View Full Version : Ruger gets serious about the AR market?
Ruger has just announced a new version of their budget based AR-556. This new version (called the MPR) appears to be quite a departure from the earlier offering.
http://www.ruger.com/products/ar556MPR/models.html
A few noteworthy points. Ruger is using an 18in 1X8 twist barrel with 5R rifling. The gas system is rifle length with a low pro gas block. Ruger appears to be following the industry with MLOK.
Questions I have so far. Is the bolt carrier fully shrouded or does it have the "Colt" cut? What barrel nut is used in case a shooter wants to change out the forend for something else? And how is the gas block attached in case the barrel nut needs to be changed? Why 4140 barrel steel rather than 4150?
Anyway, the new model should compete fairly well with the Springfield Saint and some other AR's that are not quite entry level.
We'll see how it goes...
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
It's still a Ruger. And Ruger compromised with the gun banners in the late 80s and early 90s. F Ruger.
Sturm, Ruger & Company's second-quarter sales fell 22 percent from the year-ago quarter.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/sturm-ruger-stock-falls-as-people-not-buying-guns-under-trump.html
It's still a Ruger. And Ruger compromised with the gun banners in the late 80s and early 90s. F Ruger.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/sturm-ruger-stock-falls-as-people-not-buying-guns-under-trump.htmlDrops in sales is true pretty much across the industry.
While I understand the long held anger at Bill Ruger for his anti-gun stance during the Clinton years I'd like to point out that Bill is long dead and all that remains with the company is his name.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Having not seen it, but knowing about their AR-556.
1. Not sure why they would depart from the previous BCG as being used in the AR-556. All the stakings I have seen were also bad.
2. Barrel nut/rail is irrelevant. It's probably unique to that rail and almost all rails come with their own barrel nut.
3. They are most likely using 4140 because it's been Nitrided. Let's face it, you said yourself they are building it as an entry level gun. Ruger really doesn't know how to build a good AR so it's no surprise.
Ruger has just announced a new version of their budget based AR-556. This new version (called the MPR) appears to be quite a departure from the earlier offering.
http://www.ruger.com/products/ar556MPR/models.html
A few noteworthy points. Ruger is using an 18in 1X8 twist barrel with 5R rifling. The gas system is rifle length with a low pro gas block. Ruger appears to be following the industry with MLOK.
Questions I have so far. Is the bolt carrier fully shrouded or does it have the "Colt" cut? What barrel nut is used in case a shooter wants to change out the forend for something else? And how is the gas block attached in case the barrel nut needs to be changed? Why 4140 barrel steel rather than 4150?
Anyway, the new model should compete fairly well with the Springfield Saint and some other AR's that are not quite entry level.
We'll see how it goes...
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Having not seen it, but knowing about their AR-556.
1. Not sure why they would depart from the previous BCG as being used in the AR-556. All the stakings I have seen were also bad.
2. Barrel nut/rail is irrelevant. It's probably unique to that rail and almost all rails come with their own barrel nut.
3. They are most likely using 4140 because it's been Nitrided. Let's face it, you said yourself they are building it as an entry level gun. Ruger really doesn't know how to build a good AR so it's no surprise.I don't know about not knowing how to build a good AR. The gun is sixty years old so it shouldn't be too hard to find the info and/or find someone to hire who's been previously involved with manufacturing AR's for military use.
Just seems odd that 4140 would be used on this rifle when the piston gun line uses 4150. It would seem logical that the two rifles would share as many common parts as possible. Now granted I'm not up on current production. Possibly the latest SR556 has a 4140 barrel.
I suppose the decision is an economic one. 4140 is probably less expensive?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
You need to get out more. There are so many junky AR's on the market it's not even funny.
I don't know about not knowing how to build a good AR. The gun is sixty years old so it shouldn't be too hard to find the info and/or find someone to hire who's been previously involved with manufacturing AR's for military use.
Just seems odd that 4140 would be used on this rifle when the piston gun line uses 4150. It would seem logical that the two rifles would share as many common parts as possible. Now granted I'm not up on current production. Possibly the latest SR556 has a 4140 barrel.
I suppose the decision is an economic one. 4140 is probably less expensive?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
09-14-17, 09:06
AR makers are getting to be as numerous as rock bands. Do we really need Ruger to make AR's?
AR makers are getting to be as numerous as rock bands. Do we really need Ruger to make AR's?They've been making AR's since 2008-2009.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
You need to get out more. There are so many junky AR's on the market it's not even funny.Oh I know there are plenty of "budget" AR's out there.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
09-14-17, 09:17
They've been making AR's since 2008-2009.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
And that makes it okay? DPMS and Bushmaster have been making them longer than that? Do we need them either?
I saw the Ruger AR at a gun show a year or so ago (can't remember exactly). The FSB looked like a cheap casting: one good whack and it's history. Reminded me of what you see on airsoft AR's.
Can we all just please vote with our dollars and keep this crap off the market?
And that makes it okay? DPMS and Bushmaster have been making them longer than that? Do we need them either?
I saw the Ruger AR at a gun show a year or so ago (can't remember exactly). The FSB looked like a cheap casting: one good whack and it's history. Reminded me of what you see on airsoft AR's.
Can we all just please vote with our dollars and keep this crap off the market?
Yep, vote with your wallet. And F Ruger.
I doubt Ruger's new (or previous) AR format rifles are going to have broad appeal with this board's common membership. Still, the fact can't be ignored that Ruger's a giant in the industry with a diverse product line. More AR's on more shelves and available from more sources is a good thing.
Just a few decades ago Colt was the only 1911 maker. Or at least the only major source for a complete factory pistol. Those guns generally needed work to run and it was just expected that a new Colt 1911 would have to be sent off to a gunsmith for throating, etc. Competition came in and that's all a different market now. Colt still makes basic guns but they also make versions with Novak sights, etc.
Good things generally happen when manufacturers are made to compete for business.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
09-14-17, 09:47
Still, the fact can't be ignored that Ruger's a giant in the industry with a diverse product line. More AR's on more shelves and available from more sources is a good thing.
Love Ruger revolvers. Love 'em. Ruger makes wheel guns as strong as M1 Abrams tanks. (IMHO).
But they are not improving one bit on Colt, BCM, etc. with their AR's.
Just a few decades ago Colt was the only 1911 maker. Or at least the only major source for a complete factory pistol. Those guns generally needed work to run and it was just expected that a new Colt 1911 would have to be sent off to a gunsmith for throating, etc. Competition came in and that's all a different market now. Colt still makes basic guns but they also make versions with Novak sights, etc.
Good things generally happen when manufacturers are made to compete for business.
Quantity should not be equated with quality, though. Competition is good, but in the same way cheap Chinese goods have lowered the quality for nearly everything across the board, so a plethora of sub-par AR makers will end up cheapening the quality for every AR in the long run. You like seeing a lot of AR makers? What if the lower quality ones end up putting the higher quality (and therefore higher priced) ones out of business? The Colt Expanse exists for a reason. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
And that makes it okay? DPMS and Bushmaster have been making them longer than that? Do we need them either?
I saw the Ruger AR at a gun show a year or so ago (can't remember exactly). The FSB looked like a cheap casting: one good whack and it's history. Reminded me of what you see on airsoft AR's.
Can we all just please vote with our dollars and keep this crap off the market?Sure, why not! Like handguns, cars, cell phones....buy what you like. I have no interest in Ruger AR but not opposed to them making one
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
09-14-17, 09:57
What we really need....just like St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland....we need a St. Vickers or something to drive the low quality AR's out of the market.
:laugh::jester:
Another way to look at these is as potential investment. It is only a matter of time before Pelosi or Chuck U. try to push the gun control agenda. Maybe not with this president but likely the next.
Buy them now while they're cheap and available. Stock them away for a rainy day. William Devane has the wrong stuff in his safe!
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Another way to look at these is as potential investment. It is only a matter of time before Pelosi or Chuck U. try to push the gun control agenda. Maybe not with this president but likely the next.
Buy them now while they're cheap and available. Stock them away for a rainy day. William Devane has the wrong stuff in his safe!
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Colt 6920 is the only AR you want to buy cheap and stack deep.
titsonritz
09-14-17, 11:14
I've checked out a few Ruger ARs and was not impressed at all, poor or non-existent staking, real gritty actions and WTF with monstrosity of a FSB.
crusader377
09-14-17, 11:56
I actually think Ruger's newest addition seems like a pretty reasonable idea for its intended market. I seems like a poor mans SPR in its set up and within 6 months these will probably be sub $600. A good percentage of AR shooters out their seem to mount a relatively inexpensive 3x9 scope on their budget ARs and for that shooter, this Ruger is a much better option since it has a free float rail and an improved trigger over your standard S&W Sports, DPMS, etc...
The 2stage trigger Ruger is making is pretty decent. It is similar in design to the Geissele by using one pin for the trigger and disconnector. It isn't quite as clean and the G2S but it is a nice change from the stock military type.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Springfield Armory recently took the plunge into the AR market with their "Saint". Wouldn't put them on the same level with Colt, BCM, etc. but they seem to be fairly popular.
Ned Christiansen
09-14-17, 12:33
Well.... Ruger fans that own a Red Label over/under for bird hunting and a Super Blackhawk for walks in the woods and a 77 for elk, but have looked down upon the AR15 as non-sporting, might just buy one, they will love the gun, and then we hopefully get to count them as supporters of the black rifle and being able to own it. That's good.
We've had many come through classes and they've been, well, not great, but as OK as many other brands. Problems have included FSB pins (not tapered) coming out (one came out of the box missing one), chamber issues, staking issues. I have tried to contact Ruger about these but never received the courtesy of a reply, that's disappointing.
My impression, not all they could be, but they can be with a little post-purchase attention.
Colt 6920 is the only AR you want to buy cheap and stack deep.
yeah right,,,,,that is why I sold everyone of my non-Colt AR's for over double what I paid for them during the last panic. Additionally Ruger "can" make a great anything if they so desire, to state otherwise is foolish or disingenuous.
yeah right,,,,,that is why I sold everyone of my non-Colt AR's for over double what I paid for them during the last panic. Additionally Ruger "can" make a great anything if they so desire to state otherwise is foolish or disingenuous.
Colts garnered a much higher premium than your Deltons, DPMSs, Bushmasters, Stags, etc., and they will continue to do so.
Yeah, and Ruger really is at the pinnacle of firearm innovation....:haha:
Additionally Ruger "can" make a great anything if they so desire, to state otherwise is foolish or disingenuous.
True enough.
Unfortunately it seems the bean counters get involved more often than not. Why spend an extra few dollars per rifle when the intended market won't pay the increased end cost or won't even understand or know the difference?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Well.... Ruger fans that own a Red Label over/under for bird hunting and a Super Blackhawk for walks in the woods and a 77 for elk, but have looked down upon the AR15 as non-sporting, might just buy one, they will love the gun, and then we hopefully get to count them as supporters of the black rifle and being able to own it. That's good.
We've had many come through classes and they've been, well, not great, but as OK as many other brands. Problems have included FSB pins (not tapered) coming out (one came out of the box missing one), chamber issues, staking issues. I have tried to contact Ruger about these but never received the courtesy of a reply, that's disappointing.
My impression, not all they could be, but they can be with a little post-purchase attention.I suppose none of this is terribly surprising especially given the price on the standard model. I saw these at a show recently for $449 before tax. Heck we're talking Glock 17 money for an AR15! That's pretty amazing in itself.
So what would happen if Ruger went a bit further with these guns and made something very close to a Colt 6920? I assume it would be about the same price as the Colt. If price and features were equal would anyone buy the Ruger? With that said, I personally wouldn't have a problem spending a little extra for certain things like a GI bolt carrier or a front sight base that's not propriety.
Something else to keep in mind while we're all bashing Ruger. It used to be the case that Ruger supplied something like 80% of the hammer forged barrels to the market and supplied barrels to a number of other companies as OEM. I don't know if that's still the case but I'd think it still is.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
09-14-17, 13:21
Well.... Ruger fans that own a Red Label over/under for bird hunting and a Super Blackhawk for walks in the woods and a 77 for elk, but have looked down upon the AR15 as non-sporting, might just buy one, they will love the gun, and then we hopefully get to count them as supporters of the black rifle and being able to own it. That's good.
We've had many come through classes and they've been, well, not great, but as OK as many other brands. Problems have included FSB pins (not tapered) coming out (one came out of the box missing one), chamber issues, staking issues. I have tried to contact Ruger about these but never received the courtesy of a reply, that's disappointing.
My impression, not all they could be, but they can be with a little post-purchase attention.
In short terms: another gun that I saved money on initially and now I have to spend extra money to fix. Pass.
