Interesting ranking of AR15 makers

Chat-Bot · Jan 10, 2021

MaxVO2 said:
****Only if we don’t wanna end up shot with inferior Chinese made AR’s...call me crazy, but I’d rather live a really long time and die of old age than be shot by some of the cheaper AR platforms listed in that diagram, especially with cheap optics or those crappy plastic eBay backup sights that look like they belong on an air soft rifle and often fall off on their own, sometimes before even firing a shot!

I can’t believe we are even discussing this. Be patient and you might even get taken out by a Ma Deuce, an M203, or something really cool like a depleted uranium round from over a mile away, shot by a Victoria Secret model covert operative.

What’s the rush? We’re only 10 days into 2021!

Would you rather it be one of these instead?

Magnumite · Jan 11, 2021

How is it companies making replacement parts for the military are at or near the bottom of the list?

I agree, its mostly driven by price. But honest price typically reflects quality...no free lunch. A boutique maker with a small facility can only produce x amounts of components in a given period. Attention to detail is greater. This drives up the price...gotta pay for overhead and to eat.

Early M16’s had stocks with the manufacturer name “Mattel” on it. The GI’s didn’t develop any faith in the arm with ‘toy’ parts in it so the name was removed from the mold. But Mattel still made the stocks. So how much on the list is real and how much is perceived?

What if all these makes were actually disassembled, maker marks removed where possible, assembly and the parts assessed? The new positions may shed some light on the issues.

erwos · Jan 11, 2021

Magnumite said:
How is it companies making replacement parts for the military are at or near the bottom of the list?

Being a mil-spec manufacturer doesn't really mean you're the best, it means you can produce parts at a certain spec reliably for a certain price. That is perhaps a testament to your quality control when you choose to exercise it, but not necessarily much else.

I agree, its mostly driven by price. But honest price typically reflects quality...no free lunch. A boutique maker with a small facility can only produce x amounts of components in a given period. Attention to detail is greater. This drives up the price...gotta pay for overhead and to eat.

What if all these makes were actually disassembled, maker marks removed where possible, assembly and the parts assessed? The new positions may shed some light on the issues.

Here's what I'll say: raw parts are maybe half of building a good AR-15. Putting stuff together with the right torque, staking, alignment, etc. is the other half. Two out of three of the PSA uppers I've bought have not worked out of the box. One of them had real parts spec problems. The other had a loose GB.

I'd also say the raw parts are not so simple as people make them out to be. Producing barrels with reliable high accuracy is not trivial. Tolerances with BCGs can make a big difference in how much those locking lugs get stressed. Magazine well tolerances can be surprisingly tricky.

Your average AR user shoots at 50yds and doesn't care how many malfs they get unless they actively make it impossible to mag dump into the berm, and regularly testifies their $50 barrels reliably shoot 1MOA with M193. I am skeptical about relying on them for testaments to quality.

kool361 · Jan 11, 2021

Looks like I am in the poor house.

jr88 · Jan 11, 2021

All I can say is you better not shoot me with anything less than a Colt. A "Less than Designer Death" is UN-American.
As for my AR, it isn't even on the list. Let's just say it is a Ceramic Sig that costs more than most of you make in a Month. :innocent0

Michigander08 · Jan 11, 2021

jr88 said:
Let's just say it is a Ceramic Sig that costs more than most of you make in a Month.

Hmmm. Is it rare like this one?

https://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/p/48410/macallan-72-year-old-lalique-crystal

Magnumite · Jan 11, 2021

erwos said:
Being a mil-spec manufacturer doesn't really mean you're the best, it means you can produce parts at a certain spec reliably for a certain price. That is perhaps a testament to your quality control when you choose to exercise it, but not necessarily much else.

Here's what I'll say: raw parts are maybe half of building a good AR-15. Putting stuff together with the right torque, staking, alignment, etc. is the other half. Two out of three of the PSA uppers I've bought have not worked out of the box. One of them had real parts spec problems. The other had a loose GB.

I'd also say the raw parts are not so simple as people make them out to be. Producing barrels with reliable high accuracy is not trivial. Tolerances with BCGs can make a big difference in how much those locking lugs get stressed. Magazine well tolerances can be surprisingly tricky.

Your average AR user shoots at 50yds and doesn't care how many malfs they get unless they actively make it impossible to mag dump into the berm, and regularly testifies their $50 barrels reliably shoot 1MOA with M193. I am skeptical about relying on them for testaments to quality.

I agree with all of that. Mil spec’s will produce a reliable arm. How much better does one want? It no secret many of the component parts are made by a handful of manufacturers. So if DD and Ruger uses them, the cost and quality differentials elsewhere. No biggie there.

Assembly, yeah, I had a Stoner upper disassemble itself at the range. First short stroking malfunctions, etc.. Improper torque and no use of locking compound on the gas block and handguard were the causes. But upon proper reassembly, the next couple times at the ranges it ran fine and never malfunctioned again. Take the best components and misfit them and one has inferior product.

Its just where the line in the sand is drawn...as in your example of the 50 yard shooter doing mag dumps and claiming its accurate. That is probably what most are looking for as far as information.

I’ll have to get inside my LWRC and look around closer...though at first notice much of it is very similar in appearance to mil spec supplier parts.

Thank you for that.

E.Shell · Jan 11, 2021

DaemonAssassin said:
...I need to find one more AR lower that was made in MD, so I can do a trifecta...

FAR-15 from Fulton.

Michigander08 · Jan 11, 2021

E.Shell said:
FAR-15 from Fulton.

Thanks for reminding us. Not all of us are resident of MD.

https://www.fulton-armory.com/FAR-15-Rifles.aspx

DaemonAssassin · Jan 12, 2021

E.Shell said:
FAR-15 from Fulton.

Would you know of any others?

SkiPatrolDude · Jan 12, 2021

This ranking illustration is total BS.

I'd like to understand the logic of how Stag ended up in the Poverty tier, below even Brownells or PSA.

Alea Jacta Est · Jan 12, 2021

It’s only good if you like it...

budman93 · Jan 12, 2021

SkiPatrolDude said:
This ranking illustration is total BS.

I'd like to understand the logic of how Stag ended up in the Poverty tier, below even Brownells or PSA.

thats what i thought. My understanding was that stag is considered pretty high quality.

And their stuff is not cheap so even if it was poor quality you wouldnt call it 'poverty' level

2ndCharter · Jan 12, 2021

If anyone cares, there's a "high tier" LWRC with Troy BUS, an EoTech and magnifier near channel marker 26.

TheBert · Jan 12, 2021

Magnumite said:
How is it companies making replacement parts for the military are at or near the bottom of the list?

"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract."

-- Alan Shepard

babalou · Jan 12, 2021

haha

Michigander08 said:
Hmmm. Is it rare like this one?

https://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/p/48410/macallan-72-year-old-lalique-crystal

This donk did a three star review of the Macallan 72 year. haha

3
Cork, 24 October 2020
Alright I suppose. Hard to beat the bushmills 10

SkiPatrolDude · Jan 12, 2021

I think it gets discussed a lot here, but to me the only tangible differences in quality from one manufacturer to another is QC of parts and quality of assembly. Higher tier brands may get the parts from the same source, but their rejection rate is likely higher.

The rest is all bells and whistles, with subjective increases in performance with "enhanced" parts...cough cough Radian and Geissele.

Almost all of these companies utilize contingent labor during periods of increased demand, even those in the "top tier" category. Daniel Defense and Ruger, for example, used a competitor to my employer for a period. It's no surprise that QC falls in periods of crazy demand. If you are capable of assembly/disassembly of your rifle to perform your own QC checks, then most any of these rifles will do just fine, albeit with a greater rate of QC failure rate from the lower tier brands (generally speaking).

Michigander08 · Jan 12, 2021

babalou said:
This donk did a three star review of the Macallan 72 year. haha

3
Cork, 24 October 2020
Alright I suppose. Hard to beat the bushmills 10

I wonder if he was drunk when he made that review or he lied.

Mr.Blue · Jan 12, 2021

erwos said:
lol, putting Noveske at the top. That place lost all its mojo after John Noveske died back in 2013.

This^^^

I would bump LWRC and potentially DD up to the upper level.

outrider58 · Jan 12, 2021

Mr.Blue said:
This^^^

I would bump LWRC and potentially DD up to the upper level.

...and drop Knight's Armament down a couple notches. Expensive junk.

Interesting ranking of AR15 makers

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Disinformation Governor

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Active Member

Ultimate Member

ridiculous and psychotic

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

ridiculous and psychotic

Why should we Free BSD?

Ultimate Member

Extinguished member

Ultimate Member

Based dude w/ lovin' hands

The Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

ridiculous and psychotic

Living In A Bizarro World

Eats Bacon Raw

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics