Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Now what do I do?? I need help..
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JR777" data-source="post: 3514921" data-attributes="member: 45725"><p>It really just depends on what you want to do with it. Without a clear goal in sight, there's not a whole lot to say.</p><p></p><p>I would highly recommend rethinking the 18" barrel, though. They became popular because of the Mk12, which was the official standardized SOCOM wide version of the RECCE rifles that Crane had been building for the Navy. The Army and Navy fought over the barrel length. The Army wanted 20" because their current marksman rifles were basically modified M16s, and the Navy wanted 16" because that's what their RECCE rifles were. So they compromised at 18".</p><p></p><p>There's nothing really wrong with an 18" mid length, but the additional two inches of barrel don't give you much extra velocity over a 16", and for two additional inches you can have a rifle length gas system, which is very close to ideal. There are rifle length 18" barrels, but they're notoriously finicky.</p><p></p><p>Whether you go 16 or 20 depends entirely on what you plan on shooting, and what you plan on shooting it at.</p><p></p><p>As far as what parts to use, all that can be said is to go with reputable manufacturers. Milspec is meaningless, and even if they claim full milspec it really doesn't say much. Especially lately though I've been hearing about things going sideways that basically haven't ever been a problem before. Like gas tubes getting eaten by the gas keys, bolt catches breaking, brand new hammer springs failing, etc. There are certain things that are supposed to basically last forever, that haven't ever broke in the history of the AR15, that you now hear about breaking. The quality control is getting abysmal.</p><p></p><p>The sure bet is to go with Colt. FN and LMT are also pretty safe I would say. Colt especially is now supporting the builders market a lot more than they used to. Like I said, though, it all depends on what you want it for. I mean if you're going to build a race gun then obviously none of those will support that. Or if you're just wanting something to plink with steel on the back 40 and abuse with corrosive ammo then Anderson or whatever would be indicated there.</p><p></p><p>You might even consider a pistol caliber. When things normalize again, 9mm is about a third of the price of .223, and you don't really notice the ballistic difference at close range. It's also a lot more friendly for shooting steel targets because you can get aluminum case lead bullets that are very easy on your targets for super cheap, whereas most if not all the cheap .223 has steel in it and will ruin your targets. You can also get a lot closer with 9mm, whereas with .223 you want to stay maybe 25-50 yards back.</p><p></p><p>Or you might also consider a dedicated .22 AR. Doesn't get any cheaper, and they are way too much fun. Basically all the same benefits of the 9mm, but to a greater extent. Cheaper ammo, cheaper targets, etc.</p><p></p><p>And don't feel like you have to build it immediately. There's nothing wrong with putting it in the safe and just keeping it as an investment and maybe building it one day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JR777, post: 3514921, member: 45725"] It really just depends on what you want to do with it. Without a clear goal in sight, there's not a whole lot to say. I would highly recommend rethinking the 18" barrel, though. They became popular because of the Mk12, which was the official standardized SOCOM wide version of the RECCE rifles that Crane had been building for the Navy. The Army and Navy fought over the barrel length. The Army wanted 20" because their current marksman rifles were basically modified M16s, and the Navy wanted 16" because that's what their RECCE rifles were. So they compromised at 18". There's nothing really wrong with an 18" mid length, but the additional two inches of barrel don't give you much extra velocity over a 16", and for two additional inches you can have a rifle length gas system, which is very close to ideal. There are rifle length 18" barrels, but they're notoriously finicky. Whether you go 16 or 20 depends entirely on what you plan on shooting, and what you plan on shooting it at. As far as what parts to use, all that can be said is to go with reputable manufacturers. Milspec is meaningless, and even if they claim full milspec it really doesn't say much. Especially lately though I've been hearing about things going sideways that basically haven't ever been a problem before. Like gas tubes getting eaten by the gas keys, bolt catches breaking, brand new hammer springs failing, etc. There are certain things that are supposed to basically last forever, that haven't ever broke in the history of the AR15, that you now hear about breaking. The quality control is getting abysmal. The sure bet is to go with Colt. FN and LMT are also pretty safe I would say. Colt especially is now supporting the builders market a lot more than they used to. Like I said, though, it all depends on what you want it for. I mean if you're going to build a race gun then obviously none of those will support that. Or if you're just wanting something to plink with steel on the back 40 and abuse with corrosive ammo then Anderson or whatever would be indicated there. You might even consider a pistol caliber. When things normalize again, 9mm is about a third of the price of .223, and you don't really notice the ballistic difference at close range. It's also a lot more friendly for shooting steel targets because you can get aluminum case lead bullets that are very easy on your targets for super cheap, whereas most if not all the cheap .223 has steel in it and will ruin your targets. You can also get a lot closer with 9mm, whereas with .223 you want to stay maybe 25-50 yards back. Or you might also consider a dedicated .22 AR. Doesn't get any cheaper, and they are way too much fun. Basically all the same benefits of the 9mm, but to a greater extent. Cheaper ammo, cheaper targets, etc. And don't feel like you have to build it immediately. There's nothing wrong with putting it in the safe and just keeping it as an investment and maybe building it one day. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Now what do I do?? I need help..
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom