Which AR-15 Carbine do you like best?

[MiniDevil]

I'm a Colt guy when it comes to Pistols. For an AR, probably bush, dpms, or stag from what i've been reading. Whatever you do, dont go Olympic Arms.

[VeryPrivate]

I cannot attest to the quality of the various manufacturers. But there is such a wide variety of options available for the AR-15, that one can easily customize to taste. So I have been reasearching which options are worth paying extra.
1. Gas Piston Operation - Produces more reliable operation and simplifies cleaning.
2. Chrome-lined or Stainless steel barrel with a 1:7 or 1:8 twist for 77 gr bullets.
3. Heavy barrel with fluting. I do not have to hump this thing anywhere but the range.
4. Improved Barrel nut design - heat causes the standard model to loosen.

Other interesting options, though not necessarily worth my money.
1. MGI-Hydra - Lower receiver- interchangable mag wells for AR, AK & M-14 (Coming Soon) mags.
2. MGI-Hydra QCB Upper - Satisfies #4 above and allows for easy caliber conversion, especially when combined with the lower.
3. Bushmasters Carbon-15 line - reduced weight by the use of Carbon Fiber in the lower and upper receiver.
4. TiN or Chrome Plated Bolt Carrier assembly. Probably resist dirt better and clean easier, but I have not seen any emperical data supporting this. And the TiN is expensive.

That is my humble opinion. Good luck with your choice.

[sengie]

I have a RRA entry tactical. Its awesome. Just added some goodies.(surefire quad rail,EO Tech sight)shoots like a dream.

[DPB]

Wolf13 is going to enjoy this, because I'm going to agree with him this time and disagree with someone else. I'm an equal opportunity guy.

I have not shot an Olympic, but I have known several people who have them and they've never reported a problem. The one's that I have seen have been, visually, they are the equals of anything else. I believe in the past they had some issues, but I don't see it in recent production. The RRAs, BMs, S&Ws, DPMSs, and Stags also tend to be good firearms.

Wolf, how many rounds do you have through yours, it sounds like quite a few? Here's why I ask, I would like to see someone take a couple of each manufacturer, and shoot them all until they break. Then maybe we could lay the "tier" issue to rest.

The only thing I have a hard time believing is that it was only a couple hundred cheaper than a Colt. The Pony tends to be, in my opinion, overpriced.

Now for the controversy: Mr. Very Private

1. Pistons. I haven't seen anything that justifies the cost of any of the piston guns. A POF 16 inch upper is $1100, others are comparable, if they are available at all. That's more than a complete gun. The advertised benefit of reduced heat, and therefore reduced parts breakage, is questionable. In a full auto gun that is shot hard, or a gun that sees a couple thousand rounds a month, maybe. In 16 years of running everything from M16A1s to M4s to ARs, I've seen ONE bolt break. These were mostly abused military guns and hard use match guns. Reduced throat erosion is a similar issue. Throat erosion is really only an issue in full auto hard use guns. If you have bought enough ammo to erode a chrome lined throat shooting semi auto, you can afford a new gun. AReliability, questionable, and cleaning, not really, it just gets dirty in a different place. Cleaning the piston on an AK or M1A can be a royal pain in the backside. If you're independently wealthy, go for it, otherwise you would be better served spending the money on ammo. You would need to run a direct impingement gun HARD to be better served by a piston gun.

2. Barrel choice. Your barrel choice should be based on your intended use. If you are really going to shoot a lot of 75+ grain ammo, a 1:8 or 1:7 barrel is worthwhile. Has anyone checked what this ammo costs compared to other 5.56? It's dramatically more expensive. If you want a precision gun, get a stainless match barrel. If not, chrome barrels last longer than chrome-moly, but they are also (marginally) less accurate. Again, what is the intended use? Most people are never going to shoot a 77 grain bullet.

3. Barrels (again): If you don't have to hump it, why bother with fluting. Cutting flutes out of a barrel does not make it stiffer. If you have two 3 pound barrels, and cut flutes out of one, the un-fluted one will be stiffer. Now, if you have two barrels that both weigh three pounds, and one of them is fluted, the fluted one will be stiffer because of the structure, and because it still has the same amount of steel. You do not increase rigidity by cutting away steel. Again, barrel selection should follow function.

4. Barrel nut: POF is working on this with their piston gun. Basically the barrel nut is made with more metal, so it becomes a heat sink for the action. This might be worthwhile idea, but, again, not at the cost of an $1100 upper.

Regarding your other issues:

I'm interested in the Hydra, but $499 for the 5.56 stripped lower? I'm not sold on the idea of quick change caliber conversions, but its an interesting system.

The Carbon 15s have had some issues in the feed ramp area, but if someone really worked everything out (and put metal in areas like the feed ramps), these things would be awesome. The weight saving is incredible. I just don't think anyone has spent the engineering dollars to make them ready for prime time yet.

I would use a hard chrome BCG if the Young MFG was more widely available. I had a bad experience with Les Baer, so I will not be giving him any money for his version (a story for another time). I had the Smith from Brownells, which turns out to be the DPMS for more money. The hard chrome job was sloppy. Yes it is easier to clean.

