Since I'm not an enlisted man with a mass produced issue carbine color me Gucci.
Besides the mandatory ultra reliable components such as quality BCG, bbl, and internals my main carbine is a mid length 14.5" with full M-Lock rail, red dot, white light with pressure switch, abbreviated fore grip, fancy flip up irons that will most likely never be deployed since sighting in, two point quick adjust sling, Radian 45° ambi safety (must have), three prong Surefire flash hider that will eventually act as a suppressor mount, and super tactical operator sheepdog grey accent parts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ryanp225,

I only have one carbine that isn't a PCC. It sports the full length floated Mlok handguard that came with the upper, a stock flash hider, Magpul BUIS (because what if the optic dies?) a Romeo 4 red dot, a polished Nickel Boron trigger group, Magpul grip and a fixed stock that came with the lower. Once I finish function testing and dialing it in out to 200 yards, it gets a Radian "gasbuster" charging handle, because it will sport a silencer.

Listed like that is sounds a little Gucci, but those are all function over form in my mind.

The carbine that lives in the trunk has iron sights and a light attached to the plastic handguard with an IWC mount. That's certainly "simple", and I am competent enough with irons that it suffices in it's role as the beater in the trunk. I'd even say that I like the gun; it's handy and light, and I like the way it's configured. If some bad shit was happening, and I had a choice, I definitely wouldn't choose that rifle.

My aforementioned 933 is superior in every way, excluding velocity, due to the shorter barrel. Is it "simple"? I think so. Everyone seems to agree on an optic and a light, even for a "simple" carbine, so that leaves the silencer and the laser, as the outlying "gucci" or "complicated" aspects. The laser is only complicated if you're picking it up for the very first time, and you have an aversion to learning. It's the same one issued to Joe Blo infantryman, so it can't be that tough to use. The silencer, as mentioned already, does come with some associated "enhancements", if you want to really integrate it, but they just require installation, and no fiddling after the fact.

It's been a good convo, and it's interesting to see different folks outlooks on what makes a "gucci" gun. Sometimes less is more, but other times it's not. Every time: it depends on your use case, goals, and practice.

Everyone is sounding ashamed of having a Gucci carbine. Nothing wrong with nice stuff for your gun. Gucci that shit up!

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
Even with my experience of 27+ years as a criminal attorney (defense and prosecution) I can't argue that my JP Enterprises JP-15 isn't a Gucci.

I've had the good fortune of working with a handful of great attorneys so far during my career. Using the concept that Gucci is form over function, they should have minimal issues arguing in court that JP isn't Gucci.

I honestly don't know if I feel better or worse because of this observation.

I'd agree that gucci is bad and/or dumb, and perhaps shameful, if the user doesn't take advantage of what the nice components have to offer. All depends on the context of use. If it's giving prairie dogs dirt naps, and home defense, then a "simple" carbine checks all the boxes. If you want something for a more military, 2nd Amendment role, then some complicated or "gucci" stuff will serve you well.

I voted no, but I do have (what I believe) to be a gucci carbine. After building a few and or piecing a few together, I always wanted a top tier AR that was modified or further built in a commensurate fashion. I'm happy with it. In fact, I love it.

But I wouldn't turn down a 2 day carbine course if I only had a frankengun with a T1 and an X300.

I voted simple but then reading the thread it appears I might be Gucci after all.

This year I semi retired my old AR's in deference to my newest purchase that seems to hit all my preferences.

I now have mounted on my rifle rack in my office my do everything AR. LWRC IC-DI. Fully ambidextrous, larger ambi charging handle, MLOK. I added a Surefire Scout (tailcap switch), basic VTAC padded QD sling, Magpul3 BUIS, and a PA 3X microprism with ACSS reticle (illum green).

That seems simple to me. I also have an MLOK Magpul bipod that is currently attached because I like having it at the range and it doesn't impede offhand use other than the extra weight. The LWRC is pretty lightweight to begin with though so I figure that is a wash.

So simple-ish.

majority of my stuff is bone stock, although that has more to do with me being a collector than my philosophy of use.

I really like to modify and customize things to my liking, so probably guilty of Gucci.

Both mine are Anderson lowers, CMMG triggers. Uppers both PSA’s. One has a carry handle,that one is used with a CMMG .22LR conversion kit. The other has a Nikon scope.

I consider neither one a Gucci gun.

I just received another Hiperfire Elite trigger. I have reached the point where I am upgrading some of my already upgraded triggers.

I have used Geissele, CMC, JP, Larue, AR Gold, and Hiperfire. The Hiperfires with the cam-over toggle triggers are simply excellent. The best you can get IMHO.

Stock triggers are gross. Embrace the Gucci!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Everyone is sounding ashamed of having a Gucci carbine. Nothing wrong with nice stuff for your gun. Gucci that shit up!

Absolutely, just because I like Cold War era battle and assault rifles doesn’t mean someone can’t like modern assault rifles. Nobody’s your manager, buy what you like!

The Cold War comment prompted a train of thought...
I think the "simple" vs "gucci" argument exists at all, due to the technological advancements of small arms during the GWOT, and the age group of discussion participants. This discussion would be a lot different, or not exist at all, if everyone involved was younger than, we'll say, thirty-five. Before the GWOT, and the almost simultaneous technology and internet boom, a "simple" carbine was plenty competetive on the battlefield; now it arguably isn't. The dumb "overmatch" thing of a couple years ago isn't really that dumb, in theory. Pre-GWOT, your equipment would be largely equal to that of a potential foe, as a citizen; you'd lack military infrastructure, but plenty of conflicts have proven that motivation and guerrilla tactics can compensate for lack of big army networks. Now though, your individual equipment is at a huge disadvantage as well, if you lack contemporary optics and other "enablers". As usual, I am considering the topic in the military or Second Amendment context. Simple might not be good enough anymore.

Simple from quality manufacturer. I prefer reliability without alot of extra things hanging off to snag or add weight without actually improving hit probability, shot placement, time on target, etc. Now if Gucci is buying from manufacturers like BCM, COLT, LARUE, etc. to ensure the qualities I want, then I am Gucci.

One also has to recognize the point of diminished returns. Do I really need to spend twice as much on an item that is only 1-2 ounces lighter and is the same in all other regards?

I purchased a Springfield Saint today. I think for the next bit it’s going to be my primary training rifle.

Did you take the rubber band off? lol

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Did you take the rubber band off? lol

And let all the Gucci out???

It’s like a sling condom, right?

Always use protection!