When Buying an AR 15...

[indyninja]

I've noticed on other boards if you give out negative rep be prepared to get some back. Even if the person disagrees slightly. I suspect you hit the negative button every once in a while yourself melens

People might even give you negative rep points for suggesting that the AR platform is more than a military rifle

 

[melensdad]

Have you seen the Remington?

The chart only list a few of the many manufacturers out there. My problem with the chart is that a Novice might use it to make a gun buying decision and pass on a perfectly good rifle.

Remington Model R-15 VTR™ Modular Repeating Rifles

Yup, the Remington rifles are sweet guns, not mil-spec, and made by Bushmaster for Remington (both Remington and Bushmaster are owned by the same parent company). I like the fact that it comes in multiple caliber choices too. Rumors are flying around that it will probably be offered in 450 Bushmaster at some point, it would be a nice deer rifle if Indiana allowed it but the 450 Bushmaster cartridge exceeds Indiana's legal size limit.

At this point I'm hoping for the 458 Socom to become more readily available. That round is also chambered for the AR15, feeds out of standard 233/5.56 magazines without any modifications, and that round is legal for deer hunting in Indiana.

I am actually hopeful that more hunters adopt the AR15 platform for hunting. We already see that the AR15 is the most popular rifle currently sold in the US, but if we get hunters to take them into the woods, as we now can do in Indiana, then it will be a lot more difficult to classify them as "assault weapons" and it will be a lot easy for us to argue they are "sporting weapons" when we defend them in the halls of congress. And while there is nothing in the Constitution about 'sporting use' and all the other garbage spewed by the gun grabbers, the fact is that we have to fight our case in the court of public opinion. If a lot of hunters hit the woods with an appropriate caliber AR15 for hunting purposes then we are bound to win the next assault against our so-called assault weapons!

I've noticed on other boards if you give out negative rep be prepared to get some back. Even if the person disagrees slightly. I suspect you hit the negative button every once in a while yourself melens

Yes I have, only twice. Once to a moderator. But none before I received all the grief in this thread, and none in retribution for the grief I've gotten in this thread. I even gave positive rep points to the ONE person who gave me negative rep points in this thread, and I did it after he gave me negative points. So I clearly don't hold a grudge. But you are now off topic. Do you have anything to add to this thread about the guns or are you simply bitching at me because I won't drink the mil-spec Kool-aid?

 

[Lars]

Not that this matters, but I thought it was Stag building the rifles for Remington.... Maybe I'm thinking the Smith & Wesson M&P15

One of those two is actually a Stag. Either way, I agree with Melensdad on the idea that it would be nice to see more hunters adopt the AR-15 platform. It's used a lot as a varmint rifle, but that's really not the same as deer season or the like.

 

[Fenway]

Who is that gun writer that got blown up after talking smack the black rifle?

 

[shooter521]

Maybe I'm thinking the Smith & Wesson M&P15

You are... but even that's not the case anymore. S&W moved production in-house some time ago.

Either way, I agree with Melensdad on the idea that it would be nice to see more hunters adopt the AR-15 platform.

I agree; the more we can stand together, the harder it will be to chip away at one group or another.

But all that is neither here nor there when it comes to discussing "The Chart". It is not and was never meant to be a guide for determining the "best" AR for a given application; it simply allows comparison of several M4-style carbines to the mil-specs for that particular weapon system. As I stated before, the problems start when people try to read too much into the chart (both its content and its application) and get all wrapped around the axle about it.

 

[melensdad]

Who is that gun writer that got blown up after talking smack the black rifle?

Jim Zumbo

Funny thing is that he is the paid spokesman for Remington so now not only did he lose some income for his criticism of the AR15, he now has to sell them under the big green gun company label

when it comes to discussing "The Chart". It is not and was never meant to be a guide for determining the "best" AR for a given application; it simply allows comparison of several M4-style carbines . . . the problems start when people . . . get all wrapped around the axle about it.

Perhaps, but it seems that the M4 advocates were the ones who got their undies in a bunch over the fact that it was pointed out that there is far more to the AR15 than just a mil-spec rifle. When the chart was first posted (please go back to the original post as proof) it did not suggest that if you are specifically looking for an M4-gery rifle then use this chart . . . it implied if you are looking for an AR15 then use this chart.