Since I got called a "know it all" last night, I include the following disclaimer: This information is based on my research and experience, and is not the position of the PFOA or the Internet or any other organized organization. It is worth exactly what you paid for it. This is my "disagreement" post for today.

DPB

[VeryPrivate]

Well, I did splurge and buy a chrome bolt carrier group. No sooner did I place the order when I found a TiN assembly for only $15 more.

My future plans include converting my 16" carbine to a piston operation. Ares defense sells their GSR-35 kit to do-it-yourself for $400. I like breaking things under the label of DIY. I do not have any particular reliability problems, but I would love quicker cleanings. My Mini-14 is essentially a gas piston operation. Its bolt is very clean after firing. The gas piston is incredibly dirty, but not as sensitive to fouling as the AR-15 bolt. Since cleaning the AR-15 bolt is what limits my shooting the most, I'll risk the cash.

Longer-term, I would like to waste money by adding 6.8mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendel uppers to the collection. Perhaps even 6.5mm MPC. Although, I do not expect that caliber to widely accepted.

One day I might even add a .308 AR-10. Looked at one during a local gun show. I was not interested in a .308 before that, now I am hooked.

Of course dreams are bigger than the wallet.

[Suburban]

Some random thoughts:

Piston-uppers - Cleaning high-power rifles is a pain, no matter what kind of action you're shooting. Piston operated semi-autos get lots of fouling in and around the piston. A high-quality, properly lubricated, AR-15 will go 5000 rounds without a problem. I hope I never have to shoot that much without a break for cleaning the carbine. You can get in a lot of target practice with the ammo you bought with the money saved if you buy an ordinary AR upper.

My first AR was a low budget special. Model 1 kit + stipped (pre DEA contract) RRA lower. The barrel is not clocked properly, and shooting with iron sights requires a tall front sight post. It goes bang every time I pull the gritty, heavy trigger. Some of the M-16 guys use Model 1 uppers with no problems, which is why I didn't hesitate (much) to buy the kit from them. This is now my loaner/back-up rifle.

I built my 2nd AR with a LMT M4 upper and Stag assembled lower. NICE trigger on this one, chrome lined chamber/bore, and no crazy sight adjustments. This is my primary home defense/SHTF gun. I think the assembled lower cost $5 more than a stripped lower and lower parts kit, and it took me more than an hour to assemble the first lower, and they didn't mark up the pins like I did.

Pretty much all the forged lowers are the same, except for Colt with the oddball pin holes. Parts are easier to find for the mil-spec lowers, because there's more of 'em around. I was told that the Stag and RRA lowers are made at the same foundry, and they look exactly the same except for the logos and markings.

If you want to buy a rifle that's properly assembled with good parts, and you don't want to do any troubleshooting.... a Colt law-enforcement M4 may be the way to go. It will cost you at least $400 more than my M4gery that looks the same, and works just as well.

AKs are good, but the bolt doesn't lock open on the last round. I HATE that. I'm used to a slide or bolt locking open when the gun runs dry. The magazines need to be cammed into the action also; first put the lug into the notch, then rotate the magazine until it locks into place. With an AR, you just shove the magazine into the well until it clicks into place.

There's tons of information available on the ar15.com forums.

What qualifications do I have? Not much. I tinker, shoot guns, and spend too much time in front of a computer.

[Suburban]

Some random thoughts:

Piston-uppers - Cleaning high-power rifles is a pain, no matter what kind of action you're shooting. Piston operated semi-autos get lots of fouling in and around the piston. A high-quality, properly lubricated, AR-15 will go 5000 rounds without a problem. I hope I never have to shoot that much without a break for cleaning the carbine. You can get in a lot of target practice with the ammo you bought with the money saved if you buy an ordinary AR upper.

My first AR was a low budget special. Model 1 kit + stipped (pre DEA contract) RRA lower. The barrel is not clocked properly, and shooting with iron sights requires a tall front sight post. It goes bang every time I pull the gritty, heavy trigger. Some of the M-16 guys use Model 1 uppers with no problems, which is why I didn't hesitate (much) to buy the kit from them. This is now my loaner/back-up rifle.

I built my 2nd AR with a LMT M4 upper and Stag assembled lower. NICE trigger on this one, chrome lined chamber/bore, and no crazy sight adjustments. This is my primary home defense/SHTF gun. I think the assembled lower cost $5 more than a stripped lower and lower parts kit, and it took me more than an hour to assemble the first lower, and they didn't mark up the pins like I did.

Pretty much all the forged lowers are the same, except for Colt with the oddball pin holes. Parts are easier to find for the mil-spec lowers, because there's more of 'em around. I was told that the Stag and RRA lowers are made at the same foundry, and they look exactly the same except for the logos and markings.

If you want to buy a rifle that's properly assembled with good parts, and you don't want to do any troubleshooting.... a Colt law-enforcement M4 may be the way to go. It will cost you at least $400 more than my M4gery that looks the same, and works just as well.

AKs are good, but the bolt doesn't lock open on the last round. I HATE that. I'm used to a slide or bolt locking open when the gun runs dry. The magazines need to be cammed into the action also; first put the lug into the notch, then rotate the magazine until it locks into place. With an AR, you just shove the magazine into the well until it clicks into place.

