Pretty constantly, people ask about which AR brand to buy. And the Tier system always comes up. Stay away from this, buy that.

What matters to you when you buy an Anderson M4, versus a Colt 6920, versus a DD V1. Do you believe there are drawbacks, QC or is it just buying a name you trust?

For me the difference probably isn't as far apart as most would assume.

If I could only have one rifle I would urge folks to buy the best they can afford. That best can be subjective but I would wager the higher end manufacturers have better QC. Maybe less variance in individual parts.

Some high end rifles come with things I'm gonna want later anyway. Maybe rail configuration or desired sling attachment points.

With all that said I own both. I have a handful of PSA rifles, all identical I keep in case anyone ever needs it, in case there is a time where those grandfathered ones are all I have for future use, or something comparable.

The one I shoot (or want to shoot, don't get too much anymore) is a Noveske/BCM build.

I'd wager, and this is not scientific at all, that for most people's purposes a PSA or Anderson AR-15 would work just fine. So while I believe there is definitely advantages, piece of mind, whatever to spending more, the returns are diminishing and a large portion increased price is the name, advertising budget, whatever.

More to your point, what matters to me NOW is barrel, bolt, trigger. I'm likely to replace the latter no matter who built it. But a decent barrel and bolt will be just fine. I wouldn't spend more for milled over forged receivers or anything like that. Nothing wrong with building a boutique rifle at all, but it wouldn't be something I require.

I'm not an expert but it seems to me that the BCG may be the real difference starting with whether it is properly staked or not. To be clear, if it is reliable and accurate the BCG will keep it that way long term.

I guess the perception is that the tolerances and quality control aren’t as tight higher tier brands. My two favotite ARs to shoot are a mix-master carbine with a Rock River upper/lower, toolcraft BCG, Colt socom 14.5 barrel, and an old school quad rail. The other is a spikes tactical built with mostly BCM parts, m=lok handguard, and a 14.5 mid ballistic advantage Hansen barrel. Both guns eat everything and are accurate beyond my expectations. I have way more expensive top tier rifles but these two trusted rifles would get the nod if I needed a rifle for defense.

I have found the biggest difference is in the barrels.

A good barrel actually will shoot much better than a lower quality one, and sometimes that is not all that related to price. good quality chrome lined barrels and stainless barrels seem to last alot longer. Chrome thickness seems to vary, and sometimes a borescope will show significant roughness in cheap barrels. My sample seems to indicate that the high quality stainless barrels are actually a little more mechanically accurate

I have done no study as to whether nitrided barrels hold up better or worse than chrome or Stainless, so I have no opinion

Bolts are second in importance, I have seen a bunch of failures in bad BCG's (the old bushmasters were by far the worst). I am also amazed how many AR's show up with Marginal headspacing. Just about everyone is staking the keys properly these days and using good extractor springs with donuts.

The non trigger small parts are pretty much all the same IMO. the commercial vs mil spec buffer argument is irrelevant as long as the stock fits.

The forged upper and lower recievers are only made by about 7 forges and they are all pretty equal so there isnt alot of difference there.

triggers and sighting systems vary greatly, but that probably is a different subject.

To me it is primarily the barrel, trigger and then it goes to cosmetics.

I agree with most other replies, where the barrel is concerned. Fit and finish is another thing; though not as meaningful. A gun from a higher "tier" is likely going to do things more accurately over a higher number of rounds than one from a lower tier. How the free float handguard attaches to the barrel nut is an aspect that is typically different between tiers; lower-end guns will almost always use the pinch style. That's not to say that a pinch attachment is always a poor choice though. More attention paid to proper gas block installation and proper gassing is another potential point of differentiation. Buffers too; most basic ARs may have a carbine buffer, where nicer ones will have a heavier one.

Remember we aren’t taking free float this, or tuned that. We’re talking company A’s FSB carbine length gun versus Company B’s FSB carbine length gun.

Apples to apples.

At my LGS, the ARs with the lowest price tags are free-floated. I think, nowadays, it's perhaps cheaper to slap a set screw gas block and pinch-style FF handguard on it, than it is to pin a proper A-post FSGB.

In the OP, you mentioned a DDV1. That gun, as currently offered, is floated.

I didn't really get into tuning. I merely noted that a higher-end manufacturer may pay closer attention to the gas port size and the appropriate buffer, whereas a lower-end maker is just gonna gas her up good, and throw a carbine buffer in it. I think these are potentially the subtle differences you were initially implying could exist.

Edit: After more thought, I may better understand what you mean. Are you wanting to consider only things like materials, tolerances, and manufacturing techniques? If that's the case, then I see why you are dismissive of "tuning". I guess the things I was mentioning are indeed "tuning"; though at the manufacturer level. I don't know that it's wholly dismissible, in the scope of your OP, though. If manufacturer A builds a gun identical in material and tolerance to manufacturer B, but B pays more attention to "tuning", and has a better product as a result, would that not be something that would justify a higher price and placement in a higher performance bracket?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

From what I've seen, the difference is quality control. If you get an in-spec Anderson it'll work just as well as any other rifle, but if you get one that is out of spec (and I've seen a few), you're going to have problems.

I've seen Anderson lowers with pin holes that aren't quite in the right place, magwells that are just a bit too tight, and threads that are improperly cut. I've also had to deal with some flashing here and there, although that's a minor quibble and a simple fix. I've also managed to acquire a few that are acceptable, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

I've learned to source decent barrels and bolts. I tried the bargain basement stuff and was very unhappy. My buddy hasn't learned that lesson yet and has been fighting chambering problems for the past few months with a .458 SOCOM upper from some no-name company that he paid $350 for. He had similar problems with a .300 BLK.

Getting squared up receiver to barrel engagement would be important for a precision rifle, I'd imagine, but I've not really done any testing with uppers to check those dimensions between various brands. For a regular FSB carbine, I'd expect a quality rifle to have a front sight post that's properly centered and doesn't require adjusting the rear sight windage way off to one side to achieve a proper zero. I've seen that happen more than once on some of the cheaper brands...my PSA suffers from it just a bit. It's a point of pride that when I drilled and pinned my first FSB onto a barrel (my dedicated .22 upper) the sights ended up perfectly registered in the center! I saw one Anderson that had a gas block that was so far out of alignment from the factory that the gun wouldn't even cycle.

Cheap LPKs can be sticky or gritty in operation. I'd expect a quality gun to have smooth controls with positive detent engagement. I won't abide a safety that doesn't flick on and off smoothly, and I've polished detents and levers as well as outright rejecting some to get what I want.

I'm cheap and don't mind doing some of my own QC to save a bunch of money, provided the underlying parts are sound. I also like to build so I can get exactly what I want. My expectation of a higher-end rifle would be to have all that done for me.

A Daniel Defense is considered "mid tier" but has a shitty trigger but at least it's TDP throughout. That's the main difference with entry level; not TDP because TDP costs more to make.

As has been mentioned, the main weakness of a lower tier rifle is compromises in the BCG itself. Non-158 bolt for example. Easily remedied with a $150 purchase of a known-good BCG using TDP parts. That plus any $500 rifle will last 99% of shooters a lifetime

TDP - Technical Data Pkg?
Quick Google says TDP = a specific mfg's 'recipe' for hoe they put it together?

That's a new one to me & one I'd guess varies by mfg?

No, I’m referring to the AR15 or M4 TDP’s. Rifles don’t need to be TDP but the TDP is there for a reason

quote:

Originally posted by PGT:
That plus any $500 rifle will last 99% of shooters a lifetime

You sorta hit on where I was going with this.

I know you've been enamored with the Springfield Saint. That is arguably a "mid-tier" gun. MSRP is over $1000, and it seems they can be had for between $800 and $850. That's double the price of a "low-tier" gun.

Is it perhaps more a discussion of configurations? I know you use an AR15 professionally; what about your professional LE "entry" carbine is different than a "low-tier" gun? Why would you prefer to have your "entry" carbine on a SWAT call, rather than a $400-$500 AR15?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by PGT:
That plus any $500 rifle will last 99% of shooters a lifetime

You sorta hit on where I was going with this.

Makes sense. Buy a "lower tier" rifle and start replacing parts until you get it to "mid tier" level. You still have a rifle with a majority of unknown and untested parts, which are likely not properly torqued, staked, pinned, or QC'd. Unless you simply don't care about any of that stuff, why not just start at the start?

