TexasCHLforum.com

OK Time to buy

Still torn between a M&P & RRA.

Cast your vote

You didn't include "Build your own."

The Annoyed Man wrote:You didn't include "Build your own."

Good point.

What's a good price point on a build your own?

The Annoyed Man wrote:You didn't include "Build your own."

Or "Buy an AK instead".

Got the S&W M&P MOE a few years ago and have not had ANY issues

I have an M&P and a DPMS, both are fine weapons.

Just do it! Daniel Defense!

It all depends upon what you want it for. If it will sit in your safe and only be fired a few times a year any AR will do. If you plan on hitting the AR firearms courses where you will fire a few thousand rounds in a weekend then you may want to spend a little more for some upgrades (i.e. a DD, LMT, Colt LE, etc.). You can build your own but you will not have a warranty on your purchase. You can check out Cold Hand Arms for some prices for kits.

mrvmax wrote:It all depends upon what you want it for. If it will sit in your safe and only be fired a few times a year any AR will do.

Target shooting is going to be the main focus. RRA says they have a better MOA guarantee. Don't know if it;s true or not or that big of a deal for a amateur shooter.

I know a bolt action will be better from a accuracy standpoint but I'm going to go the AR 15 route.

My biggest hang up us i really like the M&P products but i for some reason think the RRA offers more in a stock version rifle.

Suggestions are welcome.

As far as quality of individual components goes, you're looking at this:

RRA < S&W M&P < DD

However, if it's "just an AR" than all three will suit you fine. S&W is the best value, and DD is the best rifle of yours listed.

Rugerboy50 wrote: . . . I know a bolt action will be better from a accuracy standpoint but I'm going to go the AR 15 route.

Les Baer guarantees 1/2 MOA on most of his AR rifles - this will beat the majority of bolt action rifles on the market.

An example:

http://www.lesbaer.com/223Match.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have the M&P MOE don't see any need for anything "better." It's more accurate than my nearly 65 year old eyes and nerves can use. If I were still shooting across the course high power matches the sub MOA rifles would be worth the extra $$$ - - - I'm not so I'm happy with what I have.

gigag04 wrote:As far as quality of individual components goes, you're looking at this:

RRA < S&W M&P < DD

However, if it's "just an AR" than all three will suit you fine. S&W is the best value, and DD is the best rifle of yours listed.

Don't really understand the logic.

Componet wise you show DD last and then you call it the best rifle listed.

Would seem to me that best components = best rifle IMO.

What's up?

Rugerboy50 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:As far as quality of individual components goes, you're looking at this:

RRA < S&W M&P < DD

However, if it's "just an AR" than all three will suit you fine. S&W is the best value, and DD is the best rifle of yours listed.

Don't really understand the logic.

Componet wise you show DD last and then you call it the best rifle listed.

Would seem to me that best components = best rifle IMO.

What's up?

Hehe... don't remember 'greater than' and 'less than' do ya?

He is saying, RRA is 'less than' S&W which is "less than" Daniel Defense in terms of quality.



My $.02. The RRA & S&W are fine rifles, but neither are considered "tier 1" by the AR crazies on other sites.
The Tier 1 rifles are names like DD, Colt, LMT, BMC, etc.
The next tier down is S&W, RRA, Stag, DPMS etc.

ALL of the above are 'good' rifles, but the DD is built for being run hard and is more of duty rifle. The S&W and RRA are great rifles for probably 95% of the AR15 market, so those that buy the "Tier 1" brands are either
1) needing it because of their job or they take the hobby to a higher level than most or
2) Can afford it, so why not get the best?

I'm willing to bet that just the fact that this poll is posted, OP, you'd be fine with a S&W. Save your money and get one. You'll like it.

G192627 wrote:My $.02. The RRA & S&W are fine rifles, but neither are considered "tier 1" by the AR crazies on other sites.

[rant]
OK, my 2¢.....I think it really depends on what you want with the rifle. Maybe these are valid judgements if you are talking about an AR for combat use. However, if you are talking about a varmint rifle, or a competitive target rifle, just for instance, then the tactical reliability of the tactical tier one rifles isn't a factor. Case in point.... My son has a RRA varminter. It has a superb 2 stage match trigger. It has a 24" bull-profile Wilson stainless airguaged barrel with a recessed target crown. It has a Magpul PRS stock. Everything about it is aimed at making a heavyweight, stable, supremely accurate AR15. It weighs 17 lbs all up with the scope (a Burris 3-12x50mm XTR Tactical mounted on XTR rings). It will also shoot 5 round groups into 1/4" at 100 yards with great repeatability. It will do that all day long.

No Daniel Defense tactical M4 will do that. Neither will a M&P15 tactical M4. In fact, AR platform target/varmint rifles from a lot of manufacturers won't do that. My Bushmaster 24" varminter won't do that. And for what is worth, RRA always used to be known more for making AR platform rifles aimed at target/varmint/hunting applications, more than they have been known for making tactical rifles. In fact, I think that the whole "patrol rifle" thing is kind of a sideline for RRA.... or at least, it used to be.

My point is that ARs are used for a lot more than combat. You have to determine what you primary use is going to be, and buy for that. If you were going to use it for shooting prairie dogs, would you rather have my son's RRA, or a Daniel Defense patrol carbine? Really, this is why I am comfortable with building my own, using "2nd tier" parts. Because I built it, I know it will work. I know how carefully it was assembled. I have great faith in its ability to run reliably. Or at least as reliably as I need it to run (and I am picky). When I first built my carbine, it had an M4 profile barrel. I later switched that out for a HBAR profile and free-floated it. I did that because I wanted the increase in accuracy that would come with that barrel. Why? Because I realized that I am far more likely to use my AR as a hunting/general purpose rifle than as a combat carbine. Also, I know that it will receive regular cleaning, lubrication, and maintenance (if necessary) after use, so I have confidence in its reliability.

But, I do not live in Afganistan, and I don't have to fire potentially hundreds of rounds a day. I don't have to deal with fine wind-born dust getting into every nook and cranny (and if most civilian "warriors" were honest, they would admit that they don't have to deal with it either). I have ready access to solvents, lubricants, rags, cleaning tools, and a workbench.......and I use them. If you're not going to be good at properly maintaining your rifle, then probably you should go ahead and spend $3,000 for a top tier patrol carbine so that you can be confident that it will work when you need it to. For my own part, I'll spend more wisely, and take good care of what I buy. The "AR crazies" as you called them sound to me like Internet Fan Boys. I don't spend my money based of what any of them say. Most of them are like that joke about the talking dog that was selling for only $10 because the dog was a liar and never did all those things he told the buyer that he did.

Buy whatever you can afford that makes you happy. Don't accept it if anyone tells you that you bought 2nd tier stuff. It was 1st tier for your needs. I have a Remington 700 in .308 that will shoot 4 round 3/8" groups at 100 yards all day long. I'm not going to listen to some fanboy who tries to tell me that I should have bought a $2,634.00 Kimber 8400 Advanced Tactical because Kimber will guarantee .5 MOA. Why should I listen? My $1,187.00 "2nd tier" sniper rifle already outperforms the Kimber. More expensive isn't always better.
[/rant]