Below is the original post (highlights added):

My apologies if this has been posted before, but the "I'm Buying an AR15, What Brand Should I get?" thread comes up hourly, so I figured this may make your decision a bit easier:

(IMO, this should be a sticky in all rifle forums)

 

[shooter521]

Jim Zumbo

Funny thing is that he is the paid spokesman for Remington ... he now has to sell them under the big green gun company label

Did Remington hire him back?

Madison, North Carolina - As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington.

"Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights," commented Tommy Millner, Remington's CEO and President. "As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights."

We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.

it implied if you are looking for an AR15 then use this chart.

And while the OP may have been well-intentioned, that was probably the wrong way to present it, and probably ignited this whole pissing match. But you didn't exactly help, with your derogatory remarks like "drinking the Kool-Aid that this chart advocates". The chart itself simply provides objective information; it's up to each individual to apply that information to our own needs or mission.

That said, some of the specs/features in the TDP *do* have some value to the average AR user, outside of any defensive/military/SHTF requirement. I mean, even varmint guns should be durable and reliable, right? Things like proper carrier key staking, extractor spring/insert and pinned FSB have universal benefits.

 

[melensdad]

Shooter521, I only fanned the flames after I was attacked, bushwacked and beaten about the head for suggesting that there is more to the AR than the chart suggests. Further, the chart purports to be "objective" but then uses terms like "properly" which is purely subjective . . . and then it does not define those terms! Further it penalizes rifles that don't use 1:7 twist but the 1:7 twist is not even universally used by the military in the AR platform (although it is used in the 14.5" M4 variant). I could go on and on and pick this apart if you want to bring in varmint rifles.

If the title of the thread, and/or the content of the first post would have been, if you want an M4 style AR, and you are looking for something close to what the military uses, then refer to this chart . . . then I would not have even posted in the thread! But the chart is designed, in my humble opinion, to show brand superiority of some brands over others and, by guilt of association trash entire brands of guns because they don't compete in the civilian world of M4-gery rifles.

Personally I'd strongly argue that a free floated fore end is far more beneficial than a standard handguard with or without dual heat shields but according to the chart offering an improvement penalizes the rifle.

-

As for the fate of Jim Zumbo, I am under the impression that he was re-hired by Remington. I may well be wrong on that point.

 

[shooter521]

Further, the chart purports to be "objective" but then uses terms like "properly" which is purely subjective . .

No, it means "properly" with regard to the mil-spec! When a given feature is compared to the spec, it either complies or it does not. There is no subjectivity or middle ground.

and then it does not define those terms!

That's why Rob_s came out with the revised chart, and the explanations/definitions to go with it. See my big honkin' post on page 3.

Further it penalizes rifles that don't use 1:7 twist but the 1:7 twist is not even universally used by the military in the AR platform

First, the military doesn't issue an "AR" platform per se. Second, the 1:7 twist was adopted as standard along with the M-16A2 back in 1985, and is also the standard for the M-16A4, M4 carbine, Mk18 CQBR, Mk12 SPR and M-249 SAW. There may be some niche guns in service with other twist rates (thinking 1:8 for the Army's SDM-R here) and a few 1:12 M-16A1s left in Guard or Reserve units, but the vast majority of rifles in service are 1:7.

And finally, as you state, the 1:7 is the specified twist rate for the military M4, which is what the other entries on the chart are being compared to. To say the chart "penalizes" for not having a 1:7 is to read into it a "value system" that is not present. In fact, Rob_s purposely reorganized the entries so they didn't appear to be so hierarchical, as that was not his original intent.

But the chart is designed, in my humble opinion, to show brand superiority of some brands over others and, by guilt of association trash entire brands of guns because they don't compete in the civilian world of M4-gery rifles.

Sigh. LOOK AT WHAT ROB_S WROTE, REGARDING THE UPDATED CHART:
I get asked questions about it, manufacturers get concerned with how far "left" they are on the chart (hence there is no implied hierarchy now to alleviate this issue). The key to The Chart is understanding what each of the features listed means, how they relate to one another, what purposes they serve, and whether or not they are of value or use to the end user.

I would suggest that you are perceiving a slight where none was intended.

Personally I'd strongly argue that a free floated fore end is far more beneficial than a standard handguard with or without dual heat shields but according to the chart offering an improvement penalizes the rifle.

I would agree with your assessment of the floated fore-end, but the TDP calls for a plastic handguard with double heat shields, so that is the spec to which the guns are compared! The chart makes no "value judgement" whether that handguard is better or worse for a given application than other options – that's for the end user to decide, and to suggest otherwise is doing the very sort of "reading into" that I've been complaining about.

 

[Lars]

AR-15 arguments, like Caliber arguments give me Migraines.

Honestly, if you went out and bought a Noveske M4 style AR-15, and compared it to an Olympic Arms M4 style AR-15, similar barrel lengths, same caliber, same types of furniture.

How much difference is the average shooter going to see between the two. NO I am not saying the Noveske is the same quality level as an Olympic arms. What I am saying is like Golf Clubs, Golf Balls, basket ball shoes, etc. RARELY does the equipment make an appreciable difference until the athlete (or in this case shooter) is at a level or six above the average population.

 

[shooter521]

AR-15 arguments, like Caliber arguments give me Migraines.

Me too. Caliber arguments I stay away from, but I'll wade hip-deep into an AR discussion with no regard for my own safety or sanity. Someday I'll learn better.

RARELY does the equipment make an appreciable difference

The difference is immediately appreciable if it is one of functionality vs. non-functionality! There is ZERO difference between an Olympic and a Noveske, if both are just sitting in the gunsafe...

 

[Scutter01]

I think I'm gonna switch to paintball...

 

[Lars]

I think I'm gonna switch to paintball...

Because that's SOOOOO much better when it comes to gear....... *snicker*

 

[melensdad]

Shooter, just to beat this topic dead into the ground, in the first post and on the first chart it does NOT specify the mil-spec standard for 'properly' anywhere. Many of the arguments you are making are based on points brought up later in the thread to refute the chart. And based on the chart and the way it was originally posted, those criticisms are valid. Personally I hate to limit myself to the lowly mil-spec standard when there are much higher standards in the target and varmint shooting world. Standards that don't rob accuracy from a gun the way a chrome lined barrel does.

We will have to agree to disagree. But you have to go to page 3 to justify a chart on page 1 and even then you can't do it based on what was posted in the OP. It is what it is, and I even reposted the words, in their entirety a couple posts above to remind everyone what the OP actually said. He didn't say anything about the M4 he actually and specifically stated that the chart was a BRAND comparison for AR rifles.

"When Buying an AR 15 ... I'm Buying an AR15, What Brand Should I get?"

I stand by my critical and accurate analysis of what was ACTUALLY written.

Further you pick apart some of my choices of wording when I refer to the military style AR platform and do that to try to reduce my credibility but you don't apply the same standard to the chart! BTW the military M platform, which we civilians purchase as the AR platform, also uses a 1:9 twist for the SDM-R in at least one company I know of that is deployed in Iraq today.

 

[shooter521]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Oh, I disagree all right! And I'm done here.

 

[rhino]

Mark, you can present the facts and logic, you can do so with the best of intentions, but you can't force someone to actually read and "listen" to the message, especially if it conflicts with what they choose to believe. Aside from that, some people just have to disagree no matter what. Sometimes they're making a vain attempt at dominance (even if subconsciously), or maybe they're just contrary, but the end result is the same.

 

[obijohn]

i think it should be pointed out that a chrome lined barrel doesn't necessarily compromise accuracy. i expect it to do so, but it's not a "carved in stone" rule. i built an m4gery for training with a chrome lined barrel thinking it would be abused and maybe not even cleaned much (gasp! say it isn't so). while sighting in the reddot at 50m, the rifle produced several groups well under 1moa. closer to 0.5moa. i realize that 50m isn't much of a test, but i was pleasantly surprised by the result. lucky? absolutely. reproduce? don't know that's why i saved the target.

 

[Benny]

melensdad, I fixed the title and the first post for you...Now you no longer have to here.



BTW, man if I had a dime for every Zumbo post I've ever read.

 

[Benny]

What's this "reputation" nonsense all about?

 

[Lars]

What's this "reputation" nonsense all about?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/comments_suggestions/5577-reputation_icons.html#post68308