ARs to avoid, which brands are not worth the money?

[TX69]

If John Moses Browning were alive today and producing his own line of the AR15 rifle, someone somewhere would post on a forum this:

Browning AR's are crap!!!!!

Precisely lol

 

[TX69]

Well, I have a DPMS Oracle, with iron sights on it, and it has never missed a beat!
I guess if I had listened to some of the ar-snobs, I woulda thrown it in the river by
now. Good grief!

When you do let me know which river it is okay.

 

[Davetex]

I had an Oracle for a couple of years and shot the heck out of it. Never had any problems with it. Sold it to a family member and he's never had a problem with it. Those are solid rifles and they don't break the bank.

 

[556.45.12]

I am absolutely amazed that your "that company makes suck crap" are still in business. Especially those that have been doing it for decades with their own equipment. A person that can make these huge observations certainly has access to knowledge no one else does ......

WARNING: Long post ahead... read if you're serious about buying a good AR.

Actually I had to cut the "would not buy" list down once I realized that I would be working on the same post for an hour.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little AR-snobby, but when you've worked on as many as I have, you start to form opinions. My comments come from personal experience from years of repairing and building rifles for myself, customers, family, and friends. I used to work in a gun shop/range and I've had a lot of chances to handle and diagnose problems with every brand on that list. Sorry if your favorite brand is on the "do not buy" list, but it is my opinion and I stand by it.

To the Smith and Wesson guy: yes, I'm serious. The last good Smith autoloader was in the 59/69 series of handguns. The M&P handgun is going the way
of the Sigma fast. I may have been a little harsh on their ARs, but anyone can make an AR - I disagree with their business practice of pushing their sporting grade ARs onto LE agencies. If they make a higher end AR that I don't know about, then apologies - but the few M&P15s that I've inspected were a notch or two below the ARs in my "buy list" yet cost the same or even more in some instances. That's a big fat "DO NOT BUY" in my list. You don't always get what you pay for.

Once again, my opinion - and I'm entitled to it.

EDIT:
Some criteria that put a lot of my DO NOT BUYS on the list:

Inferior barrels, usually 4140, button rifled - chrome lined or not. Usually chrome lining on a cheaper barrel just makes it less accurate. Also, they should be MPT'ed - I could care less about HPT - I'm not a big fan of having destructive testing done on any part or a complete rifle before I even plunk the cash down for it. MPT is sufficient. A stainless barrel from a good company will shoot the lights out, but I wouldn't want one on a serious fighting weapon. They just don't last as long and I don't want to start keyholing shots after 5000 rounds. (Disclaimer, my precision AR/varminter (hate that word) has a Lothar Walther 20" stainless bull barrel and it is my most accurate AR). I almost always buy CHF chrome-lined or well-regarded nitrided barrels.

Inferior BCG - 8620 bolts, cast or MIM gas keys, improperly staked gas keys, weak extractor springs, flaky finishes, mis-aligned gas keys, non MPT'ed... the list goes on and on...

Inferior fit and finish: when I buy a brand new gun I don't want to see assembly goof-marks and scratches in the finish - higher end companies will sell these as blems - lower end companies throw them in with their regular inventory. Colt almost didn't make my list of good ARs because 95% of the Colts that I've handled straight out of the box will have "oops" marks on them from where the bolt catch was installed or just in weird places like in the middle of the lower receiver.

6061 Al - 6061 extruded, cast, or forged aluminum - Receivers especially and receiver extensions commercial or mil-spec, are vastly inferior to forged 7075 alloy. I will only buy 6061 handguards and possibly light/scope mounts.

Cheap LPKS - Every rifle in my do no buy list except for the S&W, Stag, and RRA (wait, did I list them?) all come with noticeably cheaper parts installed in their lowers. No maker's stamps, gritty FCGs, poor surface finish, poor fit/tolerances...

I have a good friend who swears by his DPMS and it is a tight rifle that has treated him well, but I personally wouldn't buy one after working on so many. YMMV, but I do have a lot of real world experience with these brands.

Oh yeah and to the DD basher - really??? I have three DD uppers and they're pretty much my favorites. Accurate, CHF barrels, impossibly solid rail lock-up, and reliable as all get out. I have a DD BCG that has over 7000 rounds on it and it looks great and functions fine. Show me a DPMS, Bushmaster, etc.. that can claim that.

 

[LOCKHART]

And opinions are like arseholes, too! Everybody has one, and MOST of em stink!

 

[TX69]

And opinions are like arseholes, too! Everybody has one, and MOST of em stink!

lulz

 

[ROGER4314]

.556........

I appreciate your opinion and even agree in part but the question for me is HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS? Did you personally own these rifles? Did you work for an AR company and see hundreds/thousands of rifles & barrels? How do you know if one barrel is better than another if the guys who MAKE the custom barrels can't even agree? Do you engineer and draw up the specs for these rifles and components?

The only way we as shooters and members of the shooting sports fraternity is to buy one, try it and report what we discovered in using that rifle. Was it accurate? Was it reliable?

To have that much "expert and first hand" knowledge about so many types and brands of products, you must have owned scores of the rifles!

The OTHER method of becoming knowledgeable about so many products is to read on the Internet, then regurgitate what you read as Gospel fact. There's a lot of crap information out there so when I repeat that kind of information, I put the info in quotes then attribute the source and make it clear that I read that and did NOT have hands on experience with it.

SO.....All the guys wanted to ask you is:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT BARREL IS BETTER OR WHICH PRODUCT IS ASSEMBLED BETTER OR IF "SECONDS" ARE SOLD TO THE CUSTOMER AS FIRST QUALITY? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?

I ask that with all due respect to a TGT member and this post has no "flame" intended. I'm not challenging nor "calling you out" in the open forum. It is not an accusation...........simply a question. How did you learn this information?

Flash

 

[ZX9RCAM]

.556........

I appreciate your opinion and even agree in part but the question for me is HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS? Did you personally own these rifles? Did you work for an AR company and see hundreds/thousands of rifles & barrels? How do you know if one barrel is better than another if the guys who MAKE the custom barrels can't even agree? Do you engineer and draw up the specs for these rifles and components?

The only way we as shooters and members of the shooting sports fraternity is to buy one, try it and report what we discovered in using that rifle. Was it accurate? Was it reliable?

To have that much "expert and first hand" knowledge about so many types and brands of products, you must have owned scores of the rifles!

The OTHER method of becoming knowledgeable about so many products is to read on the Internet, then regurgitate what you read as Gospel fact. There's a lot of crap information out there so when I repeat that kind of information, I put the info in quotes then attribute the source and make it clear that I read that and did NOT have hands on experience with it.

SO.....All the guys wanted to ask you is:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT BARREL IS BETTER OR WHICH PRODUCT IS ASSEMBLED BETTER OR IF "SECONDS" ARE SOLD TO THE CUSTOMER AS FIRST QUALITY? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?

I ask that with all due respect to a TGT member and this post has no "flame" intended. I'm not challenging nor "calling you out" in the open forum. It is not an accusation...........simply a question. How did you learn this information?

Flash

Roger, you did see this in his post....

"I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little AR-snobby, but when you've worked on as many as I have, you start to form opinions. My comments come from personal experience from years of repairing and building rifles for myself, customers, family, and friends. I used to work in a gun shop/range and I've had a lot of chances to handle and diagnose problems with every brand on that list."

 

[oldguy]

Amusing thread, when I first purchased an AR I researched for days, what I found on many of the hard core AR sites the "leaders" of the group were military wannabees or dreamed of combat, you got to have this to survive that talk, the truth is 99% of the AR's purchased will be fired little, target practice, home defense, etc, so almost all will fit the need of Joe Average, many of the parts come from 2 or 3 suppliers. My suggestion is buy be happy there is always someone who will knock what you purchase.

Reminds me of my days back in the 50's as a teenager guys argued for hours over best car, Ford or Chevy, seen broken noses(I have one) lot's of fights over that issue.

 

[BIGPAPIGREG]

there is always someone who will knock what you purchase.

bout says it all right there

 

[TX69]

bout says it all right there

Yup - bc it isn't what "they" bought.

 

[Davetex]

bout says it all right there

Yup - bc it isn't what "they" bought.

Yep.

 

[AustinN4]

.............., the truth is 99% of the AR's purchased will be fired little, target practice, home defense, etc, so almost all will fit the need of Joe Average, .............

Intended use should be the first question.

For light Joe Average use, darn near anything will do.

Heavy use - high round count matches, classes, etc. moves it up a notch, IMO.

LEO and MIL moves it up yet again, IMO.

I am Joe Average - light use: HD, casual range time & occasional matches. But I bought above my needs simply because I could and I wanted to. It doesn't make my choice right for everyone. Actually, it makes my choice (no, it is not Colt) pretty stupid for most Joe Average shooters. It actually makes my choice pretty stupid for even me from an analytical standpoint but I am happy with it and you won't hear me recommending it to others.

Reminds me of my days back in the 50's as a teenager guys argued for hours over best car, Ford or Chevy, seen broken noses(I have one) lot's of fights over that issue.

How about the endless Mossberg vs Remington shotgun debates, or Remington vs Savage rifles?

 

[ROGER4314]

I used to work in a gun shop/range and I've had a lot of chances to handle and diagnose problems with every brand on that list."

My background is almost identical and I've shot in matches and even ran matches where hundreds of AR-15 rifles were tested in actual service. Still, I would not make sweeping generalizations about a whole product line or brand. See it as you choose to see it.

From my perspective, I have never personally seen, owned or fired any AR that I felt was JUNK!


Edit: I have seen some owner modifications and some aftermarket toys that were just crap. The basic, unmodified rifles that they were installed on were still sound.

Flash

 

[grumper]

I'm not picky with brands but either of these two:

1) Shit don't work.
2) Shit don't fit.

Automatically puts the manufacturer on the shit list. So far that's only 1 out of about 7 different AR brands I've purchased.

Most modern AR brands are fine for normal range trips.

 

[LOCKHART]

Another thing that chaps me is, "mil-spec", it must be mil-spec! Well, I'm old guy and
when I was a kid, mil-spec meant ALL OVER THE PLACE! Now, people want to say it means
something special, well, it doesnt! It certainly does NOT mean "very close tolerances", so
what is the big deal about MIL-SPEC?? You want to see REAL mil-spec? Pickup just about
ANY ak-47, and you will SEE MIL-SPEC!

 

[AustinN4]

Now, people want to say it means something special, well, it doesnt!

Actually, what mil-spec means now is that it conforms to the TDP: https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/pages/2770.aspx

Technical Data Package (TDP)
"A technical description of an item adequate for supporting an acquisition strategy, production, engineering, and logistics support (LS). The description defines the required design configuration and procedures to ensure adequacy of item performance. It consists of all applicable TD such as drawings, associated lists, specifications, standards, performance requirements, quality assurance (QA) provisions, and packaging details."

 

[LOCKHART]

And THAT means exactly what?? Parts for military weapons have to INTERCHANGE with lots of
other weapons of the same type, and caliber. THAT alone pretty much rules out TIGHT TOLERANCES.
I'm just saying that some people today think mil-spec means something really tight and well made, it
does not!

 

[AustinN4]

And THAT means exactly what??

Conforms to a known and documented standard.

 

[KrcTrooper]

This isn't directed to the most recent posts, but more or less the entire thread. I'm not trying to start more shit, just feel like people are quick to bash things when they feel it is inferior. So does that mean that my polymer Bushmaster is a POS? I have never had a problem with it and I always hear people talking crap about them. I bought mine 5 years ago, feed it quite a bit of ammo (most of which has been steel casings, other than 4 boxes of brass I believe) and throw it in the ranch trucks and can still shoot a decent group with it. What is wrong with a gun if it does the intended purpose? Polymer vs. other materials, treat it accordingly and it will function right? I just feel that everybody is quick to say avoid a polymer AR-15, but I have never had an issue. I didn't have a whole lot to spend on a new gun when I bought it so I went with the polymer and never looked back, so if somebody is willing to take care of their gun why is it of utmost importance that they do not buy a polymer AR-15?