Reliability of "budget AR" vs. BCM, DD, Colt, etc. mid-level AR

[Doc Safari]

Just my two cents, but I'm all for buying a "budget" AR as long as you understand it's a range toy or training tool and not a viable combat weapon.

If you want something that will survive use and abuse over the long term, get one of the top-tier weapons and just suck it up that "you get what you pay for."

[dobe]

^

The bottom lines is, as with most things in life, you get what you pay for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SiGfever]

For the current cost of a Colt AR6720 or a LE6920, why not get a rifle you can bet your life on?

[Kain]

For the current cost of a Colt AR6720 or a LE6920, why not get a rifle you can bet your life on?

This. I was at work otherwise I would have posted this earlier. Grant has Colt 6720s for $799. So for what, $150 more than the Sport II you have what most here will consider a standard. Light, sling, mags, ammo, and optic and chances are it is going to be more than adequate for 99% of things a person will see.

I get the budget desires, been there, done that, cost more in the long run because I had to ditch the shit parts and replace with proper in spec parts.

[C-grunt]

In my early adult life I had three Bushmaster rifles that were reliable and shot well. It wasn't until I got one as a duty rifle that I could see the shortcomings of the rifle. When the Bushmasters were actually ran like a fighting rifle, ie.. not shooting a couple mags at the range, the corner cutting started the cause problems. Wasn't just my rifle, it was pretty much every Bushmaster that my deprtment had. I felt a huge wieght come off my shoulders when the Bushmasters were turned in and we got new Colt 6920s. All the failures and break downs at the range went away. It felt really good to have a rifle I could depend on.

I would ask them this question:

You are looking at buying a machine that could be used to save your life. Do you want to buy one that is built correctly and is proven or one that has cost measures built in to make the machine cheaper? It's made cheaper because the higher failure rate is at an acceptable level to still make money for that company.

[daniel87]

i appreciate a good lifetime warranty. a quality gun shouldn't need the warranty used. i replace worn parts and springs myself.

a quality gun is a tool. think about this, whats a great warranty good for if the rifle breaks when you need it. between cheap materials and schlock qc you get what you pay for. just hope the gun breaks down at the range.

have fun sending the gun to the factory when your dead.

to me the higher cost to mfgr is spent not only on r and d, and marketing. it is spent on tool holders, cnc machines, good machinists, tools, and better more reliably made metal stock.

a cheap supplier of stock will give you what you pay for. the metal will be mixed bad and the stock will have imperfections that will cause early unneeded breakage of the machined part.

this is especially true for spring stock. think about what it does a bad spot on the spring will cause failure, stopping the gun.

a better company will have more strict quality control. the tollerances may not be tighter than norm, but they will allow less parts on or beyond the normal spec. tollerances stack, look up tollerance stacking




dont assume im saying bcm and daniel defense and such never mess up, but with better qc and components the guns are less likley to mess up, and less likley to need the warranty when the rifle is actually used to save your life.


but at the end of the day buy what you want. dont say you werent warned


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[VIP3R 237]

Superior quality of materials used and better manufacturing processes = Higher cost of product.

It's a gamble of trying to save costs and trying to keep a certain standard of quality. Every business out there wants to reduce costs to increase profit, but not all will hold themselves to a higher standard and continue to pay for the superior quality. It's amazing how many companies will cut corners to save a buck. Example, I can order barrels from X manufacturer that offers MPI testing, or I can order the same quality of barrel from Y manufacturer that doesn't offer MPI testing for $9 less. It may not seem like much but when you're ordering thousands at a time that $9 saved turns into a new Mazak pretty fast.

[Kain]

It's amazing how many companies will cut corners to save a PENNY.

Fixed that for you.

[daniel87]

Superior quality of materials used and better manufacturing processes = Higher cost of product.

It's a gamble of trying to save costs and trying to keep a certain standard of quality. Every business out there wants to reduce costs to increase profit, but not all will hold themselves to a higher standard and continue to pay for the superior quality. It's amazing how many companies will cut corners to save a buck. Example, I can order barrels from X manufacturer that offers MPI testing, or I can order the same quality of barrel from Y manufacturer that doesn't offer MPI testing for $9 less. It may not seem like much but when you're ordering thousands at a time that $9 saved turns into a new Mazak pretty fast.

damn mazatrol.....

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[dsk]

An analogy I like to use is comparing a wrench set bought from Harbor Freight vs. a Snap-On or SK. For most guys who plan to use them only once, or occasionally on a weekend the Harbor Freight tools will likely get the job done and save you some money. But if you're an avid car enthusiast or a professional mechanic the HF tool will give out in a hurry. If you're buying an AR just to shoot at the range or else don't expect to put more than a few hundred rounds through it in a year the entry level rifles will likely do just fine. However as has been pointed out earlier right now you can buy a quality AR for only a couple hundred more than a cheap one, so why not? If we were talking $600 S&W versus $1200 Colt it would make more sense, but with Colts around $800-$900 you must seriously be on a budget crunch.