I'm also of the opinion I'd rather buy a used rifle of known quality over new junk. In today's market when there's been LE trade in Colt LE6920's available for $630.00, there's really no reason to compromise. Sure it might take some time and effort to score a deal, but it's worth it in my opinion.

These post-COVID madness days there are more than a few $500-600 rifles that come with upgraded furniture, a chrome-lined barrel (thanks to barrel companies like Ballistic Advantage) and have free-float alloy handguards. At least one is as low as $350. The line that defines what is lower tier is rather blurry nowadays, IMHO.

Before this state of mine put the kibosh on AR15 sales, we had one of the budget Andro AR15 models for sale for $499 in several finishes. The black version was the usual anodized, while the FDE and OD variants were Cerakoted. Aside from being a bit heavier in the handguard than many of the four-figure ARs that we used to sell, you'd be hard pressed to find any quantifiable differences between the Andro than, say a DD V7 at nearly 3 times the price. Even the "mil-spec" triggers on the Andros seemed mildly better than the typical muck that Daniel Defense usually ships their rifles with.

Ol' jljones has me curious. I am going to see what the "bottom teir" brands have to offer, in something comparable to my favorite rifle. If any of their offerings check the boxes at a glance, I'll look a little closer, and see if I have potentially been a fool, for investing in "higher quality" stuff.

Brands that come to mind are Anderson, Del-Ton, Radical, Diamondback, and PSA.

After a quick look:
https://palmettostatearmory.co...stol-5165448581.html

https://www.radicalfirearms.co...0.5-5.56m4-10fcr.htm

The biggest hang-up, for me, would be silencer integration. Would both of those guns work reliably with a SF RC2 attached? Probably. But they'd work better with an adjustable carrier, Sprinco red, and H3 buffer. The barrel is likely accurate enough, and durable enough for my needs, and I could forgo my little creature comforts like a SOPMOD stock, badger bolt catch, ambi safety, Norgon mag catch, and Wilson trigger. Maybe this hypothetical works better in the bought vs bought context; not bought vs built. And the silencer may present a disqualifying factor of sorts.

Also, in fiddling for silencer favorability, I am upgrading one of the more failure-prone budget rifle components: the BCG.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

For the budget stuff- the 500 dollar AR-15- I prefer Palmetto State Armory. PSA has a seemingly endless number of variations.

If a man wants an AR for personal and home defense and is not a connoisseur of America's rifle, he can start with something like this: https://palmettostatearmory.co...r15-rifle-black.html

This rifle has a shot-peened Carpenter 158 bolt and properly screwed and staked gas key, and these things go a long way towards fending off common failures in the AR-15. So, if you ask me what do I consider drawbacks in budget AR-15s, the absence of these things would certainly be drawbacks, and that includes rifles which might get shot very little. I've seen bolt lug breakage in ARs with less than a thousand rounds through them, and I've seen improperly staked keys come loose and stop a rifle from functioning. This is also why a spare BCG is vital, or, at the least, a spare bolt.

To the above rifle, add a decent fixed rear sight, a good sling and a mount for any number of flashlights with a 1" body, a dozen or so Pmags, good quality 5.56 ammo, and he's all set, as long as he understands the importance of lubricating his rifle.

When all is said and done, though, he's still going to be investing over a thousand dollars, so, the 500 dollar AR-15 is a myth.

There is a point of diminishing return in any and all products. Getting what you pay for is one thing, but sometimes it’s worth it to pay the extra for a higher quality product with better parts and attention to details. It’s up to us to figure out where we’re comfortable as far as reliability and accuracy go. Would I trust my life to a $300 rifle? If that’s all I had, I wouldn’t have much of a choice; however, if I have a choice, it’ll be a proven rifle with lots and lots of rounds through it. I personally want the equivalent to a Toyota 4Runner. Not necessarily the best at anything but you know it’s gonna work when you need it.

Only other thing I can offer is that I’ve seen catastrophic failures in Del-ton, Anderson (complete rifle, not just thrown together parts), Radical, and Diamondback; most within 20 rounds. Watched a back and forth between Diamondback and the owner of the rifle and it just left me with the impression, they don’t give a fuck whether a product works, just that they got paid. PSA however will try to make a problem right if there is one. No company is infallible and can put out a bum product or 2, but every PSA item I’ve handled/shot has been 100% reliable, including their line of AK’s. FYI: I own 0(Zero) PSA products