Daniel Defense AR vs Norinco

You know, if you guys (Norc owners) would just concede that it's a $700 rifle, it is what it is and leave it at that... you'd be miles ahead. This constant need to "justify" how you paid less than a grand for a 'top tier' rifle isn't fooling anyone, so who are you really trying to convince?

No one expects you to drop $1500+ for your first AR - or even any AR. We get it - you like your Norc and feel you got great value for it. Fantastic. But since Norcs don't necessarily meet everyone's needs, requirements or definition of "value" - can you please stop slamming every other non-Norc owner as an "elitist" for simply choosing something else?
 
I have never slammed anyone here as being an elitist or saying the Norc is numero uno and above the rest. I didn't read all the posts, but from where I started it looked like it was the other way around.

Anyways, I agree with ya, it's a $700 rifle that I'm happy with so far. But saying it's an asinine choice, that's where I disagree. I made a decision with a cheaper rifle (that I could afford at the time and me being new) and it worked out for me. Just sharing my experience.
 
dquick said:
I have never slammed anyone here as being an elitist or saying the Norc is numero uno and above the rest. I didn't read all the posts, but from where I started it looked like it was the other way around.

Anyways, I agree with ya, it's a $700 rifle that I'm happy with so far. But saying it's an asinine choice, that's where I disagree. I made a decision with a cheaper rifle (that I could afford at the time and me being new) and it worked out for me. Just sharing my experience.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you, specifically. If you scroll back through the posts you'll see the odd 'elitist' comment or two (it was just general in nature).

I also concur that the Norc is a great starter rifle. And I think a lot of Norc owners do upgrade to higher-end rifles at some point, because features like quad rails, improved stocks and accessories, etc. come standard And because I think Norcs hold their value and are somewhat in demand with the price-point.

My first AR was an LMT. No regrets on my end, either.
 
blaxsun said:
You know, if you guys (Norc owners) would just concede that it's a $700 rifle, it is what it is and leave it at that... you'd be miles ahead. This constant need to "justify" how you paid less than a grand for a 'top tier' rifle isn't fooling anyone, so who are you really trying to convince?

No one expects you to drop $1500+ for your first AR - or even any AR. We get it - you like your Norc and feel you got great value for it. Fantastic. But since Norcs don't necessarily meet everyone's needs, requirements or definition of "value" - can you please stop slamming every other non-Norc owner as an "elitist" for simply choosing something else?
Click to expand...

Well said! I love our two Norinco M4 rifles, but if $ wasn't a concern, you can be damn sure I'd run with the Gucci kit.

Cheers
Jay
 
Since this thread has been a ##### fest off and on, instead of making another thread and getting called a troll and a bunch of other things (why is everyone so hostile here?) can someone just answer this: I'm thinking norc cuz its cheap, I understand its not as good of a build quality as well, pretty much any other AR out there. But does that make it unsafe, have many of them had catastrophic failures?

I'm not too worried about 200 yard accuracy but I am worried about the gun exploding in my face :)
 
Actually, my progression was the other way around. I had a Colt flat top that I used to shoot in Service Rifle. Only modification was a polished and adjustable trigger.

When I decided to shoot CQB, I figured I no longer needed a good 500 yard rifle and sold it for enough to buy 2 Norincos. I have no illusions about the quality of the Norc, but am pleased to report that it shoots well and far exceeds my needs for CQB (25 yards).

I buy rifles to shoot and match the rifle to the demands of the game. The main requirement of a CQB rifle is reliability. My only problems with the rifle have been ammo related. I used ball powder and standard primers and have had quite a few cases where the primer blew the bullet into the barrel but the powder did not ignite. Knocking the bullet out is easy, but the spilled ball powder in the action is a ##### to clean in a hurry.

I have just switched to using the CCI 450 (small rifle magnum) and have 100% reliability. The Norc appears to be an excellent choice for shooting where precision is not required.
 
A Norc doesn't make you any less of a tactical operator.

Just look in the manual! You have 300meters of annihilation when you're tactically operating in you're tactical operations.

:D
 
Jerks! I spent $1500 on my first gun, which was an AR. Elitest prick I know :D .

You'll be fine with a norinco. So long as you leave it as a norinco. If you end up dropping another $250-300 on springs, triggers, dope & beer for it, like some do, then you might as well go for something worth a bit more anyways. It'll hit a target, you can learn how to use an AR with it, but youll still be sitting on a $950-1100 norinco when the time comes.

I had a norc m14 for a while. I liked the platform, but couldnt afford a Springfield AND be able to shoot it, so I bought a norc an $700 worth of rounds. The rifle is only good to you if you can afford to feed it, if not, it's nothing but a showpiece. I'd rather not be able to get a lane at the range, full of norinco ar's then have the range quiet if you get what I'm trying to say. Money is money. Do what you can with what you have.

DD is a better gun though, just to keep it on track.
 
Ganderite said:
... The Norc appears to be an excellent choice for shooting where precision is not required.
Click to expand...

Try Hrn 75gr BTHP, IMR8208, CCI 450. Very small charge window but when you get it right, mine is hovering near MOA at 100yds and a bit fatter at 200yds.

Wish I could sling this out to 500yds but not a range close by.

The Barrel is free floated in a YHM forend and shot using my MPOD. Sightron SIII 6-24 scope used so plenty of mag.

Not bad for a 14.5" battle rattle rifle.

Jerry
 
fireball said:
A Norc doesn't make you any less of a tactical operator.

Just look in the manual! You have 300meters of annihilation when you're tactically operating in you're tactical operations.

:D
Click to expand...

Now fireball... IF we are going to quote the Norinco M4 manual, we should quote it properly... Here it is, with ALL the annihilating firepower!!!

Norinco%20CQ%20556.jpg


Cheers
Jay
 
dquick said:
I have never slammed anyone here as being an elitist or saying the Norc is numero uno and above the rest. I didn't read all the posts, but from where I started it looked like it was the other way around.

Anyways, I agree with ya, it's a $700 rifle that I'm happy with so far. But saying it's an asinine choice, that's where I disagree. I made a decision with a cheaper rifle (that I could afford at the time and me being new) and it worked out for me. Just sharing my experience.
Click to expand...

Clearly reading comprehension is lost on some. Buying the norc isn't asinine. What is is the thought process of buying a 700 dollar rifle to learn on then spending another 1500 plus for a quality rifle. If you're buying the 700 dollar gun its because you have a small budget. Where and how are you to find an additional 1500 plus for the second?

Norcs don't hold value. Its a 700 rifle that might return 500 if you hardly shoot it. That's if someone wants it. Why not buy one quality rifle to learn on and compete with when you feel up to it. It won't fail it will last and it will likely sell much faster and for a greater return should you decide to.



Tdc
 
TDC you are trying to approach this logically. Buyers buy things because they want them - and wants are not always based on logic.

I own lots of guns.

PAPERWORK.jpg


Few, if any were purchased for logical reasons. Most were purchased because I wanted one.

In the case of the Norc AR I wanted one because I wanted to see if I could compete with a cheap rifle. For the same reason I often use a Norinco pistol in CQB, although sometimes I do use something nicer.

We have two more CQB shoots this year. I will be competing to win and will take an extra delight in shooting well with one of the cheapest rifles in the match. I did not buy or keep an expensive rifle because that would have been of less interest to me.

If I was limited to just a few dozen guns, I might not bother with playing with cheapies.
 
TDC said:
...What is is the thought process of buying a 700 dollar rifle to learn on then spending another 1500 plus for a quality rifle. If you're buying the 700 dollar gun its because you have a small budget....
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in this fight because I have an NEA which is so far below either of the two rifles in question I guess I will have to wait for the NEA vs. 3D Printer AR thread to eventually show up. :D

But I will say that I can see some people choosing a $700 rifle for reasons other than having a small budget. How about those that are not sure they are "into" the black rifle thing but want to test the waters? I wasn't sure if I was "into" 1911s so I bought a Ruger. I found that I like them but don't exactly love them so it was a perfect entry-level gun for me.
 
Zeer said:
Since this thread has been a ##### fest off and on, instead of making another thread and getting called a troll and a bunch of other things (why is everyone so hostile here?) can someone just answer this: I'm thinking norc cuz its cheap, I understand its not as good of a build quality as well, pretty much any other AR out there. But does that make it unsafe, have many of them had catastrophic failures?

I'm not too worried about 200 yard accuracy but I am worried about the gun exploding in my face :)
Click to expand...

The nork isn't unsafe anymore than any other AR. the nork is priced less because #1 labor is cheap in the PRC and #2 Norinco makes a vast quantity of AR's and can buy material, tools and near anything else they want at volume prices. They can buy an entire batch of steel or ten thousand endmills at a time. That makes a difference.
 
mg4201 said:
The nork isn't unsafe anymore than any other AR. the nork is priced less because #1 labor is cheap in the PRC and #2 Norinco makes a vast quantity of AR's and can buy material, tools and near anything else they want at volume prices. They can buy an entire batch of steel or ten thousand endmills at a time. That makes a difference.
Click to expand...


Correct and ALSO:
they use unknown (possibly and likely #### materials), have next to no QC, and essentially leave parts of their rifle unfinished, or finished improperly.

All this adds up to a terrific buy!
 
Ganderite said:
TDC you are trying to approach this logically. Buyers buy things because they want them - and wants are not always based on logic.

I own lots of guns.

PAPERWORK.jpg


Few, if any were purchased for logical reasons. Most were purchased because I wanted one.

In the case of the Norc AR I wanted one because I wanted to see if I could compete with a cheap rifle. For the same reason I often use a Norinco pistol in CQB, although sometimes I do use something nicer.

We have two more CQB shoots this year. I will be competing to win and will take an extra delight in shooting well with one of the cheapest rifles in the match. I did not buy or keep an expensive rifle because that would have been of less interest to me.

If I was limited to just a few dozen guns, I might not bother with playing with cheapies.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with wanting to compete with a budget rifle. If that's your logic then it makes sense. I as stated before don't subscribe to such logic as funds are limited. I buy quality and buy once. I'm not interested in "collecting" firearms. I'm interested in learning to run them proficiently. The cost of ammo keeps most of us from shooting as much as we like and spending money on several makes and models means fewer rounds down range. Counterproductive to my goal.

Tdc
 
In my opinion norinco AR are ok. It's not the rifle that win a match, but the shooter. I'm sure that a good shooter with 700$ nork will be better than a new shooter with 3500$ rifle.

Personally it's the military aspect of the AR that pushes me to get a few ones and I want the real thing just because I like hi quality gear.

It's just fun to shoot and I wish that more and more people get into AR15. The norinco is very good for that ;)
 
Runningfool said:
I don't have a dog in this fight because I have an NEA which is so far below either of the two rifles in question I guess I will have to wait for the NEA vs. 3D Printer AR thread to eventually show up. :D

But I will say that I can see some people choosing a $700 rifle for reasons other than having a small budget. How about those that are not sure they are "into" the black rifle thing but want to test the waters? I wasn't sure if I was "into" 1911s so I bought a Ruger. I found that I like them but don't exactly love them so it was a perfect entry-level gun for me.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would comfortably take an nea rifle over a norc all day every day. Their issues were more to do with assembly than materials or craftsmanship.

Tdc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom