I wish you guys would clarify what you mean by “it’ll do 95% of a more expensive gun” or “its 95% of the more expensive gun”. AND let everyone know what sample size of high quality and budget guns you’re basing that off of.
95% of the accuracy? Or 95% of the features? Or 95% as reliable?
Let’s put 95% reliability in perspective.
In my opinion and experience firing 1,000 trouble free rounds from an AR should be a given. A gun that is 95% as reliable would have had 50 malfunctions in those 1000 rounds. FIFTY. Load up 33 magazines and every single one of them could have a malfunction. 17 of them would have two malfunctions. That’s not worth saving $300. That gun is trash.
Or is it that if BCM builds 100 quality rifles, PSA will build 95 good guns and 5 that are garbage? Which is more likely the case IME.
I understand that if you’ve only got $650 to spend then that’s all you’ve got. And adding $300 to that $650 just isn’t doable. I get it. I’ve been there. The solution is to acknowledge the potential limitations of what you’re buying and accepting that you might need to cross “and defensive use” off your list of uses.
I am not an expert nor do I pretend to be one on the internet. Since 1974 or 75 starting with an SP-1 I have fired these weapons. In all that time I can remember 1 failure which was from a cartridge I loaded without a primer. I had a bushmaster where they put the barrel on wrong but it fired fine, I dumped it. Had an Anderson lower that had to have KNS pins as they had probably drilled the holes .002 or so over. Where I spend money is barrel, bcg, trigger, forearm, stock, lower parts kit. I am not sure the actual lower matters that much, but the parts you use do. There is some range in Las Vegas that discusses how long their weapons last. I don’t think 5000 rounds is considered adequate. Secondly if you buy a gun that has the components built to last 10,000 rounds your a lot more likely to get 2000 trouble free rounds out of it than one built to last 5000.