Colts garnered a much higher premium than your Deltons, DPMSs, Bushmasters, Stags, etc., and they will continue to do so.
Yeah, and Ruger really is at the pinnacle of firearm innovation....:haha:
So what does that have to do with my proving your original comment wrong? You posted the following and it is simply incorrect, there's nothing more to say.
Colt 6920 is the only AR you want to buy cheap and stack deep
Ned Christiansen
09-14-17, 19:21
This is not about any particular brand, it's just in general about one segment of the industry.
Taper pins instead of straight pins: no cost, we're doing it anyway. But-- let's say somehow it costs another $.50 / gun
Correct chamber. No cost... just use the right reamer. Let's go nuts and say it takes our engineer 3 months at $88K / year to figure it all out and get the right dimensions and talk to the barrel maker / department. That's $22K, reamer no cost as we were gonna buy them anyway. Amortize over, I dunno, two years' production, lets just say it's 22,000 guns total. Cost / gun: $1.00
Stake the friggin' carrier key screws. We're doing it anyway, let's just make a radical change here and do it right. No cost but let's say the staker operator drops a box of carriers on a foot and it somehow costs the company $.50 / gun.
There's your couple bucks a gun. Sheisse, let's double it and really get paid for doing it right, we'll charge another $4.00 / gun! That and the money saved on warranty, and the increased sales realized when folks get the message we're serious about making good guns.... who would not pay another $4.00 / gun for one that doesn't suffer from these chronic problems?
That ought to work, but I'm far from being a sales guru. Spend another $2.00 / gun? What I sometimes see seems to indicate that some of them won't spend another $.17 / gun to make sure it's safe, reliable, and durable. It's so blatant sometimes that I just don't know what to think. They don't know? They continue to not know these things, year after year, decade after decade? I'd like to think that because the alternative is, they know.... and they care more about the $.17.
I recently learned of an incident where the good guy was nearly killed / crippled / lost limbs, possibly due to a known problem in a certain firearm design (there's no proving of course that he would not have been shot if the gun had worked right). There are no doubt a great many more involving many other firearm types that "just jammed" at the worst time.... when it was really due to "we saved $.17 / gun, dang man, that's $1700 a year, you know?". It's a bunch of crap and the industry should by God be held to a higher standard.
Ned,
Your points make sense and are hard to argue with. Especially in Ruger's case where they're making many of their own parts. It might be slightly different if they were buying carriers or barrels from another vendor.
Unfortunately it seems that many of the companies involved in making/selling firearms have almost given up on quality control. I guess it must be cheaper to skip a good going over and just ship guns out knowing that most won't see much use. Fix the one in one thousand that actually gets shot enough to reveal a problem and not worry about the rest?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I suspect this is too little, too late from Ruger.
They've been sitting on their arse for quite a while. The market is near bottomed out right now. Not sure if this will boost sales much, if any.
Piston market, which is where Ruger did quite well IMO, is really dried up. I guess they're trying to keep the receiver tooling in place?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
TacticalFun
09-14-17, 20:47
Piston market, which is where Ruger did quite well IMO, is really dried up. I guess they're trying to keep the receiver tooling in place?
Sent from my SM-G930P using TapatalkI know everyone / everywhere is different but between mcx and mpx i sell probably 8-10 a week and lwrc is 1 or 2.
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
Ned Christiansen
09-14-17, 21:09
I don't believe it's a quality control issue at all. Many mfgrs have simply decided it's OK to make them poorly. It's not that they're not catching mistakes, they know they're making them this way.
Guns that fire when they're not supposed to. Guns that don't fire when there's incoming fire. Guns that come out of the box with missing parts or loose parts or parts installed wrong. It's all real and it is-- to use the same word again, to avoid sounding too caustic-- disappointing.
I know everyone / everywhere is different but between mcx and mpx i sell probably 8-10 a week and lwrc is 1 or 2.
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
Not to derail the thread, but genuinely curious here. Is there much of a price difference between the SIG and LWRC? Also, and I hate to sound mean, I wonder how many go after the SIG because it "newer" or because of more advertising and market presence online over LWRC these days. Not taking away from your sales, just thoughts and possible causes and the fact every region is different and has their set of quirks.
TacticalFun
09-14-17, 21:21
Not to derail the thread, but genuinely curious here. Is there much of a price difference between the SIG and LWRC? Also, and I hate to sound mean, I wonder how many go after the SIG because it "newer" or because of more advertising and market presence online over LWRC these days. Not taking away from your sales, just thoughts and possible causes and the fact every region is different and has their set of quirks.The lwrc is about 600 more than a standard mcx. Sometimes sig gives us deals where you give a red dot and a sling with the rifles. Lwrc tell us what to sell things for usually....but recently they send us their di rifle to sell for 999 because they had a bunch of them
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
The lwrc is about 600 more than a standard mcx. Sometimes sig gives us deals where you give a red dot and a sling with the rifles. Lwrc tell us what to sell things for usually....but recently they send us their di rifle to sell for 999 because they had a bunch of them
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
I'd bet the price drives at least a good portion. As does the extra swag. Lots of buyers are cheap and a few doodad sways them over something that might be better. That said, I have no stake in the game, I'm pretty much a BCM man these days when it comes to ARs.
This is not about any particular brand, it's just in general about one segment of the industry.
Taper pins instead of straight pins: no cost, we're doing it anyway. But-- let's say somehow it costs another $.50 / gun
Correct chamber. No cost... just use the right reamer. Let's go nuts and say it takes our engineer 3 months at $88K / year to figure it all out and get the right dimensions and talk to the barrel maker / department. That's $22K, reamer no cost as we were gonna buy them anyway. Amortize over, I dunno, two years' production, lets just say it's 22,000 guns total. Cost / gun: $1.00
Stake the friggin' carrier key screws. We're doing it anyway, let's just make a radical change here and do it right. No cost but let's say the staker operator drops a box of carriers on a foot and it somehow costs the company $.50 / gun.
There's your couple bucks a gun. Sheisse, let's double it and really get paid for doing it right, we'll charge another $4.00 / gun! That and the money saved on warranty, and the increased sales realized when folks get the message we're serious about making good guns.... who would not pay another $4.00 / gun for one that doesn't suffer from these chronic problems?
That ought to work, but I'm far from being a sales guru. Spend another $2.00 / gun? What I sometimes see seems to indicate that some of them won't spend another $.17 / gun to make sure it's safe, reliable, and durable. It's so blatant sometimes that I just don't know what to think. They don't know? They continue to not know these things, year after year, decade after decade? I'd like to think that because the alternative is, they know.... and they care more about the $.17.
I recently learned of an incident where the good guy was nearly killed / crippled / lost limbs, possibly due to a known problem in a certain firearm design (there's no proving of course that he would not have been shot if the gun had worked right). There are no doubt a great many more involving many other firearm types that "just jammed" at the worst time.... when it was really due to "we saved $.17 / gun, dang man, that's $1700 a year, you know?". It's a bunch of crap and the industry should by God be held to a higher standard.
One of the problems as I see it is the change in corporate structure from either family-owned or traditional corporate owned, as DuPont owned Remington, to ownership by investment groups.
As an example, at one time Remington focused on making each buyer of an 870, and their families by extension, lifelong Remington customers because of the durability and dependability of their products. This approach provided a relatively steady sales stream over time. That focus quickly changed to corner cutting in order to maximize profit after Remington began it's life as a pawn of various investment entities.
From taking numerous armorer courses over several decades from career employees of several manufacturers, I heard firsthand how these changes impacted the relationship between labor and management and thus impacted quality.
I once heard that the average AR buyer shoots a hundred rounds or so the first month they own their AR, then less than a hundred rounds a year going forward. That, my friends, is who the general AR manufacturer is building their rifles for.
Looking at it from that perspective it isn't hard to understand why some folks use straight versus tapered pins on FSB's, why gas blocks are set screwed rather than pinned, why staking is not emphasized more, and so on.
Most of the members on this site probably shoot more in a month than most users shoot in a year. This means we, as a group, are more likely to encounter and recognize problems with our firearms that others don't. And those issues are more aggravating to us than to other users.
They continue to not know these things, year after year, decade after decade? I'd like to think that because the alternative is, they know.... and they care more about the $.17.
The ongoing debacle with the Sig P320 is ample evidence that some manufacturers do care more about the $.17.
JM devalued .02 worth.
Ned Christiansen
09-15-17, 08:53
What's so frustrating, and this is not at all limited to the firearms industry, so often you see things made wrong that actually took extra effort to do.
The firearms industry is far from the worst; I'd say the automotive industry is the most effective at squeezing pennies out of quality and into profit. The only consideration they have for the end user is what is reported in the news and enforced by regulations, IMO.
Doc Safari
09-15-17, 09:24
Ned,
Your points make sense and are hard to argue with. Especially in Ruger's case where they're making many of their own parts. It might be slightly different if they were buying carriers or barrels from another vendor.
Unfortunately it seems that many of the companies involved in making/selling firearms have almost given up on quality control. I guess it must be cheaper to skip a good going over and just ship guns out knowing that most won't see much use. Fix the one in one thousand that actually gets shot enough to reveal a problem and not worry about the rest?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I agree. Normalcy bias has become that you buy a gun expecting it to be perfect right out of the box. The days of buying a milsurp 1911 and having to have work done to it right off the bat are GONE. Thank God. In the age of the internet where griping is just a few clicks away your friggin' product better be able to BOOGIE, Baby!
Allowing these little things that have to be fixed also encourages makers to become lazy. They know most people who buy a certain type of gun will probably never fire it, so the few guns that get sent back are simply absorbed into the cost of making the product.
Once again: I'm not picking on Ruger. I happen to LOVE their wheel guns.
I'm just wanting to see a "judgment day" come as far as reigning in poorly-made or cheaply designed firearms that are produced because the makers know they can get away with it.
So what does that have to do with my proving your original comment wrong? You posted the following and it is simply incorrect, there's nothing more to say.
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Ciao, mon ami.
Doc Safari
09-15-17, 10:15
Guns that fire when they're not supposed to. Guns that don't fire when there's incoming fire. Guns that come out of the box with missing parts or loose parts or parts installed wrong. It's all real and it is-- to use the same word again, to avoid sounding too caustic-- disappointing.
I did not realize it was that bad. Rough feed ramps, rusted springs, canted sights--I'm used to these things. But your list horrifies me.
They know what they are making, and who they are making them for...
One of the problems as I see it is the change in corporate structure from either family-owned or traditional corporate owned, as DuPont owned Remington, to ownership by investment groups.
As an example, at one time Remington focused on making each buyer of an 870, and their families by extension, lifelong Remington customers because of the durability and dependability of their products. This approach provided a relatively steady sales stream over time. That focus quickly changed to corner cutting in order to maximize profit after Remington began it's life as a pawn of various investment entities.
From taking numerous armorer courses over several decades from career employees of several manufacturers, I heard firsthand how these changes impacted the relationship between labor and management and thus impacted quality.
I once heard that the average AR buyer shoots a hundred rounds or so the first month they own their AR, then less than a hundred rounds a year going forward. That, my friends, is who the general AR manufacturer is building their rifles for.
Looking at it from that perspective it isn't hard to understand why some folks use straight versus tapered pins on FSB's, why gas blocks are set screwed rather than pinned, why staking is not emphasized more, and so on.
Most of the members on this site probably shoot more in a month than most users shoot in a year. This means we, as a group, are more likely to encounter and recognize problems with our firearms that others don't. And those issues are more aggravating to us than to other users.
They continue to not know these things, year after year, decade after decade? I'd like to think that because the alternative is, they know.... and they care more about the $.17.
The ongoing debacle with the Sig P320 is ample evidence that some manufacturers do care more about the $.17.
JM devalued .02 worth.Don't know how true that is but I agree, based on watching my friends.
2 years ago one friend bought a used Police trade S&W M&P sport. Rifle was sitting next to a 6920, also a police trade, for a $100 more. I kept trying to talk him into the Colt. In fact I even posted on here asking about M&P vs Bushy, because it was the 3rd option. All 3 were police rifles. When we went back the Bushy was gone so he took the M&P. Now, this guy can afford the extra $100 but doesn't see why! Both are ARs and look the same. Explaining staking is pointless because it's such a minute thing as oppose to say poor quality metal and machining of a lower. After all it's just a little pin and it's there just in case..... not crucial!!!
So we took it to the range and it shot fine side by side with my 6920. But like you said.....the first day he shot several hundred rounds. Since then he's probably shot a total of a few hundred rounds in 2 or 3 years. And since the rifle keeps on working he is correct, in his case the staking is irrelevant.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Ciao, mon ami.
Re: the buy cheap and stack deep comment that started all of this.
Most panic buyers are not terribly astute purchasers, they will take what is available. For the most part, they are not knowledgeable consumers. They are buying 'to have one' and the vast majority will make their decision based on price. The majority of purchasers who find themselves in these straits are also constrained financially, they have a ceiling on what they will pay
Considering those realities, in order to maximize profit, it makes more sense to buy more lower priced product and triple the price asked, than it does to buy fewer higher priced products on which you can double the price.
Call it the McDonald's Model versus The Five Guys Model.
Maybe you don't get it......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDBCiZKZi_g
Re: the buy cheap and stack deep comment that started all of this.
Most panic buyers are not terribly astute purchasers, they will take what is available. For the most part, they are not knowledgeable consumers. They are buying 'to have one' and the vast majority will make their decision based on price. The majority of purchasers who find themselves in these straits are also constrained financially, they have a ceiling on what they will pay
Considering those realities, in order to maximize profit, it makes more sense to buy more lower priced product and triple the price asked, than it does to buy fewer higher priced products on which you can double the price.
Call it the McDonald's Model versus The Five Guys Model.
Maybe you don't get it......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDBCiZKZi_g
Now you've gone and done it, son -- shown intent to engage in interstate commerce of firearms! I hope you're an FFL0x!! :nono:
Now you've gone and done it, son -- shown intent to engage in interstate commerce of firearms! I hope you're an FFL0x!! :nono:
Hope you didn't pay too much for that law degree.
They know what they are making, and who they are making them for...
This. Why spend money on nice barrels when 4140 will please the customer? Not only will the general gun buyer not know, they wont care either. Gas keys staked? Who cares! As long as you can take it to the woods, slow fire a few mags, hit some 2 liters from 30 yards, well that makes it a decent guns in most people's eyes.
Talk to someone that hates colts. You can say things like TDP and tolerance stacking, and either their eyes glaze over, or they go on some diatribe about how they took their gun out and "tested" it and it worked just as great as any stupid colt out there.
These people don't take classes, baby all their guns, and manufacturer's know this. So they spend the money on marketing.
Hope you didn't pay too much for that law degree.
You seem like a nice guy. Let's just agree to disagree. God Bless.
It's still a Ruger. And Ruger compromised with the gun banners in the late 80s and early 90s.
Do you realize the irony of your comments in this thread?
To paraphrase..."F' Ruger, they screwed us by going along with the gun bans in the 80s and 90s!"
OK, I don't disagree, and can get on board with that. But moments later...
"Colt all the way baby!" (paraphrasing again)
You do realize that Colt and Ruger were two of the biggest proponents for denying private citizen's 2A rights in the 80s and 90s, right? They both willingly and happily screwed American gun owners (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-16/news/mn-2136_1_assault-rifles). Both were protecting their own interests at the expense of our freedoms.
I don't disagree that companies acting against our rights deserve the ire of 2A Americans; and any misfortune that comes their way as a result. But, you gotta pick a side here. Either it matters, and "F them both." Or, you're left to ignore their transgressions. Beyond that, even if it were reasonable to only pick one of the two to chastise. I'd contend that Colt might be the most deserving of the backlash.
Mrgunsngear
09-15-17, 18:28
I agree. Normalcy bias has become that you buy a gun expecting it to be perfect right out of the box. The days of buying a milsurp 1911 and having to have work done to it right off the bat are GONE. Thank God. In the age of the internet where griping is just a few clicks away your friggin' product better be able to BOOGIE, Baby!
Allowing these little things that have to be fixed also encourages makers to become lazy. They know most people who buy a certain type of gun will probably never fire it, so the few guns that get sent back are simply absorbed into the cost of making the product.
Once again: I'm not picking on Ruger. I happen to LOVE their wheel guns.
I'm just wanting to see a "judgment day" come as far as reigning in poorly-made or cheaply designed firearms that are produced because the makers know they can get away with it.
This is absolutely the truth and it makes financial sense to make these "budget" guns because the market demands it. Last year, the Sport II was the number one selling rifle in America. Colt 6920 didn't even make the list (it was a top 10 list) but the Ruger AR-556 sure did. Economics is supply and demand and the demand for $500-700 AR-15s is extremely strong so if a company doesn't create the supply for the demand they're just losing money.
The people who buy these guns don't come to this forum and probably don't even know gun forums exist. We're the minority in the marketplace. Just is what is is.
The new Ruger is popping up on Internet sites like Bud's and Gunbroker for $650.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I don't think this is the same Ruger who screwed gun owners in the 80s and 90s. I'm pretty certain old Bill Ruger is rolling around in his grave because they are selling ARs and even suppressors...
Someone mentioned it but there is brand recognition in the Ruger name for some folks - but they aren't the same ones who inhabit this board however. Good enough and cheap is what they seek. I sought that in '96 and end up with an Olympic Arms with a 11.5" barrel and 5.5" flash hider. Looked cool, broke fairly often which drove me to research and upgrade when the funds allowed it.
Plus I'm all for more folks with MSRs to resist the next wave of gun control around the corner... If a Ruger AR is what does it, then so be it. I'm just not buying one for myself...
Another way to look at these is as potential investment. It is only a matter of time before Pelosi or Chuck U. try to push the gun control agenda. Maybe not with this president but likely the next.
Buy them now while they're cheap and available. Stock them away for a rainy day. William Devane has the wrong stuff in his safe!
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
If I'm gonna invest in a stockpile of ARs as an investment, to cash in on a possible future ban, which I would never do, it would be Colts. F Ruger!
IMHO Ruger is cashing in on ignorance, only uneducated people, who just want an AR to be cool, would by a Ruger AR. The 4140 is all about cheap, cheaper to buy and easier on the tooling. You could literally do better with PSA.
You could literally do better with PSA.
Okay....
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
If I wasn't in the middle of building a nice side charger with an 18 inch Daniel Defense S2W barrel, I might snag one of these. I don't love the 4140 but it's CHF and nitrided. 98% of customers will never shoot it out. At the price-point, it doesn't suck.
My biggest gripe would be the rifle-length gas system on an 18 inch barrel. It -probably- would never fail me, but on my DD, I opted for mid-length.
Different strokes.
skimbleshanks
09-16-17, 06:45
I'm cool with this. I probably won't be buying it any time soon, or ever most likely, but not everybody needs a top level rifle. Some people just want a couple times a year pumpkin blaster for a good price. So long as it goes bang 30 times in a row I'm sure many people will be pleased.
