View Full Version : Need experts opinions on AR
Hello, this is my first post.Been around pistols and revolvers for 25 years also had some experience with hunting rifles but none with the AR plataform.Well the time has come and I think need one.I don't want to expend a fortune, my range is 800 to 1000 $.All I need is a basic and reliable rifle. So far my first choice is the Stag Arms model 2Please I need some help to make a sound decision.Thanks to all
whats the weapon's intended purpose? how much will you shoot, how far will you shoot, and what's important to you in the way of options- ie, weight, barrel length, stock, sights, etc?
Plinking and home defense.Maybe 50 rounds 2 o 3 times a moth.Short range
Facepuncher
07-14-10, 18:58
Spike's Tactical has a really nice basic M4 clone on their home page for $799. They make great rifles.
I would just get that, and maybe have the barrel cut down to 14.5 and a flash hider permed on if you want to be really fancy.
organdonor
07-14-10, 19:01
My next rifle will be a BCM( www.bravocompanyusa.com ). I doubt you'll hear much, if anything, negative about them here. $475 for a BCM upper + ~$275 for a lower + $130 for BCM BCG + BUIS of your choice and you'll be out the door for around $1000 + tax & S&H. The resulting rifle will be about the best you can buy... and it's in your price range! That's the upper end... look around BCMs website and you can buy somewhat cheaper. Lower end I'd probably buy the Spikes carbine over Stag any day.
Here is what you can easily put together for less than 900.00 dollars.
BCM upper receiver group with BCG http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-16-LIGHT-WEIGHT-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-car-16lw.htm
LMT Defender lower receiver
http://dynamicarmament.com/items/ar-15-lower-receivers/lmt-defender-complete-lower-std-trigger-lmtcompletelowerstandardstocktrigger-detail.htm
Throw in a rear BUIS and Magpul MOE handguards and you are good to go. You will have a proper 1/7" 5.56 chamber and barrel as well as a quality bolt carrier group.
Plinking and home defense.Maybe 50 rounds 2 o 3 times a moth.Short range
Cutting a 14.5" barrel and pinning the flash hider isn't fancy. As a matter of fact it's kind of stupid since it serves very little purpose.
Spike's Tactical has a really nice basic M4 clone on their home page for $799. They make great rifles.
I would just get that, and maybe have the barrel cut down to 14.5 and a flash hider permed on if you want to be really fancy.
Facepuncher
07-14-10, 19:08
Cutting a 14.5" barrel and pinning the flash hider isn't fancy. As a matter of fact it's kind of stupid since it serves very little purpose.
It's purpose is to not have the harsher carbine length gas system on a 16" barrel, and it looks cooler.
And it is in the strictest sense unnecessary, but so are like 90% of variations from the basic AR-15 design anyway. Doesn't seem to stop the industry.
Facepuncher,
Well you are obviously confused. Cutting the barrel doesn't change the gas system. It's the gas tube. Having a carbine length system on a 16" barrel is not a bad thing. The Spikes gun still has a carbine length gas system according to their website.
In addition they do not (or have yet to provide) HP-MPI test their barrels and bolts. Once you add in the cost of cutting the barrel and perming the flash hider you will end up more into the thing.
It's purpose is to not have the harsher carbine length gas system on a 16" barrel, and it looks cooler.
And it is in the strictest sense unnecessary, but so are like 90% of variations from the basic AR-15 design anyway. Doesn't seem to stop the industry.
Here is what you can easily put together for less than 900.00 dollars.
BCM upper receiver group with BCG http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-16-LIGHT-WEIGHT-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-car-16lw.htm
LMT Defender lower receiver
http://dynamicarmament.com/items/ar-15-lower-receivers/lmt-defender-complete-lower-std-trigger-lmtcompletelowerstandardstocktrigger-detail.htm
Throw in a rear BUIS and Magpul MOE handguards and you are good to go. You will have a proper 1/7" 5.56 chamber and barrel as well as a quality bolt carrier group.
Wow, I might have to jump on the lwr. Thanks for posting.
Facepuncher
07-14-10, 19:28
Facepuncher,
Well you are obviously confused. Cutting the barrel doesn't change the gas system. It's the gas tube. Having a carbine length system on a 16" barrel is not a bad thing. The Spikes gun still has a carbine length gas system according to their website.
In addition they do not (or have yet to provide) HP-MPI test their barrels and bolts. Once you add in the cost of cutting the barrel and perming the flash hider you will end up more into the thing.
With all due respect you are the one that is confused. The length of barrel after the gas port absolutely is part of the gas system. To oversimplify things; this controls the amount of time that the gas tube is pressurized. I'm sure you can read up on this yourself instead of continuing to derail this guy's thread.
In my opinion a "M4 clone" rifle looks dumb with all that extra barrel. This reason, plus the harsher gas system response due to the longer barrel, justify the cost of shortening it to me. It doesn't justify it for everyone else and that is fine and their rifle will still work just fine. Thats why I used the term "fancy" when I mentioned this particular modification.
The HP/MP testing issue is a valid one. That would be pertinent to the discussion.
With all due respect you are the one that is confused. The length of barrel after the gas port absolutely is part of the gas system. To oversimplify things; this controls the amount of time that the gas tube is pressurized. I'm sure you can read up on this yourself instead of continuing to derail this guy's thread.
In my opinion a "M4 clone" rifle looks dumb with all that extra barrel. This reason, plus the harsher gas system response due to the longer barrel, justify the cost of shortening it to me. It doesn't justify it for everyone else and that is fine and their rifle will still work just fine. Thats why I used the term "fancy" when I mentioned this particular modification.
The HP/MP testing issue is a valid one. That would be pertinent to the discussion.
Cutting it down merely reduces dwell time. If looking for a real improvement on the gas system, the midlength would be it.
Please show some proof that removing 1.5" of the barrel is going to make some beneficial impact. I am well aware of how the system works.
I highly doubt that 1.5" makes a difference (but I could be wrong). Now a 14.5" with a mid length system absolutely makes a difference. I know because I assisted one of our members in testing one.
The OP has asked for opinions about a purchase. I provided an option that is probably cheaper than buying a Stag Arms, and has quality components. Throwing Spikes into the mix as many fanboys do is actually going further away from reliablity.
With all due respect you are the one that is confused. The length of barrel after the gas port absolutely is part of the gas system. To oversimplify things; this controls the amount of time that the gas tube is pressurized. I'm sure you can read up on this yourself instead of continuing to derail this guy's thread.
In my opinion a "M4 clone" rifle looks dumb with all that extra barrel. This reason, plus the harsher gas system response due to the longer barrel, justify the cost of shortening it to me. It doesn't justify it for everyone else and that is fine and their rifle will still work just fine. Thats why I used the term "fancy" when I mentioned this particular modification.
The HP/MP testing issue is a valid one. That would be pertinent to the discussion.
I'd have to "guess" (looking at my Quickload pressure charts) that the difference in 14.5 and 16 on a carbine gas system is totally negligible.
The pressure level difference is practically nothing and has basically stabilized at just over 10k PSI depending on the load. There have been examples here of LMT uppers getting factory chopped down to 12.5 from 14.5 with NO port mods and running normal. I just don't see anything to lead me to believe there's a difference worth addressing.
does this help you?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56966
i'd have to disagree with you gentlemen.. i think the 16/carbine is the worst/harshest combination we currently have available.
a carbine/16 gun has a gas/dwell ratio of .466/.538%
a 14/carbine has a ratio of .517/.483%
for comparison, a rifle/20 gun, which is considered to have an ideal ratio of gas/dwell, has a ratio of .625/.375%, and a carbine/10.5 combo has a ratio of .714/.286%
the carbine/16 barrel is the only combination with more dwell time than gas in use, ever.
organdonor
07-14-10, 20:36
Please show some proof that removing 1.5" of the barrel is going to make some beneficial impact. I am well aware of how the system works.
