Affordlble non-restricted .223/5.56

The only choices you have are the T97, VZ58 and the Ruger Ranch rifle. The first two are based on military rifles for which a large number have been produced and am I pretty sure that a very large number of Ruger Ranch rifles/Mini14's have also been produced. I think it is important to consider the total number produced of any rifle type since it would lessen the changes of developmental problems occurring. In this regards the Tavor would also seem a good bet and as would the T97, however they are bullpups.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/27/qbz-95-bullpups-action-works/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-04-28&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
 
mikethebike said:
Well... Im also not a big fan of it, but just for 2 reasons. I facking hate all the versions of the stock, and it has the same accuracy as my 200$ sks.
Other than that its an ok rifle, Ive seen and handled much worse crap, even dangerous to the shooter crap.
Click to expand...

Usually I find we're on the same page, but I have to disagree with this one.

I find the XCR's are consistently 1.5-2MOA, while the SKS's vary from 2-4 MOA. They're far less consistent. It's also not really a fair comparison because the only reason SKS's are so cheap is because there are still surplus sources of them. To make one today, it'd cost around $1000. Naturally, I'm talking in generalities. It is believable that you may have seen a lemon of an XCR (I've seen a few too, but to be fair they have stepped up their QC in recent years).
 
TW25B said:
It amazes me how people haven't clued in to the gouging that occurs when buying a Tavor. The Americans finally got their Tavors what, like two years ago? Their intro price was $1600 USD and that was when our dollar was almost on par. So why are we paying a full grand more? What's also not considered is that the IDF decided to design and adopt the rifle as a CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO THE AR rifle. So if the Tavor was/is cheaper to produce than an AR then why are we paying well over a grand above AR prices for the cheaper alternative??? The non res status seems to be an excuse for vendors to stick it right up our A$$ when it comes to price.. The XCR, ACR, Swiss and FAMAE are no different.

TW25B
Click to expand...

I'm also curious to where you heard the Tavor is cheaper to make? I'm not asking for proof on what you said, I'm just honestly interested in it and would like to read into it.
 
TW25B said:
It amazes me how people haven't clued in to the gouging that occurs when buying a Tavor. The Americans finally got their Tavors what, like two years ago? Their intro price was $1600 USD and that was when our dollar was almost on par. So why are we paying a full grand more? What's also not considered is that the IDF decided to design and adopt the rifle as a CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO THE AR rifle. So if the Tavor was/is cheaper to produce than an AR then why are we paying well over a grand above AR prices for the cheaper alternative??? The non res status seems to be an excuse for vendors to stick it right up our A$$ when it comes to price.. The XCR, ACR, Swiss and FAMAE are no different.

TW25B
Click to expand...

Ok, so several things here need to be corrected.

Firstly, we ARE NOT getting U.S. made Tavors. We are getting Israeli made Tavors with non-standard length barrels. In addition to this, our Tavors are imports, while the U.S. ones are made domestically. Whenever you are importing a product, it adds another layer of cost. It's also worth noting that Tavors were going for $3500 or so when they were first being imported (to be fair it was with the Meprolight, but no top rail). They are now well under $3k.

As for why do NR rifles cost more, again there is a reasonable explanation. Developing a rifle costs a lot of money. The companies that sunk millions of dollars in to R&D want to see a return on this. Since they have exclusive production rights (due to patents), they sell them for what the market will bear. The AR design has no intellectual property protection (as the patents on the original designs have expired), so you have a free for all where companies can start production of the rifle without any invesment in to developing the rifle. When you combine this with a relatively simple design, and a very large market, you get an inexpensive rifle. So it's not that other black rifles are expensive, it's that market forces have worked together in a manner that has caused AR prices to be very low. I will also add that vendors make more (percentage wise) on something like an SKS than they do on a Tavor.

It is also worth noting that many rifles like the Tavor and ACR do things the AR can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom