Has anyone mentioned the Barrett REC7?? I have one, and love it. It's a Gen I. I'm no expert, I'm not a pro, and I only have a few hundred rounds through it, but I love it. It's well built, and tight. It's not cheap (although I got mine from Wolverine for 30% off), but from what I've read, it's worth it.
-J.
No offence but a few hundred rounds doesn't mean anything. A few thousand rounds has some merit. I have little doubt however that your Barrett will serve you well.
I wasn't arguing...I was just responding to your statement that you have seen "zero" lower end rigs place well in competition. That's not my experience...that's all - I have seen them do well.
As to your other question, perceived value works both ways...even if I had $3000 to spend on one firearm (which I don't so it's moot), I wouldn't currently. I can't see how I would get 5x more out any rifle than I do now.
I understand you've seen low end guns place, the point I was making is that it is the exception and not the norm. The second half to my point was that those who preach to buy cheap and spend the rest on ammo, training, optics etc rarely do. Which leaves them with a low end rifle with low end optics and near zero experience. That is a classic recipe for low end performance.
I agree that there comes a point where the cost is no longer a trade off for improved performance. Again, the point to what I've posted/said is that some brands are the same price or slightly higher than some of the lower end stuff and offer much better performance and a far better track record. When you can get a new Stag rifle for $1200 or a full mil spec BCM for $1300 or a used Colt for about $1000 (EE deals) why would anyone bother with low end brands?
A $500 hammer doesn't make you a better carpenter. All makers have occasional quality problems at times. I have even heard of a Swiss Arms having a malfunction once.
I have worked with CC or Diemacos a bit and sadly over the years, they are also the ones I see most often broken.
That is strictly because I work with them so much.
The way some of them are used I am tempted to qualify them as recreational firearms too.
The way some of them are abused I would hesitate to call them firearms.
There is no limit to the imagination when it comes to a recruit and a firearm.
Does this mean Diemaco are junk.
Not at all.
But,,, I would rather have someone who can manipulate their tools than be an advertising display.
It is good to buy something nice. Not going to disagree there.
It is better to be able to afford something nice.
It is probably best to be capable of doing something with what you have.
I never said a more expensive rifle will make you a better shooter. I said a higher quality rifle will afford you the chance to be a better shooter. If your $10 hammer splits a handle it's not much of a hammer anymore now is it? My point is that you need to a buy a rifle that works without fail and without needing to be modified or tinkered with out of the box.
Most manufacturers have had the odd issue or lemon, but some brands have yet to produce one whereas other brands seem to only produce lemons. Which brand would you buy?
I will ask this as an open question to all. If there was a table with a DPMS, NEA, Norc, and Dlask AR's on it. Another table has a Colt, BCM, LMT, and Stag rifles on it.... Which table are you going to pick your rifle from if it were free?
TW25B