I highly doubt that 1.5" makes a difference (but I could be wrong). Now a 14.5" with a mid length system absolutely makes a difference. I know because I assisted one of our members in testing one.
The OP has asked for opinions about a purchase. I provided an option that is probably cheaper than buying a Stag Arms, and has quality components. Throwing Spikes into the mix as many fanboys do is actually going further away from reliablity.It does make a difference and I'm surprised you are arguing this... the carbine-length gas system is intended for a 14.5" barrel. The cyclic problems everyone uses heavy buffers/m16 bolt carriers/etc. to fix are caused by the use of the carbine-length gas system on a longer, 16", barrel.
I thought the carbine gas system was designed for a 10.5 barrel back in the day.
Hello, this is my first post.Been around pistols and revolvers for 25 years also had some experience with hunting rifles but none with the AR plataform.Well the time has come and I think need one.I don't want to expend a fortune, my range is 800 to 1000 $.All I need is a basic and reliable rifle. So far my first choice is the Stag Arms model 2Please I need some help to make a sound decision.Thanks to all
My first three choices in your price range would be:
BCM M4 Carbine $1025
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/bravocompanyusa/BCM%20Complete%20Rifles/IMG_0394002_.jpg
Colt 6520(if you do not plan on optics) $1000 +/- a small amt.
http://lja-ar15.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/pixar6520.jpg
Spikes Tactical midlength LE carbine $809.95
http://www.spikestactical.com/z/images/large/Midlength%20Complete%20LE_LRG.jpg
eta....I am no expert, but stay often in Holiday Inns
Thomas M-4
07-14-10, 21:59
i'd have to disagree with you gentlemen.. i think the 16/carbine is the worst/harshest combination we currently have available.
a carbine/16 gun has a gas/dwell ratio of .466/.538%
a 14/carbine has a ratio of .517/.483%
for comparison, a rifle/20 gun, which is considered to have an ideal ratio of gas/dwell, has a ratio of .625/.375%, and a carbine/10.5 combo has a ratio of .714/.286%
the carbine/16 barrel is the only combination with more dwell time than gas in use, ever.
I an going to have to side with bkb on this one. With the dwell time ratio.
None the less Iraqgunz has pointed out a very good lower and upper.
With the OP original request it would be a fine carbine for the price.
Well I guess maybe I should do some experimenting. I have run 16" carbines with standard buffers with no problems. I just can't honestly see that 1.5" makes that much of a difference. I don't use neutered BCG just out of standard practice.
I have seen more problems with shorter barrels (14.5" and below) than I actually have with properly built 16" carbines. Colt 6920 comes to mind. I believe that 6920's come with a standard buffer and they function out of the pics.
One has to remember that the neutered BCG's were an afterthought to people appeasing the anti-gun lobby. That means that all civilian carbines should have M16 BCG's in them from the get go.
It does make a difference and I'm surprised you are arguing this... the carbine-length gas system is intended for a 14.5" barrel. The cyclic problems everyone uses heavy buffers/m16 bolt carriers/etc. to fix are caused by the use of the carbine-length gas system on a longer, 16", barrel.
I thought the carbine gas system was designed for a 10.5 barrel back in the day.
and ju would be correct. although i think it was a clean 10" barrel, at that time. but i could be wrong.
Well I guess maybe I should do some experimenting. I have run 16" carbines with standard buffers with no problems. I just can't honestly see that 1.5" makes that much of a difference. I don't use neutered BCG just out of standard practice.
I have seen more problems with shorter barrels (14.5" and below) than I actually have with properly built 16" carbines. Colt 6920 comes to mind. I believe that 6920's come with a standard buffer and they function out of the pics.
One has to remember that the neutered BCG's were an afterthought to people appeasing the anti-gun lobby. That means that all civilian carbines should have M16 BCG's in them from the get go.
