Best "low-maintenance" AR available?

Or you can buy an LMT, which have a quick change barrel option.. but you would have to up your budget quite a bit. They are nice rifles though.
 
mikethebike said:
Please ignore everyone that mentions Norinco, [bold]NEA[/bold], DPMS and do this ^^^^^
Click to expand...

What do you base that on? I'm having a hard time finding any info about issues with the NEA, and my lower has functioned flawlessly so far. My only issues are the finish colour does not match mainstream AR receivers, and it could use a bit more bevelling and de-burring.


Again, aiming for $1200 you could pair pretty much any sub-$450 lower with a BCM (or another brand of similar price and quality) upper and pretty much hit the mark.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy7 said:
What do you base that on? I'm having a hard time finding any info about issues with the NEA, and my lower has functioned flawlessly so far. My only issues are the finish colour does not match mainstream AR receivers, and it could use a bit more bevelling and de-burring.


Again, aiming for $1200 you could pair pretty much any sub-$450 lower with a BCM (or another brand of similar price and quality) upper and pretty much hit the mark.
Click to expand...

The lower is the least critical component in an AR. If it works it will always work. Barrels and bolts are the parts that cause failures. NEA has a very sketchy record with the above. Their sources for parts is unknown and questionable. Buy a known brand who adheres to all or most specs in the us military's TDP for AR rifles if you want peace of mind.

Tdc

Eta: shameless plug: I may very well have a complete DD 12.5 upper with their modular rail for sale in the near futuren and a stripped lower. ;)
 
mildcustom2 said:
Buy a Stag and never look back. Fantastic warranty and great service through Arms East.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the specs for the Stag rifles sold in Canada - then compare them to any AR that conforms to the spec package (ie Colt) - really quite surprising how good they are for the price. Granted they don't have the improved features of a KAC, but they're darned close to Colt for right around $1200, with a lifetime warranty in Canada.
 
Few a newbie, $700 gets you a Norinco CQ with a 14.5" barrel. $400 gets you a 1600 round crate of Norinco .223. $1200 - no belt tightening required. With that ammo, I'd be very cautious about choosing a 10.5" or shorter there are reports of pierced primers, and even with some 14.5" (I've never had one in any of mine but am only at about 1000 rounds).

If you know nothing about guns (and especially AR's)- spending extra money isn't going to help you. Practice will.

I'm of the philosophy of start cheap, start simple with low expectations. Build up from there, and when you've reached the limit - move on to something more expensive if you'd like. It's not like you wouldn't be able to sell a used CQ after you've put 2000-3000 rounds through it - I was able to sell one of mine for $100 less than the market price for a new one.

I've owned 3 CQ's - and have never had any mechanical issues with any of them and never had to make any mods to any of my guns to make them work with almost every magazine under the Canadian sun (my first CQ, I did have to dremel down an aftermarket pair of handguards to get it to fit). The only recurring issue I've seen is having to crank the windage of the factory iron sights hard right (I think) to zero them, but once zero'd, they held and shot well.

I shoot all of mine about as well as I could shoot a C7 when I was in the army (minus rundowns, night shooting, and full auto). I wasn't (and am not) a great shot - but I qualified PWT1 and PWT2 regularly and made Marksman one year when I was on a call out with the Headquarters for that year's roto for Afghanistan.

I CAN make 1.5-2" 5 round groups at 100 yards with my CQ's using PMC white box from a supported, prone position with a pair of knock off airsoft iron sights - but realistically 3-4" with Norinco surplus at 100 yards supported and I'm a happy clam.

I clean mine probably once every 3 months or after a dusty or wet shoot.
 
Last edited:
Oh by the way, this sounds right (going off memory) - but this was the PWTIII for the Canadian Army back in 2002 using a C7 with a 20" barrel with a 3.4x magnification Elcan scope shooting at Figure 11 "Herman the German" targets (about a 3/4 human sized target of a Russian soldier charging)

I remember it wasn't hard to pass - but a some folks did fail. If you can pass, congratulations - you can shoot as well as a Canadian soldier from 10 years ago (I think the new PWT's are a bit harder).

I think it's doable with a Nork.

SIGHTING(any)
100m
fig 11
5 rds

GROUPING(prone)
100m
fig 11
5 rds
best 4 rds count
6"=5 pts 8"=3 pts

APPLICATION(prone)
200m
fig 11
5 rds
1 pt per hit
tgt falls when hit

SNAP SHOOTING
200m
fig 11(on stick)
1 trial exp
2 rds per exp, 1 pt per hit
2 exp of 5 sec in prone
3 exp of 8 sec in kneeling

RAPID FIRE(trench or prone)
200m
fig 11
15 rds 1 pt per hit
40 sec exp
rifle loaded w/10 rd mag, change mags

APPLICATION(prone)
INFANTRY ONLY
300m
fig 11
5 rds
1 pt per hit, tgt falls when hit

SNAP SHOOTING(trench or prone)
INFANTRY ONLY
300m
2 fig 11‘s
10 rds
1 pt per hit
5 exp, 2 rds at each exp

FIRE MOVEMENT(run down)
INFANTRY ONLY
14rd mag+20 rd mag
1 pt per hit
400m in the prone....tgt appears 45 sec exp

run to the 300m
2 fig 11‘s
3 rds into each tgt in the prone
tgt goes down....tgt appears 45 sec exp

run to the 200m
2 fig 11‘s
4 rds into each tgt in the kneeling
change mags
tgt goes down....tgt appears 45 sec exp

run to the 100m
2 fig 12‘s
4 rds into each tgt in the prone
tgt goes down

stand up
alert posn
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
5 sec exp
kneeling posn
2 rds tgt goes down

advance
75m
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
5 sec exp
standing posn
2 rds tgt goes down

advance
50m
tgt appears(fig 12 on stick)
5 sec exp
standing posn
2 rds tgt goes down

advance
25m
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
2 exp
3 rd burst each exp

SCORING
Infantry C7
HPS - 80
MKSM - 68
PASS - 56
FAIL - below 56

OAS(other arms and services) C7
HPS - 59
MKSM - 50
PASS - 40
FAIL - below 41

MKSM = 85%
PASS = 70%

NIGHT SUPPLIMENT
INFANTRY ONLY
1. fig 11
prone
10 rds double tap for MPI
no score (range is at limit of night visibility)

2. fig 11
prone
10 rds
5 exp 5 sec each
2 rds at each exp

3. fig 11
prone
10 rds 20 sec exp

Mandatory for all INF regardless of day score.
1 pt per hit = 20 pts
PASS 50% 10 pts
 
Last edited:
TheGamer### said:
Honestly, anything that doesn't work DI (Direct impingement) is going to require "less maintenance"... thing is, generally piston rifles will run you more... again depending on who you go with price will differ.
Click to expand...

The advantages of a piston system are mostly marketing, short of firing 15,000 rounds without cleaning. Most of the gas that runs through a DI system is ejected out of the ports on the ejection port face of the bolt carrier. A lot of the fouling in the receiver is caused by leftover gases during extraction of the spent case. This is especially true of sub 14.5 inch rifles with carbine length gas systems, as the dwell time of the bullet between the gas port and the muzzle is even smaller (the gas will follow the path of least resistance, i.e. mostly skip the port and go out the muzzle once the bullet is out of the barrel).

Ref this arfcom thread (not exactly definitive, but scientifically sound): http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=46736
 
Last edited:
harbl_the_cat said:
Few a newbie, $700 gets you a Norinco CQ with a 14.5" barrel. $400 gets you a 1600 round crate of Norinco .223. $1200 - no belt tightening required. With that ammo, I'd be very cautious about choosing a 10.5" or shorter there are reports of pierced primers, and even with some 14.5" (I've never had one in any of mine but am only at about 1000 rounds).

If you know nothing about guns (and especially AR's)- spending extra money isn't going to help you. Practice will.

I'm of the philosophy of start cheap, start simple with low expectations. Build up from there, and when you've reached the limit - move on to something more expensive if you'd like. It's not like you wouldn't be able to sell a used CQ after you've put 2000-3000 rounds through it - I was able to sell one of mine for $100 less than the market price for a new one.

I've owned 3 CQ's - and have never had any mechanical issues with any of them and never had to make any mods to any of my guns to make them work with almost every magazine under the Canadian sun (my first CQ, I did have to dremel down an aftermarket pair of handguards to get it to fit). The only recurring issue I've seen is having to crank the windage of the factory iron sights hard right (I think) to zero them, but once zero'd, they held and shot well.

I shoot all of mine about as well as I could shoot a C7 when I was in the army (minus rundowns, night shooting, and full auto). I wasn't (and am not) a great shot - but I qualified PWT1 and PWT2 regularly and made Marksman one year when I was on a call out with the Headquarters for that year's roto for Afghanistan.

I CAN make 1.5-2" 5 round groups at 100 yards with my CQ's using PMC white box from a supported, prone position with a pair of knock off airsoft iron sights - but realistically 3-4" with Norinco surplus at 100 yards supported and I'm a happy clam.

I clean mine probably once every 3 months or after a dusty or wet shoot.
Click to expand...

Good post and good advice. Buy what fits your budget now, get familiar with the rifle and go from there when you want.
 
TDC said:
Accuracy or rather consistency, is the ability of the mechanical device to produce consistent repeatable performance, also known as a grouping. I'm not concerned with the shooter error, poorly mounted or zeroed optics or ammo. When comparing two barrels with identical criteria(aside from length) with identical ammo, the consisteny/accuracy of the shorter barrel will be greater than that of the longer barrel. To what degree is this improved performance? Likely at a level that is all but unnoticeable. The reason a 10.5" isn't the standard issue is two fold. They don't run nearly as reliably as longer guns or guns with mid length gas systems. This is due entirely to dwell time and the design of the rifle. Second, the loss in velocity has a negative effect on terminal performance as well as long range accuracy due to wind drift etc. There is a happy medium that can be found, and 14.5 or 16" rifles are the answer. Both retain over 90% of the velocity from a standard 20" barrel while being shorter, lighter and more rigid. A 10.5" or similar length is not suitable for distance work regardless of the improved consistency/accuracy of the shorter barrel, it excels in confined spaces or where weight is an issue. That's not to say one can't make good hits as the video posted above demonstrates. Remember, we are talking about a "shorter" barrel, not the shortest barrel. We could compare the 14.5' or 16" to a 20" and the results are far more favourable for the shorter ones. The 20" barrel is a thing of the past, it offers no advantages over 14.5" or 16" versions. The 18" SPR barrels squeeze the absolute most velocity you can get without adding additional unnecessary weight. Have a look at the figures below for a 20" vs 16". The difference is a 3% loss in velocity, not even worth discussing..

M193, Winchester Q3131 55 FMJ AR-15 16 3202
.223 M193, Winchester Q3131 55 FMJ AR-15 20 3275

Here's a better comparison of a 20"/16"/11.5". An 11.5" barrel is only 57% the length of a 20", a loss of 43% total length. Yet it still puts out 89% the velocity. That's an 11% velocity loss for a 47% length reduction(not to mention weight reduction as well). Sounds like an acceptable trade off to me.

.223 M193, Guatemalan 55 FMJ AR-15 11.5 2915
.223 M193, Guatemalan 55 FMJ AR-15 16 3133
.223 M193, Guatemalan 55 FMJ AR-15 20 3274

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=213



Sight radius is only an issue for the shooter, it has zero effect on the inherent accuracy of the barrel. Aligned sights are aligned sights, its your misalignment, your poor sight alignment with your eye that is the issue, not the distance between the front and rear. Yes, a shorter radius means smaller errors in alignment equal greater errors on target, but that is a function of the shooter.



How is an SBR not a "serious rifle for an FNG"?? If it runs then it will do the job. Please explain your reasoning.

TDC
Click to expand...

This was a really awesome and informative post, but one thing to consider (not that it matters to most of us range jockey civilians) is velocity is an exponential multiplier in the kinetic energy formula, so small changes in velocity result in very large changes in total energy.

To your point of reduced terminal performance it is a well documented fact that the violent fragmenting nature of a .223 bullet above 2700 FPS is conducive the the highest energy transfer into certain types of targets (mainly those mostly composed of water). Below 2500 FPS, when shot at a target mostly composed of water, even commercial expanding .223 ammunition has the tendency to not adequately expand, yaw, or fragment - causing most of the energy in the projectile to fail to transfer to its intended target in such a way that it would cause a substantial degree of hydrostatic shock (where the transfer of energy into a liquid medium causes displacement of the medium).

Again, not that it matters for anyone reading this, but it's just a useless piece of information that is quite interesting.

Although, I plan to test this principal this weekend, filling a few pumpkins with a water, gelatine mixture and shooting them with factory .223 from a 20" and 14.5" barrel at short range. I hope the results are highly entertaining.
 
Last edited:
harbl_the_cat said:
This was a really awesome and informative post, but one thing to consider (not that it matters to most of us range jockey civilians) is velocity is an exponential multiplier in the kinetic energy formula, so small changes in velocity result in very large changes in total energy.

To your point of reduced terminal performance it is a well documented fact that the violent fragmenting nature of a .223 bullet above 2700 FPS is conducive the the highest energy transfer into certain types of targets (mainly those mostly composed of water). Below 2500 FPS, when shot at a target mostly composed of water, even commercial expanding .223 ammunition has the tendency to not adequately expand, yaw, or fragment - causing most of the energy in the projectile to fail to transfer to its intended target in such a way that it would cause a substantial degree of hydrostatic shock (where the transfer of energy into a liquid medium causes displacement of the medium).

Again, not that it matters for anyone reading this, but it's just a useless piece of information that is quite interesting.

Although, I plan to test this principal this weekend, filling a few pumpkins with a water, gelatine mixture and shooting them with factory .223 from a 20" and 14.5" barrel at short range. I hope the results are highly entertaining.
Click to expand...

The terminal performance data you cite is for m193 and m855 fmj ammo only. Quality hollow/soft/polymer tip ammo as well as heavier projectiles are effective well below the 2500 fps threshold. Regardless, shot placement trumps all. A destroyed heart or brain is tough to work through.

Obviously there is a practical limit for any barrel length. For shorter barrels those limits are encountered more frequently. You need the right tool for the job and there is no do all perfect choice.

Tdc
 
Allene350 said:
To be honest, I know next to nothing about guns since I'm a total newb to this sport...but I do know myself.

I'm sure when I get my first AR I will clean it after every shoot but in a few months after the honeymoon phase has run its course I will revert to the lazy sod I truly am.

My budget is about $1200...$1500-$1700 if I tighten my belt a little. I prefer a 10.5" barrel...give or take an inch or two is acceptable.

With that in mind, what is my best option?
Click to expand...

That would be the Ruger SR556 sir. Runs cool and clean. Many youtube vids to show this is the case. So you can shoot and pack up.
 
TDC said:
The terminal performance data you cite is for m193 and m855 fmj ammo only. Quality hollow/soft/polymer tip ammo as well as heavier projectiles are effective well below the 2500 fps threshold. Regardless, shot placement trumps all. A destroyed heart or brain is tough to work through.

Obviously there is a practical limit for any barrel length. For shorter barrels those limits are encountered more frequently. You need the right tool for the job and there is no do all perfect choice.

Tdc
Click to expand...

I forgot who I was getting into a trollfest with in a few of these .223 ballistics threads, but I have an idea I'm going to try for a reactive target. Basically, I'll have a hallow, expendable vessel intended as a target filled with water (i.e. - a milk jug or pumpkin). The top of the vessel will have a sort of tube attached to the top, with something like a bottle rocket sealed to it.

When shot with a round that causes significant hyrostatic shock, in theory, the excess pressure should be channeled through the tube and with the right design, launch the little target into the air with a decent amount of force - that is, provided the vessel doesn't explode first - which I don't think it will.

The thing is, if you've ever shot at vessels sealed with water with different calibers, one of 2 things happens. Two relatively clean holes get punched through it where the entrance/exit holes are, and the water, rather undramatically slowly seeps out OR the entire bottle explodes in a dramatic show of extravagance.

The explosion is a result of a large amount of energy from the projectile being transferred into the vessel, displacing the water causing a pressure build up which cause it to rupture, whereas the slow, boring seepage is caused by the bullet simply passing through the vessel/water without transferring much of the energy of the projectile into the vessel/water.

I'm thinking a small straw filled with paper confetti with a bit of wading underneath to prevent the confetti from getting wet would result in a pretty cool effect when shot :)
 
Last edited:
I own multiple norc guns, including the AR. If your budget is that high, don't buy a Norc, that would be silly. I would scrounge up a few more pennies and get the Daniel Defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom