of price to performance and finding the sweet spot is the ideal way to do it.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The army mil spec is different than the SEAL mil spec I'm sure. Would you give a SEAL rifle to a regular army guy? You guys are arguing the same points from opposite ends.

I have several rifles. If someone would like to pony up the ammo, we can run a $385 dollar AR against a $4000 dollar AR, and we'll probably come to zero conclusions. At any rate, the results will almost certainly be anecdotal as its a very small selection group. You'd have to run a thousand mil spec guns against a thousand really nice guns to get a real answer. Mil spec goes to the lowest bidder that meets the requirements, but after that mil spec goes to thousands of men and women on the ground doing the work. And the works getting done just fine. Just buy what you want and go shoot it and have a good, safe time.