There is tons of scientific data. Go mine the DTIC website. Look for the Ichord report, Mellonics report, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is tons of scientific data. Go mine the DTIC website. Look for the Ichord report, Mellonics report, etc.
First you have to define "better." "Better" is not a testable requirement or a performance metric. Are you talking lighter? Stronger? Longer range? More reliable?
define requirements -> develop performance metrics -> test -> evaluate the results
You're trying to jump to step 4 without doing steps 1-3. "Better" is an evaluation that can only be made in the context of defined, testable requirements.
This question gets asked about every one minute on the net. Do you really get more if you pay more? Is one brand better than another?? The answer to your question is yes AND no.
Note, I have been building AR's since the late 90's. I am friends with most all the top AR manufacturers out there (engineers, production managers, owners, etc). I am also friends with the best firearms instructors in the world. We talk often about what guns they are seeing fail in classes AND how certain firearms do in large LE and .Mil tests. I also have fired a good number of rounds down range over the years in advanced shooting schools. My knowledge/opinion is formed from this.
1. Standards. What does your favorite manufacturer follow? The TDP? Their own established standards based off of performance and reliability (no expense spared) or the standard that puts the most money into their pockets? From my experience, most manufactures (especially the big boys) will cut corners wherever they can. These companies would be BM, RRA, Armalite, Oly, DPMS, etc.
2. Cost. This used to be one of the barometers when buying a quality AR. "You cannot get a good AR for under $1k" was the common theme heard. When Colt lowered their prices this year, they made this argument null and void. They set the bar for a quality AR for under $900. Now, lower quality AR's are typically MORE money than a much better AR.
3. Proof. This is the hard part. For me, the proof I use is round count in .mil/LE tests, what instructors see in classes and opinions of professionals in their field. While it is somewhat common for lower quality AR's to have high round counts and perform fairly well, you must always throw out singular examples of this and look at the bigger picture. Like, if you took 100 DPMS AR's and ran 10,000rds through them, how many would fail (break parts, etc)? This is where rule #1 comes into play. AR's built correctly using quality parts will out last one that isn't.
IMHO, the Ruger AR's are entry level. They would not be my first choice to bet my life on. With that said, if they fit your budget and your enjoy it, drive on. Just don't be under any illusion that it is the "best" AR out there.
C4
You can buy a BCM upper and lower for less than $850 and add a hangaurd... you're at $900.00
The other issue is people who own guns also tend to have (very) strong opinions. Even the most scientific, unbiased study imaginable will get ripped apart and denigrated by people who have/like/use whatever brand doesn't come out on top. The truth often gets lost in the noise.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." -Benjamin Franklin
For quite some time I have wanted to do full-scale testing in the firearms industry.
The problem is that it would very expensive (about $250,000), extremely time consuming, and unlikely to make any kind of money for the effort.
Good manufacturer's already have extensive in-house testing, so they don't need to pay someone else to test their stuff, which would become open-source publicly available data.
Maybe I should start a "go fund me" campaign...
And bad manufacturers don't want anything to get in the way of their marketing bs.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
First off not only will gun makers not want you knowing that they got a bad grade in a test like you suggest but they aren't going to submit weapons for such testing in fear that the results might leak out even if they were considered top secret.
The only tests that are sometimes done that might give you a push in the right direction are done by the military or by companies trying to get military contracts. But the bottom line is that the bottom line has entered into that equation too. You can't really expect top notch equipment to be the norm for every soldier. It would cost us too much to arm the cooks and clerks the same way we arm the Seal teams.
The question of best is often revealed in the choices of those special forces types though. Expect money to be no object when it comes to their weapons. They do the heavy lifting in the field pretty often so they want the best. But even at that there are distinctions between various branches of special forces. What's good for Seals may not by good for Rangers or Special Paratroops. They have different requirements for one thing.
The one point in this thread I might take exception to is this:
Trust me I know what a can of worms that is and I know the SOP on forums is to dismiss such things but in light of recent history I don't see how people can brush off the possibility so easily. From Katrina to the various riots around the country to the terrorist floating around I would never say never on this. Our economy dangles by a thread and there are race wars brewing all over the country. I have my asbestos undies on so feel free to flame away but I got myself an AR for Christmas for a reason. It isn't my first "assault weapon" (obviously a term used incorrectly but valuable in terms of our conversation anyway) but it is my best HD rifle now. I have counted on a lowly SKS for decades (which has been incredibly reliable for 24 years and is reasonably accurate considering what I paid for it and the ammo to feed it) to protect my family and trust me, where I live a person needs one more that some would think. From the drug gang living up the hill to the burglary crews that might show up at my door unexpected yes I do "need" a weapon that fires a lot and fires fast. I was threatened with death by my neighbors where my house is (the drug dealing gang) and where my farm is (a neighbor trying to force a right of way across our property so he can set up Drunk City with the Drunk Highway going right through the yard of my old home). Both of those threats are real and wouldn't be the first victims of those people. I could find myself out in the middle of a large field with my crazy neighbor on the high ground taking pot shots at me and trust me he can shoot. I grew up next to the guy. I've seen him shoot.I wouldn't worry too much about "a real SHTF or battle scenario". The likelihood that you will ever need to use your SR762 in such a situation is so tiny, it doesn't bear discussion.
I don't think it's at all likely but impossible? You won't get me to say that. I live near a large city known for a high murder rate and for repeated riots over the years. You just never know when things are going to spill over into my neighborhood. All it takes is one genius to get the bright idea to attack rural people because they're sitting ducks whether it's people tired of seeing their friends murdered by cops with the evidence buried (like in Chicago) or whether it's some crazy desert dimwit bent on world domination. Never say never friends. It pays to be ready because we can't predict the future. Again I don't think any of this is likely. The odds against it are high. But I've been in situations where I felt very vulnerable (ice storms that blocked roads for days leaving my alone to defend myself against any gang that figured out they could loot my neighborhood without consequences) pretty much like the Katrina situation.
Stuff happens people. Never say never. Do we really only keep our AR's for fun and fantasy? Not me. I figure it's as needed as a furnace in the house.
Last edited by Jeff_56; 12-31-15 at 00:51.
Bookmarks