Actually the 6920 comes with a H buffer (mine is setting in the safe), however, my LMT came with a standard carbine buffer (setting next to my 6920:)). While the LMT has ran just fine for me, I can notice the difference between it and the Colt. I have a feeling the LMT would perform slightly better than the Colt with underpowered ammo. However I'm not in the habit of using known weak ammo, so I feel more comfortable with my Colt.
To the OP, your price range is very close, if not already enough, to get one of the top brand carbines. I would suggest Colt, BCM, DD (Daniel Defense) or LMT, or even S&W. Check out Gun Broker and you should get a better idea on pricing.
Thanks for clarifying. Since I don't own a 6920 I wasn't sure.
Actually the 6920 comes with a H buffer (mine is setting in the safe), however, my LMT came with a standard carbine buffer (setting next to my 6920:)). While the LMT has ran just fine for me, I can notice the difference between it and the Colt. I have a feeling the LMT would perform slightly better than the Colt with underpowered ammo. However I'm not in the habit of using known weak ammo, so I feel more comfortable with my Colt.
To the OP, your price range is very close, if not already enough, to get one of the top brand carbines. I would suggest Colt, BCM, DD (Daniel Defense) or LMT, or even S&W. Check out Gun Broker and you should get a better idea on pricing.
My Stag 2T has been a great rifle. Completely reliable. This rifle (minus optics and light) cost me right at $1000 from my dealer.
http://www.pbase.com/hmac/image/125292300.jpg
organdonor
07-15-10, 09:46
Well I guess maybe I should do some experimenting. I have run 16" carbines with standard buffers with no problems. I just can't honestly see that 1.5" makes that much of a difference. I don't use neutered BCG just out of standard practice.
I have seen more problems with shorter barrels (14.5" and below) than I actually have with properly built 16" carbines. Colt 6920 comes to mind. I believe that 6920's come with a standard buffer and they function out of the pics.
One has to remember that the neutered BCG's were an afterthought to people appeasing the anti-gun lobby. That means that all civilian carbines should have M16 BCG's in them from the get go.Most of the time you will not experience any problems with shorter dwell time. The shorter dwell time [that heavy buffers, heavier bolt carriers and heavier buffer springs are used to combat] does increase wear & tear of components of the rifle.
While I'm not certain what difference 1.5 extra inches of barrel makes I'm sure it makes some. I've read that going from a carbine to mid-length gas system cuts system pressure in half(something like 26k to 13k psi). That's only moving the gas block forward two inches. In fact, isn't moving the gas block forward 2" on a 16" barrel effectively the same as shortening the 16" barrel by 2"? So maybe you can imagine what an effect the 1.5" from 16" to 14.5" can have.
This is all IIRC.
and ju would be correct. although i think it was a clean 10" barrel, at that time. but i could be wrong.Ah... I'd read otherwise and couldn't find any info regarding the matter when he questioned my statement. Got a source? I like to know what I'm talking about.
crusader377
07-15-10, 10:03
My first three choices in your price range would be:
BCM M4 Carbine $1025
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/bravocompanyusa/BCM%20Complete%20Rifles/IMG_0394002_.jpg
Colt 6520(if you do not plan on optics) $1000 +/- a small amt.
http://lja-ar15.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/pixar6520.jpg
Spikes Tactical midlength LE carbine $809.95
http://www.spikestactical.com/z/images/large/Midlength%20Complete%20LE_LRG.jpg
+1 on all three of those.
I would also add the Daniel Defense XV and the LMT. Both of these carbines should be priced slightly between $950 to $1000.
I would also check out the Smith and Wesson M&P 15. I saw recently that CDNN was selling them for $699 after the $100 S&W rebate.
polymorpheous
07-15-10, 10:54
I'm very surprised to see a debate about the carbine gas system and dwell time on a 16" barrel here.
I figured it was pretty much accepted that a carbine gas system on a 16" barrel was pretty harsh.
hence the move to the mid-length gas system.
to the OP:
$270 Bravo Company lower w/ M4 stock (blem)
$584 Bravo Company 14.5" Carbine upper w/ A2X permenant flash hider, BCM BCG, and GI charging handle.
$23 Bravo Company M4 hanguards w/ double heat shield
$877 total for a fine piece of machinery.
Ah... I'd read otherwise and couldn't find any info regarding the matter when he questioned my statement. Got a source? I like to know what I'm talking about.
this article doesn't give a timeline or much detail, but at least it lays out the development sequence. the original 15" "car-15 carbines" had rifle gas, and the original "sub-machineguns," had their own special 7.5" gas with 10.0" barrels.
eta.. woops.. should probably include the "article" referenced... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAR-15
CarlosDJackal
07-15-10, 13:57
i'd have to disagree with you gentlemen.. i think the 16/carbine is the worst/harshest combination we currently have available.
a carbine/16 gun has a gas/dwell ratio of .466/.538%
a 14/carbine has a ratio of .517/.483%
for comparison, a rifle/20 gun, which is considered to have an ideal ratio of gas/dwell, has a ratio of .625/.375%, and a carbine/10.5 combo has a ratio of .714/.286%
the carbine/16 barrel is the only combination with more dwell time than gas in use, ever.
[IGNORANT QUESTION] Can someone please explain to me what "dwell ratio" is and how it affects the function of the rifle? TIA. [/IGNORANT QUESTION] :help:
[IGNORANT QUESTION] Can someone please explain to me what "dwell ratio" is and how it affects the function of the rifle? TIA. [/IGNORANT QUESTION] :help:
its just the ratio of barrel before and after the gas port.
It does make a difference and I'm surprised you are arguing this... the carbine-length gas system is intended for a 14.5" barrel. The cyclic problems everyone uses heavy buffers/m16 bolt carriers/etc. to fix are caused by the use of the carbine-length gas system on a longer, 16", barrel.
I am not an expert on the operating system of AR's, I am just your average user. My experience is limited to 5 years USMC training, and LE carbine courses. I do however have some mechanical common sense and here is why I agree with the others on this. I dont think droping 1.5" will do anything for performance. I will explain why with sort of a question. After the round passes the gas tube it causes pressure to build up in the gas tube and therefore goes cyclic. SO, once the bolt goes to the rear all that "elleged extra pressure caused by longer barrels" would be releived. So the real performance we can messure is not how long the gas tube is pressuriced, but if enough pressure is built up to make the weapon cycle? I may be wrong but for good old arguments sake I just had to give my .2 cents.
To the OP, sorry for contributing to your threads derrailing, welcome to the forums.
organdonor
07-15-10, 15:06
I am not an expert on the operating system of AR's, I am just your average user. My experience is limited to 5 years USMC training, and LE carbine courses. I do however have some mechanical common sense and here is why I agree with the others on this. I dont think droping 1.5" will do anything for performance. I will explain why with sort of a question. After the round passes the gas tube it causes pressure to build up in the gas tube and therefore goes cyclic. SO, once the bolt goes to the rear all that "elleged extra pressure caused by longer barrels" would be releived. So the real performance we can messure is not how long the gas tube is pressuriced, but if enough pressure is built up to make the weapon cycle? I may be wrong but for good old arguments sake I just had to give my .2 cents.
To the OP, sorry for contributing to your threads derrailing, welcome to the forums.More pressure will make it cycle faster. That's the problem; less dwell time causes more wear and tear. Granted it's only a problem now that there's a solution... the solution is the mid-length gas system. While a rifle with a carbine-length gas system will serve you well... and has served millions well, there's no reason not to go mid-length if looking to purchase a new rifle.
the "solution" is even more basic than that- reduce the ratio. reduce dwell time. 14.5s do reduce dwell time, by about 11%.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.