Please quantify the Best vs. the Rest

Silverado

Silverado

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 98.6%
143   2   1
This may or may not be my version of a Friday night drunk-trolling thread, but here goes...

I'm wondering if the very experienced among us can quantify for me in definite terms, the value proposition in a top-of-the-line AR.

I have a Stag; the second one I've owned, actually. It's accurate to the extent that I want a rifle of this type to be accurate, and it's very reliable to the extent that I've shot it: somewhere around 2500-3000 rounds. The only failures I've had were related to the odd bad round, or a string of them when I installed an accessory that messed with the rifle's function.

I understand that Stag Arms is a well-respected Mil-spec manufacturer of AR rifles and components.

So... what makes a DD, KAC or LMT command a substantially higher price? Is it marketing? Is it simple supply & demand scarcity?

Or can someone articulate that, (whether or not on the downside of a diminishing-returns curve,) the difference in price is quantifiable in terms of performance in some way?

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that guns of that ilk aren't worth their price, but am asking what makes them so?
 
IM"very"HO....

They aren't...... At least when compared to a Stag.... When compared to a DPMS, there are obvious differences.

For what "I" use an AR for (a range toy), a stag is about the 'tippity top of the A list' as far as reliability and functionality go....

Again my opinion is worth what ya paid for it....
 
Small things that make a rifle closer to US "milspec" add to the price because that's what people want to own and brag about....lol.
Like parkerising the barrel before installing FSB, F marked FSB, proofed and MPI'd bolt/barrel, hammer forged GOV profile 1/7 twist chrome lined barrel, milspec buffer tube, proper staked gas key, chrome lined key and carrier....etc.
In the real world, it matters very little to the semi auto range crowd here in Canada....
 
I think these days the tier idea is kinda skewed due to the number quality manufacturers buildings great guns these days. My experience with AR's is fairly limited to the guns I own and what my friends have.

Myself having a colt a BCM ,DD, spikes franken gun and a NEA. I built the latter two myself. One thing I can say for the colt is that even though the rifle is nearly 22 years old and had less than 100 rounds through it when I received it, I've put well over 1000 rounds through it since with not one single issue other than 2 light primer strikes when using norc ammo. So I question the difference between my colt and the new A2 Canadian Colts at double the price that mine was new back in 92? I doubt that but that's just my humble oppinion.

At the same time without ever handling one I would gladly hand over the cash for a KAC if it was in my budget just because they look ###y lol

The frankengun that I managed to piece together from fantastic deals on the EE from fellow cgr's I have what I would consider a top tier rifle and I've put about 1200 rounds of norc ammo through it with again only a couple light primer strikes and it's a dream to shoot and in the end with optics only cost about 1500.
Given the experience with the parts I've worked with I think that any of the brands from that build even at retail are worth the price..
My nea even though being a good shooter would be the dog of the bunch. The nea upper fits my spikes lower but the lower doesn't fit my bcm upper so that jades me a bit.
My buddy has a norc and is shoots just fine any the finish of the rifle is gag in your mouth bad.

Long story short I think that it really depends on what YOU feel you can justify spending. Any of the brands you mention are worth the bucks.
 
Last edited:
Not an easy question. There is often the law of diminishing returns going on. The Stag is a solid rifle, especially the ones in Canada which tend to have more checks on the infamous list than non enhanced US ones.

There are lots of good brand AR rifles and some budget stuff. They all have a place as long as they are sold for what they actually are.

Forged 7075 or billet 6061, billet 7075 upper lowers? Forged 7075 is the "mil spec" standard and very common. Barrels, hammer forged? Chrome lined? Ss with coating? A barrel with a high end CL hammer forged barrel such as Colt Canada or KAC (same CL barrel from what I understand), FN 249 barrel? Or Mike Rock SS, Noveske etc.

Other options such as full ambi controls, monolithic uppers, user changeable barrels, etc etc.

You have to pick which options you like, if you're willing to pay extra for the name brand etc. Ultimately the Stag, Armalite etc are decent quality firearms. DD is also considered very good and has a good reputation for being fully "mil spec" while not costing colt prices (Although Colt rifles are suddenly more affordable recently). LMT, KAC, Noveske, ADCOR, PWS etc are fancier with more options/features. Whether or not it's worth it is up to you.
 
Familygunnutz said:
Try shoot a KAC, it will answer all your questions. Owned almost all brands, I would buy nothing but KAC as far a DI is concerned.
Click to expand...

For those of us w/o an opportunity to shoot a KAC is their any chance you could state what you feel makes a KAC rifle the one to own. Since you have owned many different AR rifles you're in a superb position to offer an opinion as to what separates a decent AR from an extraordinary AR rifle.

*Reliability:

*Accuracy:

*Durability:

Ergonomics:

Ammunition Capability (Feedability?):

Fit & Finish:

Options:

Value (Re-sale?):

Warranty:

Availability:

These are some of the standards that I look for in an AR rifle purchase and would very much appreciate any thoughts you may have regarding them in comparing a KAC to any/all other AR rifles. Thank you in advance for your time in this matter Familygunnutz.

(I positioned an asterisk besides the first three as I place a higher level of importance on these factors over the remaining ones, because 'FOR ME' they are responsible for the actual performance/capability of the rifle; and that to me is of a greater importance then re-sale or looks etc.)
 
