# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Security & Defense >  Buying an AR-15?  Read this!

## GunnyFreedom

There are a few things you should know before selecting your AR-15.  There are many brands, styles, and configurations available, at a wide range of cost.

*BRAND*

If you have enough to get the very best, Colt branded AR-15 are universally recognized as the most reliable AR-15 on the planet.  They *will* cost you though.  Basic entry-level cost on a Colt brand AR-15 in any configuration is somewhere north of $1,200 nowadays.

Next tier of brands are DPMS, and Eagle Arms.  There are a couple other brands in this tier, and I'll let other posters fill in their favorite brands.  There is no reason to list 'third tier' AR-15's except maybe for avoiding them.  They are no cheaper than 2nd tier, but are quite prone to failure.

*CONFIGURATION*

Don't even waste your time on AR-15A1's -- most of the major issues were worked out to produce the A2 configuration, so the A2 should be your starting point.  Get an A2 if you are a purist who lives for iron sights.  Several manufactures lobbied to call the flattop an A3 so you may still find some A4's under that monkier, but the truth is that an A3 was simply an M16A2 that had full auto instead of burst.  If you want to use a scope or powered optics, get an AR-15A4 with a flat top instead of the built in sights.

Make certain that you have a chromed bore and chamber.  This shouldn't even be a question.  The lack of a chromed bore and chamber was fixed in the transition from the AR-15 to the AR-15A1, but there may be a manufacturer that will sell you one without a chromed bore and chamber.  This is very important -- lack of chrome is the whole reason the M16 got a bad reputation in Vietnam.  If your bore and chamber aren't chromed, you will probably have nothing more than a fancy looking club in short order.

*CHAMBER*

There are lots of folks out there who will tell you that there simply is no difference between the 5.56 NATO spec and the .223 Remington spec.  Do not listen to them, they are wrong!  The 5.56 NATO spec requires a deeper headspace, and the .223 Remington has a shorter throat.  Additionally, the 5.56 NATO develops a higher chamber pressure.  

While a .223 Remington cartridge inside of a .223 Remington chamber is slightly more accurate and precise than the 5.56 NATO cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chamber, the difference is not truly significant.  

A 5.56 NATO chamber can accept either 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington; but trying to fire a 5.56 NATO cartridge from a .223 Remington chamber can result in catastrophic failure.  (rifle go "boom" out the side instead of out the front)

So insist on a 5.56 NATO chamber.  Most reputable brands are already chambered in 5.56 NATO exclusively.  Do NOT let the dealer smooth talk you into believing there is no difference between the two just to unload the .223 chambered albatross he has been holding for 4 years.

*BARREL*

There are lots of choices here also, in the way of heavy barrels, match barrels, bull barrels, etc.  This choice will be determined by what you want out of the rifle and your budget.  I'll not even try to get into contrasting heavy match barrels against bull barrels.  Discuss that with your dealer.

What I will talk about here, is twist rate.  Most AR-15 rifles you can get today will either have a 1:7 twist or a 1:9 twist.  A few dinosaurs are still floating around with the 1:12 twist, or the compromise 1:10 twist.

The major difference that twist rates make, depend on the grain weight of the round you will be firing.  When NATO first brought out the 5.56 cartridge, the standard was 55 grains.  the 55gr round had poor terminal ballistics (lethality) at range, the other reason for the weapon's bad reputation out of Vietnam.  The current standard round is 62-grain which delivers better terminal ballistics, but is still not optimal.  Anecdotal evidence from OIF in Iraq and OEF in Afghanistan has shown that a 77-grain round (the heaviest round that will fit into the magazine) has been spectacular, nearly delivering a level of terminal ballistics forces equal to that of the M-14's .308 round at extreme range.  So for me, the heavier the round, the better.

This means you want a tighter twist rate, such as 1:7.  The heavier the round, the tighter you need your twist to be.  

If you are going to exclusively be firing 55-grain Wal-Mart ammo for plinking, then get a 1:12 or a 1:10.  If you are mostly going to be firing 62-grain MilSurp and commercial but may feed a few hundred 55's now and then for practice then get a 1:9.  If you are going to stockpile commercial 69-grain, 72-grain, 75-grain, or 77-grain rounds, but may feed a few hundred 62-grain rounds now and then, then get a 1:7 twist.

With a 1:7 twist rate barrel, the 55 grain round will over-stabilize, and you lose a great deal of accuracy at ranges beyond 300 yards.  Rounds UNDER 55 grain (yes, Virginia, they DO exist) will simple shred to confetti about 50 foot in front of your muzzle from being over-spun.

With a 1:12 twist barrel, a 62 grain or heavier round will under-stabilize, and you will wonder why in the heck your fancy AR won't shoot any better than a silly AK.

Now, if you are planning on joining world class marksmanship tournaments and firing your AR out to 1000 yards, then you can actually get a 1:6 twist barrel and single-load 80-grain or 90-grain rounds.  But that's just silly.  That would mean your magazine well is just for show.

My recommendation is to get the 1:7 twist rate barrel, and avoid anything lighter than 62 grains.

Hope this helps!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

ehhh, nix DPMS from 2nd tier and move to 3rd tier.  Brain flatulence.

----------


## manny229

Thanks for the post. What do you think about the Bushmaster AR15's?

----------


## The One

I like to use guns to shoot things.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thanks for the post. What do you think about the Bushmaster AR15's?


Well, I've heard both good things and bad things about Bushmaster.  I've never owned one so I can't speak from experience.  i just fund this really nice chart published by madengr in the thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131480

and post #2



which is basically a comparison of standard features.  This is, of course, only half he story.    I'd rather have a rifle with fewer features, but which did those features very well (reliability).

I'd say that certain aspects of this chart, DO point to reliability though. Chromed chamber and bore, gas key bolt carrier etc etc etc

Wish I could tell you more, but I've never owned or seriously handled a Bushmaster to know from experience (which is where i like to speak from)

----------


## Gideon

...by a fellow Marine who conducts professional firearms training.

Check out this rather long but informative thread at AWRM, aptly entitled:"Which AR Should I get??".

----------


## manny229

Thanks again for the info Gunny...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I like to use guns to shoot things.


heh.  well, there's not a whole lot of other uses for one.  Maybe bayonet thrusts and vertical butt strokes?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ...by a fellow Marine who conducts professional firearms training.
> 
> Check out this rather long but informative thread at AWRM, aptly entitled:"Which AR Should I get??".


I just read it, and it does look like a very good compilation and contrast of brands.  Specific brands of AR's and AR parts I know very little about.  My area of expertise are the actual features, like chromed bores and chambers.  Having read that guy's post, I'll not hesitate to endorse it as good info, as it looks like he has done a heckuva lot more research on specific brands than I have.

Except he does agree with me about Colt being the best of the best.

----------


## Shellshock1918

If you're buying an AR read this:

BUY AN AK.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you're buying an AR read this:
> 
> BUY AN AK.


And I will stand 200+ yards away and laugh while I pick you off with single shots.

----------


## hairball

AKs have their good points and thier bad, like everything else.  I have heard good things about Bushmasters, and the Colt H-Bars are unbeatable.

AKs are good for kicking around, if you are inclined to neglect your firearm and accuracy is not important.   They are fun to shoot, but not for those serious about accuracy.

----------


## Kade

> There are a few things you should know before selecting your AR-15.  There are many brands, styles, and configurations available, at a wide range of cost.
> 
> *BRAND*
> 
> If you have enough to get the very best, Colt branded AR-15 are universally recognized as the most reliable AR-15 on the planet.  They *will* cost you though.  Basic entry-level cost on a Colt brand AR-15 in any configuration is somewhere north of $1,200 nowadays.
> 
> Next tier of brands are DPMS, and Eagle Arms.  There are a couple other brands in this tier, and I'll let other posters fill in their favorite brands.  There is no reason to list 'third tier' AR-15's except maybe for avoiding them.  They are no cheaper than 2nd tier, but are quite prone to failure.
> 
> *CONFIGURATION*
> ...


What do you think about the Wylde chambers?

I don't own an AR-15, and although I agree on the Colt, I have read about issues with the primers...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The AK, SKS, and AR all have their respective places where they belong. Much of the decision as to which is best for you, depends a lot on your situation and your budget. The AK and the SKS are in the same basic class, and the AR is in a completely separate class. The AR, of course, also costs a whole lot more.

*The AK-47 Assault Rifle*

The AK-47 is insanely reliable. It was designed to be thrust into the hands of an illiterate peasant with zero training, who was then sent off in the direction that the big scary man was pointing. It will perform the same if you break it down and clean it daily, or if it goes 10 years without so much as blowing the dust off. You can throw it into a mud puddle and run over it with a jeep, pick it up, and keep firing. It will never know the difference. The beauty of the AK-47 has to do with how well it's parts work together -- they do not have to be machine fit at the factory. If your Russian AK breaks, you can snag the same part from any random Chinese AK and it will function like it just came from the factory.

