Got my 1st AR when Obummer won the nod to rep. the Dimwits.
Stag 15. Still got it.
Next level was a Rhino Arms, still got it.
Top level was a POF P415, traded for it (trade value $1K)
Since 2012 put together a couple, on the cheap.
Can't see needing any high $ ones, mine will do what I need.

Thread needs some eye candy.

When I purchased that rifle 20 years ago, it was the best you could get. These days people are prone to arguing whether that is true. The people who don't own something that says Stoner on the side need some chill. Bottom line, the "top" is all so good, any of those rifles will do what you've spent the money for them to do and damn well should. Do you "need" a top tier rifle? Of course you do if you do. So, I'll go Knights for the top, but it's just a crowded tie for first place when you're spending thousands.

For "mid tier," even more to choose from, Colt, Aero, so many choices. There are lots of rifles and parts I'm happy with. With my recent SBR work, I've got parts from a lot of high quality makers and think that the market is such that you're hard pressed to make a bad choice. Whether a complete rifle or assemblage, even Brownells own products I think are quality. My mid tier choice would actually be a "roll your own," you can piece together a fine rifle for a decent price without choosing poor quality parts.

For the low end, PSA keeps coming up for a reason. If you want the most quality for the shortest money, the list gets very tight. There is good news here though, that among inexpensive AR's, the quality across the board is better than ever. While you still get what you pay for, if you buy from a reputed company, you're waaaaay less likely to end up with unserviceable trash than when I bought that SR-15.

I think the only way to be disappointed today is to not be realistic with your rifles purpose or price point. A sufficiently accurate and reliable rifle is very affordable, everything else is gravy and that's pretty great.

^^^^Thanks for that assessment, arc.

Only have one and it works fine. I was looking for the lightest version I could find and found that in the Stag Arms Model 3. I Have Eotech sight on it now. The only problem I ever had with it was when using some cheap ammo that didn't want to feed well. And I learned to down load the mag by one round, all has been good since.

Most folks won't shoot a carbine enough to really see a performance difference between the tiers. Plus, as mentioned before, the "lower tier rifles" have gotten better over the years.

For the affordable tiers, I like S&W, they've been building affordable and functional Sport models for years (Pat Rogers actually had good things to say about them), Ruger (I've got their lowers) and Stag used to be good but I haven't purchased from them in a while.

For the mid price, BCM, Colt, DD, I've either used them or their components.

I can't comment on the more expensive stuff except for Larue as that's the only one I have purchased. I've got limited experience with the KAC M110, but that's not an AR-15.

Overall AR15 quality is better today than it was decades ago. As in when "The Chart" was considered by some as a holy manuscript.

I don't get excited about the tiers concept. The AR15 is so modular that it comes down to the quality of the components and who fits them together. The better ARs will be extremely reliable as long as the owner keeps it properly lubed, does a little cleaning in the BCG area, uses fairly decent ammo, and doesn't cheap out with magazines. I've seen cheap ARs work really well for the owner, because he did the right things. I've seen premium ARs become jam-o-matics, because the owner didn't do the right things.

I have been around and briefly shot AR15s by Knights Armament, LWRC, JP, H&K, Larue, Barrett, LMT, and D&L Sports. These are all great rifles. They shoot great and their fit & finish is great.

Maybe not in the above league, I've shot BCM, older Colt, Sig, and Daniel Defense. All good.

When one is looking to buy the more expensive AR15s, the owner must consider what they're getting for the additional money. Utter reliability should be #1. Pride in ownership of a well-crafted tool is another. For me, an additional requirement is near bolt action accuracy -- at least to 400-500-ish yards. Not the once in a blue moon hackneyed statement of "all day long, when I do my part". But day in, day out, during crappy weather, from alternative positions accuracy.

Of the most expensive rifles I noted above -- KAC, JP, and Larue shot the most accurately for me. JP is likely the best, however JP chambers are cut very tightly. If an owner doesn't use quality ammo, doesn't keep the rifle clean, and doesn't lube it -- the JP is almost certainly going to jam at an inappropriate moment. But JP uses great barrels.

For me it comes down to barrels and how they are chambered -- the accuracy thing. IMO, Wilson Combat has some of the most accurate barrels off the shelf, and WC builds rifles that are reliable. Unlike JP, Wilson ARs seem to better tolerate crappy maintenance and low quality ammo/magazines. Most of my AR15s are Wilson Combat, although I also have ones based on Rock River, LWRC, and SI Defense (now Falkor Defense) components. I will state that the LWRC exhibits the worst accuracy of my AR15s. The LWRC is utterly reliable, but the barrel produces decent accuracy (not great accuracy) only with FGMM 69.

I think it's fair to state that most competitors wanting long-distance precision AR15s don't buy complete rifles from one source. Barrels and/or uppers might come from Compass Lake Engineering, White Oak Armament, or Craddock Precision. Barrels might include Bartlein or Krieger. My most accurate AR15s are a Wilson upper/lower with a Craddock Bartlein barrel and an SI Defense upper/lower with a Krieger barrel. I also have a couple of AR10 barrels (Bartlein and Krieger) from Craddock Precision.

I don't need benchrest accuracy in a fighting rifle, I need 100% reliability under all conditions. I also don't want a rifle I have to worry about cleaning all the time in order for it to function either.

Most AR's set up as fighting rifles are going to have a red dot or an LPVO, neither of which lend themselves to shooting out to 400-500 yards. Not to mention those with carry handles/iron sights.

Of all the things I need from an AR, "bolt action" accuracy is way down the list.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:
Of all the things I need from an AR, "bolt action" accuracy is way down the list.

Yeah, same. If I have to defend myself out to five hundred yards, I just need a bolt gun in a bolt gun caliber and the standard considerations have already long gone out the window.

With a Wilson Combat AR15, I get 100% reliability and precision accuracy. For about 20,000 rounds so far. Using LPVO and mid-power optics.

If precision shooting isn't your thing, then don't buy a rifle with such attributes. Some of us can actually desire accuracy, regardless of target distance or use.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
If precision shooting isn't your thing, then don't buy a rifle with such attributes.

I'm confused by your need to state the obvious on this.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Some of us can actually desire accuracy, regardless of target distance or use.

And again. Not all of us are F Class competitors, in fact, most of us probably aren't. Additionally, nobody was making an argument that such rifles or barrels should not exist, merely observing that not all of us have such desires or requirements, or the ability to use them to their potential if we did.

In other news, the sky is blue, and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

Don’t want to put words in ol’ Fritz’s mouth, but I think what he may have been getting at is the concept of spot shooting. Shooting at speed (or under stress) for a specific spot. The concept is pretty much “Aim Small, Hit Small”. Which is the problem I have with most conversations about “defensive shooting” and the Bubbas who say stuff like “it ain’t bullseye shooting.

A gunfight is absolutely bullseye shooting. The idea or concept that you can score hits anywhere in the torso and win is relying on luck. Driving the gun to a specific, desirable anatomical spot doesn’t ensure victory, but it certainly helps. And having equipment that is accurate removes a variable.

Or something like that.

All of mine are a la carte home builds, with the exception of a Colt 603 export M16A1 that I rebuilt from a kit as a semi auto.


Why?

I can choose the components that I want.

On my match rifles, I use barrels from higher end companies with better QC and a reputation for accuracy. Larue Stealth barrels, Bartlein, Krieger, etc.

On some builds that aren't as geared towards accuracy, I use less expensive barrels. Have had pretty good luck with PSA barrels for shorter range or general purpose builds.

Handguards, I am pretty picky. I refuse to use a handguard that forces you to index the handguard by indexing the barrel nut. It is lazy engineering and a sub-optimal method that promotes a barrel nut that isn't torqued properly. I'm not going to torque a barrel nut on and off 5 times to get the right number of shims in place and still perhaps not have it torqued properly.

