- Messages
- 7,381
- Reactions
- 19,890
Did you assume I was talking about you? I didn't even quote you
. There's nothing really passive aggressive about it. We can have a very civil conversation regardless of opinions, if you were injured by my words that weren't directed at you I'm sorry. I'm not sure you're in a position to explain to me what I should learn or how quickly, since we are effectively strangers that know nothing about each other I could assume you're an idiot just as easily as I could assume you are a genius highly skilled in your field of work. I prefer not to assign any assumptions to strangers and instead think of you as simply another member of this forum. Hello! Glad to share this space with you!To answer one of your questions directly, overpay can mean several things. Someone can buy a $2500 AR by a particular brand, then see something that (as far as they know based on how often they shoot it) looks and performs the exact same as one that cost $500 from a different brand. Unless side by side comparisons are done to objectively determine performance, it's very hard to say if one rifle is "worth" significantly more than another. I like the AKOU 5000 round test for example, that seems very helpful for consumers.
When we talk about AR's, since they are such cookie cutter rifles, comparing "high end" to "low end" can get very tough. For one thing, if they both go "bang" reliably then they have both fulfilled their primary role, along those lines they are equal and if someone paid $2500 for a rifle that shoots reliably when they could have got one for $500 that does the same thing, they definitely overpaid regarding that metric.
Comparing accuracy, there are some AR's that are highly accurate and others that are less so. If one AR shoots consistently 1/2 MOA and another shoots consistently 3 MOA, in terms of accuracy one is definitely better than the other, but how much that matters is highly dependent on how it is used. Inside of 50 ft it wouldn't make much difference. Inside of 100 yards it would be potentially 2.5 inches for example, whether that matters or not seems to depend on what the rifle has to be capable of for its intended job. I'd assume most AR's can easily do 3MOA for example while a great many of them can do much better than that.
For the sake of brevity since this is already a long post I won't continue with specific comparisons, but my primary point being that there are significant differences in price between AR's depending on brand, how much of that is reflected by true superiority vs how much is marketing and notoriety seems very debatable. For the sake of science, I'd love to see a side by side trial comparison of many different brands to see how they really shake out. After it was all said and done, if a high end AR outperformed a "value AR" it would really depend on how much it outperformed it by and in what way to determine in my mind if it warranted the price difference for me as the consumer. I don't think sellers want that test though, very expensive AR brands have nothing to gain since many already regard them as "high end" and if it were shown they were more fluff than function that would ruin their ability to demand the prices they do. Lower cost AR sellers are marketing to an entirely different customer base. I akin it to people who buy BMW or Lexus or Mercedes, vs Toyota/Honda. They all serve the same function of getting someone from A to B, but they look different doing it and there is definitely is a level of status assigned to some vehicles whether it is truly warranted or not. Maybe my car analogy is flawed and I should have used Lotus or Ferrari or Porsche.
If you have definitive test data for a set number of rounds that compares brand performance under the same conditions, please share. That type of contribution would be very appreciated, but without that information, it would seem:
"Not everything is an opinion and not all opinions are equal. The sooner you learn this the better off you will be."
Either way, glad to hear your thoughts.
