@ G192627, I want to expand on some of what maverick2076 wrote...
maverick2076 wrote:A couple of comments:
I've been doing the research like you for my first AR. I will still probably build. As long as you know what barrel and gas-tube length you want, everything else is pretty much modular and can be added on later. You are going to change stuff as time goes on, so don't let that dissuade you from building.
I am no gunsmith, but I have built myself a very nice AR15. It doesn't require that much in the way of mechanical skills. All the same, I can understand the hesitation to build one for a "first time" AR15. When I got
my first one, the friend who convinced me to get one also urged me to build my own. That is what he had done for his first AR, but I was a little intimidated by the idea of it so I bought a Bushmaster varmint rifle instead. In hindsight, I consider that to be a mistake. If I were going hunting with one of my ARs, unless I was shooting prairie dogs I would much rather bring the relatively light and
very accurate carbine that I built than to bring the very heavy 24" barreled varmint rifle that I bought. And it goes without saying that the carbine makes a better "room broom." I rarely ever shoot that Bushmaster anymore.
maverick2076 wrote:Personally, from all the reading and research I have done, I feel that an average user isn't going to see a whole lot of difference between the brands. I would posit that even a serious shooter isn't going to see enough difference to justify paying the extra amount between some of the mid-level manufacturers and the expensive brands. My 2 cents says there is a lot of brand snobbery in the AR world, and some people just feel better about having "the best brand" or a "Tier One manufacturer" rifle based of some forum-dweller's spreadsheet that has been floating around the Net for the last couple years. Bottom line: buy from who you feel comfortable makes a quality level that you can accept. For me, I'll avoid Olympic/Hesse/whatever else they go by, but I have no problems building myself a kit from Del-Ton, or buying a Stag, or a Spikes, or RRA. I feel that Colt or Noveske just don't offer me enough to justify the extra money. I'd rather put that money into optics, other accessories, or ammo.
Again, you're spot on. As far as assembled rifles go, my son has a 24" bull-barreled RRA varmint rifle, and I've seen him put 5 rounds into 1/4" with great repeatability with it. It is simply the most accurate rifle in our safes, and that includes a couple of extremely accurate heavy barreled .308 bolt rifles. The quality of that RRA rifle is superb, and it was purchased for $1,058.00, which is a steal compared to some other brand names that can't shoot any better than that. Here is a picture of both of the varmint rifles as purchased (minus scopes), with the RRA in the foreground. Both rifles have since been fitted with Magpul PRS stocks:
But even beyond that, my carbine is built out of a DPMS lower receiver and parts kit, and a nameless upper that was originally purchased from Galati Int'l barreled with an M4 profile military contract ER Shaw barrel. With the M4 barrel, accuracy was "adequate." I later bought a cheap brand (Model One) heavy profile 16" barrel and rebarreled the upper. Did the work myself. The barrel was about $140.00, and I now have an extremely accurate carbine. Over time, other parts have been added or swapped out that upgraded the overall function, and yes, the appearance, of the rifle. The point is that you can build yourself a very basic "mil-spec" carbine for not very much money, relatively speaking, and then you can go shoot it and look at some other guns to see what you would want to do with it to improve it.
maverick2076 wrote:Speaking of optics: Based on your description of what shooting you do, I would consider some of the unmagnified reflex optics for your AR, such as the Aimpoint, EoTech, or Trijicon Reflex. These sights are designed for the closer shooting work you describe, and are worth the money for ease of use and speed of acquistion.
I would add to that that both the Aimpoint and EOTech sight systems can be "upgraded" later with the addition of a magnifier lens on a flip to side mount. I started with just iron sights, then added a basic EOTech, and then later added the magnifier (also from EOTech). That's the beauty of the whole modular concept of an AR. Also, whatever you do,
dont "cheap out" on the optics. If you're going to spend the money, spend it wisely and go for quality. Yes, it costs more, but you get more. I really like my EOTech equipment, but I don't have any particular brand fanaticism. I would probably rather have an ACOG, but it just isn't in the budget, whereas the modular approach of the EOTech which I was able to buy in increments put high quality optics in my hands at a price I could afford. But that was me. All I'm saying is, resist the temptation to buy $99 optics.
maverick2076 wrote:One last comment: Many AR guys harp on Mil-spec, and brag about how much closer their rifle is to "mil-spec" than other rifles. Before you fall into that trap, understand what mil-spec is. Mil-spec is a set of design and testing qualifications that contractors have to meet to get a product purchased my the military. While mil-spec is designed to ensure quality, it is often written by bureaucrats and tailored to very specific concerns. While a lot of mil-spec requirements start of as well meaning design specs, they can quickly become overbearing and esoteric. Don't take mil-spec as being a basic minimum requirement for reliable function. Mil-spec is how we end up with $300 hammers and $1500 wristwatches with National Stock Numbers for me to order in my supply catalog.
Those are very good points, particularly the bit about "mil-spec." Remember that during the Vietnam war, when M16s were issued to soldiers in the field without cleaning kits, with ammo that had higher velocity powders that also more heavily fouled the weapon leading to chronic weapon failures in the middle of combat,
THAT was mil-spec.
