High end AR (KAC etc) vs Budget AR/Home Build Looking for FACTS

[cundiff5535]

Whats up M4 peeps! Today I had a very interesting discussion on AR/M4's with a few friends and family members who I respect a lot. I am not going to name drop here but, one is a firearms instructor who spent time over seas teaching Afghans and the likes very basic firearms training. He is super qualified and knows ballistics as well as the AR platform well. The other is a former LEO and much more known in the training sector, I would say his specialty is the AR platform.

First, I have always been of the belief that you get what you pay for when it comes to almost anything. As far as AR/M4's go, I have always been taught that the Bolt and Barrel are the two most important items.. Yes trigger can also assist in accuracy, but just in terms of functionality, any milspec trigger will do. This has served me well when building my own rifles as well as shooting with friends and taking AR15.

Recently I acquired a Kac SR15 as well as BCM Jack... For me, they are the two nicest rifles in my collection... I really do love them both. I dont need to get into detail about what Stoner did with the Mod 2 or what features the Kac and Jack have. What I do want to get into the weeds on is are these rifles that much better than a DPMS, Palmetto, or even a budget build using an Andersen? We all have opinions on why things are better or what makes them better, but I am looking for straight facts.

Secondly, the instructor who is more a basic shooting teacher told me I was crazy to think that one AR is far superior to the other... esp if I am running the gun with a dot and precision accuracy was not the ultimate goal. He mentioned a standard AR vs Kac and does not believe that the upgrades in Kac are necessary and doesn't see the justification of price. I can argue about tested reliability but he is very passionate that Colt M4 rifles are being ran in by the military with all standard components. If thats accurate, a real life war situation should be the ultimate test. Its a solid point... He has said he is under the impression that some units do run Knights, but its not the majority.

Third, the other trainer who specializes in the AR argued that his opinion was that the budget rifles just didnt hold up and there are many more failures in classes that he has seen. He didnt give a lot of facts as the conversation kept being pushed by the other basic firearms instructor (he can tend to do this).

I brought up barrel life, longevity of bolts, etc on the higher end products... but that point would not be conceded as I was told that is such a oddity that again, its not worth the money.

Last thing I would like thoughts on... I was being told I was wrong in the situation so some of you may know. Training with your rifle... Instructor #1 says shooting a full class with any rifle... is going to ruin it, cause fire cracking and destroy the chamber. Once that happens it doesnt matter if the rifle is 3K or $300, they are going to shoot equally as bad. He insisted that taking a highend gun to a training class if crazy to him as its then wasted.

I personally am not aware of the typical life of a barrel but, I do remember hearing 7K or so before it starts to go. If that is true, does that last point ring true?

Anyway, looking for some factual info vs just opinionated BS that I can get from peeps talking over the other forums.

Cheers!

[mack7.62]

Look up Filthy 14.

Nevermind here it is.

http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/

The parts is parts people have always been wrong IMO.

[cundiff5535]

Great read and article!

One thing I am curious on (and its mentioned in the article) is "mil-spec"... If a product reads mil-spec, are they saying its not to actual spec, or that the part maybe to spec just the quality of material being used is not? Any thought or opinion?

[ucrt]

.

I think mil-spec to a majority of manufacturers is them picking from the mil-spec buffet and generally refers only to the "fit" and/or outside appearance of the parts. They'll meet a spec or 2 and claim them all.
But that's just my 2 cents...

.

[Renegade04]

Great read and article!

One thing I am curious on (and its mentioned in the article) is "mil-spec"... If a product reads mil-spec, are they saying its not to actual spec, or that the part maybe to spec just the quality of material being used is not? Any thought or opinion?