This is absolutely the truth and it makes financial sense to make these "budget" guns because the market demands it. Last year, the Sport II was the number one selling rifle in America. Colt 6920 didn't even make the list (it was a top 10 list) but the Ruger AR-556 sure did. Economics is supply and demand and the demand for $500-700 AR-15s is extremely strong so if a company doesn't create the supply for the demand they're just losing money.
The people who buy these guns don't come to this forum and probably don't even know gun forums exist. We're the minority in the marketplace. Just is what is is.
Agree 100%!!! Very smart business move. I've seen a lot of LGS employees recommending them, the markup must be huge.
TacticalFun
09-16-17, 07:16
Agree 100%!!! Very smart business move. I've seen a lot of LGS employees recommending them, the markup must be huge.The markup is $80-100. But when you sell 20 of them a week it is big dollars
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
Feline. Let's stop acting like it's only Ruger who's done shady s*** in the past. If you're going to point the finger at them, don't forget to point it at S&W, Colt, Glock, and Springfield Armory to name a few.
crusader377
09-16-17, 15:24
IMHO Ruger is cashing in on ignorance, only uneducated people, who just want an AR to be cool, would by a Ruger AR. The 4140 is all about cheap, cheaper to buy and easier on the tooling. You could literally do better with PSA.
I don't think a nitrated 4140 barrel is necessarily bad for the average civilian shooter. First off 4140 is the standard barrel steel for most non-military style firearms. The reason that the military uses better barrel steels such as 4150CMV is due to the automatic/high volume fire scenarios which need better heat tolerance properties.
For a civilian or even law enforcement purposes I bet you can't find one defensive shooting where a 4140 barreled rifle would mean mission failure while a 4150 CMV barrel would mean mission success.
That said, all of my rifles have proper 4150 CMV chrome lined barrels because that is what I choose to shoot.
Feline. Let's stop acting like it's only Ruger who's done shady s*** in the past. If you're going to point the finger at them, don't forget to point it at S&W, Colt, Glock, and Springfield Armory to name a few.
BOOM !!!!! Jewell drops the mic turns and walks away.
I don't think a nitrated 4140 barrel is necessarily bad for the average civilian shooter. First off 4140 is the standard barrel steel for most non-military style firearms. The reason that the military uses better barrel steels such as 4150CMV is due to the automatic/high volume fire scenarios which need better heat tolerance properties.
For a civilian or even law enforcement purposes I bet you can't find one defensive shooting where a 4140 barreled rifle would mean mission failure while a 4150 CMV barrel would mean mission success.
That said, all of my rifles have proper 4150 CMV chrome lined barrels because that is what I choose to shoot.
Agreed, I was pointing out the price difference for buying the steel and less wear on tooling. I would have to imagine the barrel life will suffer with the 4140, not that it would cause catastrophic failure, at a bad time but maybe it could.
At current prices especially, I can't see anyone, except the unknowing, buying that over a 4150CMV Chrone lined barrel. Why would you?
Agreed, I was pointing out the price difference for buying the steel and less wear on tooling. I would have to imagine the barrel life will suffer with the 4140, not that it would cause catastrophic failure, at a bad time but maybe it could.
At current prices especially, I can't see anyone, except the unknowing, buying that over a 4150CMV Chrone lined barrel. Why would you?When do AR barrels fail? Seems most over pressure events we see on the various Internet sites show bolt and carrier failure before barrel rupture.
4140 5R barrel is hammer forged and nitrided so it should both good accuracy and good barrel life as long as it isn't abused or poorly maintained.
My initial impression was unfavorable on the 18in with rifle gas. But on 2nd thought it might be a good combo. It offers something unique to the market (especially at the price) and should make a nice entry level gun for various action shooting sports, etc. Plus it sets this model somewhat apart from the standard AR556 with its 16in barrel with carbine gas.
1X8 is a welcome change. The SR556 and early AR556 were all 1X9. Glad Ruger is coming around in this regard.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Whoa. They should sell well if this price is going to be the norm.
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/199005
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Whoa. They should sell well if this price is going to be the norm.
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/199005
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Screw it. I'm getting one.
Screw it. I'm getting one.I'll probably get one too at these prices.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Rifle length 18" is more reliable than a 18" midlength.
If I wasn't in the middle of building a nice side charger with an 18 inch Daniel Defense S2W barrel, I might snag one of these. I don't love the 4140 but it's CHF and nitrided. 98% of customers will never shoot it out. At the price-point, it doesn't suck.
My biggest gripe would be the rifle-length gas system on an 18 inch barrel. It -probably- would never fail me, but on my DD, I opted for mid-length.
Different strokes.
I'll probably get one too at these prices.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Wow...$599???
Don't own any Rugers. But not because I have anything against them. That sure seems like quite a bit of gun for that price.
Wow...$599???
Don't own any Rugers. But not because I have anything against them. That sure seems like quite a bit of gun for that price.$559.99 shipped is what that website is showing. Unless my lexdysia is acting up.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
titsonritz
09-17-17, 19:42
Rifle length 18" is more reliable than a 18" midlength.
I was thinking the same when I read that statement, but didn't chime in because I do not own either, so thanks for that confirmation.
Rifle length 18" is more reliable than a 18" midlength.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "reliable".
Is a rifle length gas system going to be easier on your spring/buffer/bcg? Yes.
Will it throw (a little) less crud into the receiver? Yes.
Is it more likely to short-stroke in cold weather? Also, yes.
My choice was based on the 3rd possible issue.
TacticalFun
09-17-17, 20:45
I suppose that depends on your definition of "reliable".
Is a rifle length gas system going to be easier on your spring/buffer/bcg? Yes.
Will it throw (a little) less crud into the receiver? Yes.
Is it more likely to short-stroke in cold weather? Also, yes.
My choice was based on the 3rd possible issue.Please provide one example that was not related to cheap powder or lube.
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
Yeah, no. The rifle gas system is proven. It is the most reliable of all gas systems (as it was the original). Everything has been an afterthought modification.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "reliable".
Is a rifle length gas system going to be easier on your spring/buffer/bcg? Yes.
Will it throw (a little) less crud into the receiver? Yes.
Is it more likely to short-stroke in cold weather? Also, yes.
My choice was based on the 3rd possible issue.
Rifle length 18" is more reliable than a 18" midlength.
In theory that may be true, but wouldn't that be somewhat negated, by the lack of strict adherence to certain aspects of the known standards? Take for instance, chrome lining, proper staking, proper barrel steel, etc. All things being equal would it really be a notable difference?
In theory that may be true, but wouldn't that be somewhat negated, by the lack of strict adherence to certain aspects of the known standards? Take for instance, chrome lining, proper staking, proper barrel steel, etc. All things being equal would it really be a notable difference?
I could see how improper staking, allowing the carrier key to work loose would impact function, how some ever it would also impact function on a mid or carbine length.
Chrome lining and steel are durability and accuracy, not related to the gas system.
In terms of noticeable difference, ask yourself why the A5 system, as well as aftermarket buffer springs are so popular. And why was there a need for the M4 feed ramps.
Rifle length is generally more bedda, some will argue that the dissapator profile on a 16" decreases reliability, but that has not been my experience with a couple of work guns that Sully built for us.
Has anyone done a formal study on longevity of chrome vs longevity with nitride?
Some companies are touting nitride as the best thing since smokeless powder. While nitride is no doubt better than untreated steel or finishes like blue or phosphate how does it survive in a barrel?
Anecdotal evidence I've gathered on my own seems to indicate that a 4150 nitride treated barrel will show more throat erosion than a Colt factory barrel.
Ned has shown that chrome takes a beating at the throat and gas port. So does nitride work better or is it being touted as better because it is cheaper and easier for manufacturers to apply?
Ned, if you're still watching this thread can you comment on anything you've seen with regard to nitride treatment? THANKS.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Has anyone done a formal study on longevity of chrome vs longevity with nitride?
Some companies are touting nitride as the best thing since smokeless powder. While nitride is no doubt better than untreated steel or finishes like blue or phosphate how does it survive in a barrel?
Anecdotal evidence I've gathered on my own seems to indicate that a 4150 nitride treated barrel will show more throat erosion than a Colt factory barrel.
Ned has shown that chrome takes a beating at the throat and gas port. So does nitride work better or is it being touted as better because it is cheaper and easier for manufacturers to apply?
Ned, if you're still watching this thread can you comment on anything you've seen with regard to nitride treatment? THANKS.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Everything you want to know and much, much more
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-83495.html
Deleted. It was provided.
Everything you want to know and much, much more
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-83495.htmlUgh. Be careful what you wish for...
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I got to sleep no fewer than 3 nights in a row by reading through that thread (with its origins very similar to this one). I joined this forum the very next day.
Everything you want to know and much, much more
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-83495.html
Not really, that's about as far from a useful discussion as possible.
Only objective information was the two links to the mil studies.
TacticalFun
09-18-17, 09:04
I read that old thread and now my brain hurts
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
I made it to a page or two and gave up.
Looks like there are a couple links to some old military testing but the links are no longer active. Or at least they don't work for me.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Only objective information was the two links to the mil studies.
Links don't work for me. Can you summarize without forcing me to read 50 pages of thread?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Ned Christiansen
09-18-17, 12:16
What I have amounts to a few observations and doesn't qualify as data. I would also be interested in some real data generated by real testing, chrome vs/nitride, 4140 vs / 4150. My guess is that the 4140 vs 4150 thing is way over fretted. Which makes me think that a lower-end gun having a 4140 barrel does not mean the mfgr is screwing everyone. Not saying I think there's no dif, just that it's my opinion albeit unsupported by testing and data, that 4140 probably gets a guy by most of the time under most conditions.
From memory, the one military report confirmed that nitrowhatever protected against barrel wear better than bare steel but not as good as Chrome. Wasn't specific about throat erosion versus other wear.
There are some good snippets buried in the archives particularly around exactly why the military specifies 4150cmv or more accurately a mil standard which some variants of 4150cmv meet.
It's not enough just to be 4150. Likewise 4150cmv is not a Panacea, and not considered by everyone to be the perfect barrel material. It just happens to address two issues that the military specifies for the M-16 and earlier M-14. Those two issues involved sustained full automatic fire near melting point of the material. And one of them involves subarctic temperatures and extreme Barrel Heating.
Something I think we'd all agree is not likely to be encountered by the purchasers of ruger's rifle. But also not worth debating because it's part of the collective Mythos/Dogma/consensus at this point.
Likewise there's multiple manufacturers of full auto sustained fire weapons right now which do not use 4150cmv by choice.
All of my ARs are mil-spec 4150cmv, except for the ones that aren't for a specific reason like stainless match barrels or similar.
But there's too many well-known battle rifles and machine guns which have done just fine with 4140 or similar non 4150cmv to make me think that run of the mill hobby shooters will ever see an issue there.
Not defending ruger's choice, just that I think they made a calculated decision and will sell a zillion of these things. That has probably raised the bar in the $500 AR space.
Even if they made a totally milspec 6920 clone that checked all the boxes the majority of the people who care about those things wouldn't buy it because A) it's not a colt and B) it's Ruger
I personally would rather see the ruger and Smith & Wesson offerings like this, than the crazy stuff like core15, spikes, delton, psa and the other mass marketers. Even if I think it has warts that makes it less of interest to me.
Even if they made a totally milspec 6920 clone that checked all the boxes the majority of the people who care about those things wouldn't buy it because A) it's not a colt and B) it's Ruger
I may resemble that remark. ^
It's kind of strange that Ruger cared enough to go with the rifle gas system, most people who are aware of that advantage are also aware of the advantage of 4150 CMV and Chrome lining. Does that make sense? I guess with a rifle gas system it will help out from a reliability standpoint, making the rifle run a little cleaner, considering no chrome lining. Good conversation and interesting viewpoints.
Another ridiculous price.
https://www.smga.com/p-128018.aspx?searchEngineName=rug-8514-ar556-mpr-223-18-coll-30r-blk-syn
Buy one and use it like a rented mule. Replace the barrel and other stuff when the time comes with different and/or better stuff.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
What I have amounts to a few observations and doesn't qualify as data. I would also be interested in some real data generated by real testing, chrome vs/nitride, 4140 vs / 4150. My guess is that the 4140 vs 4150 thing is way over fretted. Which makes me think that a lower-end gun having a 4140 barrel does not mean the mfgr is screwing everyone. Not saying I think there's no dif, just that it's my opinion albeit unsupported by testing and data, that 4140 probably gets a guy by most of the time under most conditions.