The loose tolerances that permit that kind of performance, however, prohibit any meaningful accuracy. What the AK-47 does best is to put up an insane wall of lead inside of 100 yards. They weren't really meant to be 'aimed' in any meaningful fashion. Within 100 yards, you can learn to hit a man-sized target with a single shot, at 200 yards it may take a couple shots and a god bit of luck. Past 275 yards, a target may as well stand up and thumb his nose at you while you empty half a magazine. Chances are you will make them scatter and duck, but hitting them would be purely random, and having nothing to do with your skill or lack thereof.

The AK-47 and the SKS share the same round, the 7.62x39mm cartridge. On the bright side, this round is plentiful around the world, is frequently imported, and is inexpensive to buy and hoard. On the not-so bright side you would surely WANT to buy and hoard them, because in most of the SHTF scenarios I can conceive of, the people you will be forced to defend yourselves from will probably not have more 7.62x39 ammo to replenish yours. (This is called a battlefield pickup) The exceptions being if we were facing gangs like MS-13, Jihadists like an imported Iraqi Insurgency, or...well, that's about it. If we were invaded by the Chinese, they have already transitioned to the AK-74 and their ammo would be useless.

*The Simonov SKS Assault Rifle*

The SKS-45 was a contemporary of the AK-47 and it's original design predated the AK by a couple years. It was slightly less reliable but significantly more accurate than the AK-47, and later models of the SKS incorporated 'lessons learned' design features of the AK-47. The Chinese SKS Type 63 and later models have more in common with the AK-47 than with the SKS type 45.

The Yougoslavian SKS tend to be the most accurate, and (like the Russian SKSs) tend to retain more of the SKS-45 design features. The SKS requires a little more care and maintenance than the AK, but can effectively engage targets out to 350 yards. Parts are not nearly as interchangeable as they are for the AK-47, but they are an inexpensive weapon, so you can just get 2 in case one breaks and you need a weapon before you can get to a parts store.

The SKS is a good intermediate weapon if you are looking for something nearly as maintenance-free as the AK and almost as functionally reliable, but has the accuracy at range to effectively address targets at 300 yards (considered "battlesight 'zero'" for open terrain warfare).

*The Armalite AR-15 Assault Rifle*

The AR-15 is in a completely different class than the AK and the SKS. Mind you, the AR is not alone in that class, so it is not literally 'in a class by itself,' but it is of a completely different order than the other two discussed above.

The data on round selection, configurations, and barrel choice I will leave alone as I already posted that information in the post you read previously.

The AR-15 can address point targets out to 550 yards - a feat which the SKS and especially the AK-47 could never dream of doing. The AR platform requires more maintenance than the other two, but that maintenance is by no means arduous. Keep it clean and lubricated and you won't have to worry about functional failures.

The AR is modular, meaning you can swap out upper receivers and lower receivers. Parts are plentiful in the States, and because of the higher manufacturing specs, most parts are interchangeable. There are a lot wider variety of threats which you may face that would allow for battlefield pickups of more ammo than for the AK round, as the 5.56x45mm is the NATO standard, and will be carried by all military forces in Mexico, Canada, the US, and most European nations. Police and the FBI also carry this round in quantity.

You can get accurized AR-15's that will address point targets out to 850 yards readily. The major weakness in the AR is the way the gas operated system is designed. It literally forces the burning expanding gasses from the powder ignition, through a tube and back into the bolt, which means it will foul relatively quickly (around 300 rounds) BUT you can get an aftermarket gas-piston kit that eliminates this weakness, and will keep the action of your rifle clean through 1000 rounds or better.

Now clearly it sounds like the AR-15 is the superior rifle here, and it is. But it also costs a lot more. You can get a 'cheap' AR-15 but I wouldn't recommend it. When it comes to the AR, you really do get what you pay for. If you get a really cheap AR, then you will face regular frustration through misfeeds, extraction failures, jams, etc. If you are going to get the fancy rifle, then save up and get a good one. You will be glad that you did.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What do you think about the Wylde chambers?
> 
> I don't own an AR-15, and although I agree on the Colt, I have read about issues with the primers...


I have heard lots and lots of good things about the Wylde chambers.

For those who may not be familiar, the Wylde chamber is a cross between a .223 Remington and a 5.56 NATO.  Basically it's a SAAMI .223 with a deepened headspace to bleed off the potential chamber pressure issue with 5.56 NATO rounds.  The idea is to maintain the accuracy of a .223 from a .223 SAAMI chamber, but with a longer throat to allow for the use of MilSurp rounds without worrying about catastrophic failure.