Mil-spec can be referred to in a couple ways. For some parts, they are made to mil-spec dimensions like a lot of buffer tubes are. Many of these are 6061 aluminum, not 7075-T6. They are also turned/threaded differently than true mil-spec buffer tubes. Mil-spec is often used to describe an AR-15 fire control group. They are not, in fact, mil-spec since they are semi-automatic fire control groups. They may be made from the same material, but are not truly mil-spec in construction. Lower receivers are sometimes referred to as being mil-spec. Semi-automatic AR-15 7075-T6 forged aluminum lower receivers are no truly mil-spec as they are not designed and machined for full-automatic fire control group parts (including auto-sear). Being 7075-T6 aluminum does equate to them being made from mil-spec material and many mil-spec lower parts can be used with them. Upper receivers can fall into question as well. If they are not machined the same as a true mil-spec upper receiver in that they have the area machined that allows for the clearance of an auto-sear, then they are not truly mil-spec although they are often referred to as being mil-spec because they are made from 7075-T6 aluminum and have the proper hardcoat anodizing as the actual mil-spec receivers. Barrels are another issue. A barrel may be made from the same material as a real mil-spec barrel, but that does not make it actually a mil-spec barrel. For example, a 16" M4 type barrel (like on the Colt LE6920) is not mil-spec by design because of the length, but is made from mil-spec material. You will also find some 14.5" M4 type barrels that are mil-spec in design, but are not made from mil-spec material. Buyer need to be aware of what they are buying. If buyers are concerned about only buying mil-spec products, they need to educate themselves on what is and what is not actually mil-spec.

You will find that, for many vendors, mil-spec is a marketing phrase. It is up to the buyer, as I said, to ascertain what is truly mil-spec.

[Firefly]

Per high end vs low end ARs:

It’s like this....fat girls and fit girls. Both do about the same thing but which would you rather take to the bush or the mountains?

[Renegade04]

Per high end vs low end ARs:

It’s like this....fat girls and fit girls. Both do about the same thing but which would you rather take to the bush or the mountains?

The way I see this high-end vs. low-end issue is, you have to have the right tool for the job. For a range toy or a simple HD AR, most any AR will do. For serious competition and SHTF situations, you need good quality components in an AR that are going to withstand the use/abuse and function reliably. Does a person need to spend over $2K for a good quality AR? Not really, but they need to know what the quality of the parts are. Will a cheaper AR do everything a $2k+ AR would do? Maybe, but for how long. No AR is impervious to breakage, not even a Colt, KAC, BCM, etc.. In essence, it all boils down to what a person is willing to spend to attain the quality, accuracy, durability, and reliability that they need/want. They need to know what quality parts are and what parts are of vital importance. They need to assess just what the purpose of the AR is and how much usage it will get and what it may be subject to in the future. My SHTF carbine is stout and fully dependable. I have others that are that way as well should I need a back-up. Many of my good quality ARs are builds I did. I have factory models like my BCM Jack Carbine, BCM Mid-16 Mod 2, Colt LE6920, and Sabre Defence XR-15 to name a few. I also have some builds that are between the $3K-$4K mark. These are special purpose rifles.

[cundiff5535]

The way I see this high-end vs. low-end issue is, you have to have the right tool for the job. For a range toy or a simple HD AR, most any AR will do. For serious competition and SHTF situations, you need good quality components in an AR that are going to withstand the use/abuse and function reliably. Does a person need to spend over $2K for a good quality AR? Not really, but they need to know what the quality of the parts are. Will a cheaper AR do everything a $2k+ AR would do? Maybe, but for how long. No AR is impervious to breakage, not even a Colt, KAC, BCM, etc.. In essence, it all boils down to what a person is willing to spend to attain the quality, accuracy, durability, and reliability that they need/want. They need to know what quality parts are and what parts are of vital importance. They need to assess just what the purpose of the AR is and how much usage it will get and what it may be subject to in the future. My SHTF carbine is stout and fully dependable. I have others that are that way as well should I need a back-up. Many of my good quality ARs are builds I did. I have factory models like my BCM Jack Carbine, BCM Mid-16 Mod 2, Colt LE6920, and Sabre Defence XR-15 to name a few. I also have some builds that are between the $3K-$4K mark. These are special purpose rifles.



I very much agree with you here. The convo earlier was very frustrating... and in all honesty, one that I may not walk down.

[Renegade04]

I very much agree with you here. The convo earlier was very frustrating... and in all honesty, one that I may not walk down.