Triggers. I am a trigger snob. My favorites are from Hiperfire, with the cam-over toggle trigger that reduces hammer/sear normal force in the cocked position. I have others from JP, CMC, Larue and Giessele that are fine.

Adjustable gas blocks and JP low mass carriers on my tuned match rifles. Not a necessity for a general purpose build, although I do like adjustable gas blocks for rifles that are primarily shot suppressed.

Stocks, I have a variety. UBR Gen1 is my favorite for most applications although I have a significantly lighter ACE fixed stock on my rifle for 5k and 10k run and gun matches. A1 length is perfect for me. Don't care for A2 or any fixed or adjustable stock that won't go shorter than A2 length. A buddy of mine has one of those Luth AR stocks, and I hate it. Just too long. If I were 6' 3", it would probably be just fine.


Upper and lower receivers.... In my experience, it just doesn't matter. I know Anderson had some out of spec lowers a while back. It can happen, and I expect any modern major manufacturer will take care of you if you have an issue. I wouldn't buy a no-name small manufacturer receiver at a gun show. I have a wide assortment of lowers, and they have all been fine.

Bolts and carriers, don't skimp here. Get the ones from Palmetto that are made by toolcraft and you will be good to go. Carpenter 158 steel in the bolt. I have a Daniel Defense bolt in my spare parts box in case I ever break one.

Don't buy no-name lower parts kits from Amazon or wherever. I fixed a lower for a buddy that bought some no name parts kit, and it had a weak disconnector spring (if i recall correctly), and after one shot he would have a dead trigger. Swapped in some spare springs I had, and he was up and running.

In my experience, CMMG, Aero, etc are good to go. You can buy Colt or DD if that makes you feel better but I don't think it is a necessity. I don't buy complete LPKs because I never keep the stock triggers. So I usually get Aero or CMMG parts without the hammer and trigger.

Optics, that's a rabbit hole for another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

Most AR's set up as fighting rifles are going to have a red dot or an LPVO, neither of which lend themselves to shooting out to 400-500 yards. Not to mention those with carry handles/iron sights.

Of all the things I need from an AR, "bolt action" accuracy is way down the list.

Not trying to be nit-picky. But a fighting carbine with a LPVO, and perhaps even a red dot in the hands of a trained individual, is definitely capable of making accurate hits on targets smaller than a torso out to 4-500 yards. And from field positions at that.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
A gunfight is absolutely bullseye shooting. The idea or concept that you can score hits anywhere in the torso and win is relying on luck. Driving the gun to a specific, desirable anatomical spot doesn’t ensure victory, but it certainly helps. And having equipment that is accurate removes a variable.

Yep.
My first formal AR15 training was with jljones, way back when Bruce Gray moved his operations from California to Oregon. Mr. Jones' instruction was an eye opener. I totally agree with his statement.

I'm not an F-Class competitor. I respect the discipline, but it's a bit sedate for my tastes. I'm a 2-rifle and precision rifle competitor. Somewhat run-and-gun, but not quite to the level of 3-gun. We shoot from multiple positions, some of which have substantially compromised stability. We shoot at multiple targets, at multiple distances -- sometimes known distances, other times not so much. We shoot on the clock. My favorite match requires engaging 10 targets per stage with a carbine -- at distances anywhere from 5 to 400-ish yards. Generally while carrying a pack, and sometimes with a slung precision rifle. All within 2.5 to 3 minutes, so we have adequate time to complete the second part of the stage with the bolt action rifle.

IMO such matches take the foundations that Mr. Jones built to another level. If all I ever do with my ARs is punch holes in IPSC paper or ring steel, that's fine with me. But if the need arises to do more, then I am comfy my ARs will be up to the task.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

Most AR's set up as fighting rifles are going to have a red dot or an LPVO, neither of which lend themselves to shooting out to 400-500 yards. Not to mention those with carry handles/iron sights.

Of all the things I need from an AR, "bolt action" accuracy is way down the list.

Not trying to be nit-picky. But a fighting carbine with a LPVO, and perhaps even a red dot in the hands of a trained individual, is definitely capable of making accurate hits on targets smaller than a torso out to 4-500 yards. And from field positions at that.

Agreed, but IMO, there's far better tools for the job.

My standard of AR accuracy is 1.5 MOA at 100. Which will allow me to make the hits I need out to 300 or so. For my use, the AR is a defensive rifle, not a bench rest rig.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I'm not an F-Class competitor.

Oh, my mistake. Somewhere over the years, I'm not sure how, I got you mixed up with Nikon User. He's the one who does F Class, right? Someone check me on this, please.

If you either shoot people for a living, or have a job where it's a reasonable requirement on any given day, then you probably have taxpayer assistance in your gear selection, and price doesn't matter much anyway. For myself, making a 500 yard CNS shot with an AR is pretty high on my list of stuff I'm not going to worry about, so wringing every last possible percentage point of accuracy out of a rifle just isn't necessary. Look, I'll quote Arc, who I think summed it up pretty excellently. My bold, for emphasis.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
I think the only way to be disappointed today is to not be realistic with your rifles purpose or price point. A sufficiently accurate and reliable rifle is very affordable, everything else is gravy and that's pretty great.

I'll also note that Wilson barrels, and the FN barrels I was advocating for on the first page are in the same general price bracket, so it's not like I was arguing for Bargain Basement Arsenal or somesuch.

Reading these replies with interest. Thanks to all.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Look, I'll quote Arc, who I think summed it up pretty excellently. My bold, for emphasis.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
I think the only way to be disappointed today is to not be realistic with your rifles purpose or price point. A sufficiently accurate and reliable rifle is very affordable, everything else is gravy and that's pretty great.

In my own meandering way I do try to make sense. I was hoping folks would post some rifle pics. Oh well. Please excuse the generalizations I'm about to make, if I hit a nerve, consider why.

Forums are a good place to learn, the rest of social media is trash. Youtube is limited, while I do enjoy some guntube, very little I consider truly informative beside these: Gun Jesus, In Range, C&Rsenal, and Anvil.

Because internet and social media is a plentiful resource, it makes sense to try to learn as much as possible. Over time, I see the same questions being asked in slightly different ways, and thats fine.

When I post threads about guns myself, or respond, you might notice certain themes. If I could boil it down it would be this:

There is no shortcut or replacement for actual experience. You have to spend the money and make mistakes. All the things I've learned and opinions I have, may never actually bring you the right weapon _for you_. I would say, and I'm not much for latin: "De omnibus dubitandum"

Just like having cancer, 2024 is the best time to buy an AR. The technology and resources are such you'll have to try to fuck it up. You still can though, if you don't do it with your hands. Idiots call this "lived experience," I hate that term with the white hot passion of a thousand dying suns. Because it is redundant, if you didn't live it, it's not your experience. By all means, spend loads of time on the internet. Lord knows I have. But I've also spent lots of time and money actually doing guns. I don't run them, I take them out to dinner and a movie, then back to my place.

Buying turds is perhaps far more educational than any other part of this, second would be shooting as many guns as you don't own as possible. You can't spend your way to a 100% reliable gun, and one that doesn't finish a mag actually has more to teach. As in my Johnson thread, learn how to hang out in gun shops. Finger fuck as many guns as possible. Cheap factory built vanilla guns have their place, rolling your own has its place, mid and upper tiers have their place. You're going to need to own these guns and learn the care and feeding before you find your answer for yourself.

There is no one AR. You won't be able to fit everything in one, as some sort of cost saving measure, or "ultimate" rifle or whatever. Do this for a few years, and if there aren't several ARs or more in your safe, you've bought and sold a handful at least. My humble opinion is that .223/5.56 AR's are wasted as long range snipey type rifles. Unless you change caliber or reel in the distance you want to drive tacks at. Even then, you've got a heavy rifle. When you go for that mid-range or short range rifle, you also risk getting too heavy and handicapping the rifle. An AR is best when it is as light as possible, and for short/medium engagements. Calibers like .300 blackout and other new fangled stuff aren't for me, I leave that to others.

All of this can get a little too serious, and so there is always a place for the "rifle enjoyer," and so impractical rifles by cost or form still have their place no matter what. Buy a cheap AR, put a Larue MBT in it and buy some Moly-Slide. If you're really going to learn, you're buying more than one rifle no matter what. The true hidden cost of all of this is the ammunition. If you aren't shooting a lot, at least be dry firing. There are a couple of "practice systems" out there that intrigue me, but until I buy one I'll be in my basement intimidating the boiler.

Some things I'm stuck on, like I don't think carbon fiber belongs on something you can't afford to have break. I think back up irons are cheap insurance and the weight of them only matters if you're being launched into space. While I get that optics are waaay better today, it'd be real awkward to need them when they aren't there. Like your dad.



The SP-1 CAR-15 I sold to finance my SBR fancies. How could I? Because while MA is trash in a lot of ways, trust me when I tell you that rifle is worth some bank in any state where "pre-ban" is a thing. A simple, pencil barrel AR is something everyone should shoot. The thing about the old Colts, and the AR-180 I also sold, is that they belong with someone more collector-y than I. Oh and because they are 1/12.

To wrap this up, I would say to anyone living in a state that allows it: Form 1 SBR an AR. AR pistols are limited, the brace business is a mess. Then you need at least one can if you can.

Really accurate AR15s tend to be on the heavy side, but not always. Heavy is also a term that is defined differently among different gun owners. Here's a pic from a few years ago at the Whittington NRA Center 2-rifle match. Frickin' awesome weather.... Full gortex, fleece layers, most competitors carried a thermos of hot coffee. I'm using my Wilson Combat 18" barrel, the pack includes a sturdy tripod, and my precision bolt action rifle is slung on the left side. The WC 18" rifle is pretty much in its original configuration from Wilson -- maybe more on that later.



Schlepping all this gear over a couple miles a day kinda wears on you over a weekend. So I accumulated WC components for a shorter & lighter carbine, then had my local 'smith build me a "Wilson" 14.5" upper.



The 14.5" just plain shoots. From a post in the SF 10-shot group thread:
14.5" Wilson Combat fluted recon barrel, 1:8 twist. Second day of use, less than 100 rounds on the barrel at the end of the second day. 2-10x optic. Either 430 or 440 yards, winds varying constantly 3-12 mph from my 1-2 o'clock. Likely holding just inside the right edge of the plate to a few inches off the right edge of the plate. Aimed level with the angled point of the hip or shoulder of the full sized IPSC. I had just shot 20-30 rounds of Federal Vmax 53, which this barrel wasn't overly thrilled with. Next up is Hornady 75 Black BTHP. The first 5 rounds are the higher group. Shot #1 was way low, #2 was a little higher, #3 through #5 stacked on top of each other. About 1" vertical variation for #3-#5. Total group vertical of 5.5".

Second group is the lower one. 5 rounds pretty much stacked on top of each other, with 1.5" vertical variation. I got lucky with wind holds. Pretty close to 1/3 MOA at roughly a quarter mile.

(For those who aren't aware -- rifles often exhibit a short period of funky accuracy when switching between ammo types. Might be only a round or two. Or it might be 5+ rounds.)



I have not yet used the 14 upper in a match. Its only downside is the optic. The NF 2.5-10x has clear glass and it tracks well. The SFP isn't optimal for me -- I prefer FFP. But the reticle is a little thin for my tastes. Given all the foreground & background clutter of trees, limbs, bushes, and grass where our matches occur -- thicker reticle lines would be better.

****
On the accuracy thingie -- Bruce Gray emphasizes a straight-back trigger pull, while keeping the sights on target. Jerry Jones discusses driving the rifle. Jacob Bynum (Rifles Only) also says drive the rifle -- the reticle stays exactly on POA from pressing the go switch all the way through the entire recoil cycle.

ARs can be quite accurate with a good rifle/ammo/shooter system.