There's tons of information available on the ar15.com forums.

What qualifications do I have? Not much. I tinker, shoot guns, and spend too much time in front of a computer.

[jsmatt]

if you want a weapon that operates well in an operating room but isnt worth a hoot in real world self defence then the m16 look alikes are for you!!!
but ask anyone who carried an m16 or m4 (which is a low velocity m16 due to its short barrel) for an extended time in the field (not just 6 or so hours) and they have jams (a 30 round clip has to be cleared on many occasions due to small amounts of debre) check the 1967-68 copies of the army times the m16 FAILED to meet acceptance testing standards for small arms - penetration and 100% humidity testing. All the changes to this weapon and civilian models can not change the physics of these tests. the small mass of the 223 did not penetrate thru a vietnam era helmet at 300 meters (standard test) and the 7.62x39 does. Also the m16 would blow bolts in a 100% humidity environment due to moisture vapor condensing and being trapped in the barrel (capilarry action and surface tension). The m16 got accepted only because the commanding general of the test facilities approved changes to the test procedures subsequent to this acceptance the general retired and coincidentally became a vice president of colt manufacturing (supplier of the m16). MANY MANY GI's died because thier weapons jammed.
I watched a Documentary on the afgan war where a blocking patrol of 5 GI's encountered and engaged a fleeing force of taliban and engaged them during a brief fire fight 2 GI's were wounded and 2 of the remaining "improved" versions of th 16 jammed they resorted to hand grenades and sidearms to end the engagement
I believe the only reasons the m16 is viable as a military weapon is not only because our guys have the luxury of lots of time to clean thier weapons but also because we have total air superiority.
God help us if we have to face a real weapon in a normandy invasion type battle in fact I believe that if they had to use m16 /m4 type weapons then that invasion would have failed.

[jsmatt]

if you want a weapon that operates well in an operating room but isnt worth a hoot in real world self defence then the m16 look alikes are for you!!!
but ask anyone who carried an m16 or m4 (which is a low velocity m16 due to its short barrel) for an extended time in the field (days or weeks - not just 6 or so hours) and they have jams (a 30 round clip has to be cleared on many occasions due to small amounts of debre) check the 1967-68 copies of the army times the m16 FAILED to meet acceptance testing standards for small arms - penetration and 100% humidity testing. All the changes to this weapon and civilian models can not change the physics of these tests. the small mass of the 223 did not penetrate thru a vietnam era helmet at 300 meters (standard test) and the 7.62x39 does. Also the m16 would blow bolts in a 100% humidity environment due to moisture vapor condensing and being trapped in the barrel (capillary action and surface tension). The m16 got accepted only because the commanding general of the test facilities approved changes to the test procedures subsequent to this acceptance the general retired and coincidentally became a vice president of colt manufacturing (supplier of the m16). MANY MANY GI's died because thier weapons jammed.
I watched a Documentary on the afgan war where a blocking patrol of 5 GI's encountered and engaged a fleeing force of taliban and engaged them during a brief fire fight 2 GI's were wounded and 2 of the remaining "improved" versions of the m16 jammed ,they resorted to hand grenades and sidearms to survive the engagement
I believe the only reasons the m16 is viable as a military weapon is not only because our guys have the luxury of lots of time to clean thier weapons but also because we have total air superiority.
God help us if we have to face a real weapon in a normandy invasion type battle in fact I believe that if they had to use m16 /m4 type weapons then, that invasion would have failed.

[jsmatt]

if you want a weapon that operates well in an operating room but isnt worth a hoot in real world self defence then the m16 look alikes are for you!!!
but ask anyone who carried an m16 or m4 (which is a low velocity m16 due to its short barrel) for an extended time in the field (not just 6 or so hours) and they have jams (a 30 round clip has to be cleared on many occasions due to small amounts of debre) check the 1967-68 copies of the army times the m16 FAILED to meet acceptance testing standards for small arms - penetration and 100% humidity testing. All the changes to this weapon and civilian models can not change the physics of these tests. the small mass of the 223 did not penetrate thru a vietnam era helmet at 300 meters (standard test) and the 7.62x39 does. Also the m16 would blow bolts in a 100% humidity environment due to moisture vapor condensing and being trapped in the barrel (capilarry action and surface tension). The m16 got accepted only because the commanding general of the test facilities approved changes to the test procedures subsequent to this acceptance the general retired and coincidentally became a vice president of colt manufacturing (supplier of the m16). MANY MANY GI's died because thier weapons jammed.
I watched a Documentary on the afgan war where a blocking patrol of 5 GI's encountered and engaged a fleeing force of taliban and engaged them during a brief fire fight 2 GI's were wounded and 2 of the remaining "improved" versions of th 16 jammed they resorted to hand grenades and sidearms to end the engagement
I believe the only reasons the m16 is viable as a military weapon is not only because our guys have the luxury of lots of time to clean thier weapons but also because we have total air superiority.
God help us if we have to face a real weapon in a normandy invasion type battle in fact I believe that if they had to use m16 /m4 type weapons then that invasion would have failed.