Unfortunately, you are going to get varying opinions from people with varying experiences and knowledge, some of which is limited and biased. There are some who think they are subject matter experts, but are quite the opposite. The sad part is that you have to wade through their rhetoric and search for better info elsewhere. Personally, I am far from a subject matter expert on all things AR related, but I do have a vast amount of knowledge that I have accumulated over the past 40 years of experiences and practical application with the AR platform. Of course, having just over 80 builds (in 14 years) under my belt helps.

[MegademiC]

IMO, ‘mil-spec’ rifles from good manufactures are a minimum for hard/serious use guns.
Bcm, colt, DD, etc.

Cheaper guns, your chances of breakage, malfunctions, incorrect assembly go up to where I wont buy it(everyone has their own line in the sand).

Stuff like KAC, I view as a luxury. Ill be buying one in the next year or so, but from what Ive researched, they run smooth, and have small tweaks to enhance reliability and longevity, and are very accurate.

Kac isnt really that expensive once you factor in rail, sights, muzzle device, and stocks

Edit a class will not ruin a rifle.

[MistWolf]

Parts is parts, but only if they are in spec.

True mil-spec also means that every step of the process in manufacturing is documented for accountability and traceability. A company can follow every manufacturing process required for a part to meet mil-spec, but if it's not backed up with the proper documents, it's not mil-spec.

[AKDoug]

Do yourself a huge favor and drift away from instructor one. He sounds like a bit of a blow hard and really doesn't know what he's talking about.

High quality rifles are more than capable of maintaining good accuracy under high volumes of fire. My personal favorite rifle has been to 4 national level two day training classes without so much as a peep. It endured a mild quarterly training day of 250 rounds for the last 7 years without complaint. Now at a measly 10K rounds, it still holds sub 2moa at 100 yards prone.

I don't think you need to buy a KAC to get a great rifle, but I do believe that nobody is building a great rifle under the price and quality point of a Colt 6920....

[26 Inf]

As far as AR/M4's go, I have always been taught that the Bolt and Barrel are the two most important items.. Yes trigger can also assist in accuracy, but just in terms of functionality, any milspec trigger will do.

The upper is where the accuracy of the AR lives - barrel, bolt, receiver. The trigger is important to let you use the accuracy in the upper, by allowing greater consistency, which is of prime importance.




Secondly, the instructor who is more a basic shooting teacher told me I was crazy to think that one AR is far superior to the other... esp if I am running the gun with a dot and precision accuracy was not the ultimate goal.

The point that he may have been making is that a dot size is going to limit your potential accuracy; this may be somewhat true, but a 1MOA rifle is going to shot better groups than a 3 MOA rifle, given the same dot size.

There is a difference between a bolt and chamber that passes gauging, and a bolt and chamber that are fitted to meet a specific measurement. You don't get that on the low end rifles, and not very often on high-end general purpose rifles. So yes, from that perspective, you do get what you pay for, accuracy, like speed costs, how accurate do you want to go?

He mentioned a standard AR vs Kac and does not believe that the upgrades in Kac are necessary and doesn't see the justification of price. I can argue about tested reliability but he is very passionate that Colt M4 rifles are being ran in by the military with all standard components. If thats accurate, a real life war situation should be the ultimate test. Its a solid point... He has said he is under the impression that some units do run Knights, but its not the majority.

The M16 and M4 are examples of weapons that are built to a standard, by the lowest bidder who meets all the specs. Many troops are not able to wring the last ounce of accuracy potential out of the standard M4, and the weapon is not spec'ed for pinpoint accuracy. Folks running KAc's weapons are not your average line troops, so in that aspect it is kind of an apple to oranges comparison.

I think I can put together a pretty accurate rifle, yet I'm still buying CLE uppers for service rifle matches, more accuracy potential in the processes they use.

Third, the other trainer who specializes in the AR argued that his opinion was that the budget rifles just didnt hold up and there are many more failures in classes that he has seen. He didnt give a lot of facts as the conversation kept being pushed by the other basic firearms instructor (he can tend to do this).

Coming from a LE training background, the largest number of rifles that lay down on the firing line during my firearms classes have been Colts procured through the LEOSA program. That is not fair to Colt, because those rifles had unknown histories behind them. I had an agency class that had a whole group of BM select-fires lay down on day one, that was a sub-assembly problem - ejectors and springs (fixed by manufacturer via overnight delivery). Beyond that, most police rifles are not top tier, but not budget, either. Also, Police don't generally use homebuilt frankenguns, so maybe your friend's experiences differ.

I brought up barrel life, longevity of bolts, etc on the higher end products... but that point would not be conceded as I was told that is such a oddity that again, its not worth the money.

I could somewhat see your friend's point. Most people will not shoot enough rounds down their AR's to be concerned with barrel life. Likewise most folks will never get to 5,000 rounds on a bolt, much less the 20,000 which Geissele was talking about on their new forged bolt.

Last thing I would like thoughts on... I was being told I was wrong in the situation so some of you may know. Training with your rifle... Instructor #1 says shooting a full class with any rifle... is going to ruin it, cause fire cracking and destroy the chamber. Once that happens it doesnt matter if the rifle is 3K or $300, they are going to shoot equally as bad. He insisted that taking a highend gun to a training class if crazy to him as its then wasted.

I personally am not aware of the typical life of a barrel but, I do remember hearing 7K or so before it starts to go. If that is true, does that last point ring true?

A lot of that depends on the barrel itself, materials, manufacturing methods, and usage. A barrel that is allowed to cool between shots, or shot at a moderate pace, is going to last longer than one subjected to mag dump after mag dump.

Anyway, looking for some factual info vs just opinionated BS that I can get from peeps talking over the other forums.

Cheers!

Pretty much the way I see it.

[alx01]

OP, your both rifles KAC and Jack are excellent. You've made a right choice.

TL;DR;
This is my perception of things in the industry which might or might not be accurate. There are some folks on this board who are more experienced and knowledgable on this matter.

I typically place current AR or AR pattern rifles in 3 categories:

1. below Mil-Spec. This is your typical budget rifles like palmetto, aero, anderson, and etc.
Price - typically below $800
Parts: some or all might or might not be mil-spec
Assembly: not mil-spec
QC: not mil-spec
Durability wise certain parts might be fine depending on the quality. Overall rifle will start seeing some issues either right away or after a few k rounds.

2. mil-spec. Brands like Colt, FN, LMT, BCM, DD.
Price $800-$1500
Parts, Assembly, QC - all mil-spec. Furniture - depends on the model.
Those companies typically have a strong manufacturing and development base and making a lot of components in house, perform and employ advanced quality control methods and qualified personal.
I don't include here smaller shops/brands which assemble mil-spec or close to that rifles, as they mostly source parts and assemble using correct processes. They typically don't have a manufacturing base, knowledge or staff to perform material or extensive complete rifle testing.
Durability - durable and reliable for many thousand rounds without issues or replacement parts.

3. above mil-spec or premium
Price $1200 +
Certain models of above brands like BCM, FN, LMT, DD. Plus HK, KAC, maybe LWRC (don't have any experience with it)
Parts - mil-spec or their take on improved functionality. Barrels either mil-spec, or CHF or Stainless - depending on the purpose or marketing.
Assembly/QC - mil-spec level
Plus here you get things like custom rails, cerakote, monolithic rails, 2-stage triggers, premium muzzle devices, piston systems, and etc. Generally overall nicer rifles from a consumer perspective.
Companies have a strong manufacturing and engineering base or willing to pay other companies for the engineering aspect a significant amount for improved features. They also perform a significant amount of testing; and what's important - have a strong existing consumer follower base who are willing to pay for improved or new features.
Durability - hard for me to say, but from what I have seen and heard around mil-spec. I would be hard-pressed to grant an overall winning title to this category. However, durability might really be improved in significantly adverse conditions for certain features (i.e. piston, LMT or KAC bolts). Average consumer is unlikely to notice a durability/reliability difference vs pure mil-spec.

[ClangClang]

Instructor number 1 is truly clueless. He is parroting the same things he heard 30 years ago from Vietnam vets using worn out M16A1's and hasn't bothered to join the modern times. A high-round count class will not ruin a rifle any more than being in a high volume firefight. Do our troops have to dispose of their rifles after every gunfight?

Across the country, literally thousands and thousands of students take high volume carbine (and pistol) classes every weekend. If everybody's rifles were shitting the bed after a single class there would be riots on the forums by the thousands of people whose $1000-$2000 BCM/DD/KAC rifles were killed in a day. Do we see anything like that, anywhere? Of course not. Instead you read numerous reports of dedicated shooters who log 10,000+ rounds a year and their rifles continue to function, hold accurate groupings, and remain reliable. Travis Haley's KAC SR15 has over 100,000 rounds on it on the original barrel, although that's admittedly an outlier, and a statistically insignificant anecdote only.

All top tier and most mid tier rifles (as defined in the post above) stand out from the entry level rifles due to higher levels of QC. Any rifle can fail, but the top level rifles have MUCH lower rates of failure, because (among other things) you're paying for a trained armorer to visually inspect, function check, and test fire the guns before they go out the door. Some even include test targets guaranteeing minimum levels of accuracy. Do you think $400 AR's are being test fired and logged before being shipped? Of course not. Additionally, certain brands (notably KAC, LMT, perhaps Hodge, and a few others) have introduced enhancements that dramatically increase the durability and reliability of the rifle. For instance, normal mil spec bolts tend to break bolt lugs once they get up beyond 10k rounds. Everyone has seen a broken bolt somewhere. By contrast, I'm not aware of a single KAC E3 bolt breaking anywhere in the field, ever. I've seen it claimed multiple times in several different places that an E3 bolt has never sheared off a lug outside of factory testing. While I can't corroborate that, I've also never seen anyone dispute it, and certainly not with photo evidence, and you can believe that if someone ever broke an E3 it would hit the internet like wildfire. Similarly, their Mod 2 gas system uses a threaded pneumatic fitting. Compared to a standard GI gas tube with a press-fit into the gas block, KAC's offers a far more secure/stronger connection and is unable to have gas leakage, which is a common issue for standard gas systems. When you buy a KAC, you're paying for the R&D that has gone into them.

The truth is that you can still get a "diamond in the rough" buying a bargain rifle. And for most casual shooters who only shoot 500-1000 rounds per year, they will never push their rifles hard enough to notice the difference. The higher the round count and the harsher conditions a rifle experiences, the more likely it is that the top tier rifle will outshine and far outlast the bottom tier stuff.

Or we could remove reliability from the equation and look at it in a different way. A high end rifle gives you a much better shooing experience. I have a crappy PSA which runs relatively well, but has a noticeable "thunk" on every shot, has poor fit and finish, a non-free floated barrel, it's way overgassed, and exhibits lots of muzzle rise under recoil. Meanwhile, a KAC full auto machine gun does this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eW1oown2FfgG3Y5xqtn7UCUq88PTSgVm
(Video courtesy of Adam Pini)

Here are some photos from recent matches I've competed in and also RO'ed. Not me pictured - I never seem to get photos of me, I just take them. I can tell you authoritatively, having run literally hundreds of competitors through my stages, that the PSA/DPMS/No name rifles all struggle when the going gets tough. I have rifles from all ends of the spectrum: crappy PSA, a couple mid-to-high-end home built frankenguns (BA barrels, Seekins furniture, Aero receivers, LMT/Colt bolts, etc) and a couple KAC rifles. I can tell you that while everything I own is rock-solid reliable (I don't keep anything that has problems I can't fix), when I know I'm going to be in the shit, I bring my KAC. Obviously if a rifle gets packed with mud, it's not gonna run. But a quality rifle will have a better chance of staying in the fight once it gets moderately fouled, whereas the cheapo rifles go down fast and hard.

https://i.imgur.com/TbjPUvEh.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/VTwIhjih.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zVENrBah.png

[turnburglar]

You want empiracal evidence covering a vast data pool to draw logical conclusions about firearms?



Lol good luck. 98% of the industry is a "me too" company, while the other 2% have very little in the means of engineering staff, or even the desire too innovate. I have been around aerospace for a little bit now and can tell you wihtout a doubt that "evaluation and testing" is the most expensive thing a company can do. That's why you see so little of it in the firearms community. With the only real testing seems to be done at the request of the governement.


Again, good luck in your search, but I think you will be terribly under whelmed if you have any serious inclination for engineering, or data science.