I want to like the Wylde chamber a lot.  Thing is I haven't ever gotten up close and personal with one so I don't actually know.  The idea sounds great.  I LOVE the fact that a Wylde chamber could make an AR a sub 1/4 MOA rifle when shooting match grade .223, but can still fire MilSurp without fear of detonation.

My fear would be if a company decided that Wylde was the end-all be-all and decided that they could slack on the materials composing the chamber.  It that a likely possibility?  Probably not.

In theory, I am very much in favor of the Wylde chamber.  In practice, I don't know yet.  I'd want to check one out on the range and see how it helps accuracy and precision, and then I'd want to do some research and find out what happens after about 12 proof rounds have been fired out of one.

Re - the Colt primer issue -- some earlier Colts (esp the A1's) used stainless steel firing pins which could slam-fire a non MilSpec round due to the inertia of a firing pin with that much mass.  No AR-15 M16 firing pins have return springs, they are loose, and the stainless pin was eventually discarded as being too massive and subject to inertial slamfires.

This was not a problem for the M16 because MilSurp/NATO rounds have a significantly thicker primer cap, but when the AR got into civilian hands, firing civilian .223 Remington ammunition (with the thinner primer caps) the inertia from the heavy firing pin could ignite the primer and send off another round (slam fire).  So Colt switched to the Hardened Aluminum firing pin (eventually equipping M16s with aluminum pins also) and the problem went completely away.

If you DO happen to have an older Colt model with the stainless firing pin, it is a very easy fix -- simply replace it with the aluminum pin and the slamfire issue goes away.  DSG has them for $6 each, and they are amazingly easy to replace.

You can even go one step further, and actually get a _titanium_ firing pin for $30 (from Cheaper Than Dirt) which is even LIGHTER than the aluminum.

----------


## hairball

I dig my SKS, it is light, accurate and reliabe.  I have thought about an AR, but if I was going to get one, it would HAVE to be an H-BAR.  Thing is, I just can't get the feel of the ARs.  SKS, M1 carbine, and my M1A feel natural,  ut I have never been able to shoot quite as well with an AR.  

Still, for accurate, reliable, competitive shooting, the AR is the one to go with.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I dig my SKS, it is light, accurate and reliabe.  I have thought about an AR, but if I was going to get one, it would HAVE to be an H-BAR.  Thing is, I just can't get the feel of the ARs.  SKS, M1 carbine, and my M1A feel natural,  ut I have never been able to shoot quite as well with an AR.  
> 
> Still, for accurate, reliable, competitive shooting, the AR is the one to go with.


You can always try eating, sleeping, walking, marching, learning, working, exercising, and existing with one in constant contact 24/7 for about 15 weeks and see if that helps.   Did it for me.  heh.

----------


## Kade

> I have heard lots and lots of good things about the Wylde chambers.
> 
> For those who may not be familiar, the Wylde chamber is a cross between a .223 Remington and a 5.56 NATO.  Basically it's a SAAMI .223 with a deepened headspace to bleed off the potential chamber pressure issue with 5.56 NATO rounds.  The idea is to maintain the accuracy of a .223 from a .223 SAAMI chamber, but with a longer throat to allow for the use of MilSurp rounds without worrying about catastrophic failure.
> 
> I want to like the Wylde chamber a lot.  Thing is I haven't ever gotten up close and personal with one so I don't actually know.  The idea sounds great.  I LOVE the fact that a Wylde chamber could make an AR a sub 1/4 MOA rifle when shooting match grade .223, but can still fire MilSurp without fear of detonation.
> 
> My fear would be if a company decided that Wylde was the end-all be-all and decided that they could slack on the materials composing the chamber.  It that a likely possibility?  Probably not.
> 
> In theory, I am very much in favor of the Wylde chamber.  In practice, I don't know yet.  I'd want to check one out on the range and see how it helps accuracy and precision, and then I'd want to do some research and find out what happens after about 12 proof rounds have been fired out of one.
> ...


Thanks for the info, nice posts.

----------


## hairball

> You can always try eating, sleeping, walking, marching, learning, working, exercising, and existing with one in constant contact 24/7 for about 15 weeks and see if that helps.   Did it for me.  heh.


Mossberg 500, two full bandoliers of 00 buck, 30rds of Sabot slug, a 1911a1 with 6 mags and a S&W 36 with 3 loading strips.  Carried that load for 3+ months from one end of Central America to the other.  I did aid work for some of the more far inland villages and towns, bringing medicine, books and water purification.  There were many FARC, Che followers and bandits in some of the areas.   Jungle and mountain warfare is no fun, and lugging all that crap was nasty.  Still, after having some nasty creep stick a gun in my face I determined that policy or not, I would be armed.  

I did appreciate the handy light weight of the MOssberg and the load I had, and I think I would have to agree with you that living with the AR would have been easier than my SKS.  

Still, I can nail a coffee can at 600 yads with my M1A, easily, using iron sights.  Depends on how you are going to be needing the arm.  I am more enlightened on the world, and what I need when I travel to certain areas.

The AR fits easily for MOST conditions.

----------


## crhoades

Couple of people have brought up the M1A.  What are everyone's thoughts on the AR15/.223 vs. the AR10/M1A/.308?

If you could only have one...

----------


## hairball

> Couple of people have brought up the M1A.  What are everyone's thoughts on the AR15/.223 vs. the AR10/M1A/.308?
> 
> If you could only have one...


.308 for me, but that would be for another thread, so as not to take this one too far of topic.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The reality is that different 'missions' call for different cartridges.  The perfect 'mission' for the 5.56 NATO is really melee.  In other words, you are one guy in a defensible position by open ground and you have a whole platoon of zombies charging your position.

The 5.56 NATO is the perfect cartridge for that because 1) you can carry a LOT more of them, 2) standard magazines hold more (30 rds), so you don't have to mag change as often, 3) the negligible recoil means followup shots are faster, 4) the lower recoil and open sights means you can address multiple targets faster.  The 5.56 can address point targets to 550 yards.

The 30-06 is a penetration and long range weapon.  you can't hold nearly as many of them, rifles only carry 5, 8, or in the extreme, 10 rounds, they are best suited for penetrating armor or cover, and make an excellent weapon for hit-and-run guerrilla warfare tactics.  Since the 30-06 should have optics, it has slower target acquisition times, and the heavy recoil degrades followup shots (so your first shot had better be on the mark).  The 30-06 in Armor Piercing form can penetrate a LOT of different armor, especially from a bolt action, and could potentially subdue threats from M113 armor personnel carriers.  the 30-06 can address point targets to 1000 yards.

The .308 is sort of a compromise between the two.  Doesn't penetrate cover or armor nearly as well as the 30-06, but WAY better than the 5.56.   You can carry more than the 30-06 but fewer than the 5.56.  Magazines for the .308 come in 10 and 20 rounds, which is more than 30-06 and less than 5.56.  Range also is between the two, as you can address point targets to 800, maybe even 850 yards.

As for myself, I have my 5.56 NATO (Colt Sporter Match HBAR) for a melee weapon, and a Remington model 721 bolt action in 30-06 for a penetrator and long range weapon.  I will be getting a .308 next.

If you could ONLY HAVE ONE as you say, I would probably look to an M1A or an AR-10 in .308 first.  (depending on your 'mission,' if your most likely mission is a melee on open ground, then get the 5.56 first) and THEN once you have your 'compromise' weapon, save up and get another weapon for your secondary mission -- long range penetration a 30-06 or melee a 5.56.  Remington model 700 bolt actions are inexpensive 30-06 solutions, and VERY accurate at range.  Ruger Mini 14's are relatively inexpensive 5.56 solutions, and accept AR-15 mags.

----------


## madengr

> Ruger Mini 14's are relatively inexpensive 5.56 solutions, and accept AR-15 mags.


My mini is several years old, so unless they changed something it does not take AR mags, rather locks in via a front detent like FAL or (I think ) AK.  I wouldn't trust it as far as I can through it.  The springs in the Ruger steel mags are crap and will set after a short amount of time.  You can't beat it for price though.




> standard magazines hold more (30 rds)


Did you normally down-load to 28?  We were advised to do this in a couple of carbine classes I took.

----------


## luke-gr

Im reading Boston's Gun Bible right now and learning much.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My mini is several years old, so unless they changed something it does not take AR mags, rather locks in via a front detent like FAL or (I think ) AK.  I wouldn't trust it as far as I can through it.  The springs in the Ruger steel mags are crap and will set after a short amount of time.  You can't beat it for price though.


Huh.  That's new to me.  My friends Mini-14 takes the same mags my AR-15 does.  




> Did you normally down-load to 28?  We were advised to do this in a couple of carbine classes I took.


Absolutely.  Actually, I usually keep 25 rounds in a 30 rd mag just because it's easier to count by 5's in a firefight.

----------

