Which AR 15? Ruger 556 or M&P 15?

[longfellow]

I know there are a lot of ARs out there and a lot of opinions about them.

I'm leaning in to buying an AR 15 and it's down to the Ruger or S&W.

I've used both and looking toward the Ruger - as I have owned Ruger hand guns and I like them a lot.

This will be a just "fun to shoot" rifle.

Appreciate your long term user experience with either rifle.

Ray

 

[thunderchicken]

Welcome to INGO. I'm sure those with much more AR knowledge than I will be along shortly.
I have limited experience with the AR platform, but if my two options were the Ruger or S&W then I would go with the Ruger. From what I see and hear the Ruger just seems to be a little better quality. However, I know several people who have the S&W and seem to really like them. So, for their price point I think either one would be fine as a "fun to shoot rifle". Many around here will tell you to save up and buy a better more reliable option...which is probably true if you plan to stake your life on it. If you are dipping your toe in the AR water then either will do the job

 

[EricG]

For a range plinker, pick one and have fun. No real significant difference between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bigtanker]

If you are going to buy it, put an optic on it and shoot it, either will do you just fine. If you are going to start changing everything on it, go with the S&W. If I remember correctly, the Ruger is about 98% mil-spec. I think the barrel nut/handguard is a Ruger design. That doesn't mean you can't change it, but you're limited to Ruger pieces. It's been a while since I dug into this so I may be all wet.

 

[worddoer]

If it was me, I would get the Ruger MPR. For a budget rifle, I believe it's the best bang for the buck.

This place has them for $570.....

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsupers...mpr-5.56mm-semi-automatic-multi-purpose-rifle

Several places have them under $600.....

https://gun.deals/search/apachesolr_search/736676085149

 

[johntheplinker]

I've got both, and from a practical standpoint really they're about equal. Overall accuracy is about the same, both have been very reliable. The Ruger does have a few things I like better. The trigger is better, the front sight is machined rather than a casting, just has a nicer fit and finish overall. Probably a few other small things but I'd have to dig them out and compare them side by side.

 

[Brad69]

Ruger MPR is about a $1200 rifle for $600 IMO no contest.
The regular Ruger 556 is slightly better than the S&W M&P IMO.
I have witnessed both complete training classes with no issues.

 

[Dyerbill]

I have the Ruger 556..very good but S&W is right there too.....does the S&W take 556 too? If so buy both

 

[STAGE 2]

For a plinker I’d get whichever one I could find cheaper. But if you’re gonna get an AR why not get a Colt or a BCM. At least that way you know you have a properly spec’d rifle, and they plink just as well.

 

[pblanc]

I own a Ruger AR556 and have shot a bunch of Smith and Wesson M&P15 Sport IIs so I can give you a run-down on the differences. I also endorse consideration of the Ruger AR556 MPR, however.

The Ruger has some proprietary parts (non-mil-spec) which causes some AR snobs to look down on it. These include the front sight tower/gas block, the bolt carrier, and the barrel nut/Delta ring assembly, which I will elaborate on later. On the other hand, the trigger guard on the Sport II is a forged piece of the lower receiver, which is certainly not mil-spec either. The Ruger has a proprietary rear polymer flip-up sight that has a single release button on one side and a single sized peep aperture. The M&P Sport II comes with a polymer Magpul MBUS Gen2 flip-up rear site. This has a release lever on both sides and two different sized peep apertures.

Another potentially significant difference is in the barrels. The Ruger barrel is cold hammer-forged, but unlined with a 1:8 twist rate. The Sport II barrel is melonite-lined with a 1:9 twist rate. I have found the unlined Ruger barrel to be as accurate or slightly more accurate than that of my Colt LE 6920, and it is known that unlined barrels not uncommonly do offer slightly better accuracy than lined ones, as they sometimes have a little tighter and more uniform bores. But I doubt you will notice much accuracy difference between the two rifles. Both have barrels slightly longer than 16". Both twist rates are versatile. The Ruger 1:8 twist rate might be better if you think you might want to shoot projectiles heavier than 69 grains. On the other hand, the slower twist M&P barrel may do better with very light "varmint" projectiles. If you plan to shoot nothing but the least expensive 55 grain FMJ ammo, the M&P barrel might theoretically stabilize these a little more optimally, but that is somewhat debatable. In point of fact, either barrel should be fine for stabilizing the most common and cheapest 55 and 62 grain ammunition types. Both have 5.56 chambers and will shoot either 5.56x45 or .223 Rem ammunition just fine.

Both rifles use very basic and inexpensive single-stage mil-spec style triggers. I have found that the triggers on the M&P15s I have shot were a little better than the stock trigger that came on my Ruger (long since swapped out). But neither are anything to write home about. Both are easily changed out for any trigger that will fit a mil-spec receiver. Both carbines will come with nearly identical and basic polymer furniture, but I do like the stock Ruger pistol grip better than the one that comes on the M&Ps. This might just be a function of my hand size. Both carbines have mil-spec diameter receiver extension tubes (buffer tubes).

Here is a rundown on the non-mil-spec parts on the Ruger:

The Ruger comes with a Colt SP-1 style bolt carrier, or at least it did. I read on another forum that an owner of a newly-purchased AR556 said it came with an M16 "full-auto" style bolt carrier so this might have changed. The SP-1 style bolt carrier leaves the rear of the firing pin unshrouded so the rear collar on the firing pin re-cocks the hammer as the BCG cycles, rather than the metal shroud on the M16 bolt carrier. At least in theory, this action can stress the firing pin enough to deform or break the firing pin retaining pin (cotter pin) or even peen the firing pin collar. Most civilian AR-15s now come with the M16 style bolt carrier. This difference has been completely inconsequential for me. I inspect the firing pin retaining pin and firing pin every time I clean the bolt carrier group and neither have shown any evidence of deformity after thousands of rounds. The cotter pin is very inexpensive and a new firing pin is nearly so, so even if some damage became apparent the fix is easy and cheap. I always carry a few cotter pins with any of my ARs since they are easily lost.

The Ruger AR556 barrel nut is threaded on its outer surface and the polymer Delta ring threads onto it. So to remove the hand guard, you "unscrew" the Delta ring back toward the receiver on the barrel nut to loosen it. This is different from the mil-spec spring-loaded slip ring that comes on the M&P. I like the Ruger system quite a bit since it makes removing the hand guard very easy and a simple two-handed operation. Removing the hand guard on a mil-spec type almost requires three hands or a second person. Brownells even makes a special tool to make it easier. But the Ruger Delta ring is prone to over-tightening. If you buy it, put a little anti-seize compound on the threads of the barrel nut, and never tighten it down on the hand guard more than finger tight. Mine has never loosened up even after prolonged shooting. Either carbine will take any standard carbine length hand guard, such as the Magpul MOE. But if you ever wanted to install a free-floated hand guard on the AR556, you would not be able to use one that mounts on a mil-spec barrel nut without replacing the barrel nut. My advice is to buy a carbine with a free-float hand guard if you think you want one, like the AR556 MPR, for example.

The front sight tower on the Ruger does not have the usual arrangement of a bayonet lug at the front and a permanently attached 1 1/4" sling swivel at the rear bottom like a mil-spec unit. Instead it has the bayonet lug at the front (useless because of the barrel length of both carbines) and a socket for a quick release style sling swivel at the rear. The rear face of the tower is serrated to reduce glare, which I find to be nice. But the tower is held on by two pins that go over the bore of the barrel. The mil-spec sight towers are pinned below the bore of the barrel. This could be an issue if you ever swap barrels. Unless you swapped the front sight tower/gas block you would need to have bevel cut outs made on the top of the barrel to mount the Ruger unit.

To just pick up and shoot the two rifles, I doubt that most people would appreciate any significant difference. The finish on the M&P is a bit glossier than that on the Ruger which some people like. The finish of the Ruger is much more like that of my Colt AR and in fact, is more uniform and of better general quality than that of the Colt. Unless you think that any of the above-mentioned differences would actually matter to you, I would probably go with whichever rifle was cheapest to buy.

 

[Bigtanker]

Now ^^^^that^^^^ is a good report.