I'd say this is absolutely correct. If a manufacturer chooses a particular material for a specific purpose, unless it's some janky, sketchy, fly by night...it's usually suitable for the purpose.
Does this mean 4150 is not better than 4140 for a given purpose? No, but neither does it mean that 4140 is unsuitable for the application. Too many manufacturers use it for that to be the case.
I believe if it were so inferior, we'd hear of failures far more often.
So to summarize, my comments are only observations, and...what Ned said.
"I just got like, this 5.56 okay? And it's 55 grain ball. And everybody I've ever seen shot with it, it dicks them up."
---Clint Smith
Thunder Ranch
crusader377
09-18-17, 22:14
I actually think provided that the accuracy is there Ruger might have hit a home run with this rifle. Consider this, what other rifle at a sub $600 street price is coming with a free float barrel and a nice trigger that has as much versatility as the Ruger MPR. This is a rifle that could be used as a poor mans SPR/Light precision rifle, varmint/light hunting rifle, and home defense rifle. I don't think there is any other rifle at its price point that offers as much flexibility. For the intended user the 4140 vs 4150 CMV is a non issue since the vast majority of AR users never run their rifles hard enough to know the difference.
Grandma's_Boy
09-27-17, 22:27
Once it starts falling apart, is it really such a good deal anymore? I tend to not get excited about the prospect of having to reengineer somebody else's mistakes and hope it works out in the end, I also wouldn't count on Ruger to fix it necessarily either.
Once it starts falling apart, is it really such a good deal anymore? I tend to not get excited about the prospect of having to reengineer somebody else's mistakes and hope it works out in the end, I also wouldn't count on Ruger to fix it necessarily either.Ruger usually gets praised for customer service. And it isn't that hard to rebarrel or whatever. Run it hard. Change/replace parts as needed.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Ruger usually gets praised for customer service. And it isn't that hard to rebarrel or whatever. Run it hard. Change/replace parts as needed.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Or maybe buy from a manufacturer that gets it right the first time?
Or maybe buy from a manufacturer that gets it right the first time?Buy as your budget and needs/wants allow.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Buy as your budget and needs/wants allow.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I doubt anyone needs or wants a POS AR that may or may not run right, regardless of manufacturer intervention.
fivepointoh
09-30-17, 10:40
Savage MSR Recon is another solid option in the $600 to $700 range. It also has an MLOK free float hand guard, 16" 5R barrel, etc.
I doubt anyone needs or wants a POS AR that may or may not run right, regardless of manufacturer intervention.Why do you assume the Ruger won't run right? Personal experience with their ARs or brand prejudice?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Why do you assume the Ruger won't run right? Personal experience with their ARs or brand prejudice?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Because he is a parrot, and simply repeats whatever he hears.
Because he is a parrot, and simply repeats whatever he hears.
I originally thought that, but if you read his post history, it seems he has some experience and time with these rifles.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with his black and white pronouncements, it just means that I have another internet buddy to good-naturedly argue with back and forth.
In this case he said 'may or may not run right' an opinion that is not absolutely wrong with any rifle, more justified to have with lower-priced units.
As for me, if I paid less than $500.00 for a rifle like that, I certainly wouldn't mind it if I had to do some staking just to be sure things didn't work loose. I'd also be pretty comfortable in assuming I'd get my $500.00 worth of use out of it.
As far as my concerns go, when I put together a rifle/carbine, I understand the accuracy lives in the upper and the barrel. As far as I'm concerned, once I shoot it enough to know that the lower reliably retains and releases magazines, and allows the fire control group to function properly, I can pretty much fix anything else impacting function. But if acceptable accuracy isn't there, you might as well start over on the upper.
JMO YMMV.
heavygunner8
10-02-17, 01:19
I have a question if any experts here can answer. The Ruger ar556 MPR uses a semi auto BCG. I plan on swapping it out for a fullauto mil spec toolcraft nib bcg, if I do this, will it affect the reliability or function of the gun? I realize the FA BCG is a little heavier than the semi auto BCG does this mean I need to change the buffer weight to compensate?
Grandma's_Boy
10-02-17, 05:01
I have a question if any experts here can answer. The Ruger ar556 MPR uses a semi auto BCG. I plan on swapping it out for a fullauto mil spec toolcraft nib bcg, if I do this, will it affect the reliability or function of the gun? I realize the FA BCG is a little heavier than the semi auto BCG does this mean I need to change the buffer weight to compensate?
Assuming both upper and new BCG are properly machined, it should have if anything a positive effect on reliability.... you may need to change buffer weight also... what are you running?
heavygunner8
10-02-17, 12:07
Assuming both upper and new BCG are properly machined, it should have if anything a positive effect on reliability.... you may need to change buffer weight also... what are you running?
The buffer weight on the mpr is unmarked so I assume it is carbine weight. The MPR is 18 in, rifle length gas.
Grandma's_Boy
10-02-17, 21:56
The buffer weight on the mpr is unmarked so I assume it is carbine weight. The MPR is 18 in, rifle length gas.
It is more than likely standard carbine buffer, I think you could probably run at least an H or maybe even heavier buffer... use the heaviest buffer that cycles your gun reliably. That being said, I don't believe that gun shipped with carbine buffer for any other reason than it's the cheapest to make (steel much cheaper than tungsten).
heavygunner8
10-02-17, 21:57
It is more than likely standard carbine buffer, I think you could probably run at least an H or maybe even heavier buffer... use the heaviest buffer that cycles your gun reliably. That being said, I don't believe that gun shipped with carbine buffer for any other reason than it's the cheapest to make (steel much cheaper than tungsten).
If I stick with the carbine buffer, does the gun wear and tear faster?
Hammer_Man
10-02-17, 22:46
If I stick with the carbine buffer, does the gun wear and tear faster?
I don't think you need to worry about your gun wearing or tearing at an accelerated rate, unless you plan on running the rifle hard with high volumes of fire over multiple sessions at the range. If you do decide to experiment with buffer weights, I would suggest trying an H buffer first.
.
IG,
What barrel lengths are reliably acceptable for midlengths?
.
Grandma's_Boy
10-03-17, 08:04
If I stick with the carbine buffer, does the gun wear and tear faster?
Bolt carrier velocities will increase over H1, which tends to only subtract reliability and longevity.
heavygunner8
10-03-17, 08:26
Bolt carrier velocities will increase over H1, which tends to only subtract reliability and longevity.
So get a H buffer? Is the fact that this is a rifle length gas have any effect?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.