TexasCHLforum.com

ninjabread wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I posted this elsewhere, but Buds has the Ruger AR 556 for $449. Not under $400, but a darn good entry level AR, IMHO.

If I were on the hunt for a cheap AR made by a reputable company, THIS is the one I'd take. It may not be the best AR available, but it is likely to be the best one available at that price; and it is backed by Roger's warranty. Plus, MSRP on that gun is $799; so $449 is a pretty good price for it.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is that MSRP is $799, compared to Bud's price of $449....almost half of Ruger's price. So one of two things is happening. Either they are an overpriced from Ruger (the manufacturer), or Bud's is blowing them out to get rid of them because they're junk. That doesn't mean they ARE junk, but it sure does mean that they are only worth $449, not $799, and $449 doesn't get you anything better than a plinker.

I don't know if I will ever understand the pricing of guns. It's hard to find a decent handgun for under $450.oo The 100 year old 1911 design for less than $700. The R&D cost have already been recovered. No one ever pays Ruger's MSRP unless they what to be the first one on the block to own a newly released price. I bought my Ruger AR at Acadamy pretty cheap. I would not buy any other AR for this price. Ruger has a reputation for building quality value priced firearms as well as decent and they have a reputation for standing behind their product, Rugers customer service support is better than good, it's legendary.
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

ninjabread wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I posted this elsewhere, but Buds has the Ruger AR 556 for $449. Not under $400, but a darn good entry level AR, IMHO.

If I were on the hunt for a cheap AR made by a reputable company, THIS is the one I'd take. It may not be the best AR available, but it is likely to be the best one available at that price; and it is backed by Roger's warranty. Plus, MSRP on that gun is $799; so $449 is a pretty good price for it.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is that MSRP is $799, compared to Bud's price of $449....almost half of Ruger's price. So one of two things is happening. Either they are an overpriced from Ruger (the manufacturer), or Bud's is blowing them out to get rid of them because they're junk. That doesn't mean they ARE junk, but it sure does mean that they are only worth $449, not $799, and $449 doesn't get you anything better than a plinker.

I'm PROUD of you son! Using my own words against me like that!

I wondered if anyone was going to catch that.

Liberty wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I posted this elsewhere, but Buds has the Ruger AR 556 for $449. Not under $400, but a darn good entry level AR, IMHO.

If I were on the hunt for a cheap AR made by a reputable company, THIS is the one I'd take. It may not be the best AR available, but it is likely to be the best one available at that price; and it is backed by Roger's warranty. Plus, MSRP on that gun is $799; so $449 is a pretty good price for it.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is that MSRP is $799, compared to Bud's price of $449....almost half of Ruger's price. So one of two things is happening. Either they are an overpriced from Ruger (the manufacturer), or Bud's is blowing them out to get rid of them because they're junk. That doesn't mean they ARE junk, but it sure does mean that they are only worth $449, not $799, and $449 doesn't get you anything better than a plinker.

I don't know if I will ever understand the pricing of guns. It's hard to find a decent handgun for under $450.oo The 100 year old 1911 design for less than $700. The R&D cost have already been recovered. No one ever pays Ruger's MSRP unless they what to be the first one on the block to own a newly released price. I bought my Ruger AR at Acadamy pretty cheap. I would not buy any other AR for this price. Ruger has a reputation for building quality value priced firearms as well as decent and they have a reputation for standing behind their product, Rugers customer service support is better than good, it's legendary.
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

You still haven't mentioned if you're worried about jealousy from your RGS, and whether or not they'll make nice together in the safe when you're not watching.

The Annoyed Man wrote: You still haven't mentioned if you're worried about jealousy from your RGS, and whether or not they'll make nice together in the safe when you're not watching.

The RGS will always get lots of love and TLC. Still remains my 'goto' weapon of choice and the big brother for the AR. The AR will probably see more of a round count cause it's cheaper to feed and more fun, but the RGS gets the best toys and accessories. I think they will both see lots of visits together at the range. It's the little baby brother, the 10/22 that sometimes might feel neglected.

Liberty wrote:
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

The Ruger AR is not "built to milspec".... Let's ignore the fact that it is not being built for the gov and is not inspected by the gov inspectors during the manufacturing process, since that alone disqualifies it from being "milspec". The barrel, the bolt, the front sight, the delta ring... none of this is "milspec" from a design and materials standpoint.

Not saying the Ruger is bad and can't handle the roles you have outlined it for, just it isn't "milspec".

cyphertext wrote:

Liberty wrote:
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

The Ruger AR is not "built to milspec".... Let's ignore the fact that it is not being built for the gov and is not inspected by the gov inspectors during the manufacturing process, since that alone disqualifies it from being "milspec". The barrel, the bolt, the front sight, the delta ring... none of this is "milspec" from a design and materials standpoint.

Not saying the Ruger is bad and can't handle the roles you have outlined it for, just it isn't "milspec".

I may be wrong, but I thought that the term "milspec" was used to differentiate AR's that have certain dimensional tolerances so you would know whether after market parts will fit, etc. If the definition requires parts that have been inspected by gov inspectors, then most high end custom AR's would not be "milspec". Not that that is a bad thing, as you say.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

Liberty wrote:
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

The Ruger AR is not "built to milspec".... Let's ignore the fact that it is not being built for the gov and is not inspected by the gov inspectors during the manufacturing process, since that alone disqualifies it from being "milspec". The barrel, the bolt, the front sight, the delta ring... none of this is "milspec" from a design and materials standpoint.

Not saying the Ruger is bad and can't handle the roles you have outlined it for, just it isn't "milspec".

I may be wrong, but I thought that the term "milspec" was used to differentiate AR's that have certain dimensional tolerances so you would know whether after market parts will fit, etc. If the definition requires parts that have been inspected by gov inspectors, then most high end custom AR's would not be "milspec". Not that that is a bad thing, as you say.

The term is way over used in marketing... the truth is that milspec covers materials, dimensions, processes, and inspections. If it is not built for a government contract and not inspected, it is not milspec.

Some use "milspec" to mean that the dimensions are the same and parts can be swapped. Others use the term to try to show quality, and mean that their product is built with the same materials and to the same dimensions as the military part. In the case of the Ruger AR-556, it is dimensions only. For example, the front sight / gas block, and the delta ring assembly on the Ruger are not the same as their military counterparts, but you could put them on another AR from a different manufacturer. The bolt in the Ruger is made from a different steel than the military counterpart... same with the barrel.

I have 3 ARs... a S&W, a BCM, and a CMMG... none are milspec.

They never say which mil-spec. There are mil-specs for rejection too.

Too inexpensive. . . I could no longer resist jumping on the AR bandwagon. I took an extended lunch to Cabela's this week and bought an Anderson AM-15. $432 OTD
I'll spend more real soon on sights and mags, and maybe later on I'll try some different accessories, but this sure is an attractive way to start out.

Enjoy!
Jeff

cyphertext wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

Liberty wrote:
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.

The Ruger AR is not "built to milspec".... Let's ignore the fact that it is not being built for the gov and is not inspected by the gov inspectors during the manufacturing process, since that alone disqualifies it from being "milspec". The barrel, the bolt, the front sight, the delta ring... none of this is "milspec" from a design and materials standpoint.

Not saying the Ruger is bad and can't handle the roles you have outlined it for, just it isn't "milspec".

I may be wrong, but I thought that the term "milspec" was used to differentiate AR's that have certain dimensional tolerances so you would know whether after market parts will fit, etc. If the definition requires parts that have been inspected by gov inspectors, then most high end custom AR's would not be "milspec". Not that that is a bad thing, as you say.

The term is way over used in marketing... the truth is that milspec covers materials, dimensions, processes, and inspections. If it is not built for a government contract and not inspected, it is not milspec.

Some use "milspec" to mean that the dimensions are the same and parts can be swapped. Others use the term to try to show quality, and mean that their product is built with the same materials and to the same dimensions as the military part. In the case of the Ruger AR-556, it is dimensions only. For example, the front sight / gas block, and the delta ring assembly on the Ruger are not the same as their military counterparts, but you could put them on another AR from a different manufacturer. The bolt in the Ruger is made from a different steel than the military counterpart... same with the barrel.

I have 3 ARs... a S&W, a BCM, and a CMMG... none are milspec.

The Anderson at Cabela's is not 'mil-spec' either. It takes a 3/4" screw for the pistol grip rather than 1". The hole is drilled deep enough, there are just no threads past 3/4" depth. Common belief is that it was done to prevent trigger adjustment via the screw.

Pretty easily corrected in a few minutes with a tap.

Cross posted at http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 7#p1169447

Just under $375 including sights and Flashcan. (I already had the magazine)