So... what makes a KAC command a substantially higher price?
Click to expand...

Ambi mag release - standard
Ambi safety - standard
Ambi bolt release - standard
Enhanced bolt - standard (Rounded lugs to reduce shear, improved extractor etc.)
LMT Sopmod stock - standard


Warranty - Us or KAC will fix any issues

KAC is in use with many Allied forces due to accuracy, durability and reliability.


Fit and finish is hard to put into words however people who seem to think that a Norc is the same as a KAC change their mind after they have held one.
 
Zeroed-In said:
For those of us w/o an opportunity to shoot a KAC is their any chance you could state what you feel makes a KAC rifle the one to own. Since you have owned many different AR rifles you're in a superb position to offer an opinion as to what separates a decent AR from an extraordinary AR rifle.

*Reliability:
Regular use vs abuse, all decent ARs are fairly reliable if maintained and ran wet, but KAC could take a little more abuse than other brands.
there are threads somewhere on m4carbine or ar15.com forgot which one, about a KAC going thru 10000 rounds suppressed without cleaning, I have only cleaned my first KAC once a year, I run wet with foglube. My DD is equally reliable never had a issue, others I have owned had varies issues when extremely dirty, I'm lazy.
*Accuracy:
I don't group any of my Tactical rifles, tbh ARs I have owned are all fairly accurate, KAC 14.5 dimpled barrel stands out a little.
*Durability:
I don't think you can really wear out an AR per say, except the barrel and mags.
Ergonomics:
This would be personal preference, however KAC is significantly lighter than my DD and my other full rail setup.
And the way kac shoots, is hard to describe, smooth with satisfying impulse.
Ammunition Capability (Feedability?):
I only shoot crapy norinco, I have had issues, but I can't say I will blame the guns.
Fit & Finish:
My LMT and valtor are a tad better finished than my KAC tbh,

Options:
Again this is personal preference thing, what I prefer may not be suitable for you.
Value (Re-sale?):
KAC is a lot value for money, if you prices all the parts individually you will see KAC is actually very good value.
I didn't loose too much money selling factory ARs, I buy decent second hand mostly. Cheaper guns are quicker and easier to sell.
Warranty:
Never had to
Availability:
Hk sucks bum at parts availability.
These are some of the standards that I look for in an AR rifle purchase and would very much appreciate any thoughts you may have regarding them in comparing a KAC to any/all other AR rifles. Thank you in advance for your time in this matter Familygunnutz.

(I positioned an asterisk besides the first three as I place a higher level of importance on these factors over the remaining ones, because 'FOR ME' they are responsible for the actual performance/capability of the rifle; and that to me is of a greater importance then re-sale or looks etc.)
Click to expand...
*Reliability:
Regular use vs abuse, all decent ARs are fairly reliable if maintained and ran wet, but KAC could take a little more abuse than other brands.
there are threads somewhere on m4carbine or ar15.com forgot which one, about a KAC going thru 10000 rounds suppressed without cleaning, I have only cleaned my first KAC once a year, I run wet with foglube. My DD is equally reliable never had a issue, others I have owned had varies issues when extremely dirty, I'm lazy.
*Accuracy:
I don't group any of my Tactical rifles, tbh ARs I have owned are all fairly accurate, KAC 14.5 dimpled barrel stands out a little.
*Durability:
I don't think you can really wear out an AR per say, except the barrel and mags.
Ergonomics:
This would be personal preference, however KAC is significantly lighter than my DD and my other full rail setup.
And the way kac shoots, is hard to describe, smooth with satisfying impulse.
Ammunition Capability (Feedability?):
I only shoot crapy norinco, I have had issues, but I can't say I will blame the guns.
Fit & Finish:
My LMT and valtor are a tad better finished than my KAC tbh,

Options:
Again this is personal preference thing, what I prefer may not be suitable for you.
Value (Re-sale?):
I didn't loose too much money selling factory ARs, I buy decent second hand mostly. Cheaper guns are quicker and easier to sell.
Warranty:
Never had to
Availability:
Hk sucks bum at parts availability.
 
Last edited:
Spring 2015 the GAP-10 will be here to review, but actually, out of the 4 i own i would rate them this way....

Armalite AR-10T... Accuracy of a bolt rifle, slow shooting rifle not made for blasting with cheap ammo...

DPMS HBAR AR-10... Accuracy very good, can shot anything, not a stoppage in 600 rounds ( even with a lot of chinese ammo)....

DD MK18... I would consider this one simply the best of my herd, incredible rifle, accuracy is good, not stellar... Reliability is STELLAR 2000 rounds mainly chinese ammo... FUN FACTOR IS THE BEST....

CQ-A Norinco... Accuracy ok, full reliability , ugly as a sin, but they work flawlessly... JP.
 
Hitzy hit the nail on the head with his post in the first page.

I'll admit it... I AM one of those who drink the Mil-spec Kool-Aid. I'd rather my rifles be up to spec for the sake of whatever clone I might be building. I spend months (or years in the case of my last project) tracking down and collecting parts before putting something together. It's part of the fun with these firearms.
Personally I would only buy a Colt, Daniel Defense, KAC, LMT, and MAYBE a Stag. I have my reasons, not all will agree or understand.

Once you hold or shoot a QUALITY rifle/carbine, as opposed to a Norinco or DPMS, you realize what quality really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom