View Single Post
Old 02-20-2011, 14:19   #23
surf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by K. Foster View Post
Good post.
With a case of ammo costing around $300, if you are an avid shooter, it won’t be long before you spend more on ammo than what the gun cost. So why not get a TDP grade carbine to begin with.
This is exactly the case. Or often people will buy a lower quality rifle and then dress it up with all the most expensive accessories and optics. Not that this is a problem for most users, but in reality the weapon is the heart of the system, not the stuff you hang on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkeat View Post
Good post.

Impatience leading to purchasing something under qualified for your needs is what I cant understand. Finances arent always available for youre ideal firearm at the moment, understandably. How easy is it though to look through your expenses and find multiple spots you can cut back. Im not talking about paying bills late or going hungry. Its as simple as cutting out McDonalds in exchange for PB&J, a couple less trips to the movies or your favorite resturant. Dont buy groceries for eight when theres only two of you in the house. Dont purchase that cheap optic you know you're not going to be happy w/. You'll end up replaceing it. Thats money lost. If you're just punching paper why not buy Wolf or Tula instead of the $300+ a case stuff? Most if not all rifles should function w/ it.

Saving that extra $100 is easy and can, in most cases, be done in a month or less.
This sums it up very well for many people. How someone can save say $900 to plunk down on a firearm and cannot save another simple $100-$150 to get one of the best, is beyond me. You give excellent examples of how quickly and easily saving extra money can be done. If there is a will, there is a way. Will is often lacking for many. But again many do not need a top notch rifle and if money really is such an issue, probably USED but very good condition, mid-level rifle at $200-$300 or more less would be a better option. Again this is not people being realistic or understanding their needs and options. Which was the intent of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1811guy View Post
Buy a gun that suits your individual needs, but don't claim that an Oly with cast receiver you bought from a buddy for $500 is as good as a Noveske N4. As with any product, you truly do get what you pay for.
Correct, some get it. Buy what fits your needs and if you like it, just be happy and have fun with it. But please don't try to claim that your rifle is "just as good as". I have a crap load of fun shooting a WASR. It runs like a champ and does what I need it to do. But I sure as hell know it isn't as good as a top of the line AK and don't make such claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DD26 View Post
So.......pretty much what OP said; buy according to your intended use.
What he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashniKEV View Post
Was this in response to someone asking if their rifle was good enough?
No, not really.

I have just been reading some threads on ranking these weapons in tier categories or arguments over duty worthiness, costs etc, and along with several "which AR should I buy" threads popping up, I thought I would spew some of my own thoughts on screen. I tend to ramble a bit I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy03cls View Post
It's actually a bit offending to classify people into groups....

But whatever, I'm a B. Some of us don't have the $ to spend on thousands or rounds of ammo, or guns that cost $2K. And some of us have lives that don't evolve around firearms. Some of us know the reality of the world & that zombies are a fairy tail, & the chances of little old me repealing boarders with my few rds of ammo & a few small arms are about as likely as living on the sun.
I have good enough stuff for me.

With that said I have mid/upper tier gear. BCM, Spikes, LMT,Eotechs.
$ is limited I rather only spend it on decent stuff.
Not sure why your offended by this? It was not my intent to offend anyone with a classification. I could have used the following classification I guess but that would have been boring.

A) Owner that seldom shoots or just collects cool looking weapons.
B) Weekend type of recreational shooter.
C) Dedicated enthusiast who shoots high round counts in a manner that really stresses the weapon and does it frequently.
D) Home or personal defense, LE / Military.

Heck, I am not quite an avid golfer, but I like to go hack a few rounds here and there. I have no problem being asked as to what type or category of golfer that I am so I can purchase clubs etc that suit or fit my needs or wants. If someone asks "what AR should I purchase", what is so wrong with asking what their intent or desires are for the rifle and what type of shooting they do? It is hard to give an informed opinion without doing this.

There is no harm in someone saying "I just get to the range every other weekend and put holes in paper". If the monies, time, desire or personal priorities in life only allow limited shooting time, no problem. I am very pro firearms for any person. Just being involved or interested even if it may only be a few times a year is a good thing.

Again there is no need to spend thousands on rifles and equipment. Simply understanding your needs and choosing correctly will help from a financial standpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkeat View Post
Some people take a great piece of information and get butt hurt. They go into it w/ a defensive mind set and miss all the good information because theryre searching for some sort of weak spot to attack.
Yes you are correct and I very much expected this. I even let the thread play out for a couple of days before replying. As can be seen some have the time to comment, but not the time to read. If it is too much to digest simply click the back button and move on. No harm there. I do it all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pleaforwar View Post
Informative post Surf, it was a genuine effort that will likely be unappreciated around these parts.

I've noticed another interesting aspect in classifying shooters/builders/collectors around here recently.

A) Shooters who served in the 70's/80's/90's, whether it be in a LEO or .mil capacity, are the naysayers of the chart, don't like the idea of spending the extra $80 for a BCM, and purveyors of the "my local brand is as good as your national and proven brand", etc. etc.

B) Shooters who served in OIF/OEF/GWOT and current LEO's typically prefer brands regarded as higher quality and more proven. And by proven I mean by thousands of units, not "my friend shoots them so they are the best".

Now this observation is not conclusive, but it is something I have noticed here and at other forums/locations.

On another note, I don't give a flying rodent's behind about what a civilian or LEO ends up with when they are using their money. We are all adults here (at least by legal standards) and we should be able to reach conclusions logically with intelligent discussion.
I understand the reputation around here and very much expected to see some negativity. Actually I expected a bit more negativity than I have encountered, so maybe there is hope.

I very much appreciate those like yourself who have left the nice comments, or those who took the time to type out thoughtful counter points.

Despite knowing that there would be a bit of negative response, if only a few people read and understand the message that I am trying to convey, or become an informed consumer than it is better for everyone. Perhaps it will make manufacturers either adhere to a standard or at the least charge a fair price for what they are producing and stop praying on consumers who have no clue about TDP standards and why that may be important, especially in regards to what a company charges its customers.

I will also add that I am in my mid 40's, so my basic learning background is from an "old school", or "old dog" standpoint. However I am still working on a full time unit for a large entity and I teach the most current combative shooting skills as well as time proven skills. However in Military and LE, the wheels of change and progression turn slowly and there are still many "can't teach and old dog new tricks" types in this world and that will always be the case. I just hope that 20 years from now I am not scoffing at the latest and greatest gear and techniques. Not saying that everything will be sliced bread, but keeping an open mind is key. Many do not have an open mind the older and more set in their ways that they become.

As for your assessment as a generalization, I also find it to be accurate. I think this may very well be related to the actual useage of the weapons in combat or lack of combat. There has been much more combat in the last decade than the couple preceding so you have a much more information available on what works and what doesn't and the consumer benefits. Also what you often hear, "well it was good enough for me when I was serving" usually doesn't hold water, as the "type" of service has greatly changed in the last decade over the 2 preceding decades. It is still hard to teach an old dog a new trick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vafish View Post
Surf,

I have to disagree with Category C.

Because a high power competition shooter does not want a M4 type Mil-spec rifle.
Not a problem here if you don't agree with the classification thing. As I mentioned some took this too literal and not for the intention of what the post is worth. Competition shooters have a need, no doubt. They understand the tradeoff's and often their choices might even exceed what might be considered TDP standards, however you are correct as these items are not included, so the items by their very nature cannot be judged in this manner. You can pretty much bet that most serious competition shooters use high quality and proven parts anyway. Again we are taking a shooters "needs" or "application" into account and giving opinions. Indeed my opinions on competition rifles or even DM or SPR type rifles may not fit into a TDP simply because one does or may not exist on everything that I might suggest. That does not mean that something may not be high quality, probably of a higher quality than a .gov TDP would ask for in a similar weapon.

As for the price thing, mjkeats gave one example and I will give one example, however I really don't want this thread to go that route. Now if someone wants a high quality rifle, lets say a BCM, they can get a blem lower with a complete upper (w / BCG and charging handle) basically a Mod 0, for $895. I highly suggest this option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkeat View Post
I was curious about price differences after read a prior post. I randomly selected Bushmaster to do some price comparison w/ BCM. Complete rifles were chosen because I wasn't finding a good source for BM complete uppers and lowers.

I went to BMs site but the prices seemed horribly inflated. Implementing goggle I took a sample of the first three sites that sold BM rifles. Prices were, $999, $949.99, and $930. Impactguns had the BM for $949.99 but did supply a carry handle at no charge.

BCMs Mod 0 costs $1,025 ( no carry handle) or $1,135 w/ carry handle.

Thats a $186 savings when going w/ the models shipped w/ carry handles. The models w/o carry handle have a difference in price of $96 and $26. On average that a $102.67 difference in price.

There might be better deals out there on complete rifles from BM. I just didnt take the time to sift through more than a couple pages on google.
Very good and thanks for taking the time to find an example. A simple search and pricing can show several examples of how it can be done. If someone gets too literal or strict on my $100 figure then then your $102.67 will not cut it for them.
surf is offline   Reply With Quote