New York Compliant AR-15

[moonbogg]

The question is, was it the shooter or the gun?

I think based on the way you told the story obviously the shooter.

Of course it was the shooter and setup, but they were also using crappy FMJ ammo and I wasn't. So they had to be very steady, and they were on one knee and wobbling all over. I was on sandbags with match grade ammo!
But that's the nature of how the guns are often used. Notice I said often and not always.
There are AR's that will hold 1/2" at 100 yards. Their AR's are not included in that list, using bags or not =)
For the same money, you get more accuracy from a bolt gun.
Also, they bring over 1,000 rounds of cheap ammo to throw downrange and they miss just about everything they shoot at. I bring 200 rounds of hand loads and miss almost nothing in the field. For a casual day in the field, bolt gun FTW.

 

[smackababy]

Of course it was the shooter and setup, but they were also using crappy FMJ ammo and I wasn't. So they had to be very steady, and they were on one knee and wobbling all over. I was on sandbags with match grade ammo!
But that's the nature of how the guns are often used. Notice I said often and not always.
There are AR's that will hold 1/2" at 100 yards. Their AR's are not included in that list, using bags or not =)
For the same money, you get more accuracy from a bolt gun.

If you're worried about money, you shouldn't be buying it in the first place. A $300 AR-15 just isn't going to be good. You get what you pay for, and in a situations of self defense, do you really want to risk some cheap parts not functioning entirely as intended? I know I don't.

 

[moonbogg]

If you're worried about money, you shouldn't be buying it in the first place. A $300 AR-15 just isn't going to be good. You get what you pay for, and in a situations of self defense, do you really want to risk some cheap parts not functioning entirely as intended? I know I don't.

So you are saying if you can't afford the most expensive, most accurate AR then you shouldn't buy one? If that were the case, very few people would actually buy AR's.
You can spend 1,000 on an AR and the same money on a bolt gun, not including price of optics, this is just for the gun. For that money, you get a decent AR, but you also get an exceptionally accurate bolt gun from a company like Savage with a degree of accuracy that the AR cannot match without dumping a lot more money into it.
EDIT: I never mentioned buying a $300 piece of garbage.

 

[John Connor]

300 bucks is all an AR-15 costs? I thought they were at least 900 bones.

 

[smackababy]

So you are saying if you can't afford the most expensive, most accurate AR then you shouldn't buy one? If that were the case, very few people would actually buy AR's.
You can spend 1,000 on an AR and the same money on a bolt gun, not including price of optics, this is just for the gun. For that money, you get a decent AR, but you also get an exceptionally accurate bolt gun from a company like Savage with a degree of accuracy that the AR cannot match without dumping a lot more money into it.
EDIT: I never mentioned buying a $300 piece of garbage.

I was saying if you're buying the cheapest AR you can find, it isn't going to be very good quality. And that is what the majority of people do. If you're trying to be thrifty, pinching pennies for self defense isn't the way to go.

 

[Brian Stirling]

300 bucks is all an AR-15 costs? I thought they were at least 900 bones.

I paid over $1000 twelve years ago but it was not your typical AR. Bushy Varminter with 24" fluted barrel that's rated at 0.5 MOA or 1/2 inch at 100 yards. Most AR's are designed to look more like modern M4 combat rifles and it's for that reason, perhaps more than anything else, that leads the gun ban types to go insane and demand they be outlawed.

Brian

 

[gorcorps]

300 bucks is all an AR-15 costs? I thought they were at least 900 bones.

300 is kind of an exaggeration, but you can find them for sub 500

 

[glenn1]

I think you're a bit confused ... the AR-15 in not "good enough" precision it's very good precision and probably more accurate than many hunting rifles. The AK-47, on the other hand, is often pretty sloppy and therefore not nearly as accurate. You might argue the AK-47 is "good enough" but then there are AK's that have been made well and are very accurate as well.

Also, arguing that the AR-15 is for killing people as opposed to hunting dinner isn't accurate either. How many Ar's do you think are in the hands of Americans in a civilian capacity? What percentage are used in crimes or shooting at people versus shooting at targets or small game?

Lastly, although there are constant efforts to ban the AR for reasons not unlike what you allude to the fact is the vast majority of criminals prefer handguns largely because they are cheaper and easier to conceal. When Piers Morgan et all talk about banning assault rifles what they're really after is banning ALL guns starting with assault rifles.


Brian

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like ARs are "probably more accurate than many hunting rifles." First of all, it depends on which manufacturers are involved, the hunting rifle type (bolt, lever, or semi?), what caliber and barrel length, and how customized both are out-of-box. I daresay that most common stock ARs will probably give 3-5 MOA out-of-box, and something like a Remington 700 would give 1-4 MOA. Plus the typical hunting rifle will maintain its accuracy far better at longer distances.

And Americans should really switch over to something like the FN-P90 to give the anti-gun folks fits about what components they need to ban next. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs are getting old.

 

[BladeVenom]

OP knows nothing about firearms, lol.

The politicians who write and vote for gun control know even less. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

 

[Brian Stirling]

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like ARs are "probably more accurate than many hunting rifles." First of all, it depends on which manufacturers are involved, the hunting rifle type (bolt, lever, or semi?), what caliber and barrel length, and how customized both are out-of-box. I daresay that most common stock ARs will probably give 3-5 MOA out-of-box, and something like a Remington 700 would give 1-4 MOA. Plus the typical hunting rifle will maintain its accuracy far better at longer distances.

And Americans should really switch over to something like the FN-P90 to give the anti-gun folks fits about what components they need to ban next. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs are getting old.

I'd have to disagree with you on the accuracy of the average AR ... I'd put that at 1-2 MOA with some, like my Varminter, at 0.5 MOA. Now your typical AK is likely in the 3-6 MOA range but there are accurized models that are sub MOA.

There are MANY sniper rifle that are actually gas powered / semi autos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_International_AS50
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragunov_SVU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Gun_Works_M-96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK417
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M21_Sniper_Weapon_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi-Automatic_Sniper_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSV-96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Squad_Advanced_Marksman_Rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_WA_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M91

The two things that wear out an AR barrel faster than a typical hunting rifle are: higher number of rounds fired through it, and faster ammo, but with comparable numbers of shots an AR should hold up pretty well to a high velocity hunting rifle.

There are no doubt really crappy AR's, but since most AR's are priced higher than many other rifles they do tend to be pretty well made if you go with a top tier maker. And, some hunting rifles are VERY expensive because they have been worked on to be hyper accurate or ornate.


Brian

 

[Tiamat]

I was referring exclusively to the comment of the poster before me, citing "higher caliber round".
Of course, if you feed your AR with big rounds, it becomes unusable as an AR, because of the increased recoil, and thereby reduced accuracy at high rates of fire. There's a reason 7.62 no longer features in modern ARs as heavily as it used to.

Incorrect. The 7.62 was phased out only so that soldiers could carry more rounds for the same weight since warfare was determined to shift in the direction of increased firepower rather than large caliber long range. The ar10 uses the 7.62 round. Increase in recoil does not reduce accuracy at high rates of fire since accuracy is not affected by recoil at all. Precision is the term you want. Precision is not necessarily signifcantly reduced at high rates of fire since the design of the AR platform is modular enough to allow for different gas systems, muzzle devices, and bolt/buffer combinations that can mitigate recoil differences between ar15 and other ar platform weapons.

 

[BladeVenom]

I'd have to disagree with you on the accuracy of the average AR ... I'd put that at 1-2 MOA with some, like my Varminter, at 0.5 MOA. Now your typical AK is likely in the 3-6 MOA range but there are accurized models that are sub MOA.

I've had the same results with the Varminter, 5 shots groups the size of a dime.

Worse results with an Ak. Last Romanian AK I shot had 3 to 4 inch groups at 25 yards. It was less accurate than the average Glock.